4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving his sentence in a penitentiary institution. 1.  Institution of two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant in Armenia and Ukraine
(a)  Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant in Armenia 5.  On 24 June 2002 criminal proceedings no. 12207102 were instituted on account of premeditated murder of several individuals committed on that day in Yerevan. The applicant, whose whereabouts were unknown, was suspected of committing the murders. 6.  On 5 July 2002 a charge of illegal possession of firearms was brought against the applicant under Article 232 of the former Criminal Code of Armenia and a motion was filed by the investigator seeking to have him detained. 7.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted this motion in the applicant’s absence and ordered his detention for a period of two months, stating:
“Having examined the motion filed by [the investigator] and the materials of the criminal case, taking into account the nature and the gravity of the imputed offence and the fact that the only penalty envisaged for the offence committed by the accused is imprisonment, the court came to the conclusion that the materials obtained in the criminal case provide sufficient grounds to believe that the motion must be granted, since the accused is hiding from the authority dealing with the case and his whereabouts are unknown.” 8.  Since the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown, a search was initiated for him. 9.  On 11 September 2002 the charge against the applicant was modified by the General Prosecutor’s Office of Armenia and he was accused of murder, attempted murder and illegal possession of firearms under Articles 99, 15-99 and 232 of the former Criminal Code of Armenia. 10.  On 25 October 2002 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were stayed since his whereabouts could not be established.
(b)  The applicant’s detention in Ukraine in connection with another criminal charge 11.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings no. 01710009 were instituted in Ukraine on account of the murder of an individual committed on 31 March 2001 in Poltava, Ukraine. 12.  According to the applicant, on 24 January 2003 he was arrested in Voronezh, Russia, by Ukrainian law enforcement officers and forcibly transported to Poltava, where on 27 January 2003 he was placed in custody. 13.  On 30 January 2003 the Kyivsky District Court of Poltava Region ordered the applicant’s detention. 14.  On 13 March 2003 the applicant was formally accused of murder and threat to kill under Articles 115 and 129 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. 15.  It appears that the applicant’s detention was thereafter extended on several occasions by the Ukrainian courts. 16.  On 30 January 2004 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Armenia requested the applicant’s extradition to Armenia in connection with criminal case no. 12207102. 17.  On 12 April 2004 the Ukrainian authorities decided to extradite the applicant to Armenia and to transmit criminal case no. 01710009 to the Armenian authorities for further investigation. 18.  On 18 May 2004 the applicant was extradited to Armenia, where he was immediately detained. 19.  On 24 May 2004 criminal proceedings no. 12207102 were resumed. 20.  On 21 June 2004 the criminal charge against the applicant was modified and brought into conformity with the new Criminal Code adopted in August 2003. The applicant was accused under Articles 104, 34-104 and 235 of the Criminal Code of murder and attempted murder of several individuals, and illegal possession of firearms. 21.  On 12 July 2004 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan examined and granted the investigator’s motion seeking to extend the applicant’s detention, which was to expire on 18 July 2004, for another two months, namely until 18 September 2004. The District Court found that it was necessary to extend the applicant’s detention in order to carry out a number of investigative measures. Such measures, according to the investigator, included the identification of the applicant by three eyewitnesses, their further questioning, possible confrontations between the applicant and these witnesses, a number of medical examinations and activities aimed at finding the murder weapon. 22.  On the same date the investigator dealing with the case found that it was impossible to continue the investigation into criminal case no. 01710009 on Armenian territory and decided to return that case to the Ukrainian authorities. 23.  On 13 September 2004 the investigation into criminal case no. 12207102 was over and the applicant was granted access to the case file until 23 September 2004.
(b)  The applicant’s detention during the trial proceedings 24.  On 24 September 2004 the case was transferred to the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan to be examined on the merits. 25.  On 6 October 2004 the District Court decided to set the case down for trial, fixing the date of the first hearing for 14 October 2004. This decision also stated that “the preventive measure imposed on the accused should remain unchanged”. 26.  Between 14 October 2004 and 13 October 2005 the District Court held 52 hearings, with a maximum interval of about one and a half months, during which numerous witnesses were questioned and evidence was examined. The applicant remained in detention throughout this period.
