5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Vanadzor. 6.  On 2 August 2010 the applicant appeared voluntarily at the Gugark Town Police Department and confessed that earlier that day, during a street fight, he had injured another individual, Y.P., with a knife after the latter threatened him with a gun. The applicant also surrendered his knife and Y.P.’s gun, which he had seized from Y.P. 7.  On the same date the investigator decided to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 113 Criminal Code (CC) on account of wilful infliction of medium gravity damage to Y.P.’s health, and to apply a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence as a preventive measure in respect of the applicant. The investigator cited the following grounds for his decision:
“... Taking into account that the materials of the criminal case provide sufficient grounds to believe that, if at large, [the applicant] will not abscond from the authority dealing with the case, obstruct the investigation and commit a criminal offence ...” 8.  On 9 August 2010 the charge against the applicant was modified to a more severe one under Article 112 of the CC following the results of the forensic medical examination, according to which the damage to health suffered by Y.P. was grave and life-threatening. 9.  On the same date the investigator filed a motion with the Lori Regional Court seeking to have the applicant detained, taking into account the fact that the materials of the case provided sufficient reasons to believe that, if at large, the applicant could obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and commit a new criminal offence, as well as the nature and dangerousness of the offence. 10.  The applicant objected to this motion, arguing, inter alia, that it was unreasoned and did not contain any arguments in support of the allegation that he could commit any of the acts prescribed by Article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). It was incompatible with Article 5 of the Convention to provide stereotyped reasoning for detention or to rely solely on the severity of the sentence. The applicant requested that the written undertaking not to leave his place of residence be maintained. 11.  On 10 August 2010 the Lori Regional Court, having heard the applicant, found the investigator’s motion to be well-founded and decided to grant it by ordering the applicant’s detention for a period of two months:
“... taking into account the nature and dangerousness of the act committed by [the accused], and the fact that, if at large, he may abscond from the authority dealing with the case or obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the criminal proceedings, as well as avoid liability and sentence.” 12.  On 12 August 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing, inter alia, that his detention on conditions provided by Article 135 of the CCP was incompatible with the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention. The Regional Court had failed to take into account the fact that the investigator’s motion did not indicate any actions that he might commit if at large. He had appeared voluntarily with a confession and had assisted the investigation by appearing every time upon the investigating authority’s summons, participating in various investigative measures and confrontations; his identity and place of residence were known to the authorities. There were therefore no circumstances precluding the application of a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence. The investigator had not produced any evidence that he had ever tried to abscond or obstruct the investigation or that he would abscond, obstruct the proceedings, commit a criminal offence or avoid criminal liability or serving the imposed sentence. The applicant further argued that the sole reason for changing the type of preventive measure and imposing detention was the modification of the charge against him to a more severe one. 13.  On 3 September 2010 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to uphold the Regional Court’s decision, finding that:
“... the severity of the sentence risked by [the applicant] provides sufficient ground to believe that, if at large, [the applicant] may abscond from the authority dealing with the case, obstruct the investigation and avoid criminal liability and serving the imposed sentence ...
...
Thus, the Regional Court ... has ensured the requirement of [Article 134 of the CCP] to prevent the accused’s inappropriate behaviour in the course of the criminal proceedings, as it was impossible to ensure this by applying other available preventive measures in this particular case and was also in the public interest.” 14.  On 24 September 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation’s decision of 29 October 2010. 15.  On 23 September 2010 the investigator filed a motion seeking to have the applicant’s detention, which was to expire on 9 October 2010, extended by two months. This motion stated that there was a need to carry out further investigative measures, while the reasons for the applicant’s detention, namely the risks of his obstructing the investigation and committing a new offence, still persisted. 16.  The applicant objected to this motion and requested that the Regional Court release him on bail. 17.  On 4 October 2010 the Regional Court decided to grant the investigator’s motion, finding that the grounds for the applicant’s detention – as stated in its decision of 10 August 2010 – still persisted, and it was necessary to extend the detention in order to complete the investigation. It further decided to dismiss the applicant’s motion for release on bail on the same grounds. 18.  On 7 October 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the Regional Court had failed to state any concrete facts or evidence suggesting that, if at large, he would abscond or obstruct the investigation. As regards the refusal to apply bail, the applicant argued that it was not based on any of the grounds envisaged by Article 143 of the CCP. In particular, his identity was known, he had a permanent place of residence and had never tried to abscond. 19.  On 20 October 2010 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the decision to extend the applicant’s detention and to refuse his release on bail, finding it to be lawful and well-founded. As regards specifically the question of bail, the Court of Appeal stated at the outset that the grounds for refusal of bail mentioned in Article 143 of the CCP were not exhaustive. It then concluded that it was impossible to replace the applicant’s detention with bail on the same grounds which justified the necessity of keeping him in detention. 20.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation’s decision of 16 December 2010. 21.  On 8 November 2010 the applicant filed a motion with the Lori Regional Court seeking to be released on bail. He submitted, inter alia, that he had a permanent place of residence, had never absconded or obstructed the investigation and that on the contrary he had assisted in the disclosure of the crime. 22.  On 19 November 2010 the Regional Court decided to dismiss the motion, finding that the grounds for the applicant’s detention – as stated in its previous decisions – still persisted. This decision was subject to appeal before the Criminal Court of Appeal within ten days. 23.  On 24 November 2010 the investigator filed a motion seeking to have the applicant’s detention, which was to expire on 9 December 2010, extended by one month, citing similar reasons as previously. 24.  The applicant objected to this motion and requested the Regional Court to release him on bail. 25.  On 3 December 2010 the Regional Court decided to grant partially the investigator’s motion, finding that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still persisted and extending his detention by fifteen days. The applicant’s motion for release was dismissed on the same grounds. This decision was subject to appeal before the Criminal Court of Appeal within five days. 26.  On 10 December 2010 the investigator filed a motion seeking to have the applicant’s detention, which was to expire on 24 December 2010, extended by another month. This motion stated, inter alia, that the bill of indictment was not ready yet and the grounds for the applicant’s detention still persisted. 27.  On 15 December 2010 the Regional Court decided to grant partially the investigator’s motion, extending the applicant’s detention by fifteen days. At the same time, the Regional Court examined the question of the applicant’s release on bail and concluded that it “found it possible to replace the detention imposed on [the applicant] with bail”. 28.  On 16 December 2010 the applicant was released upon the payment of the amount of bail fixed by the Regional Court. 29.  On 25 January 2011 the investigator decided to drop the charges against the applicant, cancel the bail and terminate the criminal proceedings. This decision stated, inter alia, that the applicant had inflicted grave damage on Y.P’s health in self-defence and therefore his actions lacked corpus delicti.