Preliminary objection rejected (substantially the same);Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Preliminary objection rejected (victim);Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

ORG As to the exact dates of the facts , there are uncertainties and gaps in the evidence in the case- file which the efforts of the Court , and in particular the questions it put to the persons appearing before it , have not entirely succeeded in removing . Subject to that reservation , the facts may be summarised as follows :

ORG Mr. PERSON , an NORP national born in DATE , lives in GPE , where he practises as a lawyer .

ORG In DATE , during demonstrations in GPE , the police arrested Mr. PERSON in a shop belonging to Mr. PERSON and in the latter ’s presence .

On DATE , the applicant gave evidence at Mr. PERSON ’s trial before ORG . His evidence directly contradicted that of the police officers who had made the arrest . ORG upheld their version of the facts .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON lodged a complaint with the GPE public prosecutor ’s office ( pubblico ministero ) against CARDINAL judicial officers in that town : Mr. PERSON , President of ORG , and Mr. PERSON , assistant public prosecutor ( sostituto procuratore della GPE ) ; he accused them of various offences , in particular of having acted out of personal interest in the exercise of their duties and having deliberately failed to declare that the police report of the arrest was false .

ORG Having been informed of the complaint , the public prosecutor ( procuratore della PERSON ) decided to commence proceedings ( elevava rubrica ) against the applicant for aggravated slander ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . He did not , however , notify Mr. PERSON of this .

On DATE , he requested ORG to remit the case to another court ; he relied on Article CARDINAL - amended by Act no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE - of LAW , sub - paragraph CARDINAL of which provided that ( translation from the NORP ) :

" Where criminal proceedings are instituted against , or where an offence has been committed against , a judge or a member of the public prosecutor ’s office , and the proceedings fall within the jurisdiction of the judicial institution to which he is attached , ORG shall refer the case to another court of similar jurisdiction . "

On DATE , the public prosecutor ( procuratore generale ) attached to ORG sent the case - file to ORG , which by order of DATE referred the case to ORG .

ORG Mr. PERSON received judicial notification ( comunicazione giudiziaria ) on DATE that criminal proceedings had been brought against him under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Penal Code and that he was entitled to appoint a defence lawyer within DATE .

ORG There were CARDINAL stages in the investigation of the case : the first ended in a discharge and the second - following an appeal by the public prosecutor ’s office - in the applicant ’s committal for trial .

ORG During the initial stage of the investigation , Mr. PERSON on CARDINAL occasions challenged the jurisdiction of ORG before ORG .

On DATE , he alleged that all the procedural acts to date were void . This first appeal on a point of law was held to be inadmissible on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant brought a second cassation appeal , alleging a conflict of jurisdiction between ORG of Messina and PERSON , where other proceedings were pending against him . ORG declared the appeal inadmissible on DATE .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON brought a third cassation appeal , seeking to join the proceedings pending against him in GPE and PERSON . On DATE , he was informed that his appeal had not been registered and that the joinder of proceedings fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court ( LAW ) .

ORG The public prosecutor ’s office in GPE originally conducted the investigation of the case itself in accordance with the " summary " procedure ( Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) . It heard the applicant , Mr. PERSON and Mr. PERSON on DATE . Following Mr. PERSON ’s refusal to appoint a defence lawyer , the public prosecutor ’s office forwarded the case - file on DATE to the competent judge so that the latter could carry out a " formal " preliminary investigation .

On DATE , the case - file was sent back to ORG so that evidence could be taken from the applicant on commission . On DATE , that ORG declared that it lacked jurisdiction and returned the case - file to ORG . On DATE and then on DATE , Mr. PERSON was summoned to appear before the GPE investigating judge , who questioned him on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

ORG On DATE , the file was transmitted to the public prosecutor ’s office which asked for further investigation to be carried out . On DATE , it requested a copy of the judgment delivered on DATE by ORG against Mr. PERSON ; this was received on DATE . On DATE , it sought a further hearing of the judicial officers complained of by the applicant ; Mr. PERSON was heard on DATE . The report of Mr. PERSON ’s arrest , also at the request of the public prosecutor ’s office , was forwarded by the NORP police authorities on DATE and entered in the case - file .

Finally , on DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office requested the investigating judge to hear the police officer who had drawn up the report and had gone to live in GPE in the meantime ; he was heard on DATE .

On DATE , the judge sent the case - file to the public prosecutor ’s office so that the latter could present its final submissions . They were presented on DATE .

The investigating judge issued an order discharging the applicant which was filed at the registry on DATE ; on CARDINAL DATE , the case - file was sent to the public prosecutor ’s office .

ORG On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office appealed against this order ( LAW ) . The applicant was notified on DATE . The " grounds of appeal " were entered on DATE and the following day the case - file was forwarded to the investigation chamber of ORG . The latter decided on DATE to commit the accused for trial ; its decision was lodged in the registry on DATE .

ORG On DATE , the file was transmitted to ORG . On DATE , the applicant received a summons to appear at the hearing on DATE .

At the conclusion of the hearing , ORG gave him a suspended sentence of CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

ORG The applicant appealed on DATE . ORG , which had received the file on DATE , acquitted the applicant at a hearing on DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Torture);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE of GPE .

The applicant was a member of CARDINAL of the main opposition parties at the material time in GPE , ORG of GPE ( ORG ) .

NORP In DATE and DATE a presidential election was held in GPE . The applicant acted as an authorised election assistant ( վստահված անձ ) for the ORG candidate who was the main opposition candidate in the election . Following the election , which was won by the incumbent President , the international election observation mission concluded that the overall election process fell short of international standards . It appears that mass protests followed . The ORG candidate challenged the election results in ORG , which on DATE recommended that a referendum of confidence in the re - elected President be held in GPE within DATE .

As the April CARDINAL DATE deadline approached , the opposition stepped up its campaign to challenge the legitimacy of the re - elected President and began to hold rallies around the country to express its demands . Numerous rallies were held in DATE and DATE and the applicant appears to have participated in them . He alleged that the authorities had retaliated by arresting and harassing opposition supporters , including himself . According to him , during this period the local police officers visited on a DATE basis his home in GPE where his mother lived , with the intention of taking him to the police station . He was forced to stay away from home and to hide in GPE .

On DATE a rally was organised by the opposition parties which took place on FAC in GPE and was followed by a march towards the presidential residence . CARDINAL people attended the rally , including the applicant . It appears that the police eventually dispersed the crowd at TIME on DATE .

According to the police materials , on DATE at TIME an anonymous telephone call was received at ORG alleging that the applicant , while attending the demonstration of DATE , had been carrying a firearm which he still had on him . CARDINAL police officers , GPE and GPE , were ordered to bring the applicant to the police station .

According to the record of taking the applicant to ORG , the applicant was taken there on DATE at CARDINAL p.m. on suspicion of carrying a firearm and for using foul language towards police officers and not obeying their lawful orders . It was noted that the applicant refused to sign the record .

At TIME the applicant was subjected to a search by the arresting police officer GPE and another police officer , TIME , in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses , during which a mobile phone and a lighter were found . The record of the applicant ’s search similarly noted that the applicant refused to sign it .

Both arresting police officers , GPE and GPE , reported to the chief of police that the applicant had used foul language during his arrest . In particular , the applicant had said “ I have had enough of you ! What do you want from me ? Why have you come here ? Who are you to take me to the police station ? ” They further reported that he had made a fuss and disobeyed their lawful orders but they had somehow managed to place him in the police car . On the way to the police station he had continued using foul language , saying that he would have them all fired and that they would be held responsible for this .

The applicant contests this version of events and alleges that he was stopped near his home by police officers GPE and GPE TIME They asked him to accompany them to the police station , explaining that the chief of police wanted to have a talk with him . He agreed and got into the police car without any resistance . At the police station he was taken to the office of another police officer , PERSON , who asked him questions about his participation in demonstrations and about a fellow opposition activist , PERSON , who had been arrested DATE before . Thereafter he was taken to the office of deputy chief of police PERSON , who said that he was using foul language and ordered that an administrative case be prepared . He was then taken to another office where police officer PERSON started preparing the administrative case . He was never subjected to a search .

Police officer A.M. drew up a record of an administrative offence in which it was stated that the applicant had disobeyed the lawful orders of police officers and used foul language , which constituted an offence under LAW ( CAO ) . He further drew up a record on taking an explanation which stated that the applicant had refused to make a statement . Both records noted that the applicant had refused to sign them .