(c)  Remittal of the case for further investigation 27.  On 14 October 2005 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan decided to remit the case for further investigation. It found that the investigating authority had failed to ensure a fair examination of the case and to carry out an objective and thorough investigation. In such circumstances, the court was prevented from reaching an objective conclusion on the applicant’s guilt or innocence and the omissions in question could not be corrected during the trial. The District Court also stated in its decision that “the detention should remain unchanged”. 28.  The applicant, the prosecutor and the victims lodged appeals against this decision. In his appeal the applicant argued, inter alia, that the District Court had failed to provide reasons for its decision to extend his detention or to take into account the fact that he had been detained since 2003 in violation of Article 5 of the Convention. 29.  On 9 November 2005 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the District Court, adding that “the reasons for keeping the applicant in detention still persisted”. 30.  The applicant, the prosecutor and the victims lodged appeals on points of law. In his appeal on points of law the applicant reiterated his arguments raised in his appeal against the decision of the District Court of 14 October 2005. 31.  On 16 December 2005 the Court of Cassation decided to leave the applicant’s appeal unexamined, finding that it did not meet the formal requirements. The Court of Cassation added that the applicant’s detention “should remain unchanged”. 32.  On 26 December 2005 the case file was transferred to the General Prosecutor’s Office. 33.  On 27 December 2005 the investigator took over the case and filed a motion seeking to extend the applicant’s detention by two months, namely until 28 February 2006. It was stated in the motion that the applicant had been in pre-trial detention from 18 May to 13 September 2004, while his detention period had been authorised until 18 September 2004. This was the second motion seeking an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. It was necessary to extend his detention, taking into account the need to carry out a number of investigative measures, the fact that the applicant had committed a grave crime and that remaining at large he might obstruct the proceedings and abscond, as well as the fact that the applicant’s detention was to expire on 30 December 2005. 34.  On 29 December 2005 the applicant lodged objections to this motion. He submitted, inter alia, that the motion had been filed in violation of the time-limits prescribed by Article 139 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) (see paragraph 54 below). In accordance with the relevant provisions of the CCP, detention in pre-trial proceedings could be imposed and extended only by a court upon an investigator’s motion. The last occasion on which his detention had been extended was on 12 July 2004 until 18 September 2004. Even if the time-limits prescribed by Article 139 § 1 of the CCP were to be calculated from the Court of Cassation’s decision of 16 December 2005, they would still have been violated, given that 13 days had already passed since that date. As to the investigator’s argument that his detention was to expire on 30 December 2005, this was not true since his detention had expired on 18 September 2004. The CCP required that a detainee be released if the detention period had expired and had not been extended. In his case it was not even clear which detention period, that is authorised by which court decision, was being extended. He was being kept in detention without a court decision. The applicant lastly asked the court to indicate the court decision, pursuant to which his detention period was to expire on 30 December 2005. 35.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted this motion, finding:
“Having examined the motion filed by [the investigator] and the materials of the criminal case, having heard the accused and his lawyers, the court has found that it is necessary to extend [the applicant’s] detention period in order to carry out a number of investigative measures in the criminal case...” 36.  On 10 January 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal in which he made submissions similar to the ones in his objections. He further added that the District Court’s decision was unreasoned and that it had failed to address the arguments raised in his objections. 37.  On 3 February 2006 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal found that the decision of the District Court was reasoned and decided to uphold it. This decision stated that it entered into force from the moment of its delivery. 38.  On 9 February 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, raising similar arguments. 39.  By a letter of 27 February 2006 the Chairman of the Court of Cassation returned the appeal unexamined in accordance with the decision of the Council of Court Chairmen (ՀՀ դատարանների նախագահների խորհուրդ) of 8 December 2005 taken in connection with the entry into force of the constitutional amendments concerning the status of the Court of Cassation. 40.  On 23 February and 26 April 2006 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court, upon the investigator’s relevant motions, extended the applicant’s detention on two further occasions. In addition to the reasons given before, the District Court stated that the applicant, if released, could obstruct the investigation of the case by exerting unlawful influence on persons involved in the proceedings and could abscond. 41.  These decisions were upheld by the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal on 21 March and 23 May 2006 respectively. The Court of Appeal added that the applicant was accused of a very grave crime, that he had fled before and a search had been initiated to find him and that, if released, he could abscond and obstruct the investigation. 42.  On 4 May 2006 the Court of Cassation once again decided to leave the applicant’s appeal on points of law lodged against the Court of Appeal’s decision of 21 March 2006 unexamined apparently for the same reasons as before.
(d)  Resumption of the trial proceedings and the applicant’s conviction at first instance 43.  On 24 May 2006 the case was transmitted to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan to be examined on the merits. 44.  On 25 May 2006 the applicant requested the District Court to terminate the prosecution and to release him. 45.  On 2 June 2006 the District Court decided to set the case down for trial, fixing the date of the first hearing for 19 June 2006. In its decision, the District Court stated that the detention was to remain unchanged. 46.  The hearing of 19 June 2006 was adjourned for unknown reasons for an indefinite period of time. 47.  On 16 October 2006 the District Court held the first hearing on the applicant’s case. This was followed by the court hearings of 17 and 18 October 2006. The District Court held further hearings on 14-16, 20 and 22-23 November 2006. 48.  At the hearing of 20 November 2006 the applicant and his lawyers verbally requested that the preventive measure imposed on him be modified and that he be released on the ground that, inter alia, his detention had been lengthy. 49.  On the same date the District Court decided to refuse this request, finding:
“[The applicant] has been accused of crimes envisaged under Article 104 § 2 (1) and (6), Article 34-104 § 2 (1) and (6) and Article 235 § 1 of the Criminal Code. Detention was imposed on him as a preventive measure by a court decision in the course of the investigation. The reasons contained in the above-mentioned decision still persist at this stage of the proceedings...” 50.  Further hearings were held on 22 and 23 November 2006, 11-13 December 2006, 16, 17 and 30 January 2007, 1, 14-16, 26 and 27 February 2007, and 28 March-2 April 2007. On the latter date the District Court retired to the deliberation room but decided to resume the trial on 12 April 2007. The following hearings were held on 27 June, 11 and 26 July and 21 August 2007, following which the District Court again retired to the deliberation room. 51.  On 24 September 2007 the District Court of Yerevan found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. At least 37 witnesses were heard in the course of the proceedings and a number of investigative measures undertaken, including several medical and other examinations.