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]}

On 14 June 2011 Arman Yengibaryan was shot and killed by two police officers in Yerevan.
According to the body of inquiry, at approximately 1.05 p.m. on 14 June 2011 Arman Yengibaryan presented himself as an employee of the water supply company and tried fraudulently to enter the apartment of a private person, G.S., with the purpose of taking the latter’s property by committing robbery. However, Arman Yengibaryan was unable to complete the crime since G.S. did not open the door to the apartment and called the police. Two officers of the Arabkir Department of the Yerevan Police, A.A. and N.P., arrived at the scene and approached the person indicated by G.S.
Officers A.A. and N.P. were not in uniform. However, according to their statements, they presented themselves to Arman Yengibaryan as officers of the Arabkir Police Department, showed their identification badges and asked him to go with them to the police station in order to provide some clarifications.
The police officers accompanied Arman Yegibaryan to their car, holding him by his arms. On reaching the car, Arman Yengibaryan refused to get inside, resisted the police officers and freed his hands. He then took out a gun, loaded it, pointed it at the officers and threatened to fire, after which he escaped.
At that moment the officers loaded their guns. A.A. warned that he would shoot, fired two warning shots in the air and, together with N.P., chased Arman Yengibaryan.
According to the statements of the police officers, Arman Yengibaryan turned while running and fired a shot in their direction. Immediately after that A.A. fired in response.
The police officers called the emergency services right away. However, nobody tried to provide first aid to Arman Yengibaryan and his body lay on the ground bleeding until the ambulance arrived at the scene and transferred him to hospital where he died shortly after the beginning of surgery. He never regained consciousness.
On 14 June 2011 an investigation was started on account of attempted robbery and inflicting violence dangerous for life or limb on a public official.
On 18 June 2011 it was reported in the media that the Chief of Police had confirmed in an interview the day before that on the day of the shooting Arman Yengibaryan had been armed with a gas pistol. He had stated that before Arman Yengibaryan was disarmed by the police officers he had fired in their direction four times and that it was not until after he had been disarmed that it was discovered that his gun was pneumatic. He had further stated that he did not blame the policeman, since the latter had acted lawfully.
On 23 June 2011 the Chief of Police gave an interview to the media and stated that he had no doubts that Arman Yengibaryan had been involved in several counts of robbery. He further stated that a number of victims had already identified the criminal and that it was, therefore, to be ruled out that the policeman could have shot the wrong person. According to the media, the Chief of Police had then stated that he felt relieved to know that the criminal who had terrorised the whole city had been disarmed and that in his personal view, as the head of police, everything had been done in a lawful manner and there had been nothing illegal in the actions of the policeman.
According to another article published in the media on the same day, the Chief of Police had also stated during his interview that, in a situation where someone fires at you, it is hard to aim and shoot at the fingers, no one is protected from that and this cannot be required of a policeman. He had finally stated that he would await the completion of the investigation and would accordingly reward the policeman if it were found that the latter had acted lawfully.
The father and the wife of Armen Yengibaryan applied to the Chief of the Special Investigative Service with a request to involve in the proceedings as Arman Yengibaryan’s legal heir and representatives of the victim’s legal heir. But Arman Yengibaryan’s relatives were not allowed to participate in the proceedings, were not provided with the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and in general had no access to the case file thus the investigation into his death had not been effective.
Thus on December 10, 2011 the lawyer of CSL HR ENGO Edmon Marukyan after exhausting all domestic remedies resented the case to the ECtHR raising the following complains:
The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the killing of Arman Yengibaryan by the police constituted a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in that it was not absolutely necessary within the meaning of this provision. They further complain under the same Article that the authorities failed to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into his death.
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the public statements of the Chief of Police constituted a breach of the principle of presumption of innocence in his respect.
The applicants lastly complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective domestic remedy because the investigative bodies and the courts refused to recognize Arman Yengibaryan’s status as a victim, which deprived them of the possibility of exercising their rights as his legal heirs in the proceedings. They further complain that the courts did not in any way address the second applicant’s request to be involved in the proceedings.
The case was communicated on September 1, 2015 and questions were sent to the Government of the RA.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%222186/12%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22COMMUNICATEDCASES%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-157439%22]}