The applicant alleges that , after police officer TIME had finished preparing the materials of the administrative case , he said that those materials would be taken to a court and it would be better for somebody to intervene otherwise the applicant risked DATE in detention . Then the CARDINAL had a short conversation , during which the applicant said , inter alia , that he had been brought to the police station because of his participation in demonstrations , such arrests being carried out upon the instructions of the President of GPE . Then police officer TIME left the office .

The applicant further alleges that , TIME after police officer TIME had left the office , police officer PERSON entered and started swearing at him . Police officer PERSON then approached him and kicked him on the left side of his chest and punched him in the face . The applicant grabbed the mobile phone charger which was on the desk and hit police officer PERSON Having heard the noise of the scuffle , CARDINAL other police officers entered the office and took him to another room . TIME later police officer PERSON and another police officer , PERSON , came to that room and started brutally beating him . After they left the room , another police officer , PERSON , entered the room and started hitting him in the area of his scrotum with a metal object . He was then handcuffed and police officer PERSON continued punching and kicking him below the waist , after which he lost consciousness .

It appears that at some point an ambulance was called from ORG to have the applicant checked for alcohol intoxication . According to the record of a medical examination , the applicant was examined by the ambulance doctor , ORG , at TIME and the test results showed that there were signs of alcohol intoxication . The applicant alleges that in reality the ambulance doctor was called to check his level of alcohol intoxication at TIME ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) . A police officer , ORG , who assisted in the check - up , punched him CARDINAL times in the face and once below his waist .

At TIME arresting police officer GPE reported to the chief of police the following :

“ During the preparation of materials on an administrative offence in respect of [ the applicant ] who was brought to the police station on the basis of the information received from an unknown citizen on DATE at TIME [ the applicant ] behaved cynically , obscene and self - confident , using foul language towards the police officers and refusing to sign the prepared documents . And when [ the applicant ] found out that the materials prepared in his respect would be submitted to a court for examination , he took a mobile phone charger from the desk and hit the head of the criminal investigation unit [ PERSON ] in the face with it , swearing at him and saying that it was he who had fabricated everything , after which [ the applicant ] attempted to hit him a second time with a telephone that was on the desk but he was prevented from doing so by me and [ police officers PERSON and A.M. ] . ”

It appears that police officer PERSON made a similar report . It further appears that police officer PERSON was taken to hospital .

At an unspecified hour investigator PERSON of ORG decided to institute criminal proceedings no . DATE under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) on the ground that the applicant had used force against a public official by hitting police officer PERSON and thereby inflicting injuries not dangerous for health . This decision was taken on the basis of the materials submitted by ORG and contained an account of events similar to that contained in the above police reports .

Investigator PERSON then took witness statements from police officer TIME and arresting police officers GPE and GPE

Police officer DATE stated that , when the applicant refused to make a statement in connection with his administrative case , there were CARDINAL other police officers present in the office apart from himself and the applicant , namely police officers GPE , PERSON and PERSON Seeing that the applicant was refusing to make a statement , police officer PERSON told him that he would have to be taken to a court . On hearing that , the applicant exclaimed “ It is you who have fabricated everything ” , grabbed the mobile phone charger from the desk and hit police officer PERSON in the face . Immediately thereafter the applicant reached for the telephone that was on the desk but police officer PERSON managed to grab the telephone from him . Then the applicant went towards police officer PERSON , they grasped each other and , while pushing each other , they fell on the chair standing beside the desk , which collapsed . The applicant was lying on the floor and police officer PERSON was lying on him . DATE together with police officers PERSON and GPE – immediately picked them up . The applicant was then taken to another office , while police officer PERSON was taken to hospital . In reply to the investigator ’s question , police officer PERSON stated that the police officers had been very polite and to - the - point with the applicant . He had not been made aware of the applicant ’s political affiliation and the only thing he had learned from him was that he was a friend of the ORG candidate . In reply to the investigator ’s second question , police officer PERSON stated that none of the police officers had hit or beaten the applicant at the police station before or after the incident .

Arresting police officer GPE made a similar statement . In reply to the investigator ’s question as to whether any of the police officers had hit or beaten the applicant at the police station or prior to taking him there , police officer PERSON stated that none of the police officers had hit or beaten the applicant . To the contrary , taking into account his behaviour and his statements about changing the government , the police officers had been careful and correct with him in order to avoid any unnecessary conversations . In reply to the investigator ’s second question , police officer PERSON stated that he had not been made aware of the applicant ’s political affiliation and the only thing he had learned from him was that he was a friend of the ORG candidate .

Arresting police officer GPE stated , inter alia , that he was away at the time of the incident . He further stated that he had found out about the reasons why the applicant had been brought to the police station only after bringing him there . No questions were posed by the investigator .

Investigator PERSON examined the scene of the incident and drew up a relevant record which included photographs of the broken chair .

At TIME investigator PERSON drew up a record of the applicant ’s arrest which stated that the applicant had been arrested at TIME on suspicion of having inflicted violence not dangerous for health on police officer PERSON at TIME at ORG .

At TIME investigator PERSON questioned the applicant as a suspect . According to the record of the suspect ’s questioning , the applicant stated that he was unable to testify at that moment and would make a statement TIME . It appears from the record that the applicant ’s ORG - appointed lawyer was present at this questioning .

According to a record drawn up by another police officer , ORG , at TIME the applicant felt sick and asked for a doctor . An ambulance was called . The ambulance doctor ORG , having heard the applicant ’s complaints , advised an in - patient examination since his complaints could be examined only with special equipment . It appears that this visit took place at TIME It further appears that the applicant was taken to ORG by several police officers but was not allowed to stay there despite the doctor ’s recommendations . The applicant spent TIME in a cell at the police station .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was taken from the police station to ORG , where he underwent a medical examination and was then taken to the surgical unit .

According to the surgeon ’s certificate dated DATE , the applicant was brought to the hospital ’s surgical unit with the following initial diagnosis : “ Post - traumatic hematoma of the scrotum , hematocele of the left testicle , laceration ? ” Surgery was carried out on the applicant ’s scrotum . During the surgery the left testicle was found to be lacerated and crushed with decomposition of tissue and with a large amount of accumulated blood ( CARDINAL mg ) . The applicant ’s left testicle was removed . Following the surgery , in - patient treatment was recommended . The certificate further stated that in the post - surgical period the applicant was not able to testify or to answer questions .

It appears that on the same date the applicant ’s chest was X - rayed at the hospital .

DATE investigator PERSON decided to release the applicant from custody . The investigator ’s decision described the circumstances of the incident as presented in the above police materials and added that “ [ the applicant ] had also been injured during the incident ” and taken to hospital . Taking into account that the applicant needed in - patient treatment , there was no need to keep him in custody .

Investigator PERSON also ordered that both the applicant and police officer PERSON undergo a forensic medical examination . This decision stated , inter alia , that it had been established by the investigation that the applicant , who had been taken to the police station on suspicion of carrying a firearm , had inflicted injuries on police officer PERSON by hitting him with a mobile phone charger . As a result of the incident , the applicant had also been injured . The expert was asked to answer the following questions in respect of the applicant ’s injuries :

“ - What kind of physical injuries are there on [ the applicant ’s ] body [ ? C]larify their nature , location , method of infliction , age and degree of severity .

- Was the injury to [ the applicant ’s ] testicle caused by a blow or by an illness ?

- If the injury to [ the applicant ’s ] testicle was caused by a blow , was it caused by CARDINAL or several blows ? ”

On DATE the investigator took a witness statement from police officer PERSON He submitted that following the anonymous telephone call , deputy chief of police PERSON had immediately called police officers GPE and GPE to his office , informed them about the information received and ordered them to bring the applicant immediately to the police station . After TIME they had returned with the applicant . Police officer ORG reported that in the village and on the way to the police station the applicant had used foul language , threatened and used insulting expressions towards the police . Police officer PERSON had then spoken to the applicant and asked him to give up voluntarily his firearm . The applicant denied ever having any firearm and said that he had participated and would continue to participate in demonstrations . He had then continued using foul language , saying that the police DATE in office were numbered and that the government would be changed soon . Police officer PERSON went on to describe how he and other police officers started preparing an administrative case against the applicant under LAW ORG and the manner in which the later incident took place , providing an account of events similar to that given by other police officers ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . No questions were posed by the investigator .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as a suspect at the hospital by investigator PERSON and made the following statement :

