5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Yerevan. 6.  On 2 December 2006 the applicant gave a speech at an assembly organised by an NGO, the Unity of Armenian Volunteers. The assembly took place in the hall of the Yerevan State Choreography College and about 150 people attended. In his speech, the applicant called the authorities “bandits and internal enemies of the people who had to be got rid of by any means, including arms, armed struggle and rebellion”. He called for blood and fire to be thrown on the enemy and stated that there was no more need for analysing, debating, making comments or listening to experts – “the country had to be liberated from the internal enemy”. 7.  On 8 December 2006 the Investigative Department of the National Security Service (NSS) decided to institute criminal proceedings under Article 301 of the Criminal Code (CC) on the ground that public calls for a violent overthrow of the government had been made during the speeches given at the above assembly. 8.  On 9 December 2006 from 9.35 p.m. to 11.55 p.m. the applicant’s flat was searched in his presence. The applicant alleges that immediately after the search he was taken to the NSS. 9.  On 10 December 2006 from 10.05 a.m. to 1.15 p.m. the applicant was questioned as a suspect in office no. 487 of the NSS. It appears that the applicant admitted making the above statements at the assembly. 10.  On the same date at 2.30 p.m. an arrest record was drawn up, which stated that the applicant was arrested at that hour by the investigator in office no. 487 of the NSS on suspicion of being involved in the above offence. It appears that his passport was seized. 11.  On 12 December 2006 the applicant was formally charged under Article 301 of the CC with making public calls for a violent overthrow of the government. Another person, Z.S., who had also given a speech at the above assembly, was accused together with the applicant under Article 301 of the CC and also under Article 235 § 1 of the CC with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Their speeches had been recorded. 12.  On the same date the applicant was questioned as an accused. The applicant submitted that he had made the statements in question in a state of intoxication and confusion. They were made on the spur of the moment and he had not intended to incite anyone to a rebellion or a violent overthrow of the government. 13.  On the same date the investigator filed a motion with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, arguing that the applicant, if at large, could abscond and exert unlawful pressure on persons involved in the proceedings and seeking to have the applicant detained for a period of two months. The applicant alleges that the investigator submitted to the court only a transcript of his speech but not its audio recording, even if such a recording was at the investigator’s disposal. 14.  On the same date the District Court examined the investigator’s motion. The applicant, who was present at this hearing, objected to the motion, claiming that he had not been fully aware of the meaning of his words because of being intoxicated and irritated as a result of a family argument earlier on that day. The District Court, having examined the circumstances underlying the charge against the applicant, decided to grant the investigator’s motion on the ground that the applicant, if at large, could obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on persons involved in the proceedings. 15.  On 19 December 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision, claiming that it was unfounded, unlawful and unreasoned. 16.  On 26 December 2006 the applicant lodged a supplement to his appeal arguing, inter alia, that the investigator had failed to present any evidence to the court in support of his allegations that he would abscond or obstruct the investigation. The allegation that he would obstruct the investigation was rebutted by the fact that the investigating authority had at its disposal a recording of his speech. In such circumstances, it was impossible for him to obstruct the investigation in any manner. The court, however, had failed to consider this fact. The applicant further argued that the court decision should have been based on a reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence. 17.  On the same date the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal examined and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the investigator had submitted sufficient evidence, such as the records of the applicant’s interviews of 10 and 12 December 2006, linking the applicant to the event in question and suggesting the existence of a reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, the District Court had lawfully found that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant, if at large, would obstruct the investigation. 18.  On 27 December 2006 the applicant filed a motion with the District Court seeking to be released on bail. He argued that he was known to the investigating authority, he had a permanent place of residence and he had never absconded from the investigation. 19.  On 30 December 2006 another person, V.A., who was Z.S.’s friend, was also charged under Article 235 § 1 of the CC with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in the context of the same criminal proceedings. 20.  On 26 January 2007 the District Court dismissed the motion on the ground that the applicant, if at large, could abscond. 21.  On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision, arguing that it was unfounded, unlawful and unreasoned. 22.  On 15 February 2007 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there were not sufficient grounds to release the applicant on bail in view of the fact that, in the context of the same criminal case, the applicant’s co-accused, V.A., was suspected and then detained on the charge of illegal possession of large amounts of firearms and ammunition, and taking into account the nature and dangerous character of the act imputed to the applicant. 23.  On 1 February 2007 the investigator filed a motion with the District Court seeking to have the applicant’s detention period, which was to expire on 10 February 2007, extended by two months on the same grounds. 24.  