On July 22, 2021 the Court held, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, held, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention as well as held by six votes to one that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 30,000 (thirty-thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
The Court found that the respondent Government have failed to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation to show that the applicant’s serious mental injuries identified immediately upon his release and diagnosed later were neither entirely, mainly or partly caused by the conditions of his detention and the treatment he underwent while in the respondent State’s captivity. It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court noted that the respondent Government have not put forward any materials or concrete information to show that the applicant was to be regarded as a prisoner of war. It is also for that reason that the Court above has dismissed the respondent Government’s argument that the Convention as a whole is inapplicable (see paragraphs 19 and 23 above). No other arguments have been advanced to the effect that Article 5 of the Convention does not apply to the applicant’s case, and the respondent Government have not argued that his detention was in conformity with any of the sub-paragraphs in Article 5 § 1 or that the applicant was afforded any of the procedural guarantees in the following paragraphs. In the circumstances of the instant case, the foregoing observations suffice for the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of that provision
On 9 May 2009 the Arthur Badalyan went with a group of friends to the village of Navur near the town of Berd, close to the border to Azerbaijan, to pick mushrooms in the forest. He disappeared and was captured by Azerbaijani forces. His relatives contacted Armenian authorities, after which he was registered as a missing person in Armenia and a search for him was made in the relevant area. However, his whereabouts remained unknown to his family and the Armenian authorities until, in November 2010, a registration of Armenian captives was held in Azerbaijan with the arrangement of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Badalyan was registered by the ICRC on 5 November 2010 and was thereafter regularly visited in detention until 17 March 2011 when he was released to the Armenian authorities through the mediation of the ICRC as part of an exchange of captives.
Badalyan claims that he was held captive for 22 months in a closed cell. He was not given enough food and often he was not allowed to go to the toilet, thus having to care for his needs in the cell. Moreover, he was subjected to harsh torture and mental anguish, as he was deemed to be a military prisoner, and was regularly harassed to divulge information. He was often beaten on his legs, so that he could not feel or move them. Electric wires were frequently attached to his fingers and the power switched on, causing severe pains. His cell door was hit with metallic objects, as a result of which he now suffers from a hearing disorder.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?fbclid=IwAR0Po1TW4AtKS9vj-faDbYjfcx9gd7e5Ngp8_uuJy7uISyH0TRdMK5vhp4E#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-211103%22]}

On December 2020, the court ruled that Defendant Spartak Henrik Manucharyan was found guilty of committing an act under Article 104, Part 2, Clause 6 of the RA Criminal Code, and was sentenced to 12 (twelve) years of imprisonment.
Found Spartak Henrik Manucharyan guilty of committing an act under Article 235, Part 1 of the RA Criminal Code; to release him from criminal liability under Article 75 of the RA Criminal Code due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The court stated that Spartak Henrik Manucharyan will start serving his sentence on July 1, 2009.
The sentence of imprisonment shall be served in the relevant penitentiary institution of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia.

http://www.datalex.am/?app=AppCaseSearch&case_id=30962247438186656

On August 21, 2017 the Court of Cassation ruled that the most appropriate remedy regarding the judgment of Manucharyan v. Armenia made by the European Court of Human Rights will be overturned the judicial acts of the lower courts and the case should be sent to the Court of First Instance for a new examination.
The Court of Cassation argued that during the new trial, the Court of First Instance, eliminating the violations registered by the European Court, assessing each piece of evidence as admissible and all the evidence combined in terms of satisfaction with the case, should conclude accordingly.
https://www.arlis.am/DocumentView.aspx?docID=119588

On November 24, 2016 the Court unanimously declared that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention in the case of Manucharyan v Armenia and that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros).
The Court noted that the Regional Court’s judgment does not contain any analysis of the evidence put before it, much less any indication that it was aware of the reduced evidentiary value of the untested witness statements, including that of K.M. All the evidence was simply listed as proof that the applicant had committed the offence, without any assessment of the credibility of the untested witness evidence (see paragraph 26 above). The Court therefore finds that the trial court failed to examine the reliability of K.M.’s statement in a careful manner.
The Court has also noted that K.M. was the only eyewitness to the offence. She knew the applicant, who was her neighbour, and had pointed him out when interviewed by the police (see paragraph 9 above). It is not in doubt that K.M.’s statement was not the only item of evidence on which the applicant’s conviction was based. However, her pre-trial statement was the only piece of direct evidence substantiating the allegation that it had been the applicant who had opened fire at K.S.’s car. In that sense K.M. can be considered to have been the key prosecution witness in the applicant’s case. As for the rest of the evidence, S.S.’s statement merely proved that K.S. and the applicant had had strained relations while the statements of K.M.’s parents, A.M. and S.M., were based on her account of the events (see paragraphs 12 and 11 above). It is true that V.J.’s statement, confirmed by him during the formal confrontation, contradicted the applicant’s defence statement that he had been in V.J.’s house when the offence had taken place (see paragraph 15 above). However, V.J.’s evidence taken alone did not prove that it had been the applicant rather than his brother who had shot at the car, as the applicant stated after he withdrew his confession. The Government was unable to demonstrate that the remaining evidence, including the forensic evidence, was enough to show conclusively that the applicant rather than somebody else, such as his brother, had committed the offence. For instance, it does not arise from the decisions taken by the domestic courts that the forensic evidence of gunshot residue on the clothes the applicant wore on the day of the incident proved that he had been the author of the shots. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the evidence of the absent witness K.M. was decisive for the applicant’s conviction.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22docname%22:[%22Manucharyan%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-168860%22]}

On 9 May 2009 the Arthur Badalyan went with a group of friends to the village of Navur near the town of Berd, close to the border to Azerbaijan, to pick mushrooms in the forest. He disappeared and was captured by Azerbaijani forces. His relatives contacted Armenian authorities, after which he was registered as a missing person in Armenia and a search for him was made in the relevant area. However, his whereabouts remained unknown to his family and the Armenian authorities until, in November 2010, a registration of Armenian captives was held in Azerbaijan with the arrangement of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Badalyan was registered by the ICRC on 5 November 2010 and was thereafter regularly visited in detention until 17 March 2011 when he was released to the Armenian authorities through the mediation of the ICRC as part of an exchange of captives.
Badalyan claims that he was held captive for 22 months in a closed cell. He was not given enough food and often he was not allowed to go to the toilet, thus having to care for his needs in the cell. Moreover, he was subjected to harsh torture and mental anguish, as he was deemed to be a military prisoner, and was regularly harassed to divulge information. He was often beaten on his legs, so that he could not feel or move them. Electric wires were frequently attached to his fingers and the power switched on, causing severe pains. His cell door was hit with metallic objects, as a result of which he now suffers from a hearing disorder.
Immediately following his release, Badalyan was hospitalised and examined in Armenia. The medical examination revealed that he was depressed, frightened and tense and that he had pain in his arms and legs. He was diagnosed with a serious neuropsychological disorder, including schizophrenia of a paranoid type.
Thus on August 8, 2011 the lawyer of CSL HR ENGO Edmon Marukyan after exhausting all domestic remedies resented the case to the ECtHR stating that Badalyan was subjected to physical and mental torture and ill-treatment during his detention, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
The case was communicated on November 10, 2015 and questions were sent to the Government of the RA.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22docname%22:[%22Badalyan%20v%20Azerbaijan%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22COMMUNICATEDCASES%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-159138%22]}