“ ... I am a member of the ORG party and I have lately participated in demonstrations organised by that party . On DATE at TIME I was coming home from my aunt ’s place when I noticed a car parked next to our house . The car moved and our paths met not far from my house . I saw our [ local policeman PERSON ] together with CARDINAL of our district inspectors whom I did not know . They stopped and started talking to me . [ R.S. ] said that they were coming for me and that the chief ( meaning the chief of police ) wanted to have a talk with me . I answered that if I came to the police department they would keep me “ overnight ” , taking into account the fact that the same had happened before to my friends . [ R.S. ] promised me that no such thing would happen and I agreed to go with them . We went together to the police . I and [ R.S. ] went up to the second floor . After waiting for a moment next to his office , he took me to the Head of ORG [ GPE ] . There [ PERSON ] started talking and said “ Grisha , what is this all about the demonstrations you are holding and the government you are changing ? You are upsetting the stability of the country ” and things like that[. PERSON also said that I had taken people to the demonstrations and added that I had taken with me , for instance , [ G.A. ] . I asked whether [ G.A. ] could come and prove that I had taken him to the demonstrations and added that he had his own brain to decide what to do . [ PERSON ] left the office telling me that he would be back soon . A little while later I was invited to go to the office of the deputy chief of police [ PERSON ] . When I entered [ PERSON ’s ] office he asked me why I was talking loudly in the hallway and why I was organising a demonstration in the building [ of the police station ] . I answered that I had not been in the hallway and had not organised any demonstration . [ PERSON ] said that I was using foul language to him there and then and ordered that a case be prepared on account of my committing an administrative offence . I and [ R.S. ] came back to his office where he , in the presence of [ another police officer , TIME ] , said that he would not prepare materials against me and left the room . A little while later [ TIME ] was called[. PERSON went away , then returned and started preparing some documents . He inquired about my personal details but I refused to say anything and only said that I had higher education . A little while later [ PERSON ] came . [ A.M. ] told him that I refused to provide any information about myself . He ordered [ A.M. ] to go and bring form no . CARDINAL . [ TIME ] left and came back with a piece of paper on which I could see my photo . [ TIME ] filled in some documents and asked me to sign them[. I ] answered that I would not sign any documents . At that moment a girl came to [ TIME ’s office ] . He told the girl to type a court document . [ TIME ] , apparently having finished filling in the documents , was about to go , probably to fetch the court document . I understood by now that I was going to be taken to a court and sentenced to an “ TIME ” . Besides , [ TIME ] also said that they were about to take me to a court and left the office . At that moment [ PERSON ] entered the office . I was sitting in front of CARDINAL of the desks . Upon entering the office he immediately started swearing at me , also saying that it was their country and that they could do anything they wanted to and that what we were trying to do , meaning the change of the government , was all in vain . I answered : “ You do what you think is right and we will do what we consider to be right”[. A]t that moment [ PERSON ] kicked me . The blow fell on the left side of my chest . He kicked me with the sharp tip of his shoe . I felt sharp pain in the area of my ribs . He immediately punched me twice in the face with his left fist . At that moment I lost my temper and to defend myself picked up the mobile phone charger from the desk and hit him with it . The cable stayed in my hand while the charger broke off and hit [ PERSON ’s ] face . I saw him holding his eye and screaming . At that moment [ A.M. ] entered the office and , seeing the chaotic situation , took me to the nearby office . [ PERSON and another police officer , PERSON , ] followed me there and started beating me . I fell down but they went on beating me . They were kicking and punching me . Then other officers came and took [ PERSON and PERSON ] out . I would like to indicate that at the very beginning both [ PERSON and PERSON ] kicked me on my testicles . Some while after [ PERSON and PERSON ] had been taken away from the office , [ another police officer PERSON ] came to the office [ ( I learned his name and position from other officers after the incident ) ] and started swearing at me , trying to humiliate me , twice spat on me and punched my PERSON Then ] he kicked my feet several times and left . Before leaving he hit me again on my testicles with his keys . [ PERSON ] , before beating me in the office , ordered everybody to leave , saying that he was going to abuse me . After he left [ PERSON ] entered the office and started beating me again , demanding that I stand upright . He was hitting and saying “ Hit back ! Why do n’t you hit back now ? ” Some time later an ambulance doctor came to check whether I was drunk . I told her that I was not drunk . They contacted the chief of traffic inspection and asked for an “ ampoule ” . [ Another police officer , PERSON , ] brought the ampoule . The doctor broke the edge of the ampoule and I blew in it . At that time I was asserting again that I was not drunk . [ ORG ] hit me on my forehead . He hit me twice on my forehead . It seemed like he wanted to show deliberately that he was defending the honour of the uniform . I was in a terrible condition[. I ] asked [ another police officer , PERSON , ] and he gave me some water , then poured it on my head , back and face for me to regain consciousness . [ Another police officer , ORG , ] also helped me ; he removed my handcuffs , realising of course that I was in a bad condition ... ”

On DATE investigator PERSON examined the police journal where under entry no . CARDINAL it was stated that an anonymous telephone call had been received on DATE at TIME alleging that the applicant had participated in the demonstration of DATE with a firearm and was still carrying it .

On DATE the applicant was again questioned as a suspect at the hospital by investigator PERSON was asked about the kind of conversation he had had at the police station before the incident , concerning the fact that he had been carrying a firearm . The applicant replied that none of the police officers had asked him about any firearm . The only thing he had been asked about was why he was attending demonstrations and taking others with him . Such questions were asked by police officer PERSON Furthermore , while police officer PERSON was beating him , he was asking him which of the opposition leaders was encouraging his activity . The applicant also added that police officer PERSON had ordered that he be handcuffed with his hands behind his back , after which he started beating him in that position .

Investigator PERSON also took a witness statement from police officer PERSON , who repeated the submissions made in his report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . No questions were posed by the investigator .

On the same date expert PERSON of ORG of ORG Theoretical and FAC ( RFMTPC ) of ORG received a copy of the investigator ’s decision of DATE ordering the applicant ’s forensic medical examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the ORG decided to grant investigator PERSON ’s request to have the applicant ’s home searched , finding that there were sufficient grounds to believe that firearms could be hidden there .

On DATE investigator PERSON decided to seize the X - ray of the applicant ’s chest taken at the hospital on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s home was searched and no firearms were found .

On the same date investigator PERSON questioned as a witness police officer PERSON The investigator asked police officer PERSON to comment on the applicant ’s allegations that PERSON had attacked him first and that he had been ill - treated after the incident by PERSON and police officer PERSON , to which PERSON replied that the applicant was lying and denied having ill - treated him , repeating his earlier submissions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The investigator then asked police officer PERSON to comment on the applicant ’s allegation that the police officers never asked him any questions about a firearm , to which PERSON replied that the applicant had been taken to the police station on the grounds of information that he carried a firearm and the conversation with him concerned that issue . The applicant , however , would constantly change the topic to demonstrations , changing the government , the police ORG “ numbered DATE ” in office and their punishment .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the Prime Minister with copies to ORG and ORG complaining that on DATE at TIME he had been taken by deception to ORG where he had been beaten and tortured for his participation in demonstrations . He requested that the perpetrators be punished , indicating their names , which included PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON , and citing his statement of DATE for further details ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG , who had apparently visited the applicant in hospital and was following his case , wrote to ORG and the Head of ORG , informing them of the following :

“ We have carried out an inquiry into possible human rights violations in connection with the incident that happened to [ the applicant ] in ORG on [ DATE ] .

The data that we have obtained provide grounds for us to assert that acts which are qualified as “ cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment ” have been committed in respect of [ the applicant ] at ORG .

The fact itself that [ the applicant ] was taken to ORG in good health then transferred to a hospital where he underwent surgery as a result of the injuries suffered shows that he was subjected to such treatment regardless of his personality and the acts he had committed just before .

We are worried by the fact that so far the NORP Police have not given their report of what has happened .

During the conversations we had with [ the representatives of ] ORG and with ORG and Town Police opinions were expressed , from which it can be assumed that no appropriate assessment will be given to the lack of grounds for bringing the applicant to the police station , the lack of sufficient grounds for arresting him and the institution of criminal proceedings specifically against [ him ] .

