Violation of the presumption of innocence by the phraseology of the decision referred to trial! Violations for unjustified extensions of temporary detention
JUDGMENT
Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia 15.06.21 (app, no. 13610/12)
SUMMARY
Referral court decision to a detainee trial for attempted drug trafficking and violation of the presumption of innocence by the phraseology of the decision.
A domestic court had stated in its decision to refer the plaintiff to trial that the referral was made “in order to determine… his criminal liability”. Such an explicit and unconditional report, and in fact by the same judge, who ultimately ruled on the applicant’s guilt, could be considered that the District Court had regarded the applicant’s guilt as a proven fact and that the purpose of the trial was merely to confirm of the predetermined result.
The fact that the applicant was found irrevocably guilty and sentenced to imprisonment could not invalidate his original right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
The ECtHR unanimously ruled that the presumption of innocence had been violated.
Also in this case there were repeated extensions of pre-trial detention on the grounds that he could have escaped and obstructed the proceedings by distorting evidence and exercising illegal influence over those involved in the proceedings.
The ECtHR ruled on the applicant’s detention on remand:
Violation of Article 5 § 1 due to lack of justification for the extension of detention during the trial and for an uncertain duration of his detention.
Infringement of Article 5 § 5, as the applicant did not have an enforceable right to compensation for non-pecuniary damage for his detention, either before or after the judgment of the Court.
The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 as regards the inability of the national courts to provide a relevant and adequate reason for his continued detention, and a violation of Article 5 στο 4 that the March 2012 hearing had taken place. in violation of the principle of equality of arms.
The ECtHR awarded EUR 5,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for legal costs.
PROVISIONS
Article 5
Article 6 par. 2
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Vardan Martirosyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1984 and, at the time
of the application, was detained at Nubarashen Remand Prison in Yerevan.
The case concerns the applicant’s detention during criminal proceedings against him on account of
alleged attempted drug smuggling, and repeated extensions of that detention on the grounds that
he might abscond and obstruct the proceedings by suppressing evidence and exerting unlawful
influence on those involved in the proceedings. It concerns the decisions taken by the courts during
the pre-trial and the trial proceedings, and the dismissal of the applicant’s appeals.
Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security) respectively of the European
Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains of the alleged unlawfulness of his detention
during the court proceedings, the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and
sufficient reasons for his continued detention and the alleged absence of an enforceable right to
compensation. Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a
court) of the European Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged lack of equality of arms at
a detention hearing before the appeal court. Under Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the
Convention, he alleges that his right to be presumed innocent was violated by the decisions taken by
the courts during the pre-trial and the trial proceedings.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 5 § 1 :
As far as the applicant’s detention during trial was concerned, the decision of March 2012 in that regard had been limited to a single phrase, finding that the preventive measure applied in respect of the applicant be left unchanged.
The absence of any grounds by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time might be incompatible with the principle of the protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1. The Court had already found a violation on that ground in circumstances similar to those in the present case (see, for example, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, 55669/00, 2 March 2006; Yeloyev v. Ukraine, 17283/02, 6 November 2008; Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine, 40774/02 and 4048/03, 27 November 2008; and Kharchenko v. Ukraine, 40107/02, 10 February 2011). Similarly to those cases, the District Court in its decision of March 2012 had simply upheld the detention imposed on the applicant at the pre-trial stage without providing any reasons whatsoever for its decision or setting any time-limits for his continued detention. That had left the applicant in a state of uncertainty as to the grounds and duration of his detention after that date. The later decision of February 2013, taken upon the applicant’s application for release, had not contained any specific reasons justifying the applicant’s detention and, moreover, had been taken almost one year after the decision of March 2012. It therefore could not be regarded as rectifying the flaws of that decision.
That appeared to have been the general practice at the material time, since the relevant provisions of domestic law had explicitly required the courts to provide reasons and to set time-limits for continued detention only during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings and it was not clear whether such requirements had applied to decisions taken at the preparatory stage of the trial, like in the present case. In those circumstances, the decision of March 2012 had not afforded the applicant an adequate protection from arbitrariness which was an essential element of the “lawfulness” of detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 1, and the applicant’s detention from March 2012 to August 2013 had therefore failed to comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 5 :
None of the domestic authorities had at any stage found – explicitly or implicitly – a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 5. He had therefore had no grounds to claim compensation under domestic law. Moreover, even assuming that he had had such grounds, the Court had already found that the Armenian law, prior to the amendments of 2014 and at the time of the present case, had failed to comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 5 in view of the impossibility to claim compensation for damage of a non-pecuniary nature (see Norik Poghosyan v. Armenia).
The Armenian law had since been amended, introducing non-pecuniary damage as a type of compensation that could be claimed for a breach of Convention rights, including the right to liberty and security of the person. However, it had not been shown that the applicant would be able to avail himself of a right to compensation for the violation of his Article 5 rights after the delivery of the Court’s judgment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 2 :
The applicant had complained that the wording of the decisions taken by the District Court in October and December 2011, examining whether the applicant’s continued detention had been justified, had violated his right to be presumed innocent. The District Court had been called upon to determine whether there had been a reasonable suspicion and relevant grounds justifying the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In so doing, it had referred to the nature and the dangerousness of the act “committed” by the applicant. Having regard to the impugned decisions and the context in which they had been taken, although the wording might be considered unfortunate, it could not be said to amount to an explicit and unqualified declaration of the applicant’s guilt before he had been proved guilty according to the law. The court had not referred to the applicant as the perpetrator of the offence and, in fact, all extension decisions had contained concomitant statements clearly stating that the applicant had been charged with that offence. Furthermore, there had been a rectification made by the Court of Appeal.
The situation was different in so far as the District Court’s decision of March 2012 committing the applicant to trial was concerned. That decision had been taken at the start of the applicant’s trial by the Domestic Court which had been called upon to determine the merits of the charge against the applicant and which should have exercised particular caution in its choice of words. However, the domestic court had stated that it was committing the applicant for trial “in order to hold [the applicant]…criminally liable”. Such an explicit and unqualified statement, moreover made by the same judge who had eventually ruled on the applicant’s guilt, had been well capable of being understood as meaning that the District Court had considered the applicant’s guilt as an established fact and that the purpose of the trial had simply been to confirm that pre-determined outcome. While the District Court might have merely committed a technical error in poorly wording its decision, it had never acknowledged that any such error had been committed or attempted to correct it at any stage of the proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Grubnyk v. Ukraine). Nor had such a rectification been made by any other domestic authority. The fact that the applicant had ultimately been found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment could not negate his initial right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law.
Conclusion: no violation, violation (unanimously).
The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 as regards the failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s continued detention on remand; and a violation of Article 5 § 4 in that the hearing of March 2012 had been conducted in violation of the principle of equality of arms.
Article 41: EUR 5,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
