Armenia to pay €68 600 in compensation
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued on 10 April two verdicts against the Republic of Armenia. Both of them refer to the persecution against the members of the opposition People's Party of Armenia (HZhK) and Republic (Hanrapetutyun) in April 2004. The ECHR ruled that Armenia is to pay EUR 68 600 in compensation.
In the case "Gabrielyan v Armenia" the Court held that a campaigner for the main opposition party in Armenia, Artak Gabrielyan, who was arrested in April 2004 to encourage participation the next day in a protest rally, should receive EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary losses and another EUR1,600 as compensation for court costs. Gabrielyan was given a one year suspended sentence in 2004 for calling for a violent overthrow of the government. Gabrielyan's case notably concerned his complaint that the State-appointed lawyer in the proceedings against him had failed to provide adequate legal assistance, and notably had not even met or spoken with him in private. He also complained that he had not been given the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses on whose statements his conviction was based. He relied, in particular, on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial, right to legal assistance of own choosing and right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the case "Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia" the Court again ruled in favour of opposition members.
The applicants, Hakob Hakobyan, Gor Martirosyan and Hamlet Petrosyan, are Armenian nationals who were born in 1967, 1969 and 1956, respectively. They live, respectively, in the town of Armavir and the villages of Nairi and of Nalbandyan (Armenia). Members of the main opposition parties, they alleged that they had all been arrested in March/April 2004, and placed in administrative detention for periods of between four and seven days both as punishment for their political allegiance and to prevent them from attending imminent opposition protest rallies in Yerevan. They relied, in particular, on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention. Further relying, in particular, on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), they also alleged that their detention had been unlawful and arbitrary, the offences they had supposedly committed having been fabricated. They further complained about the unfairness of the administrative proceedings against them, notably that their cases had been examined in an expedited procedure, therefore not giving them adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence, in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair trial).
Lastly, under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), they complained that they had no right to appeal against their convictions.