This is especially worrying in the sense that it can lead to a CARDINAL - sided and non - impartial investigation ... ”

On the same date investigator PERSON took a witness statement from police officer PERSON who submitted that after the incident he had entered the office where the applicant was and asked everybody else to leave in order to talk to him in private and to find out the whole truth . He then had a chat with the applicant who had expressed remorse for what had happened . The investigator asked PERSON to comment on the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment , in reply to which PERSON denied having ill - treated the applicant . The investigator then asked PERSON to specify which office he had entered to have a chat with the applicant and who else was in that office , to which PERSON replied that he was new at the police station and he could not indicate with certainty the office in question or the identity of the other police officers who were there .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was formally charged under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) with inflicting violence dangerous for health on a public official . The decision stated that the applicant had been brought to the police station on suspicion of illegal possession of a firearm . At TIME in the office of police officer GPE , having been informed by police officer PERSON that an administrative case was to be brought against him , the applicant took a mobile phone charger from the table and intentionally hit the right eye of police officer PERSON with it .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital . His medical card contained information concerning his diagnosis and treatment similar to that given in the surgeon ’s certificate of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On the same date investigator PERSON took a witness statement from police officer PERSON , who similarly denied having ill - treated the applicant . CARDINAL other police officers , NORP and PERSON , were also questioned as witnesses . Both denied having helped the applicant , namely by taking off his handcuffs and giving him water . Police officer PERSON further stated , in reply to the investigator ’s question , that the applicant had never complained to him about his health .

On DATE investigator PERSON once again questioned the applicant , who confirmed his earlier allegations .

On DATE expert PERSON drew up his report based on the results of the applicant’ ’s findings :

“ Results of [ the applicant ’s ] personal observation : [ The patient ] is lying in bed on his back in a semi - active state ... On the outer surface of the upper third part of the right shin there is a green - yellow - coloured bruise measuring QUANTITY and having an irregular form . No objective features of other bodily injuries to other parts of the body have been disclosed . On DATE [ I received the X - ray consultation made on DATE by an NORP - ray specialist , according to which ] ‘ No bone changes have been disclosed in the X - ray of [ the applicant ’s ] left side of the chest’ ...

Conclusion : [ the applicant ’s ] bodily injuries , namely the post - traumatic hematoma of the scrotum , the hematocele of the left side , the laceration of the left testicle and the bruise on the right shin , were caused by blunt and rough objects , [ and ] it can not be ruled out [ that they were caused ] at the time and in the manner described above . The injury to the left testicle has a traumatic origin and could have been caused by any type of blow . In order to assess the degree of gravity of the bodily injury it is necessary to bring the patient to the forensic medical examination unit for examination on DATE following the incident . ”

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the criminal proceedings against him were unfounded . He submitted that investigator PERSON of ORG , due to his official duties , was linked to the police officers of ORG and was therefore not impartial . He requested that investigator PERSON be removed from the case , that the case be transferred to ORG and that criminal proceedings be instituted on account of his torture .

On DATE the Deputy General Prosecutor decided to dismiss the applicant ’s request as unfounded .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed by ORG that his request had been dismissed but for reasons of expediency , upon the instruction of ORG , the criminal case had been transferred for further investigation to ORG .

On DATE expert PERSON supplemented his initial expert report by including an assessment of the gravity of the injuries . The conclusion now stated :

“ Conclusion : [ the applicant ’s ] bodily injuries , namely the post - traumatic hematoma of the scrotum , the hematocele of the left side , the laceration of the left testicle and the bruise on the right shin , were caused by blunt and rough objects , [ and ] it can not be ruled out [ that they were caused ] at the time and in the manner described above ; [ the injuries ] caused damage to health of medium degree with lasting deterioration of health , taking into account that the immediate effects of the injury lasted CARDINAL one days . ”

On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to ORG , seeking to have a decision taken on his request to have criminal proceedings instituted against the police officers .

On DATE the applicant ’s criminal case was transferred to ORG and was taken over by investigator T. of the ORG and ORG Office of GPE .

On DATE investigator PERSON questioned the applicant ’s mother , who stated that the applicant had never possessed a gun . She further stated that police officers had previously visited their home on numerous occasions , inquiring about the applicant and saying that they were looking for him because he participated in demonstrations .

On DATE investigator PERSON questioned the applicant ’s friend , PERSON , whom he had allegedly incited to go to demonstrations with him . PERSON stated that he was aware that the applicant had been brutally beaten at the police station and added that this was connected with his participation in demonstrations . He also confirmed that he had never seen the applicant with any firearms .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint ( դիմում ) with the ORG and ORG , alleging that he had been tortured and ill - treated at the police station by the police officers whose names he had indicated in his statement of DATE , as a result of which he suffered a grave physical injury . However , charges were brought only against him and no assessment was made of the criminal acts committed by the police officers and of the fact that he had acted in necessary self - defence . Furthermore , he had been brought to the police station without any grounds and the real reason for his arrest was the political persecutions taking place in GPE . The applicant requested , with reference to , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( ORG ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , that an investigation be carried out , that criminal proceedings be instituted against the police officers of ORG and that they be suspended from their duties during the investigation .

On DATE , in response to this complaint , investigator PERSON took a decision on dismissing a motion ( միջնորդություն ) filed by the applicant . The decision stated at the outset that criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant on account of his inflicting physical injuries on police officer PERSON and that the applicant had also been injured as a result of the incident . It went on to conclude :

“ Having examined the materials of the criminal case , it has been established that the investigation has been carried out objectively and all the necessary investigative measures have been taken in the course of the investigation , during which no evidence has been obtained to suggest that the police officers of ORG have exceeded their authority[.H]ence there was no need to institute [ a new set of ] criminal proceedings and to carry out criminal prosecution . ”

On DATE a confrontation was held between the applicant and CARDINAL of the arresting police officers , GPE The applicant submitted that he had been approached by police officers GPE and GPE at TIME on the date of his arrest and that police officer PERSON had invited him to the police station for a talk with the chief in connection with the demonstrations . Police officer GPE confirmed this submission . He also admitted that he had not been aware that the applicant was being brought to the police station on suspicion of illegal possession of a firearm and had found out about this only upon arrival at the police station .

On DATE a confrontation was held between the applicant and the second arresting police officer , GPE The latter submitted , inter alia , that the deputy chief of the police department , PERSON , had ordered him to bring the applicant to the police station for a talk . This order was oral and there was no written decision to arrest the applicant .

On DATE the applicant requested information from ORG concerning the events of DATE .

By CARDINAL letters of DATE the Head of ORG informed the applicant of the following :

“ ... [ DATE and DATE CARDINAL ambulance calls were [ received ] at the Artashat ambulance station from ORG in connection with [ the applicant ] kept at the police station .

First call : ... DATE at TIME : the purpose of the call was the determination of the level of drunkenness .

- doctor on duty [ ORG ]

Second call : ... DATE at TIME : doctor on duty [ ORG ] . Diagnosis : bruising of soft tissues of the left side of the chest , fractured ribs ( ? ) and contusion of testicles .

ORG pills .

Third call : ... DATE at TIME [ the applicant ] was brought to the reception room for a surgeon ’s consultation ; doctor on duty [ V.H. ] ; diagnosis : contusion of ribs and testicles .

[ The applicant ] was transferred to the surgical unit . ”

“ ... [ The applicant ] ... was admitted to the surgical unit of ORG on DATE at TIME upon the referral ... of the hospital ’s reception room ... with the following diagnosis : post - traumatic hematoma of the scrotum , hematocele of the left side and laceration of the left testicle .

According to the description contained in the medical card the above diagnosis was a result of a trauma ... ”

On DATE a confrontation was held between the applicant and police officer TIME Both presented their version of the events . Similar confrontations were held between the applicant and police officers PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and the deputy chief of the police department PERSON , on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . All the police officers denied having ill - treated him . Police officer PERSON admitted during the confrontation that he was one of the officers who , after the second ambulance call , had accompanied the applicant to the hospital where he had his ribs examined . PERSON stated that the doctors had not detected anything dangerous and the applicant had been taken back to the police station . He further admitted that he had been present during the examination of the applicant ’s ribs but not during the examination of his testicles .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was presented with the forensic medical expert ’s report of CARDINAL DATE and its supplement of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant filed a motion , claiming that the expert ’s findings were not objective since the injuries sustained by him had been grave and intentionally inflicted and had resulted in loss of functionality of a vital organ . The applicant sought to have a new forensic medical examination ordered .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal against the investigator ’s decision of DATE . He once again indicated the names of the alleged perpetrators and complained that the investigation was not impartial and was aimed at misrepresenting the circumstances of the incident in order to cover up for the police officers in question . He argued that there were sufficient reasons to institute criminal proceedings pursuant to ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , something which the investigating authority had failed to do .