On 7 February 2007 the applicant filed objections against this motion. He argued that the investigator had not produced any evidence in support of his allegations that he would abscond or obstruct the investigation. However, the allegation that he would abscond was unjustified since he had a big family and property in Armenia, and his passport had been seized. Furthermore, that allegation had not been confirmed by the District Court’s decision of 12 December 2006. As to the allegation that he would obstruct the investigation, that was rebutted by the fact that the investigating authority had at its disposal a recording of his speech. The applicant requested that he be released on bail. 25.  On the same date the District Court examined the investigator’s motion. The applicant’s lawyer was present at this hearing and made submissions. He filed a motion with the court, claiming that the applicant’s presence was necessary at the hearing and requesting that this presence be secured. The presiding judge asked the lawyer whether the applicant had expressed willingness to be present, to which the lawyer replied that he assumed that the applicant would wish to be present. The presiding judge then decided to refuse that motion on the ground that no such request had been made prior to the hearing and that the law did not require a detainee’s presence at hearings where detention was being extended. 26.  The District Court decided to grant the investigator’s motion, taking into account that there was a need to carry out a number of investigative measures, such as the questioning of members of the Unity of Armenian Volunteers, completing a number of examinations and disclosing the origin of weapons and ammunition found in V.A.’s possession, and finding that the applicant, if at large, could abscond and obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on persons involved in the proceedings. 27.  On 8 February 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 28.  On 1 March 2007 the applicant lodged a supplement to his appeal arguing, inter alia, that the procedure for extension of detention, envisaged by Article 139 § 1 of the CCP, had not been respected by the investigator and the District Court, and that he had not been present at the hearing of 7 February 2007, in violation of the guarantees of Article 285 § 2 of the CCP. As regards specifically the time-limits prescribed by Article 139 § 1 of the CCP, the applicant argued that his detention period was to be calculated from 9 December 2007, since that was the date on which he had been actually deprived of his liberty, and not from the date on which the arrest record had been drawn up, namely 10 December 2007. The applicant further claimed that the District Court’s decision was unreasoned and his continued detention unjustified, raising the same arguments as those presented in his objection of 7 February 2007. 29.  On the same date the Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the decision of the District Court, finding the applicant’s arguments to be unfounded. As regards the time-limits prescribed by Article 139 § 1 of the CCP, the Court of Appeal admitted that they had not been observed by both the investigator and the District Court, however, this was not a procedural violation of such importance as to affect the proper outcome of the detention hearing. The applicant’s lawyer was present at this hearing and made submissions. 30.  On 30 March 2007 the investigator filed a motion with the District Court seeking to have the applicant’s detention period, which was to expire on 10 April 2007, extended by two months on the same grounds. 31.  On 3 April 2007 the relevant District Election Committee registered the applicant, upon his application, as a single constituency candidate for the parliamentary election to take place in Armenia on 12 May 2007. 32.  On 5 April 2007 the District Court granted the investigator’s motion of 30 March 2007 on the same grounds as before. The applicant’s lawyer was present at this hearing and made submissions. 33.  On 10 April 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision in which he argued, inter alia, that his detention period had been extended without the consent of the Central Election Committee, in violation of the guarantees of Article 111 § 6 of the Electoral Code. The applicant further argued that, by remaining in detention, he was deprived of the possibility to participate in the election campaign on equal conditions with other candidates. He also raised arguments similar to those raised in his objection of 7 February 2007 and supplement of 1 March 2007. 34.  On 2 May 2007 the Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the decision of the District Court. The Court of Appeal found, inter alia, that the requirements of Article 285 of the CCP and Article 111 § 6 of the Electoral Code had been respected, since imposition of detention and extension of a detention period were two distinct concepts. Detention had been imposed on the applicant prior to his registration as a parliamentary candidate. The Court of Appeal further found that the grounds for the applicant’s continued detention as invoked by the investigator were valid. The applicant’s lawyer was present at this hearing and made submissions. 35.  On 5 June 2007 the prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case was transmitted to court for an examination on the merits. 36.  On 7 June 2007 Judge M. of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to take over the applicant’s criminal case. 37.  On 10 June 2007 the applicant’s detention period, authorised by the decision of 5 April 2007, expired. 38.  On 13 June 2007 the applicant applied to the chief of the detention facility where he was kept, claiming that his detention period, authorised by the District Court’s decision of 5 April 2007, had expired on 10 June 2007 and requesting that he be released. 39.  By a letter of 19 June 2007 the chief of the detention facility refused this request on the ground that the case had been transmitted to the District Court. 40.  On 22 June 2007 Judge M. decided to put the applicant’s criminal case down for trial. This decision stated that the preventive measure imposed on the applicant was to remain unchanged. 41.  On 6 August 2007 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. 42.  On 7 August 2007 the applicant lodged his completed application form with the Court. 43.  It appears that thereafter the applicant contested his conviction before the higher judicial instances.