{"id":1323,"date":"2008-12-02T09:34:46","date_gmt":"2008-12-02T09:34:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rcstaging.co.uk\/ehrac\/?post_type=case-studies&p=1323"},"modified":"2023-10-31T21:06:11","modified_gmt":"2023-10-31T21:06:11","slug":"kirakosyan-2-others-v-armenia","status":"publish","type":"case-studies","link":"http:\/\/ehrac.org.uk\/en_gb\/key-ehrac-cases\/kirakosyan-2-others-v-armenia\/","title":{"rendered":"Kirakosyan (+ 2 others) v Armenia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\r\n
\r\n\t
\r\n\t\t
\n
\n
\n
\n

Case Nos. 31237\/03, 22390\/05 & 41698\/04<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Judgment date: 02\/12\/08<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

In February and March 2003 presidential elections took place in Armenia. Opposition parties organised protests alleging irregularities and challenging the president\u2019s re-election. Mr Kirakosyan and Mr Mkhitaryan participated in a rally on 21 March 2003 in Yerevan. Mr Ta- devosyan participated in demonstrations held in March to May 2004. All three men are involved in opposition parties.<\/p>\n

On 22 March 2003, the police visited Mr Kirakosyan and Mr Mkhitaryan at their homes in Karakert and told them\u00a0to come to the local police station. When the applicants refused to do so, they were arrested. The court hearing was very brief and the judge, allegedly declaring himself to be acting on instructions from higher authorities, sentenced them to ten days\u2019 administrative detention. They were kept in cramped and unsanitary cells, without bedding and with restricted access to toilet facilities. They could only obtain food and water by bribing the prison guards.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

In March 2004 Mr Tadevosyan was sentenced to two periods of ten days\u2019 administrative detention. He was kept with nine other inmates in a small cell, which\u00a0lacked adequate ventilation or light, and had restricted access to toilet facilities, food and water. All three applicants complained to the ECtHR about the conditions of their detention (Art. 3), their right to liberty (Art. 5) the unfairness of their trials (Art. 6) and the fact that they did not have a right to appeal (Art. 2 of Protocol 7).<\/p>\n

To read the full case summary, please follow the links below.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Links<\/h3>\n