Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor

 The European Court of Human Rights has obliged Armenia to pay 2000 euros. The court considers that the domestic courts of Armenia did not have relevant and sufficient reasons for the detention of Mikayelyan. 

In 2016, the armed rebellion by the Sasna Tsrer group was followed by demonstrations, marches, and gatherings in several streets of the Yerevan city. Gagik Mikayelyan, who was working as a teacher in one of the schools of Yerevan at that time, exercised his right to peaceful assembly like thousands of people. On July 20, the officers of the RA police arrested G. Mikayelyan and took him to the police department. The latter was accused of the well-known crime of "participating in mass riots" that was used to disperse demonstrations and protesters at that time. 

Since 2016, Ani Chatinyan, the lawyer of HCAV, undertook the protection of Mikayelyan’s rights. The protection of rights included protecting Mikayelyan in the domestic courts as well as disputing the legality of detention both in the domestic courts and in the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR reiterates that, according to its established case law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings. The ECHR has also held that justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities. When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures for ensuring this person’s appearance at trial. The requirement for the judicial officer to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the detention – in addition to the persistence of reasonable suspicion – applies already at the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand, that is to say “promptly” after the arrest. The complaint of HCAV is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

  On September 26, 2024, ECHR issued the decision of Mikayelyan v. the Republic of Armenia, in which it recorded that the domestic courts of Armenia did not have relevant and sufficient reasons for the detention of Mikayelyan and set a compensation of 2,000 euros. 

  Chatinyan notes that the announcement of similar judgments against the Republic of Armenia is very important both from the point of view of the violation cases of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention and from recognition of the fact of Article 5 breach, for in the RA, detention is always chosen as a measure of restraint and is applied as a punitive measure, especially during demonstrations, marches, and peaceful assemblies.