5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in the town of Vanadzor, Lori Region of Armenia. 6.  The applicant worked as the Lori Regional Branch Manager of the Credit Service Bank (hereafter, the Bank). 7.  On 19 March 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted on account of abuse of official capacity by the former management of the Bank through embezzlement of funds entrusted to it by another company. 8.  On 8 April 2002 the Lori Regional Court issued a judicial warrant authorising the search of the premises of the Bank’s Lori Regional Branch with the aim of seizing relevant accounting documents. 9.  On 22 April 2002 the applicant was questioned as a witness and was asked various questions about the Bank’s activities in dealing with the funds entrusted to it. According to the applicant, during the following year he was questioned as a witness on seven other occasions. 10.  On 29 November 2002 the prosecutor’s office ordered an expert examination of the Bank’s financial records. 11.  On 1 April 2003 the applicant was arrested. 12.  On 2 April 2003 the applicant was formally charged under paragraph 4 of Article 90, paragraph 4 of Article 90 in conjunction with Article 17, and Article 187 of the former Criminal Code (hereafter, the former CC) with embezzlement through abuse of his official capacity and official falsification through preparation and use of false accounting documents. It appears that ten other persons, including A.D., were also charged with involvement in the above crimes and later stood trial with the applicant. 13.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the investigator’s motion seeking to have the applicant placed in pre-trial detention for a period of two months. In doing so, the District Court referred to the nature and degree of dangerousness of the acts of which the applicant was accused, as well as all the grounds envisaged by Article 135 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the CCP). 14.  On 16 April 2003 the applicant, who had a defence lawyer, lodged an appeal against this decision. 15.  On 2 May 2003 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 16.  On 23 May 2003 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to grant the investigator’s motion seeking to have the applicant’s detention extended for two months, referring to the need to carry out further investigative measures. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision. 17.  On 23 July 2003 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to grant the investigator’s motion seeking to have the applicant’s detention extended for one more month, namely until 1 September 2003, on the same ground. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 18.  On 1 August 2003 a new Criminal Code (hereafter, the new CC) entered into force in Armenia. 19.  On 11 August 2003 the charges against the applicant were adapted to the new CC and on 12 August 2003 he was formally charged under Article 179 § 3 (1), Article 179 § 3 (1) in conjunction with Article 38 and 325 § 2 of the new CC. 20.  On 26 August 2003 the applicant was informed of the conclusion of the investigation and was granted access to the case file which apparently consisted of 34 volumes of written materials. It appears that the applicant finished familiarising himself with the materials of the case on 10 November 2003. 21.  On 11 November 2003 the applicant complained to the prosecutor that, inter alia, he had been kept in detention since 1 September 2003 without a court decision and requested to be released. 22.  On 13 November 2003 the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. 23.  On 14 November 2003 the prosecutor approved the indictment and the case was transmitted to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan for examination. 24.  On 17 November 2003 Judge A. of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to admit the case to his proceedings. 25.  On 1 December 2003 Judge A. decided to set the case down for trial, fixing the date of the first hearing for 8 December 2003 and finding, inter alia, that there were no grounds to change or cancel the applicant’s detention. 26.  Between 8 December 2003 and 13 September 2005 the District Court held 57 hearings at varying intervals, ten of which were apparently adjourned. At the trial the indictment was maintained by prosecutors T. and A. 27.  As it appears from the handwritten court transcripts, at the hearing of 15 December 2004 the applicant filed a motion seeking to be released from detention. Upon a request of a representative of the victim, Judge A. postponed the examination of the applicant’s motion until the next court hearing due to take place on 27 December 2004. At the hearing of 27 December 2004 the applicant requested the trial court not to examine his motion lodged at the previous hearing, and Judge A. left it without examination. 28.  According to the applicant, during the hearing of 27 December 2004 two of his co-defendants lodged two other motions with the trial court. At the time those motions were made, his written motion to be released, lodged at the previous court hearing, was still lying on the judge’s desk. As the judge retired to the deliberation room in order to decide on the two motions of the co-defendants, he expected the judge to examine his motion too. However, as the judge came back and pronounced his decision on the two co-defendants’ motions only, he realised that his motion to be released had not been examined. The judge’s behaviour caused considerable stress to him and his family members, who were present in the court room. As a result, a dispute broke out between him and the judge, which grew into a polemic involving all the co-defendants, their defence lawyers and the court audience. The court room became very noisy and the judge announced that he was going to adjourn the hearing. It was at that moment that he gave in to his emotions and announced that if the judge continued subjecting him and his family to psychological anguish, he would better never examine the motion. Immediately thereafter, the judge adjourned the hearing and left the court room. The judge apparently took his emotional announcement as an explicit request to withdraw the motion as he then decided to leave it without examination. In substantiation of his account of the events, the applicant attached written statements made to that effect by one of the co-accused, A.D. and his mother. 29.  On 14 November 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan delivered its judgment. The District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 179 § 2 (3) in conjunction with Article 38, and Article 325 § 1 of the new CC of abetting one of the co-defendants to embezzle funds, and of falsification and use of documents such as various credit agreements concluded between the Bank and a third person. The District Court sentenced the applicant to two years and six months’ imprisonment under Article 179 § 2 in conjunction with Article 38, and discontinued the proceedings under Article 325 § 1 by applying a statute of limitations. The applicant was immediately released from detention since he had already served the term of his sentence. 30.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal. It appears that during the examination of the appeal by the Criminal Court of Appeal the applicant submitted that he could not have been considered as a perpetrator of an offence under Article 325 § 1. 31.  On 10 April 2006 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court finding, inter alia, that any person who had reached the age of 16 and had a legal capacity, including a private employer, could be considered as a perpetrator under Article 325 § 1. 32.  On 20 April 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. In his appeal he argued, inter alia, that Article 325 of the new CC should not have been applied to his case as documents of a private bank could not be considered as official and, consequently, their falsification fell outside its scope. 33.  On 1 June 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Court of Cassation found, inter alia, that:
“Documents to which public authorities give legal significance are considered official. Official documents may be issued both by public authorities, their officials and bodies of local self-government, and by legal entities, commercial and other types of organisations. Such documents as credit or other financial documents drawn up by commercial banks can also be considered as [official documents], since they also have legal significance...”