The European Court addressed questions to the government of Armenia
00:00, November 6, 2007 | Right to Fair TrialThe European Court addressed questions on the Mataghis case to the government of Armenia.
The three citizens of Armenia, Razmik Sargsyan, Arayik Zalyan and Musa Serobyan, who were soldiers in one of the military units of Mataghis, were charged of murdering soldiers Roman Yeghiazaryan and Hovsep Mkrtumyan.
A criminal case had been brought against them, which was then heard in the three juridical instances of Armenia. Afterwards, Zaruhi Postanjyan, their advocate, sent the case to the European Court appealing the actions of the Armenian courts.
The European Court undertook the examination of the case and sent questions to the government of Armenia.
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 36894/04
by Arayik ZALYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 23 September 2004 Application no. 3521/07
by Razmik SARGSYAN and Musa SEROBYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 9 November 2006
The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Do the events which took place in Nagorno Karabakh prior to the applicants’ transportation on 23 April 2004 to an isolation cell in military unit no. 10724 in Yerevan fall within the jurisdiction of Armenia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention? The Government are requested to specify:
– on what grounds the applicants – Armenian nationals – were performing their military service in the territory in question,
– on what grounds Armenian law enforcement authorities, including the Military Prosecutor’s Office of Armenia, operated in the territory in question, and
– on what grounds the court proceedings at first instance were conducted in the territory in question.
2. Has the applicant Zalyan been subjected to treatment incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to specify whether the applicant Zalyan underwent any medical examination prior to his transfer to a detention facility on 6 July 2004 and, if so, to submit a copy of the results of such examination.
3. Have the authorities carried out an effective official investigation into the applicant Zalyan’s complaints of ill-treatment, in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, « 131, ECHR 2000 IV)?
4. Have the applicants Sargsyan and Serobyan lodged their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged ill-treatment by the law enforcement officers within six months from the date of the final decision as required by Article 35 « 1 of the Convention? If so, have the applicants Sargsyan and Serobyan been subjected to treatment incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? Have the authorities carried out an effective official investigation into their complaints of
ill-treatment, in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to specify whether the applicants Sargsyan and Serobyan underwent any medical examination prior to their transfer to a detention facility on 6 July 2004 and, if so, to submit a copy of the results of such examination.
5. Was requisite medical assistance provided for the applicant Zalyan during his hunger strike, in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to specify the details of the medical assistance provided for the applicant Zalyan during the entire period of his hunger strike and to submit copies of all the relevant medical documents.
6. Was the applicant Zalyan deprived of his liberty from 19 April to
24 April 2004? If so, was his deprivation of liberty effected on any of the grounds permitted under Article 5 « 1 of the Convention? If yes, was the applicant Zalyan’s deprivation of liberty compatible with the requirements of this Article? The Government are requested to specify in detail and to submit documentary evidence as to when, where, for what purposes and on what grounds the first applicant was taken and kept during the
above-mentioned period, indicating precise dates, hours and premises.
7. Assuming that the applicant Zalyan was deprived of his liberty prior to his formal arrest on 24 April 2004:
– was the applicant Zalyan informed promptly of the reasons for his deprivation of liberty and of any charge against him as required by
Article 5 « 2 of the Convention?
– was the applicant Zalyan brought promptly before a judge as required by Article 5 « 3 of the Convention?
– was the applicant Zalyan able to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty could be decided, as required by Article 5 « 4 of the Convention, prior to being brought before a judge on
27 April 2004?
8. Was the applicant Zalyan’s detention on remand from 24 August to
4 November 2004 “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 « 1 of the Convention (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, «« 53-58, ECHR 2000 III; Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, «« 57-64, ECHR 2000 IX; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, «« 146-151, ECHR 2005 X (extracts))?