"Center for Strategic Litigations" Human Rights NGO

The applicant, Artur Avanesyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1995 and lives in Masis
(Armenia).
The case concerns the applicant’s refusal to perform military service because, as a Jehovah’s
Witness, his conscience did not allow him to serve in the army. He was convicted of draft evasion
and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment.
Relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on
Human Rights, he complains about his arrest and subsequent detention, prosecution and conviction
for conscientious objection, despite having requested to do alternative civilian service.
Violation of Article 9
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 9,000 euros (EUR)
costs and expenses: EUR 1,500
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22languageisocode%22:[%22ENG%22],%22respondent%22:[%22ARM%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-211259%22]}

The applicant, a Russian national of Armenian origin, faced extradition from the Armenian authorities to Russia where criminal proceedings for attempted bribe-taking were pending against him. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the extradition decision which became final on 30 November 2017. On that date the Court granted his request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and, after considering the parties’ submissions on the issue, on 6 February 2018, decided to maintain the measure. Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant claimed that his medical condition did not render him fit for being transferred either by air or land.

The core issue in the present case was whether the transfer for the purpose of extradition of the applicant, who was seriously ill, might, in itself, have resulted in a real risk of his being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. Indeed, the transfer of an individual whose state of health was particularly poor might, in itself, result in such a risk. However, the assessment of the transfer’s impact required a case-by-case assessment of the individual’s medical condition as well as the specific medical risks relied upon and substantiated by specific medical evidence, in the light of the conditions of that particular transfer.  This assessment had to be made in relation to the person’s medical condition at a particular point in time, considering that the specific risks substantiated at a certain moment could, depending on whether they were of a temporary or permanent nature, be eliminated with the passage of time in view of developments in that person’s state of health.

The Court concluded that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicant was extradited to Russia without the Armenian authorities having assessed the risk faced by him during his transfer in view of the information as to his state of health.

Conclusion: violation in event of extradition without assessment of risk to health (unanimously).

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22languageisocode%22:[%22ENG%22],%22respondent%22:[%22ARM%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-210469%22]}

The applicant was taken into custody and charged with attempted drug smuggling. His pre-trial detention was extended on several occasions, including by decisions taken by the District Court in October and December 2011. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against those decisions. He further alleged that statements regarding his guilt in those decisions had breached the presumption of innocence; a matter addressed and rectified by the Court of Appeal. In March 2012 Judge F. of the District Court took a decision setting the criminal case down for trial. The applicant remained in detention during trial and his application for release was dismissed in February 2013. In August 2013, the District Court, sitting in a single judge formation composed of Judge F., found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment.
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.
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.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2213610/12%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-210404%22]}