4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Artashat, Armenia. He is a member of the National Democratic Union (NDU) political party. He is also the party's representative in the Ararat Region of Armenia. 5.  In 2003 a presidential election was held in Armenia with its first and second rounds taking place on 19 February and 5 March respectively. The applicant was involved with the work of the main opposition candidate and his responsibilities included monitoring the voting process. He alleges that, following the election, he prepared a report on various irregularities which had allegedly taken place during the election, but high officials from the Government and the Ararat Region tried to prevent him from making his report public, which he refused. 6.  The applicant further alleges that from February 2003 until his arrest on 20 May 2004 he was repeatedly harassed because of his political activity. In particular, the police frequently called him to the local police station without any reasons and demanded that he stop his political activities. Furthermore, on 9 April 2004 his son was arrested and subjected to an administrative fine for disobeying the lawful orders of police officers and using foul language. Finally, from the date of his participation in a major demonstration held on 10 April 2004 until 19 May 2004, the police officers of the Ararat Police Department visited his home on a daily basis between 5 a.m. and 9 a.m., demanding that his whereabouts be disclosed. As a result of these actions, he was forced to stay away from his home and returned there only on 20 May 2004 after, in reply to his complaint, he had allegedly been assured by the Ombudsman that these visits would stop. 7.  On 20 May 2004 the applicant was taken to Ararat Police Department. According to the record on bringing the applicant into custody (արձանագրություն անձին բերման ենթարկելու մասին), he was brought to the police station by two police officers at 1.15 p.m. for disobeying the lawful orders of a police officer and for using foul language. 8.  At the Police Department an administrative case was prepared against the applicant. One of the arresting police officers reported to the Chief of Police:
“On 20 May at 1 p.m. [we] were in the yard of building no. 26 on Kharazyan Street in Artashat where the resident of flat no. 55 of the same building, [the applicant], was speaking loudly with an unknown man. We approached and demanded [the applicant] to lower his voice and not to violate public order. Having heard this, [the applicant] turned from the unknown man towards us and spoke to us in the same manner, saying that it was not our business to judge how he was speaking and then he said that we should stop poking our noses into everything and pestering. We tried to calm him down but he continued insulting us and using insulting language. This lasted about five minutes, after which he was brought to the police station.” 9.  A record of an administrative arrest was drawn up in which it was stated that the applicant had “disobeyed lawful orders and used foul language” which constituted an offence under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO). It was also stated that the applicant had refused to make any statements. This record was signed by the applicant. 10.  On the same date the applicant was taken to the Ararat Regional Court (Արարատի մարզի առաջին ատյանի դատարան) where Judge S. examined his case and found him guilty under Article 182 of the CAO, sentencing him to eight days of administrative detention. This decision stated the following:
“On 20 May 2004 at around 1.15 p.m. next to building no. 26 on Kharazyan Street in Artashat the resident of the same building, [the applicant], was speaking loudly and making a loud noise with an unknown person, disturbing public order[. In this connection the police officers of the Ararat Police Department] tried to call him to order but [the applicant] continued to make a loud noise and to use foul language, not obeying the lawful orders of [the police officers].
[The applicant] refused to give explanations at the court hearing.
Police officers of the Ararat Police Department [N.S. and G.N.] stated that indeed on 20 May 2004 at around 1.15 p.m. next to building no. 26 on Kharazyan Street the resident of the same building, [the applicant], while being called to order, used foul language, telling them: “stop poking your noses into everything and pestering”, and [using] other disrespectful words, and disobeyed their lawful orders.
The court finds that [the applicant] has violated public order and disobeyed the lawful orders of [the police officers] so he should be subjected to an administrative penalty.” 11.  According to the record of the court hearing, the hearing started at 4.30 p.m. with the participation of the applicant and the two arresting police officers. The applicant did not wish to have a lawyer and did not file any motions. The judge read out the materials of the administrative case. The applicant refused to make any submissions. The two arresting police officers testified, repeating their earlier statements. The judge departed to a deliberation room, after which he came back and pronounced the decision. 12.  The applicant contests the circumstances of his trial as presented in the above record and alleges that he was taken to Judge S.'s office where the hearing took place at 3 p.m. He was not allowed legal representation. Nor was he allowed properly to familiarise himself with the materials of the case but was only told of the formal charges against him. Despite his requests he was not allowed to make any submissions, to question the two arresting police officers or to call other witnesses. The entire hearing lasted about 10 to 15 minutes. 13.  Following the hearing the applicant was taken to a detention facility. It appears that, while serving his sentence, he decided to go on a hunger strike. 14.  It appears that on 26 May 2004 the administration of the detention facility applied to the Regional Court, seeking to have the detention imposed on the applicant changed to some other administrative penalty due to the deterioration of the applicant's health. 15.  On 26 May 2004 the same Judge S. examined this request and decided to grant it partially. While refusing to change the type of penalty imposed on the applicant, the judge ordered that the applicant be released and the sentence be postponed for one month. 16.  On 3 June 2004 the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քրեական և զինվորական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարանի նախագահ). In his appeal, he argued in general terms that the decision of the Regional Court had been unfounded and unlawful and had been taken in violation of the procedural law. The Regional Court had failed to carry out an objective and thorough examination of the case and had convicted him without any compelling evidence, relying on the false testimony of the police officers. In support of his allegations the applicant presented in detail his account of the events of 20 May 2004. He submitted that this account could be confirmed by a number of witnesses, including his neighbours and family members, but the Regional Court had not summoned and examined them. Finally, he complained about the persecution by the police to which, allegedly, he had been subjected in the past. 17.  On 8 June 2004 the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal, on the basis of the written materials of the case, reviewed the decision of the Regional Court of 20 May 2004 with the following reasoning:
“[The applicant] was subjected to eight days of administrative detention under Article 182 of the CAO by the decision of the Ararat Regional Court of 20 May 2004 for having made loud noise, violated public order and maliciously disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers who tried to prevent those acts, next to building no. 26 on Kharazyan Street in Artashat on 20 May 2004 at around 1 p.m. ...
By applying to the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal [the applicant] seeks to have [the above decision] quashed and the proceedings terminated in view of the fact that he has not committed an administrative offence.
Having acquainted myself with the appeal and the materials of the administrative case (the reports [and] the records), I find that the appeal must be dismissed because [the applicant] did commit the acts in question on 20 May 2004, in connection with which he had been brought to the police station, an appropriate record had been drawn up and an administrative penalty under Article 182 of the CAO had been imposed by the first instance court.” 18.  The President of the Court of Appeal nevertheless decided, due to the applicant's state of health, to mitigate the sentence to six days of administrative detention, which the applicant had already served.