CASE OF ARZUMANYAN v. ARMENIA
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)
Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković
5. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Yerevan. He is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and at the material time he headed a political movement called “Civil Disobedience”. 6. On 5 May 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 190 § 3 (1) of the Criminal Code (money laundering) in respect of the applicant. 7. On 7 May 2007 the applicant was arrested and on 10 May 2007 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of two months, upon an application by the investigator, taking into account the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence and the fact that the applicant, if remaining at large, could abscond and obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings. The applicant objected to that application, arguing that the investigator had failed to submit any wellfounded arguments in support of the allegation that he would abscond or obstruct justice, whereas he had no previous convictions, was known to be of good character, had a permanent place of residence and stable social life, and was a well-known public figure. The District Court’s decision stated that it could be contested before the Criminal Court of Appeal within fifteen days. 8. On 11 May 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal, raising similar arguments. 9. On 24 May 2007 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to uphold the decision of the District Court, finding that the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence, sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant could obstruct the investigation. 10. On 2 July 2007 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan extended the applicant’s detention by two months, upon an application by the investigator, finding that the applicant, if remaining at large, could obstruct the investigation, abscond, exert unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and commit another offence. The District Court’s decision stated that it could be contested before the Criminal Court of Appeal. 11. On 3 July and 3 September 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal, raising arguments similar to those previously raised. 12. On 24 July 2007 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to uphold the decision of the District Court, finding that the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence, the particular circumstances and complexity of the case; the investigative measures to be carried out and the applicant’s behaviour, namely his refusal to give any testimony, which was a factor slowing down the investigation, gave sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant could obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and also abscond. 13. On 31 August 2007 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan extended the applicant’s detention by two months, upon an application of the investigator, on the same grounds as before. The District Court’s decision stated that it could be contested before the Criminal Court of Appeal. 14. On 3 September 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal, raising arguments similar to those previously raised 15. On 6 September 2007 the investigator decided to replace the applicant’s detention with a written undertaking not to leave his residence and to release him in view of the fact that the investigative measures would take some time and it was no longer necessary to keep the applicant in detention. 16. On 17 September 2007 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to leave the applicant’s appeal of 3 September 2007 unexamined in view of the fact that he had been released.