Margaryan v. Armenia

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 26674/18 Artem MARGARYAN against Armenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 December 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Faris Vehabović, President , Anja Seibert-Fohr, Anne Louise Bormann, judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 May 2018,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the decision not to admit the applicant’s belated observations to the case file,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. He was represented by Mr A. Tevanyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses was communicated to the Armenian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint about the courts having held the criminal trial against him in the absence of a prosecution witness is inadmissible.

In particular, the Court notes that in the light of the principles established in the case-law under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see notably Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, 15 December 2011, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, 15 December 2015), the applicant’s criminal trial had complied with overall fairness requirement.

In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2024.

Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention

(unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Final domestic decision

Charges convicted of

Witness absent from trial (indicated by initials)

Summary of the nature of the witness evidence

Reasons for absence

Steps taken to compensate for the witness’s absence

26674/18

29/05/2018

Artem MARGARYAN

1984

Tevanyan Armen

Yerevan

Court of Cassation

12/02/2018

bribery

H.Gh.

The witness testified that the applicant had solicited a bribe from him

distant region/other country

the applicant’s conviction was based on a considerable body of other evidence, including a recording of a covert operation implicating him in the imputed offence; the applicant examined the witness at the pre-trial confrontation, in the presence of his two lawyers; and the domestic courts carried out a detailed assessment of the body of evidence, examined thoroughly the arguments and the objections of the defence contesting the said evidence, and provided sufficient reasons for admitting the absent witness’s pre-trial statement in evidence.