Background
Andrias Ghukasyan complained that his detention in Armenia violated Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The challenged detention included a period from 25 July 2017 to 7 May 2018 under an order of the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan that imposed no time limit.
Ghukasyan also challenged his prolonged pretrial detention from 30 July 2016 to 7 May 2018, arguing that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient grounds for keeping him detained. He further complained about the time taken by the Criminal Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation to review the lawfulness of his detention.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that the detention from 25 July 2017 to 7 May 2018 violated Article 5 § 1. Applying its judgment in Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, it concluded that the detention order without a time limit did not adequately protect Ghukasyan against arbitrariness and therefore failed to satisfy the Convention’s lawfulness requirement.
The Court also found violations of Article 5 § 3 because the domestic courts had not given relevant and sufficient reasons for the prolonged pretrial detention, and of Article 5 § 4 because the Criminal Court of Appeal took between twenty-two and twenty-nine days to decide five detention appeals. It rejected as inadmissible the separate Article 5 § 4 complaint concerning review by the Court of Cassation and found no need to rule separately on the Article 18 complaint.
The Court awarded Ghukasyan €4,300 for non-pecuniary damage and €500 for costs and expenses, plus any applicable tax. It dismissed the remainder of his just-satisfaction claims.
Key Takeaways
- A detention order without a defined time limit may fail to provide the protection against arbitrariness required by Article 5 § 1.
- Prolonged pretrial detention requires relevant and sufficient reasons from the domestic courts; repeated detention without such justification violates Article 5 § 3.
- Review of detention must be speedy: delays of twenty-two to twenty-nine days in deciding the applicant’s appeals violated Article 5 § 4 in the circumstances of this case.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that formal compliance with domestic detention procedures is not enough. A detention decision must also contain safeguards against arbitrariness, including a legally meaningful limit and adequate judicial justification.
It also confirms that appellate review of detention must occur promptly. Even delays measured in weeks can breach the Convention when a person’s continuing deprivation of liberty is at stake.