On the same date investigator PERSON questioned doctors ORG and ORG PERSON stated that she had visited the applicant twice at ORG on DATE . The first call was intended to determine his level of intoxication . When she visited him at the police station following the second call , TIME , the applicant was pale , in a cold sweat and in sharp pain . After an examination a bruising was disclosed in the lower left side part of the applicant ’s chest . He also complained of a sharp pain in the testicle area . First aid was given , after which the applicant was transferred to ORG , since there was an urgent need to have his chest and ribs X - rayed and for a surgeon ’s consultation . The initial diagnosis was rib fracture and testicle injury . She was not aware of the causes of those injuries , the diagnosis given at the hospital or how long the applicant had stayed there . Doctor PERSON stated that , following the applicant ’s examination at ORG , where he and a nurse had gone in response to a call received on DATE at TIME , it was disclosed that he had contusions to his ribs and testicles . No injuries had been discovered on other parts of the body . The applicant had then been transferred to the hospital where surgery was performed . Doctor PERSON added that these injuries , especially the ones in the area of the testicles , could have been caused by a strong or a light blow or as a result of colliding with some object . He was not aware of the causes of those injuries .

On DATE investigator ORG decided to order a new forensic medical examination of the applicant on the ground that the veracity of the expert report of CARDINAL DATE and its supplement of CARDINAL DATE was open to doubt , referring , inter alia , to the fact that the expert ’s findings had been contested by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The new examination was to be conducted by the experts of ORG who were asked to answer the following questions : ( CARDINAL ) what injuries are there on the applicant ’s body , including their location , nature , method of infliction , degree of gravity and age ; and ( CARDINAL ) whether expert PERSON had determined the degree of gravity of the applicant ’s injuries accurately .

On DATE investigator ORG decided to seize the applicant ’s medical card from ORG .

On DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal decided to leave the applicant ’s appeal of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) unexamined on the ground that the investigator ’s decision of DATE had been taken in the course of the criminal investigation and was a procedural decision which , according to the relevant criminal procedure rules , did not fall within the scope of judicial control and could not be contested before the courts .

On DATE the experts received a copy of the investigator ’s decision of DATE ordering a new forensic medical examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

DATE . On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of ORG of DATE . He submitted that ORG was obliged under LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to examine his complaint concerning the lawfulness of the investigator ’s decision .

On DATE a new forensic medical expert report was produced which contained a conclusion almost identical to that made in the earlier expert report ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The report also stated that the finding concerning the degree of gravity of the applicant ’s injuries had been accurate .

On DATE CARDINAL confrontations were held between the applicant and police officers PERSON and PERSON Both denied having provided any help to the applicant , either by taking off the handcuffs or giving him water .

On DATE investigator T. decided to recognise police officer PERSON as a victim . Police officer PERSON was questioned , during which he confirmed his earlier statements .

On DATE the charge against the applicant was modified by adding the fact of the applicant ’s alcohol intoxication . The applicant was again questioned and pleaded not guilty . He submitted once again that he had been brought to the police station for his participation in demonstrations and had been brutally beaten .

On DATE the investigator decided to end the investigation since sufficient evidence had been obtained to prepare an indictment .

On DATE the ORG and ORG decided to stop the prosecution and to terminate the criminal proceedings against the applicant with reference to LAW ) of the CCP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This decision first recapitulated the investigating authority ’s account of events , according to which the applicant was brought to the police station on suspicion of having carried firearms at demonstrations . When being taken to the police station and upon arrival the applicant used foul language , insulted the police officers and disobeyed their lawful orders . Having found out that the administrative case instituted on account of his behaviour would be submitted to a court , the applicant hit the right eye of police officer PERSON with a mobile phone charger , thereby intentionally inflicting injuries of medium gravity . Thereafter the applicant grabbed the telephone from the table and tried to hit PERSON with it , but was prevented by PERSON , after which the applicant assaulted PERSON and the latter in self - defence kicked the applicant ’s testicles , grasped him and fell together with him on the chair and then on the floor . The decision concluded :

“ As a result of the incident [ the applicant ’s ] testicle was injured and removed through surgery , [ so ] damage of medium gravity was caused also to his health .

Since [ PERSON ] acted within the limits of necessary self - defence , no criminal proceedings were instituted against him , while [ the applicant ] was charged under LAW of [ the ORG ] ...

Taking into consideration the fact that during the commission of the offence [ the applicant ] also suffered damage of medium gravity for his health , namely his testicle was injured , underwent surgery and was removed , which is incurable , and that actually by suffering privations he atoned for his guilt and in such circumstances it is not expedient to carry out prosecution against him , I decided ... to stop the prosecution against [ the applicant ] ... ”

On an unspecified date the applicant contested this decision before a higher prosecutor .

On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicant ’s appeal on points of law against the decision of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) with the following reasoning :

“ It follows from the materials of the case that [ the applicant ] filed a motion seeking to have criminal proceedings instituted against the employees of ORG on DATE , that is at a time when [ a criminal case ] had been already instituted on account of the incident on DATE and an investigation into that case was already underway . Moreover , both the fact of a physical injury inflicted by [ the applicant ] on [ police officer PERSON ] and a physical injury inflicted by the latter on [ the applicant ] constituted a subject of that investigation . In those circumstances , there was no need to institute a separate criminal case on account of the physical injury inflicted on [ the applicant ] , since the issues raised by [ him ] already constituted a subject of an investigation in a criminal case .

Based on the results of the criminal case on DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE decided to end criminal prosecution against [ the applicant ] and to terminate the criminal proceedings .

In such circumstances , given that the issues raised by [ the applicant ] have already been a subject of examination by competent authorities and a final decision has been adopted in that respect , the request to have a new criminal case instituted concerning the same matter is incompatible with the requirements of LAW the ORG ] . ”

By a letter of DATE the applicant was informed by ORG that the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings was well - founded and there were no grounds to quash it .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with the ORG and ORG of GPE seeking to quash this decision . He contested the grounds for terminating the criminal proceedings , arguing in detail that the investigation had been flawed for many reasons , including overlooking the fact of his unlawful arrest , which was linked to his participation in demonstrations and political activities , and his ill - treatment by the police officers , which was falsely presented as self - defence on the part of police officer PERSON The testimonies of police officers PERSON , GPE , PERSON and PERSON were false and lacked any probative value , since these persons were the perpetrators of his brutal beating . Furthermore , the police officers of ORG had been persecuting him since DATE and the anonymous phone call of DATE was a mere set - up . Because of a slow and biased investigation the above - mentioned persons had managed to avoid criminal responsibility . In particular , the investigating authority had failed to arrange immediate confrontations and did so only in DATE , thereby allowing the police officers to coordinate their testimonies , while the conclusions of the forensic medical expert were not impartial . No criminal proceedings had been instituted , while the perpetrators were questioned DATE after the incident , which suggested that the case was of a political nature and enjoyed a high - ranking patronage . The fact of his systematic ill - treatment on TIME DATE was confirmed by the relevant hospital papers and there were sufficient grounds to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers as required by Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The applicant insisted that such proceedings be instituted since the offence committed against him had absolutely not been investigated . In conclusion he requested that the criminal proceedings against him be terminated on exonerating grounds or else he be tried in court where he could prove his innocence .

On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE examined the applicant ’s appeal . Both the applicant and a representative of the investigating authority were present at that hearing and made submissions . ORG found the applicant ’s appeal to be unsubstantiated and decided to dismiss it .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision . In his appeal he argued , inter alia , that ORG had ignored the numerous circumstances contained in his appeal against the prosecutor ’s decision substantiating the CARDINAL - sided and flawed conduct of the investigation . The applicant requested ORG to carry out an objective examination , to quash the decision of ORG and to order the prosecutor to terminate his case on exonerating grounds or to submit the case to a court for examination on the merits . Attached to this appeal was a copy of the applicant ’s appeal lodged with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal found that the investigation had been carried out in compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedure law and the applicant ’s procedural and substantive rights had not been violated . It further found that the ORG and ORG had adopted a lawful and well - founded decision in compliance with the requirements of LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and there were no grounds to quash the decision of ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . In his appeal he argued , inter alia , that the lower courts had ignored the fact that the investigating authority had violated the requirements of LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and , having conducted a CARDINAL - sided investigation , had found him guilty under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The courts had overlooked the biased conduct of the investigation , the existence of false documents in the case and the fact that the entire investigation was built upon the events surrounding his unlawful arrest by the police officers . The applicant once again argued that it was not the police officer but he who had acted in necessary self - defence , and requested that he be tried by an independent and impartial court in a public hearing and be allowed to prove his innocence . In conclusion he asked that the prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE and that of ORG be quashed .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal , finding :

“ [ The applicant ] , relying on the arguments raised before [ ORG ] , argued in his appeal [ to ORG ] that the investigation had been flawed and CARDINAL - sided , he had been accused unfairly , the charges against him had been dropped ... on non - exonerating grounds , the police officers who had ill - treated and injured him had not been subject to criminal responsibility , falsifications had taken place during the investigation , the police officers had given false testimonies , inaccurate forensic medical conclusions had been produced , etc .

