CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 3 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 10804/17 Hovhannes HARUTYUNYAN against Armenia and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 15 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In the early morning of 17 July 2016 an armed group stormed the Patrol Service Battalion of the Police of Yerevan (“the PSB”), taking police officers hostage and putting forward political demands to the Government ( inter alia , that all political prisoners be released; no piece of land be ceded to Azerbaijan; and that the then Government resign). From 17 to 30 July 2016 protest rallies gripped the city, apparently in support of the armed group. During one of such demonstrations, namely on 29 July 2016 the protesters diverted from the original route of the rally and marched to a neighbourhood located close to the PSB, but were stopped by a police cordon. In video material submitted by the applicant police officers demanded the leaders of the protest march that they leave the area within five minutes as it was a security zone. However, the latter objected that the order of the police was impossible to fulfill within that timeframe. Several minutes later, the police started firing stun grenades indiscriminately at the protesters. As a result, many protesters, including the first, third and fourth applicants, sustained shrapnel injuries and burns to different parts of their bodies. As regards the second applicant, she claims that a police officer threw a stun grenade into a house where several demonstrators, including herself, had found refuge from the grenade explosions; she was injured as a result. On 3 August 2016 a criminal investigation was opened on account of, inter alia , inflicting injuries on persons as a result of the dispersal of the demonstration of 29-30 July 2016 by the use of stun grenades. All four applicants were accorded the status of a victim within the framework of the above criminal case. On 28 December 2016 the then head of the police troops L.Y., allegedly in charge of the impugned operation, was awarded with a medal for “excellent maintenance of public order” by a presidential decree. The applicants also submit that other implicated police officers, including L.Y., were neither reprimanded nor dismissed. The above-noted criminal investigation was stayed and reopened several times. According to the latest information (October 2024), the investigation is currently stayed. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that the use of stun grenades by the police to disperse the demonstration of 29-30 July 2016 and resulting in their injuries, was neither lawful nor necessary by their own conduct. The second to fourth applicants further complain about the lack of clear legal framework on the use of stun grenades when policing demonstrations and of the failure of the police to give them an in advance warning before firing stun grenades. The applicants further complain under the same Article of the lack of effective investigation into their alleged ill-treatment. Relying on the same arguments as those made under Article 3, the applicants also allege a violation of Article 11 of the Convention because the dispersal of the demonstration by the use of stun grenades was neither lawful nor necessary and amounted to a disproportionate interference with their rights under that Article. The first applicant additionally invokes Article 10 of the Convention in connection to the same events. Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention, the second to fourth applicants essentially complain about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into their alleged ill-treatment and the violation of their rights guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention. Invoking Article 13, the first applicant complains that he had no effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and   11 of the Convention, including the possibility to claim compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 11 of the Convention (see questions 2 and 5 below), as required by Article   35 §   1 (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014)?   2.     Regard being had to the applicants’ injuries, have they been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention as a result of the use of stun grenades by the police to disperse the demonstration of 29-30 July 2016?   The Government are requested to clarify whether the use of stun grenades complied with the domestic regulations and whether their use was properly authorised ( see among other authorities Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v.   Russia , nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, §§ 62-64, 13 October 2020, and Geylani and Others v. Türkiye , no. 10443/12, §§ 69-70 and 84-86, 12   September 2023).   3. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§   114-123, ECHR 2015), was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? Regard being had to the applicants’ complaint that L.Y., allegedly in charge of the impugned operation of 29 July 2016, was awarded with a medal for excellent maintenance of public order, was the investigation independent in the present case?   4. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, the parties are invited to clarify whether, in the light of the Court’s case-law under Article   11 of the Convention, the assembly was peaceful (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, § 92, ECHR 2015, and Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, § 491, 21 January 2021).   5. If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2 (see Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia , nos. 35880/14 and   75926/17, §§ 84-86, 13 October 2020, and Geylani and Others , cited above, §§ 109-111)?   6. Did the applicants have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in relation to their complaints under Articles   3 and 11?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 10804/17 27/01/2017 Hovhannes HARUTYUNYAN 1988 Yerevan Armenian Syuzanna SOGHOMONYAN 2. 11069/17 28/01/2017 Ani AGHABABYAN 1989 Yerevan Armenian Anna MARALYAN 3. 11079/17 28/01/2017 Gevorg MNATSAKANYAN 1990 Yerevan Armenian Anna MARALYAN 4. 11081/17 28/01/2017 Khachatur PETROSYAN 1971 Yerevan Armenian Anna MARALYAN