I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SARGSYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2025-05-30
- Communication date: 2017-12-08
- Application number(s): 47131/15
- Country: ARM
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 3
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.843733
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are a family of four.
On 12 April 2012 a criminal case was instituted on account of murder of a third person who had been shot dead in the town of Gyumri.
The applicants allege that on the same date at 3 p.m. the applicant, Harutyun Sargsyan, (“the first applicant”) and his father, Samvel Sargsyan (“the third applicant”), appeared at Gyumri police station following a verbal summons, where the first applicant was subjected to ill-treatment by a number of police officers with the aim of extracting a confession.
He was punched, kicked and hit with a truncheon, including on his soles.
The ill-treatment continued after his transfer that evening to the Shirak regional police station, where he was beaten by the deputy head and several masked persons.
He was later taken to the office of the commanding officer, K.B., where he was beaten by K.B., his deputy, V.Y., and two persons in civilian clothing, one of whom later turned out to be a police officer, A.K.
He was beaten to the point of losing consciousness.
At one moment K.B.
showed his gun and threatened to stage an escape and shoot the first applicant.
According to the materials of the case, the first applicant was taken to Gyumri police station at 5.30 p.m. At 8.20 p.m. he was questioned by an investigator as a witness and at 12.35 a.m. an arrest record was drawn up.
On the night of 12 to 13 April 2012 the first applicant was transferred to the police holding cells of Yerevan police station.
It appears that no injuries were recorded at the time of his admission.
There the first applicant was allegedly taken to an office where Police Officer A.K.
and several masked persons continued beating him in an attempt to convince him to confess.
On 14 April 2012 the applicant was questioned as a suspect, during which he declared about his alleged ill-treatment in police custody.
On the same date, apparently after the lawyers who had been appointed as counsel for the applicant had raised the alarm, the applicant was visited at the police holding cells by an independent prison-monitoring group, which noted the following injuries on him: bruises on the upper part of the left leg, the right shoulder blade, the lower part of the left leg and the back side of the left ear; his left foot, right hand and right ear were swollen; and he could not move the fingers on his right hand.
Melania Sargsyan (“the second applicant”), Anahit Nikolyan (“the fourth applicant”) and the third applicant allege that they were unlawfully held at Gyumri police station between 12 and 14 April 2012, where a number of investigative measures were carried out with their participation.
On 15 April 2012 the first applicant was formally charged with murder.
On 16 April 2012 the first applicant was transferred to Yerevan-Kentron Remand Prison.
It appears that at the time of admission he underwent a medical examination and the following injuries were noted: a swelling on the back side of the right ear, a bruise measuring 7-8 by 10-11 cm sustained as a result of a blow on the left leg, a scratch on the left arm and scratches on the right part of the back.
The first applicant stated that the injuries had been sustained as a result of ill-treatment in police custody on 12-14 April.
It appears that the first applicant was taken to a medical centre where a computer-aided tomography of his head and an X-ray examination of his spine and arm were carried out.
On the same date the investigator examining the applicant’s criminal case ordered that he undergo a forensic medical examination.
That decision stated that it was necessary to establish whether there were injuries on the applicant’s body and, if so, to determine their origin, location and severity.
On 17 April 2012 a forensic medical expert examined the applicant at the remand prison and noted bruises on the back and front sides of the applicant’s right ear, four scratches on the right side of his back, a bruise on the left side of his back, a bruise on his left upper arm, a swelling in the area of his right temple, a bruise measuring 4 by 5 cm on his left shin and a bruise measuring 5 by 8.8 cm on his left hip.
The injuries had been caused by blunt objects, possibly during the indicated period.
The forensic medical expert requested that the X-ray results be provided to him, which could possibly affect his conclusions, and recommended that an X-ray of the joint between the first applicant’s right shin and foot be carried out, if it had not already been done.
On the same date the administration of the remand prison officially notified the relevant department at the General Prosecutor’s Office of the applicant’s injuries recorded at the time of his admission.
That notification was forwarded to the General Prosecutor on 19 April 2012 and further to the Special Investigative Service (SIS) on 23 April 2012.
By a letter of 25 April 2012 the independent monitoring group also notified the General Prosecutor of the results of their visit of 14 April 2012.
It appears that that letter was received at the General Prosecutor’s Office on 3 May 2012.
On 3 May 2012 an investigator from the SIS requested some relevant material from the authority investigating the applicant’s criminal case and on 7 May 2012 took a statement from the applicant, who provided details of his alleged ill-treatment.
It appears that further statements were taken from the head and deputy head of the Shirak regional police station, K.B.
and V.Y., as well as the head of the Gyumri unit of that body, A.S., all of whom denied having ill-treated the applicant.
On 25 June 2012 the SIS investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding the applicant’s allegations to be unsubstantiated, referring to the statements of K.B., V.Y.
and A.S., as well as the fact that the applicant had not made any such allegations during his questioning as a witness on 12 April 2012.
It appears that the applicant became aware of the investigator’s decision at some point in May 2013.
On 25 May 2013 the applicant contested the investigator’s decision before the General Prosecutor’s Office, which rejected his complaint by its decision of 6 June 2013.
On 15 June 2013 the applicant applied to the courts, alleging that the investigation had not been effective.
On 13 July 2013 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan dismissed his appeal.
On 26 August 2013 the Criminal Court of Appeal quashed and annulled all the above-mentioned decisions following an appeal by the applicant, noting a number of irregularities in the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.
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.
In the course of the investigation the SIS investigator took a number of measures: the first applicant was granted victim status; all four applicants were questioned; a new forensic medical examination of the first applicant was carried out; Officers K.B., V.Y.
and A.K.
were questioned, and they averred that the applicant had sustained his injuries prior to his appearance at the police station as a result of skirmishes with the murdered person’s relatives; several officers who were at the Yerevan police holding cells were questioned, including S.M., the feldsher who had been on duty at the time of the applicant’s admission; a number of formal confrontations were held between the first applicant and the police officers; and so forth.
On 25 March 2014 the SIS investigator decided not to prosecute K.B., V.Y., A.K.
or any other police officer, nor the feldsher S.M., finding no criminal conduct in their actions.
On 27 March 2014 the SIS investigator decided to discontinue the criminal case.
On 3 April 2014 the first applicant contested both decisions before the General Prosecutor who rejected his appeals on 14 April 2014.
On 29 May 2014 the first applicant contested both decisions before the courts.
On 31 July and 3 November 2014 respectively the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan and the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals and upheld the investigator’s decisions.
On 28 November 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation in a decision of 9 March 2015.
A copy of that decision was served on the applicant on 17 March 2015.
B.
Relevant domestic law For a summary of the relevant domestic provisions see the judgment in the case of Zalyan and Others v. Armenia (see nos.
36894/04 and 3521/07, §§ 148-54 and § 172, 17 March 2016).
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he suffered ill-treatment in police custody and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation.
Judgment
FIFTH SECTIONCASE 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,
(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;
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
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,
(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;
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