4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Yerevan. 5.  The applicant is a former deputy head of Vardashen prison in Armenia. According to the applicant, his father is an opposition activist. 6.  On 4 September 2007 the Yerevan prosecutor’s office decided to institute criminal proceedings on the basis of an application made by R.K., an inmate of the above-mentioned prison, who stated that on 23 August 2007 he had been beaten with rubber truncheons by the applicant and two other prison officers, A.G. and L.H. The decision also mentioned that a forensic medical examination of R.K., conducted after he had lodged the application, had revealed bodily injuries of a minor degree. 7.  On 11 September 2007 the Yerevan prosecutor’s office decided to impose a preventive measure in respect of the applicant: an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. In substantiating the imposition of a non-custodial preventive measure, the decision stated that the applicant had a permanent residence, was not obstructing the examination of the case and that, if he remained at large, he would not abscond or obstruct the investigation. 8.  On 18 September 2007 the preventive measure in respect of the applicant was lifted. 9.  It appears that, during the investigation of the case, the head of Vardashen prison gave a statement confirming that R.K. had sustained bodily injuries, while the head of the prison medical unit stated that he had provided medical treatment to R.K. and made a corresponding entry in the medical register. 10.  On 7 February 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of abuse of power accompanied with violence. 11.  On 10 February 2008 the applicant was charged with abuse of power accompanied with violence, as provided for by Article 309 § 2 of the Criminal Code of Armenia. 12.  On the same day the investigator, M., applied to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan seeking to detain the applicant on remand. In substantiating this preventive measure, the investigator indicated that, if the applicant remained at large, he could abscond and obstruct the conduct of an objective and thorough examination by influencing witnesses. He referred to the nature and the gravity of the imputed offence, the punishment for which was imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. 13.  On the same day the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the application on the grounds that the imputed offence was a grave one and that if the applicant remained at large, he could abscond, obstruct the examination of the case and influence the witnesses. It thus authorised the applicant’s detention for two months, starting from the date of his arrest. 14.  On 14 February 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the District Court. In particular, he sought to be released on bail, taking into account his good character, the fact that he had no previous convictions and had a child who was a minor. 15.  On 28 February 2008 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was not competent to decide on the question of replacing detention with bail, since that question had not been raised before the District Court. 16.  On 28 March 2008 investigator M. applied again to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, seeking an extension of the applicant’s detention. In substantiating the application, the investigator referred to the nature and gravity of the imputed offence and said that there were sufficient grounds to assume that, if released, the applicant could abscond or obstruct the examination of the case. 17.  On 4 April 2008 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the application and extended the applicant’s detention to 7 July 2008. In doing so, the District Court indicated the same reasons as those given in the application. 18.  On 9 April 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the District Court, seeking to be released on bail. 19.  On 17 April 2008 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 20.  According to the applicant, on 26 May 2008 the same charge as the one against him was also brought against A.G. and L.H. and, as a preventive measure, they made an undertaking not to leave their places of residence. 21.  On 30 May 2008 the investigation was officially concluded and the case was sent to the Criminal Court of Yerevan. 22.  On 12 June 2008 the Criminal Court of Yerevan decided to set the case down for trial. The decision stated that there was no necessity to change the preventive measure imposed on the applicant. 23.  At a hearing held on 24 November 2008 the applicant applied to the Criminal Court of Yerevan seeking to change the preventive measure. He argued that there were no grounds to assume that he would abscond, obstruct the examination of the case during the court proceedings or fail to appear when summoned by the trial court. In this regard, he referred to the fact that he had not absconded or in any way tried to obstruct the course of justice in the period preceding his arrest and detention, despite the fact that the investigation had already been ongoing for several months before his arrest. The applicant further argued that he was of good character, and had a family with a child who was a minor and a permanent residence. 24.  On the same date the examining judge decided to dismiss the application, finding that there was sufficient evidence in the case file which did not rule out the applicant’s involvement in the commission of a grave crime. 25.  On 12 January 2009 the Criminal Court of Yerevan found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.