He also raised in his appeal that the decisions taken by the courts were unreasoned and that no reasoned answers had been given to the issues raised by him ...

Thus , [ the applicant ] , in his appeals lodged with [ ORG and ORG ] , raised also the questions brought up in [ his ] appeal on points of law . ”

ORG went on to conclude that the lower courts , ignoring the requirements of LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) pursuant to which complaints alleging a violation of lawfulness in the course of criminal proceedings were to be thoroughly examined by the authority dealing with the case , had failed to address the arguments raised by the applicant and adopted decisions containing no reasoning . It decided to quash the decision of ORG on that ground and to remit the case for a fresh examination .

On DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal examined the applicant ’s application anew and decided to dismiss it . In doing so , ORG stated :

“ [ The applicant ] has asked for the case to be remitted for further investigation , with the expectation that it will later be brought before a court , arguing that the investigating authority has committed numerous violations of the criminal procedure rules , a number of investigative measures have been falsified and that furthermore he acted in necessary self - defence .

ORG finds that these arguments are groundless as there is no proof that the investigative measures have been falsified . [ The applicant ’s ] rights envisaged and guaranteed by law have been respected during the investigation of the case , this being reflected in relevant records which have been drawn up , including in the presence of lawyers . The fact that [ the applicant ] has refused to sign several records of investigative measures does not suggest that these records are unlawful .

[ The applicant ’s ] arguments that he was brought to the police department on DATE at TIME and not TIME are not supported by the materials of the case and this fact has nothing to do with him being guilty or innocent .

[ The applicant ] admitted that he had inflicted physical injuries on the police officer [ PERSON ] with a telephone as if in self - defence .

This fact has been rebutted by the evidence in the case which is why the proceedings were not terminated by the ORG and ORG on exonerating grounds .

The prosecuting authority has taken necessary measures envisaged by law in order to carry out a thorough , complete and objective examination of the case and to clarify both incriminating and exculpatory circumstances .

[ The applicant ’s ] declarations concerning his innocence and the alleged violations have been examined in detail during the proceedings , including the proceedings in ORG .

As a result , [ the applicant ’s ] right to a fair hearing has been guaranteed , including the right to be confronted with witnesses who testified against him and other rights guaranteed by LAW . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . In his appeal he argued , inter alia , that ORG had failed to carry out a proper assessment of the evidence in the case . It had ignored the fact that the charge was based on fabricated evidence and , having failed to examine his allegations of procedural irregularities as required by LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , agreed with the formulation of the charge against him , according to which he had resisted the police officers and disobeyed their lawful orders . The applicant further claimed that ORG , relying solely on the false reports of the police officers , had found his arrest based on an anonymous telephone call and the initiation of an administrative case against an unlawfully arrested person to be lawful . The applicant also argued that the principle of presumption of innocence had been violated and requested that the charge against him be determined through a public hearing , taking into account that the criminal proceedings had been terminated on non - exonerating grounds and that the charge against him had been found to be proved . He asked that the prosecutor ’s decision and those of the lower courts be quashed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . In doing so , ORG stated :

“ The arguments raised in [ the applicant ’s ] appeal concerning the violations committed by the prosecuting authority have been examined by ORG . The court rightly stated that no evidence had been obtained to suggest that the investigative measures had been falsified or fabricated and that [ the applicant ] during the preliminary investigation had availed himself of the rights guaranteed by [ the ORG ] .

[ The applicant ’s ] argument that he hit [ PERSON ] acting in self - defence was rebutted by the evidence collected during the investigation .

As regards his argument that the prosecutor groundlessly stopped prosecution against him in the absence of his consent , [ it should be noted that the ORG ] does not require a person ’s consent when stopping prosecution on the grounds envisaged by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of [ the ORG ] .

[ The applicant ] has availed himself of the right of judicial protection of his rights guaranteed by LAW , by contesting before the courts the decision of the investigating authority to stop prosecution and to terminate the criminal proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed by LAW and CARDINAL of [ the ORG ] .

ORG , exercising judicial control over the pre - trial proceedings based on [ the applicant ’s ] application , rightly stated that the prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE was lawful and well - founded and it did not find [ the applicant ] guilty of commission of the crime as argued in the appeal .

The chamber finds that , within the grounds of the appeal , the decision of ORG is lawful , well - founded and reasoned and there are no grounds for annulling it , therefore the appeal must be dismissed . ”

Article CARDINAL provides that citizens shall enjoy all the rights and freedoms and bear all the duties prescribed by the LAW and laws irrespective of their national origin , race , sex , language , creed , political or other opinion , social origin , property or other status .

Articles DATE provides that no one shall be subjected to torture , cruel or degrading treatment and punishment .

According to LAW , a person accused of a crime shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty , in a procedure prescribed by law , by a final court sentence .

According to Article CARDINAL , arrest is the act of taking a person and keeping him in short - term custody .

According to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL , a person may be arrested ( CARDINAL ) on immediate suspicion of having committed an offence ; or ( CARDINAL ) on the basis of a decision adopted by the prosecuting authority . In both cases an arrest must not exceed TIME from the moment of taking a person into custody .

According to LAW , in the course of criminal proceedings no one shall be subjected to torture and to unlawful physical or mental violence , including such treatment inflicted through the administration of medication , hunger , exhaustion , hypnosis , denial of medical assistance and other cruel treatment . It is prohibited to coerce testimony from a suspect , accused , defendant , victim , witness and other parties to the proceedings by means of violence , threat , trickery , violation of their rights , and through other unlawful actions .

According to LAW , complaints alleging a violation of lawfulness in the course of criminal proceedings must be thoroughly examined by the authority dealing with the case .

According to Article CARDINAL , the body of inquiry , the investigator and the prosecutor are obliged , within the scope of their jurisdiction , to institute criminal proceedings in each case when elements of a crime are disclosed , and to undertake all the measures prescribed by law in order to disclose the crimes and to identify the perpetrators .

ORG . According to LAW ) , the court is entitled to request the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings in cases prescribed by LAW .

Article CARDINAL obliges the prosecutor , the investigator or the body of inquiry , within the scope of their jurisdiction , to institute criminal proceedings if there are grounds envisaged by this Code .

According to Article CARDINAL , the grounds for instituting criminal proceedings include , inter alia , information about crimes received from individuals and discovery of information about a crime or traces and consequences of a crime by the body of inquiry , the investigator , the prosecutor , the court or the judge while performing their functions .

According to Article CARDINAL , information about crimes received from individuals can be provided orally or in writing . An oral statement about a crime made during an investigative measure or court proceedings shall be entered respectively into the record of the investigative measure or of the court hearing .

According to LAW , information about crimes must be examined and decided upon immediately , or in cases where it is necessary to check whether there are lawful and sufficient grounds to institute proceedings , within DATE following the receipt of such information . Within this period , additional documents , explanations or other materials may be requested , the scene of the incident inspected and examinations ordered .

According to LAW following decisions must be taken in each case when information about a crime is received : ( CARDINAL ) to institute criminal proceedings , ( CARDINAL ) to reject the institution of criminal proceedings , or ( CARDINAL ) to hand over the information to the authority competent to deal with it .

According to Article CARDINAL , if there are reasons and grounds to institute criminal proceedings , the prosecutor , the investigator or the body of inquiry shall adopt a decision to institute criminal proceedings .

According to LAW , the body of inquiry , the investigator or the prosecutor , based on the materials of a criminal case dealt by them , shall adopt a decision to institute a new and separate set of criminal proceedings , while the court shall request the prosecutor to adopt such a decision , if a crime unrelated to the crimes imputed to the accused is disclosed , which has been committed by a third person without the involvement of the accused .

According to LAW , DATE , DATE and DATE , in the absence of lawful grounds for institution of criminal proceedings , the prosecutor , the investigator or the body of inquiry shall adopt a decision to reject the institution of criminal proceedings . A copy of the decision shall be served on the individual who has reported the crime . This decision may be contested before a higher prosecutor or the court of appeal . The court of appeal shall either quash the decision or uphold it . If the decision is quashed , the prosecutor shall be obliged to institute criminal proceedings .

Article CARDINAL , entitled “ scope of judicial control ” , provides that a court , in cases and procedure prescribed by this Code , shall examine complaints about the lawfulness of decisions and actions of the body of inquiry , the investigator , the prosecutor and the bodies carrying out operative and reconnaissance measures .

