Background
Ashot Kuyumjyan was held in pre-trial detention in Armenia from 24 November 2014 to 24 November 2015. His detention was ordered or reviewed by the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan, and the Criminal Court of Appeal.
Kuyumjyan complained under Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights that the domestic courts had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention. He also complained under Article 5 § 4 that the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court had failed to serve on him its decision of 18 July 2015 extending his detention.
The Armenian Government argued that Kuyumjyan had not exhausted domestic remedies and that part of his detention complaint was outside the six-month time limit. The European Court rejected both objections, treating the consecutive periods of pre-trial detention as a whole and calculating the time limit from the end of the final period.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Armenia violated Article 5 § 3. Applying its established case-law, including earlier cases addressing similar issues in Armenia, it found that the domestic courts had failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons for Kuyumjyan’s continued pre-trial detention.
The Court declared the Article 5 § 3 complaint admissible but rejected the Article 5 § 4 complaint as inadmissible. It awarded Kuyumjyan EUR 700 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses, plus any applicable tax.
Key Takeaways
- Reasonable suspicion is necessary for continued pre-trial detention, but after a certain period it cannot by itself justify continued custody.
- Consecutive periods of detention are assessed as a whole when calculating the Convention’s six-month application period.
- The domestic courts’ reasons for Kuyumjyan’s detention were not relevant and sufficient, resulting in a violation of Article 5 § 3.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that courts must convincingly justify pre-trial detention with reasons extending beyond the continued existence of reasonable suspicion. That requirement applies from the first decision ordering detention on remand.
It also confirms that a government cannot divide uninterrupted or consecutive detention into separate periods to start the application deadline anew for each detention order.