SARGSYAN proti Arménii

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF SARGSYAN v. ARMENIA

(Application no. 47131/15)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 May 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Sargsyan v. Armenia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

María Elósegui, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 47131/15) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 17 September 2015 by an Armenian national, Mr Harutyun Sargsyan, born in 1983 and at the material time detained in Yerevan (“the applicant”), who was represented by Ms Sahakyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the alleged ill‑treatment and lack of effective investigation to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in police custody and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment (Article 3 of the Convention).

2. On 12 April 2012 the applicant was taken to the Gyumri police station to be questioned as a witness in connection with a murder. Later that night he was transferred to the Shirak regional police station, where he was questioned by the investigator, and on the next day to the police holding cells in Yerevan.

3. On 14 April 2012, after charges were brought against him, the applicant was questioned as a suspect, during which he alleged that he had been ill‑treated by the police officers at all three facilities for the purpose of extracting a confession.

4. On the same date the applicant was visited at the Yerevan police holding cells by an independent prison monitoring group who noted a number of injuries on his body and head.

5. On 16 April 2012 the applicant was transferred to a detention facility where a number of injuries were recorded on his body and head following a medical examination conducted by the facility’s doctor.

6. On 17 April 2012 a forensic medical expert examined the applicant following the investigator’s order and similarly recorded a number of injuries on his body and head.

7. On the same date the administration of the detention facility notified the General Prosecutor’s Office of the applicant’s injuries. This information was then forwarded to the Special Investigative Service (“SIS”) on 23 April 2012 for investigation. Having taken statements from a number of police officers, including the alleged perpetrators, on 25 June 2012 the SIS refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding the applicant’s allegations to be unsubstantiated. In doing so, the SIS relied specifically on the statements of the police officers who denied having ill-treated the applicant, as well as the fact that the applicant had not made any allegations of ill-treatment when questioned by the investigator on 12 April 2012. A copy of that decision was served on the applicant on 25 May 2013, after which he contested it before the courts.

8. On 26 August 2013 the Criminal Court of Appeal quashed that decision, noting a number of shortcomings in the investigation.

9. On 9 September 2013 the General Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 309 § 2 (exceeding official authority, accompanied with violence) and Article 315 § 1 (official negligence) of the Criminal Code on account of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, and on the same date transferred the criminal case to the SIS for investigation. Having conducted several further investigative measures, on 25 March 2014 the SIS decided not to prosecute any of the police officers, finding no criminal conduct in their actions, and on 27 March 2014 it discontinued the criminal proceedings. The applicant unsuccessfully contested these decisions before the courts. A copy of the final decision taken upon his appeal by the Court of Cassation was served on him on 17 March 2015.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

10. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-months’ rule enshrined in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They pointed to the fact that, in its decision of 26 August 2013, the Criminal Court of Appeal had acknowledged that the investigation had not been effective and, since at the material time the applicant had had no possibility under domestic law to claim non-pecuniary damage, there was no other procedure that he could have pursued. They argued that, in such circumstances, the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal was to be considered as the final decision and the applicant should have applied to the Court within six months from the date of that decision but failed to do so.

11. The Court considers that the Government’s preliminary objection is closely linked to the substance of the applicant’s complaint and must be joined to the merits.

12. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

13. The general principles concerning the prohibition of ill-treatment and the obligation to carry out an effective investigation of such allegations have been summarised in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81‑90, 100‑01 and 114-23, ECHR-2015).

14. In the present case, the Government argued, with reference to the results of the investigation conducted by the authorities, that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated. They alleged that there had been skirmishes between the applicant and the relatives of the murdered person prior to the applicant’s arrest, which were the probable cause of his injuries.

15. The Court notes that it is undisputed that between 12 and 16 April 2012 the applicant was kept in police custody. It is also undisputed that a number of injuries were noted on his body and head while he was still in police custody (see paragraph 4 above) and following his transfer to a detention facility (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above). The Government’s allegation that the applicant’s injuries had been sustained prior to being taken into police custody, most notably as a result of skirmishes between him and the relatives of the murdered person, is not supported with any evidence. Moreover, it appears that this allegation was based on a similar allegation made by the police officers in the course of the investigation. There is no evidence in the case file to suggest that the applicant’s injuries had been sustained prior to his arrest. The Court therefore considers that the Government have failed to provide a plausible explanation for the applicant’s injuries and that the applicant has suffered inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.

16. As regards the investigation conducted by the authorities, a number of shortcomings were noted by the Criminal Court of Appeal in its decision of 26 August 2013 (see paragraph 8 above). In particular, the court held, inter alia, that the SIS had taken a biased decision by relying on the statements of the police officers; the investigation had been launched only after the notification by the administration of the detention facility (see paragraph 7 above) despite the fact that the applicant had already raised his allegations several days earlier (see paragraph 3 above); the materials concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment had been requested by the SIS after a delay of ten days, while the applicant had been questioned by the SIS 25 days after the events in question; no evidence had been obtained regarding the alleged skirmishes between the applicant and the relatives of the murdered person; no confrontations had been held during the investigation; until 23 April 2012 the investigation had been conducted by the same investigator who had been investigating the criminal case against the applicant and who had questioned the applicant during the same period when – and in the same department where – the alleged ill-treatment had taken place; and the SIS’ decision refusing the institution of criminal proceedings had been served on the applicant with a delay of eleven months. The Court cannot but endorse the findings of the Criminal Court of Appeal.

17. The Court notes that, while a criminal case was instituted following that decision, the reopened investigation was conducted in a similar manner. The SIS once again relied heavily on the statements of the police officers, who were clearly not impartial witnesses, when terminating the proceedings, despite the fact that no evidence had been obtained in support of the allegation that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted prior to his arrest. While a number of additional investigative measures was conducted, these appear to have been a mere formality and had no impact on the investigator’s findings. In brief, the reopened investigation failed to remedy any of the initial shortcomings.

18. In the light of the above, it cannot be said that the investigation conducted by the authorities into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment was impartial, thorough and prompt, as required by Article 3.

19. As regards the Government’s preliminary objection, the Court disagrees with the Government that the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal of 26 August 2013 should be considered as the “final decision” within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In fact, as already noted above, the investigation was reopened following that decision and, in the Court’s opinion, the authorities had the possibility to conduct an effective inquiry and to bring those responsible for the applicant’s ill-treatment to justice, which they failed to do. The applicant, however, cannot be blamed for having waited until the completion of that investigation before seizing the Court. It follows that the Government’s preliminary objection should be dismissed.

20. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural limbs.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

21. The applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and 3,360,000 Armenian drams in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

22. The Government failed to submit their comments in reply within the fixed time-limit and they were not included in the case file.

23. The Court awards the applicant EUR 11,700 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

24. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 2,000 covering costs for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural limbs;
3. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 11,700 (eleven thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 May 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Martina Keller María Elósegui
Deputy Registrar President