According to Article CARDINAL , the suspect and the accused are entitled to lodge complaints with a court against the decisions and actions of the body of inquiry , the investigator , the prosecutor or the bodies carrying out operative and reconnaissance measures , including the refusals of such authorities to receive information about crimes or to institute criminal proceedings and their decisions to suspend or terminate criminal proceedings or to end criminal prosecution , in cases prescribed by this Code . If the complaint is found to be substantiated , the court shall adopt a decision ordering the authority dealing with the case to stop the violation of a person ’s rights and freedoms .

According to LAW , which lists the concepts contained in the ORG , “ final decision ” means any decision of the authority dealing with the case which rules out the institution of proceedings or their continuation , as well as decides on the merits of the case .

Article CARDINAL provides that a person suspected or accused of a crime shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty , in a procedure prescribed by law , by a final court sentence .

According to LAW ) , the prosecutor may decide not to carry out prosecution , if he considers it not to be expedient on the ground that the person has redeemed the committed act through suffering , limitation of rights and other privations which he has suffered in connection with the committed act .

On DATE Article CARDINAL of the ORG was amended and its sub - paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was removed . The amended LAW prescribes that the court , the prosecutor or , upon the prosecutor ’s approval , the investigator may terminate the criminal proceedings in cases prescribed by Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the ORG . Article CARDINAL concerns cases in which the accused actively regretted the offence , LAW concerns cases in which the accused was reconciled with the victim and LAW concerns cases in which , due to a change in the situation , the accused or the act committed by him lost their danger for society . According to the amended LAW ORG , in cases envisaged by Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the ORG criminal proceedings may not be terminated if the accused objects .

According to Article CARDINAL , an appeal against a decision to terminate criminal proceedings or to end criminal prosecution may be lodged with a higher prosecutor within DATE after the receipt of a copy of the decision . The prosecutor ’s refusal to grant the appeal may be contested before a court .

According to LAW , the criminal proceedings shall be resumed if the decision to terminate criminal proceedings or to end criminal prosecution is quashed .

According to LAW , in force at the material time , inflicting violence , dangerous for life or limb , on a public official or his next - of - kin , shall be punishable with imprisonment for a period of DATE .

CARDINAL ’s personality , the application of these measures would be deemed insufficient , of administrative detention not exceeding DATE .

Chapter CARDINAL of this Report , which concerned the right to be free from torture and cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment , included an overview of the applicant ’s particular case . The relevant extracts provide :

“ Violations of this right mainly concerned apprehension of a person by the police or investigative authority , upon suspicion or facts of committing a crime or an administrative infringement , the holding of such persons in custody and their interrogation .

In their complaints , the complainants insist that the police have not abolished the practices of groundless apprehension , detention , the use of violence , the extraction of self - incriminating testimony and evidence , and fabricated prosecution evidence regarding the alleged crime .

In criminal cases in which the police prepared the file , there are allegations that the concerned persons had to provide self - incriminating testimony in conditions of unlawful custody under the threat and use of violence and intimidation . These persons state such allegations both during pre - trial proceedings , before the investigative authority , and in court . Such statements and allegations are not fully investigated by the authorities ; moreover , only superficial investigations are conducted , but only with the aim of refuting such allegations .

Cases are not initiated on the basis of complaints addressed to ORG country or to regional prosecutors . The review of such complaints is mainly assigned to the same investigator who is investigating the case , even when this investigator is the person whose actions are the subject of such allegations . In rare cases , when a different unit of prosecution is instructed to investigate these allegations , there are still no safeguards of an impartial investigation . During the hearing courts tend to ignore these allegations .

ORG criminal case is a rather typical example of this situation .

ORG was apprehended and taken to [ ORG ] from his village , without any grounds , at around [ TIME on DATE ] . While in the police station , a police officer insulted , degraded , cursed at , and hit ORG . ORG , who did not tolerate the degrading treatment , in turn hit this police officer . Later , less grave physical injury was inflicted upon ORG while he was in police custody .

The prosecution initiated a criminal case against ORG for inflicting physical injury upon the police officer . In the criminal case , all the acts of the police officer were ruled as lawful , and there was no mention of the fact that Virabyan , who was unlawfully detained by the police , received his physical injury while in police custody . Further , no police officer had been punished for inflicting such injury upon Virabyan .

The Defender ’s reaction to the case was straightforward : what happened must be characterized as cruel and degrading treatment against ORG , because the head of an agency is responsible for the health and security of a person taken or invited to his institution . The person ’s behaviour in the institution may not serve as a justification for injuring him , and the staff have the duty to be tolerant .

’s Office ] was instructed to investigate the case . However , there was still no progress , and ORG was still the only one being charged . By that time his indictment was ready to be sent to court . ORG ordered that the charges be dropped only after the NORP intervened . ”

Chapters CARDINAL of this Report , which concerned the right to freedom of movement and the right to conduct assemblies , contained the following extracts :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL Right to Freedom of Movement

The early stages of the Defender ’s activities coincided with the demonstrations that were held in the country during DATE and DATE .

The opposition began to hold demonstrations and meetings with constituents in several regions starting in DATE . The authorities did not interfere with these meetings .

The first time the authorities interfered with the demonstrations was at DATE in PERSON , which involved the arrest of demonstration participants and the commencement of criminal cases against them . ...

The Defender found a number of human rights violations in police actions regarding demonstrations held in the capital city in DATE .

On DATE of the demonstrations , the police reportedly limited the movement of public transport into the capital city , which violated ORG right to freedom of movement within the country . ...

During this period , individuals were frequently apprehended for administrative infractions and taken to police stations where administrative detention was ordered against them by the court .

A review of these cases shows that the legislation on administrative infractions was abused : “ foul language ” was cited as a basis for sentencing a person to administrative detention . ...

CARDINAL Right to Conduct Meetings , Gatherings , Rallies and Protests

The Defender took from the courts a number of cases related to administrative infractions and conducted a thorough study . The findings were sent to ORG and , in light of the apparent abuses of power in such cases , it was recommended that the guilty parties be punished . Some of the NORP ’s findings were isolated and sent to ORG for corroboration and processing . The regional prosecutor later announced that no crime was identified . The police officers in question were given warnings for some of the less significant violations . ”

The relevant extracts from the ORG provide :

“ CARDINAL . Since DATE , a series of protests have been organised by the opposition forces in GPE , calling for a ‘ referendum of confidence’ in President PERSON . The possibility of such a referendum was first mentioned by ORG following the presidential elections in DATE . ORG later clarified its proposal and the authorities are calling the opposition demands and protests an attempt to seize power by force .

NORP The demonstrations , although announced , were not authorised by the authorities , who have threatened the organisers with criminal prosecution . Following the demonstrations on DATE , ORG opened criminal investigations against several members of the opposition and arrested many more , in connection with the opposition parties’ rally . On the same occasion , several journalists and politicians were beaten up by unknown persons while the police stood by and took no action .

New demonstrations took place on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE in GPE . In TIME of DATE , the security forces violently dispersed CARDINAL protesters who were attempting to march towards the presidential palace , calling for President PERSON ’s resignation . The police reportedly used truncheons , water cannons and tears gas , causing CARDINAL of injuries . A number of protesters were arrested , including members of parliament , some of whom are members of the ORG , and some were allegedly mistreated by the police while in custody . The security forces also assaulted and arrested several journalists who were covering the opposition rally .

Tensions in GPE continue to run high ; new protests are planned for DATE of DATE . For the time - being there seems to be little room for dialogue between the authorities and the opposition , even if some offers have been made and some members of the ruling majority DATE for example , the Speaker of ORG – have begun criticising the heavy - handed crackdown on demonstrations .

With regard to the conduct of the authorities , ORG ... is particularly concerned with the fact that :

i. arrests , including those carried out on the basis of LAW , ignored the demand to immediately end the practice of administrative detention and to change LAW used as a legal basis for this practice ; ...

The ORG calls upon the NORP authorities to : ...

iii . NORP immediately investigate – in a transparent and credible manner – the incident and human rights abuses reported during the recent events ...

iv . immediately release the persons detained for their participation in the demonstrations and immediately end the practice of administrative detention and amend LAW to this effect ... ”

The ORG contains an explanatory memorandum to the draft of the PACE Resolution CARDINAL . The relevant extracts from the explanatory memorandum provide :

“ Since DATE , opposition forces in GPE decided to jointly organise mass protests to force a ‘ referendum of confidence’ in President PERSON . The possibility of such a referendum was first mentioned by ORG following the presidential elections in DATE , which were strongly criticised by the international community . ...

The NORP authorities reacted to the opposition call for protests with a campaign of political intimidation and administrative and judicial harassment . Once the protests started , the reaction was even more ruthless . Demonstrations were violently dispersed , journalists were beaten up , a large number of opposition supporters were arrested and premises of the opposition parties were raided by the police .

