Armen Martirosyan, Hovsep Khurshudyan, Davit Sanasaryan, Vahagn Ghumashyan

By the letter dated July 27 of 2017, the European Court of Human Rights informed, that the complaint-applications on the cases of Hovsep Khurshudyan, David Sanasaryan, Armen Martirosyan and Vahagn Ghumashyan in regard to the use of detention as a preventive measure.

On August 1 of 2016, an intervention on the application of preventive measure against the H. Khurshudyan, D. Sanasaryan, A. Martirosyan and V. Ghumashyan by the intervention of investigator conducting the pre-investigations of the criminal case opened at the General Department of the RA Investigative Committee was filed to the Court. The interventions submitted by the investigator were satisfied by the Court.Khurshudyan was deprived from liberty for 27 days, A. Martirosyan for 21 days and D. Sanasaryan for 22 days and the latter were released by the decision made by the RA Court of Criminal Appeal and V. Ghumashyan for 41 days and he was released through the intervention made by prosecutor conducting judicial control over the pre-investigation.

The legality and legitimacy of the decisions made on the detention as a preventive measure have been appealed to the RA judicial bodies.

The ground for the application of detention as a preventive measure against David Sanasaryan and Armen Martirosyan were the accusations imposed against the latter for the organization of mass disorders in Sari Tagh on July 29 of 2016[1] in accordance with characters of Paragraph 1 of Article 225 and Paragraph 2 of Article 225 of RA Criminal Code respectively.

According to the accusative conclusion, for organizing a mass disorder A. Martirosyan, D. Sanasaryan, together with other participants of the protest, broke the police chain leading to Sari Tagh, moved forward and located in a more visible spot near Patrol Police Station in Sari Tagh. The mass disorders started by their initiative and under their guidance.

Hovsep Khushudyan and Vahagn Ghumashyan were respectively accused also in using violence against the police servicemen by throwing stones on them during the participation in the above mentioned mass disorders.

It is notable, that the decision on the application of detention as a preventive measure against V. Ghumashyan has been copied from a decision made in regard to other person, where the named and surname of other person were mentioned. According to the court, the information related to the name and surname of other person as mentioned in the decision has not changed the content of the decision. The complaint-application were elaborated and submitted to the European Court of Human Right by the advocate-lawyers of the “Protection of Rights without Borders” NGO in cooperation with the advocates Seda Safaryan, Robert Revazyan, Givi Hovhannisyan.

The issue of the violation of Article 18 of the Convention was raised for the first time in the complaint-applications submitted to the ECHR, according to which the restriction of liberty of the Applicants was exercised for other purposes, rather than as provided by the Convention. In this ground, the applicants stated, that Article 5 (Right to liberty and security of a person) of the Convention.

According to the statement provided to the Court by the applicants, the detention as a preventive measure applied against them was a “punishment” applied against the political opposition authorities and group members. In that way the authorities made a punishment for all those, who will dare to follow their example and were active in this regard.

The applicant compared such conduct of the authority with the conduct of the authorities demonstrated during the post electoral protests back in March 1 of 2008[2] and came to the conclusion that the application of Article 225 (Organization and participation of mass disorder) of the RA Criminal Code is already a tested option for criminal prosecution against political  oppositions. Moreover, as state by the applicants, their detention was a political decision and had no legal grounds. This statement was also grounded by the facts, that the decision made on the application of detention as a preventive measure was changed after the requirements presented by international organizations.

Ա. Մարտիրոսյան, Դ. Սանասարյան, Հ. Խուրշուդյան. Վ. Ղումաշյան ՄԻԵԴ գործեր գրանցում


A story of revenge


ՄԻԵԴ-ը գրանցել է Հ. Խուրշուդյանի, Դ. Սանասարյանի, Ա. Մարտիրոսյանի, Վ. Ղումաշյանի գանգատները

ՄԻԵԴ-ը գրանցել է Հ. Խուրշուդյանի, Դ. Սանասարյանի, Ա. Մարտիրոսյանի, Վ. Ղումաշյանի վերաբերյալ ներկայացված գանգատները