In DATE the ORG adopted its second monitoring report since the accession of GPE to ORG in DATE . Resolution CARDINAL , adopted on this occasion , takes note of some encouraging developments that took place in DATE ...

However , the ORG ... sharply criticised the [ presidential and parliamentary ] elections carried out in DATE . Moreover , it listed a number of serious concerns with regard to the democratic and human rights conduct of the NORP authorities and expressed its expectations that these issues will be speedily dealt with in accordance with ORG standards and principles .

Regrettably , the reaction of the NORP authorities in the events of DATE and DATE ] demonstrate that the ORG ’s request for further progress was ignored and that , with regard to some of the ORG ’s key concerns , the situation has even worsened .

Administrative detention

With regard to the scandalous and continued use of administrative detention , Resolution CARDINAL urged the authorities to amend LAW to put an end to this practice which is incompatible with the organisation ’s standards . The ORG also asked the authorities to submit this new draft to ORG expertise by DATE .

Instead of immediately ending this practice and preparing the necessary legislative drafts to this effect , the NORP authorities resorted to a wide use of administrative detentions during the recent events . While it is difficult to verify the exact number of persons who were arrested and the legal basis used for their detention , most reports indicate that their number was CARDINAL .

The ORG repeats its demand for an immediate end to the practice of administrative detention . LAW must be revised without any further delay . ...

... Regrettably , according to ORG , several persons arrested during the recent events were subjected to abuse during their detention by the police . These allegations must be investigated , in a speedy , transparent and credible manner , and if their veracity is confirmed , persons responsible should be punished in accordance with the law . ”

The relevant extracts of the Briefing Paper provide :

“ Summary

At DATE , GPE ’s political opposition united in mass peaceful protests to force a “ referendum of confidence ” in President PERSON and to call for his resignation . In response , the NORP government embarked on a campaign to break the popular support for the political opposition with mass arrests , violent dispersal of demonstrations , raids on political party headquarters , repression of journalists , and restrictions on travel to prevent people from participating in demonstrations . CARDINAL of people were detained , many for DATE ; some were tortured or ill - treated in custody ...

The origin of the opposition ’s demands was the government ’s failure to date to redress the deeply flawed DATE presidential election , which PERSON , the incumbent , won . Disturbingly , the government is now repeating , with increasing violence , a pattern of repression that surrounded DATE election . At that time , the international community warned the NORP government that its intimidation of the opposition through the use of arrests and administrative detentions must stop . However , in DATE and DATE , the NORP government not only began a fresh campaign of detentions , but added to the intimidation with security force violence . ...

ORG calls on the NORP authorities to cease intimidating the political opposition , to stop using excessive force against demonstrators and torture and ill treatment in custody , and to hold accountable those responsible for these abuses . We call on the international community to assist the government of GPE in urgently addressing this situation and to ensure that further acts of repression are not repeated . ...

DATE

At DATE , CARDINAL of the main opposition groups , the ORG ( Justice ) Alliance , which consists of CARDINAL parties – including ORG , ORG , and ORG – joined forces and announced its campaign of action . Following this move , the opposition intensified its efforts , making further announcements and mobilising in GPE ’s provinces . The authorities responded by restricting freedom of movement , carrying out detentions , and threatening criminal charges against opposition campaign organisers . ...

From [ DATE ] the number of rallies in GPE steadily increased , as did the number of opposition supporters detained or otherwise intimidated . ORG estimated that from DATE until [ DATE ] , police had detained , searched , or harassed CARDINAL of its supporters . ...

Restrictions on Travel to GPE

From DATE until DATE , police restricted the movement of opposition supporters trying to travel to GPE to attend rallies by setting up road blocks , stopping cars , questioning the passengers , and denying permission to travel further to those they believed were opposition supporters . ...

On TIME of [ DATE ] , between [ TIME and TIME ] , police stopped CARDINAL members of ORG in CARDINAL cars at a check point as they were leaving PERSON , GPE ’s third largest city , on the main road to GPE . They were intending to participate in a rally at [ TIME ] in GPE . Police held the CARDINAL men at the Vanadzor police station , reportedly telling them , ‘ we have saved you from being beaten in Yerevan’ . Police took CARDINAL of the men to the local courts , which sentenced them to DATE of administrative detention for not following police orders . ...

Detentions : Due Process Violations and Torture

It is difficult to estimate the total number of opposition supporters detained since DATE . By DATE , ORG had documented the detentions of CARDINAL opposition supporters , and ORG estimated that CARDINAL of its members had been either detained , harassed , or searched ...

[ Some opposition supporters ] were detained and held for from TIME . Many were held and then released with no documentation or registration of the arrest ever having occurred . Others were taken to court , and given penalties of DATE in custody for petty offences under LAW . ...

Torture and ill - treatment in police custody

ORG documented several cases of torture and ill - treatment in police custody during the government crackdown against the opposition in DATE . Opposition party officials claim that during this period police regularly beat their supporters in police custody : “ There were lots of cases of people being beaten at the police stations after detention , especially those who came from the regions ” [ said the press secretary of ORG ] ... ”

The ORG contains a chapter devoted to GPE whose relevant extracts provide :

“ Opposition demonstrations in DATE ] were part of a DATE campaign of mass public protests launched by opposition political parties demanding the resignation of President PERSON . ... During their campaign CARDINAL of opposition supporters , including prominent opposition party members , were reportedly arbitrarily detained throughout the country and CARDINAL were sentenced to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention after trials that were said to have fallen far short of international fair trial standards ... ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP citizen who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE and GPE . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent , PERSON .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action for damages with the ORG ( PERSON ) , against the GPE , PERSON and the insurance company C.

On DATE the applicant ’s son entered the proceedings as the second plaintiff .

Before the period to be examined by ORG entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE ) ORG ( PERSON ) transferred the case to ORG ( PERSON ) , at the applicant ’s request . The first instance court adjourned CARDINAL hearings due to the applicant ’s absence and held CARDINAL hearing . On several occasions the applicant asked the court to stay the proceedings because the criminal proceedings against GPE , relevant for the case in question , were still pending .

On DATE the first instance court asked ORG ( PERSON ORG ) about the state of the criminal proceedings against FAC On DATE ORG informed ORG that the proceedings in question had been terminated because the statutory limitation had expired .

On DATE ORG requested the criminal case file against FAC from ORG . On DATE the case file was submitted .

On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ORG asked CARDINAL different ORG Offices for information about the criminal case file against GPE

On DATE ORG ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u PERSON ) informed the court that all proceedings against PERSON had been terminated due to the expiration of the statutory limitation .

At the next hearing before ORG on DATE the court stayed the proceedings ( mirovanje postupka ) because the applicant did not appear .

On DATE the applicant and his son asked the court to be exempted from the payment of the costs of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant ’s son filed an appeal against the decision to stay the proceedings .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and exempted the applicant and his son from paying the costs of the proceedings . The case file was forwarded to the appellate court upon the appeal of DATE .

On DATE the appellate court rejected the appeal as being lodged by an unauthorised person .

On DATE the applicant asked the first instance court to proceed with his case .

On DATE the court asked the applicant to clarify his claim and submit relevant medical and other documentation .

On DATE the applicant filed additional submissions .

On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s claim as incomprehensible and because the applicant had failed to submit the relevant documents .

On DATE the applicant and his son respectively appealed against the above decision .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON u GPE ) rejected both appeals .

Both the applicant and his son filed a request for revision with ORG on DATE respectively .

On DATE ORG granted the request and quashed the first and appellate decisions and remitted the case for a re - trial to ORG .

It appears that the proceedings are presently pending before the court of first instance .

The relevant parts of LAW of LAW on LAW ( entered into force on DATE , published in ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL May CARDINAL - hereinafter “ LAW on the LAW ” - Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu PERSON ) read as follows :

( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted in cases when a competent court has not decided within a reasonable time a claim concerning the applicant ’s rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him ...

( CARDINAL ) If the constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this Section is accepted , the ORG shall determine a time - limit within which a competent court shall decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision under paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW , the Constitutional Court shall fix appropriate compensation for the applicant in respect of the violation found concerning his constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid from the ORG budget within a term of DATE from the date when the party lodged a request for its payment .


The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE . The latter lives in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE , leaving CARDINAL children born in DATE and DATE . His claim for widows’ benefits was made on DATE and was rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE , leaving CARDINAL children born in DATE and DATE . His claim for widows’ benefits was made on DATE and was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV .