BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
44769/08
by Vartgez GASPARI
against
Armenia
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting
on 22 November 2011 as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Ján Šikuta,
Luis López
Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Mihai Poalelungi,
judges,
and Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 10 September 2008,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
applicant, Mr Vartgez Gaspari, is an Armenian national who was born
in 1957 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by
Mr M. Shushanyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.
A. The circumstances of the case
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows.
- The
applicant is an ethnic Armenian who was born and raised in Iran and
appears to have repatriated to Armenia as an adult.
1. The 19 February 2008 presidential election in
Armenia and post-election demonstrations
- On
19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia. The
main contenders were the then Prime Minister, Serzh Sargsyan, and the
main opposition candidate, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who had also served
as President of Armenia between 1991 and 1998.
- The
applicant acted as Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s authorised election
assistant at one of the election precincts.
- It
appears that immediately after the election, Levon Ter-Petrosyan
announced that the election had not been free and fair. From 20
February 2008 onwards, nationwide protest rallies were held by
thousands of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s supporters, the main meeting
place for them being the central Freedom Square in Yerevan and the
surrounding park (known as Opera Square). It appears that a few
hundred of the demonstrators stayed in that area around the clock,
having set up tents. It further appears that these demonstrations
were held without notifying the authorities as required by law, but
the authorities did not make any attempt to interfere with them.
According to the applicant, he regularly attended the on-going
demonstrations and sit-ins.
- On
24 February 2008 the Central Election Commission announced that Prime
Minister Sargsyan had won the election with around 52% of all votes
cast, while Levon Ter-Petrosyan received around 21% of votes.
2. The events of 1 March 2008 and institution of
criminal proceedings
- On
1 March 2008, apparently at some point between 6 and 7 a.m., police
forces arrived on Freedom Square. It appears that clashes took place
between the police and the demonstrators who fled from the square.
- On
the same date criminal proceedings no. 62202508 were instituted under
Article 225.1 §§ 1 and 2, Article 235 §§ 1 and 2
and Article 316 § 2 of the Criminal Code (CC). This decision
stated:
“After the announcement of the preliminary results
of the presidential election of 19 February 2008, the
presidential candidate, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, members of parliament,
[K.S. and S.M.], the chief editor of “Haykakan Zhamanak”
daily, [N.P.], and others organised and held mass public events on
Yerevan’s Freedom Square in violation of the procedure
prescribed by law and made calls inciting to disobey the decisions
ordering an end to the events held in violation of the procedure
prescribed by law, while a number of participants in the mass events
illegally possessed and carried illegally obtained weapons and
ammunition.
On 1 March 2008 at around 6 a.m., when the police took
measures aimed at forcibly ending the public events held in violation
of the procedure prescribed by law, in compliance with the
requirements of Section 14 of the Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and
Demonstrations Act, the organisers and participants of the events,
disobeying the lawful orders of public officials performing their
duties, namely the police, inflicted violence on the latter dangerous
for their life and health with pre-arranged clubs, metal rods and
other adapted tools, causing [them] injuries of various gravity.”
- It
appears that later that day the violence escalated and more clashes
took place between the law enforcement authorities and the
demonstrators, some of whom had relocated to the area surrounding the
French Embassy and the Yerevan Mayor’s Office and were joined
by thousands of others. The clashes continued until late at night,
resulting in ten deaths and numerous injured and a state of emergency
being declared by the incumbent President Kocharyan which, inter
alia, prohibited the holding of any further rallies and other
mass public events for a period of twenty days.
3. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
(a) The applicant’s arrest
- The
applicant alleges that in the early morning of 1 March 2008, at the
time of the clash at Freedom Square, he was at home. At 7.45 a.m.,
unaware of what was happening at Freedom Square, he left his home and
headed in the direction of the square. On his way he noticed an
unusually chaotic situation with people fleeing and being pursued,
assaulted and arrested by the police. At 7.55 a.m. he arrived at a
crossroad adjacent to Freedom Square where he was immediately
arrested, placed in a police van and taken to a police station.
- One
of the arresting police officers, E.P., reported on the same day that
the applicant had been arrested at 8.30 a.m. on a street adjacent to
the Opera house and brought to the Arabkir Police Department for
inflicting violence, threatening and resisting him and another police
officer, G.H.
- Another
police officer reported that a number of persons, including the
applicant, had been brought to the Arabkir Police Department on
suspicion of having inflicted violence on a public official.
- It
appears that the applicant, when asked about his identity, introduced
himself as Vardges Gasparyan. From 12 noon to 12.15 p.m. he was
questioned as a witness but refused to testify or to provide any
personal details until his lawyer was present.
- On
2 March 2008 another set of criminal proceedings was instituted,
no. 62202608, under Article 225 § 3 and Article 235 §
2 of the CC. This decision stated:
“The self-nominated presidential candidate at the
presidential election of 19 February 2008, Levon Ter-Petrosyan,
and his followers and supporters, members of parliament [K.S. and
S.M.], the chief editor of “Haykakan Zhamanak” daily,
[N.P.], and others, not willing to concede defeat at the election,
with the aim of casting doubt on the election, instilling distrust
towards the results among large segments of the population, creating
illusions of public discontent and revolt and discrediting the
election and the authorities, from 1 March 2008 in the area of the
Yerevan Mayor’s Office and central streets organised mass
disturbances which involved murders, violence, pogroms, arson,
destruction of property and armed resistance to public officials,
effected with the use of firearms, explosives and other adapted
objects.”
- On
the same date both sets of proceedings were joined and examined under
no. 62202608.
- Later
that day, at 8 p.m., the investigator drew up a record of an arrest
which stated that the applicant was arrested at that hour on
suspicion of having committed offences prescribed by Articles 225.1 §
1 and 316 § 1 of the CC.
- It
appears that on 3 March 2008 the applicant’s wife, upon the
order of the investigator, brought his passport to the police
station. The applicant alleges that the investigator ordered his
wife’s appearance on purpose in order to put psychological
pressure on him.
- The
applicant further alleges that between 1 and 3 March 2008 he was
deprived of legal assistance.
(b) The charge against the applicant and
his detention
- On
5 March 2008 the applicant was formally charged under Article 316
§ 1 of the CC. This decision stated that, having participated
from 20 February 2008 in unlawful public events, organised by the
presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrosyan and his co-thinkers,
including mass rallies, 24-hour demonstrations, assemblies, pickets
and sit-ins, which disturbed the normal life, traffic and peace and
quiet of the population, on 1 March 2008 at around 8.30 a.m. in
the vicinity of Freedom Square when public officials, including
police officers E.P. and G.H. of the Arabkir Police Department, once
again warned and ordered him to end his participation in an unlawful
event, the applicant, disobeying their lawful orders, inflicted
violence on police officers E.P. and G.H. not dangerous for their
life and health and also made violent threats.
- On
the same date the applicant was questioned as an accused and refused
to testify, alleging that the criminal proceedings against him were
the result of his political affiliation and views and his support for
Levon Ter Petrosyan.
- At
8.30 p.m. on that day the applicant was brought before the Arabkir
and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan which examined the
investigator’s motion seeking to have him detained for a period
of two months on the ground that, if he remained at large, he could
abscond, obstruct justice, commit another offence and evade criminal
responsibility.
- The
applicant submitted before the court that the motion was
unsubstantiated. He had higher education, was married, was head of a
company, had a minor child dependent on him and had no previous
convictions. The imputed acts fell into the category of offences of
medium gravity and it was not substantiated that, if he remained at
large, he would evade criminal responsibility and serving a penalty.
- The
District Court decided to grant the investigator’s motion,
finding that, if the applicant remained at large, he could abscond,
obstruct the proceedings, commit another offence and influence
witnesses.
- On
11 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that there was
no evidence suggesting that, if he remained at large, he would
abscond, obstruct justice, unlawfully influence witnesses, commit
another offence, evade criminal responsibility or serving the imposed
penalty. He was a respected and trusted person in society, was known
to be of good character, had a permanent place of residence and a
minor child dependent on him, and had always respected the law.
- On
20 March 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s
appeal. It found, firstly, that the applicant was accused of an
offence, for which the prescribed penalty exceeded one year’s
imprisonment. Secondly, after having been brought to the police
station, the applicant introduced himself under a false name, namely
instead of Vartgez Gaspari he introduced himself as Vardges
Gasparyan. His real name was discovered only after the examination of
his passport. This provided sufficient grounds to believe that, if
the applicant remained at large, he could abscond, falsify or conceal
evidence and obstruct the investigation by failing to appear upon the
summons of the investigating authority.
- On
an unspecified date the bill of indictment was finalised and the
applicant’s case was sent to court.
- On
23 April 2008 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan
decided to set the case down for trial and to keep the applicant in
detention.
- On
30 April 2008 six members of parliament filed a request with the
District Court, seeking to have the applicant’s detention
replaced with their personal guarantee. They declared at the outset
that no one in Armenia could feel secure from being detained as a
result of expressing pluralist ideas. They further submitted that
they personally knew the applicant and guaranteed that, if he
remained at large, he would not abscond, obstruct the proceedings,
commit another offence or evade his penalty, if any. The members of
parliament expressed their willingness to put up bail for the
applicant’s release.
- On
14 May, 17 June, 17 July and 5 August 2008 the applicant filed
motions with the District Court, seeking to be released.
- The
District Court decided to dismiss the motions of 14 May and 17 June,
finding that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still
persisted, and to adjourn the motions of 17 July and 5 August until
circumstances necessary for a decision to be taken were clarified.
- The
applicant alleges that, at the hearing of 23 September 2008, he once
again requested the court to release him and asked the court to
reason its decision. The presiding judge refused to take a decision,
stating that a decision had already been taken on 17 July whereby
this question was adjourned. It appears that an argument arose
between, on one hand, the applicant and his lawyer, who insisted that
the judge take a decision on the applicant’s request or else
withdraw from the case, and on the other hand, the judge and the
prosecutor, who objected to the judge’s withdrawal. The
applicant then wanted to leave the courtroom in protest against the
allegedly unlawful actions of the judge, following which the judge
decided to impose a penalty on the applicant by removing him from the
courtroom on the ground that he was hindering the normal course of
the hearing, abusing his procedural rights and disrespectfully
refusing to follow the judge’s orders. The hearing was
adjourned until 29 September 2008.
- The
applicant further alleges that, at the hearing of 29 September 2008,
his lawyer once again wished to file a motion for release, but was
not allowed to do so by the presiding judge. Thereafter the applicant
declared that he wished to file a motion challenging the judge. In
response the judge decided once again to impose a penalty on the
applicant on the same ground by removing him from the courtroom and
adjourning the hearing until 3 October 2008.
- On
22 October 2008 the applicant filed another motion seeking to be
released on bail. It appears that no decision was taken on this
motion.
- On
10 November 2008 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of
Yerevan found the applicant guilty under Article 316 § 1 of the
CC and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The beginning
of his sentence was to be calculated from 2 March 2008. The periods
from 23 to 29 September and from 29 September to 3 October 2008,
during which the court hearings were adjourned because of the
applicant’s removal from the courtroom, were not to be
calculated as part of his sentence.
(c) The applicant’s alleged
ill-treatment and conditions of his detention
(i) The alleged questioning on the night
of 1 March 2008
- According
to the applicant, from 10 p.m. on 1 March 2008 until 2 a.m. on
the next day he was questioned but refused to testify. He alleges
that during this period he was subjected to psychological pressure
and humiliation. In particular, one of the investigators, A.K.,
started screaming and swearing at him, insisting that he should
testify and sign papers. The investigator then tried to attack him
with his fists, as if to punch him, but the others present in the
room, including another investigator, stopped him, as if thereby
preventing an assault. Investigator A.K. further subjected him to
humiliation, calling him a “traitor”, “demagogue”
and “conjurer”. Despite his assertion that he had no
injuries, the investigator ordered him to undress in front of a group
of people as if for a medical inspection of his body. No injuries
were detected as a result of this inspection.
- On
12 March 2008 the applicant complained to the General Prosecutor
about all the above circumstances with the exception of the fact that
he had been ordered to undress. He requested that the unlawful
behaviour of the officials in question be remedied.
- By
a letter of 14 March 2008 the applicant’s complaint was
forwarded by the prosecutor to the investigator dealing with criminal
case no. 62202608 to be included in the case file and examined during
the investigation.
- The
applicant alleges that there were no further developments in this
respect.
(ii) The alleged events of 6 March 2008
- The
applicant alleges that on 6 March 2008, when he and a number of other
arrestees were being transferred from the police temporary detention
facility to a pre-trial detention facility, the transferring police
officers started asking all the arrestees in turns whether they had
been involved in burning cars or hitting a police officer on 1 March
2008. Those who did not deny their involvement in the demonstrations
were slapped and beaten. In reply to the same question, he stated
that it was not their business and it was up to the courts to
determine. He was then subjected to a search and was ordered to
remove his trousers and underwear and to do sit-ups in front of
everyone, as if for the purpose of finding illegal drugs or other
items.
(iii) Conditions of the applicant’s
detention
- Following
his transfer from the police temporary detention facility, the
applicant was kept at Nubarashen detention facility. He raised the
following allegations concerning his conditions of detention.
- From
6 to 7 March 2008 he was kept in cell no. 9 which measured about
20-25 sq. m and accommodated 7 to 8 inmates. The cell was located in
the detention facility’s semi-basement and was very damp and
unsanitary. The air was stale, while the only source of ventilation
was a window measuring 1 sq. m and facing a pit which was filled with
several centimetres of rubbish and was frequented by rats. In the
evening the toilet situated in the corner of the cell became blocked
and the sewer waste from upper floors flooded the entire cell floor.
The appeals of inmates to the prison guards did not produce any
results and they were allowed only to draw the flood towards the
corridor. On the same date he addressed a letter to the chief of the
detention facility, complaining about the unsanitary conditions in
the cell and, in particular, the flooding, requesting that measures
be taken.
- On
7 March at noon he was transferred to cell no. 29 where he stayed for
about 1-2 hours. The cell measured about 20-25 sq. m and accommodated
about 10 inmates.
- On
the same date he declared a hunger strike in protest against human
rights violations in Armenia. After having declared the hunger
strike, at around 2 p.m. on that day he was transferred to cell no. 4
where he was kept until 14 March 2008, sharing the cell with a
recidivist, T.T., who was allegedly also on hunger strike. The cell
measured about 20 sq. m and was situated in the detention facility’s
semi-basement. The conditions were allegedly unsanitary, the air was
damp and it stank of sewage. The only window to the basement cell,
measuring 1 sq. m, had a pit in front of it which prevented natural
light from entering the cell. No out of cell activities were allowed.
- From
14 to 20 March 2008 he was kept in cell no. 79 which measured 20 sq.
m. The cell was relatively calm and ventilated.
- From
20 March to 15 April 2008 he was kept in cell no. 20 which measured
about 20 sq. m and accommodated 10 to 12 inmates. Almost everybody in
the cell smoked and, being a non-smoker, he felt asphyxiated, while
his eyes watered regularly. The television was switched on 24 hours a
day which disrupted his sleep. On 15 April 2008 the toilet became
blocked and the cell floor flooded with the sewer waste from upper
floors. Following his complaint, he was transferred one floor up to
cell no. 42.
- From
15 April to 4 September 2008 he was kept in cell no. 42 which
measured about 25 sq. m and at times accommodated up to 14 inmates.
The cell had only eight beds so the inmates had to sleep in turns.
There was a serious lack of fresh air since almost everybody in the
cell smoked. The sanitary conditions were relatively satisfactory.
- From
15 September to 23 December 2008 he was kept in cell no. 10 which
measured about 12 sq. m and accommodated 3 to 4 inmates.
(iv) Further allegations concerning the
applicant’s stay in cell no. 4
- The
applicant alleges that during his stay in cell no. 4 between 7 and 14
March 2008 his cellmate, T.T., who was apparently a drug addict,
showed hostile behaviour towards him and was constantly harassing
him, seeking conflict and demanding him to leave the cell. T.T.’s
behaviour was becoming increasingly aggressive and he was using
various methods of psychological pressure. In particular, T.T.
informed him that he was suffering from tuberculosis and then on
several occasions threw the water he had used to rinse his mouth into
his face and cynically laughed at him that he would also become ill
and not be able ever to hug or kiss his son. He was harassing the
applicant not to read or write, since this was disturbing him. The
applicant’s verbal complaints to the administration about
T.T.’s behaviour remained unanswered.
- The
applicant further alleges that T.T.’s behaviour became
particularly aggressive on the night of 11 to 12 March 2008,
apparently because of his inability to satisfy his drug needs. First
T.T. started yelling at him and demanding that he leave the cell.
T.T. thereafter attacked him with the intention to punch him but,
having failed, grabbed an extension cable that was in the cell and
tried to strangle him. The applicant managed to grab the cable from
T.T.’s hands and to throw it away. Thereafter T.T. took out a
15 cm long hidden home-made knife and attacked the applicant,
trying to stab him in the face and belly, but met the applicant’s
resistance. This situation continued the entire night until the
guards visited their cell at 10 a.m. for a regular check. The
applicant complained to them about this incident.
- On
12 March 2008 the applicant addressed a complaint in writing to the
chief of the detention facility, with a copy to the Ombudsman, about
the events of the night of 11 to 12 March.
- The
applicant alleges that between 3 and 4 p.m. the deputy chief of the
detention facility visited the cell and informed him, in reply to his
complaint, that “those were the conditions and there was
nothing they could do”. He further alleges that materials were
prepared for a criminal case to be instituted but eventually the
institution of criminal proceedings was rejected. No copy of this
decision was provided to him.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. The Criminal Code (in force from 1 August 2003)
- Article
69 § 3 prescribes that one day of a detention period preceding
the date on which a conviction becomes final shall be equal to one
day of imprisonment imposed as a penalty.
- Article
225.1 § 1 prescribes that organising and holding a public event
in violation of the procedure prescribed by law shall be punishable
by a fine of between 200 and 300 times the minimum wage or detention
of up to two months.
- Article
316 § 1 prescribes that inflicting violence or threatening to
inflict violence, not dangerous for life or health, on a public
official or his next-of-kin, connected with the performance of his
official duties, shall be punishable by a fine of between 300 and 500
times the minimum wage or detention of up to one month or
imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years.
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure (in force from 12
January 1999)
- Articles
314.1 § 1 prescribes that the court may impose penalties,
including removal from the courtroom, on the parties, other
participants in the proceedings and persons attending the court
hearing in the case of showing a disrespectful attitude towards the
court, hindering the normal course of the hearing, abusing their
procedural rights or unjustifiably failing to comply or properly
comply with their procedural obligations. Article 314.1 § 6
prescribes that, if the accused is removed from the courtroom as a
penalty, the hearing shall be adjourned for two weeks. The
adjournment period shall not be calculated as part of the sentence
period.
3. The Law on Conditions for Holding Arrested and
Detained Persons (in force from 1 April 2002)
- Section
20 prescribes that the living space afforded to arrested and detained
persons must comply with the building and sanitary-hygienic norms
established for general living spaces. The area of the living space
afforded to arrested and detained persons shall not be less than 4
sq. m for each individual.
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the
Convention that
(a) his
arrest from 8.30 a.m. on 1 March 2008 until 8 p.m. on 2 March 2008
was unlawful and unrecorded;
(b) he
was kept under arrest beyond 8.30 a.m. on 4 March 2008, that is more
than the 72 hours allowed, and was brought before a judge only at
8.30 p.m. on 5 March 2008 in violation of the requirement to be
brought promptly before a judge; and
(c) no
reasons for his arrest were explained to him until 8 p.m. on 2 March
2008.
- The
applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention
that his arrest and detention were not based on a reasonable
suspicion.
- The
applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that
there were no grounds for detaining him, the courts failed to provide
relevant and sufficient reasons and bail was refused.
- The
applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that
his detention between 23 September and 3 October 2008, which was not
counted as a part of his prison sentence, was not effected on any of
the grounds prescribed by that Article and was based on a legal
provision, namely Article 314.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
which lacked legal certainty and was unforeseeable.
- The
applicant complains under Article 11 of the Convention that on
1 March 2008 the authorities dispersed peaceful and lawful
demonstrations and that his detention was imposed as a punishment for
his political ideas and participation in demonstrations.
- In
his completed application form lodged on 20 March 2009 the applicant
also complains under Article 3 of the Convention about
(a) the
manner in which his questioning between 10 p.m. on 1 March 2008 and 2
a.m. on 2 March 2008 was conducted;
(b) the
fact that the investigator insisted that his wife bring his passport
to the police station;
(c) the
acts which took place during his transfer to Nubarashen detention
facility on 6 March 2008;
(d) the
fact that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his stay between 7
and 14 March 2008 in cell no. 4 at Nubarashen detention facility
which he shared with a repeat offender, alleging that the acts which
took place in that cell were condoned by the prison administration
and that in fact he was placed in that cell on purpose as a
punishment for declaring a hunger strike;
(e) the
alleged failure of the authorities to carry out an effective
investigation into all the above-mentioned allegations; and
(f) degrading
conditions, including overcrowding, in cells nos. 4, 9, 10, 20 and 42
at Nubarashen detention facility.
- The
applicant complains under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention
that he was deprived of legal assistance between 1 and 3 March 2008.
THE LAW
A. Conditions of the applicant’s detention
- The
applicant complains about the conditions of his detention. He invokes
Article 3 of the Convention which provides:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
- The
Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine
the admissibility of this part of the application and that it is
therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the
Rules of the Court, to give notice of this complaint to the
respondent Government.
B. The lawfulness of the applicant’s detention
between 23 September and 3 October 2008 and the alleged lack of
relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention
- The
applicant complains that his detention between 23 September and 3
October 2008 was unlawful. He further complains that the courts
failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued
detention. He invokes Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the
Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty
and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save
in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed
by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a
person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent
legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an
offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his
committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
...
3. Everyone arrested or detained in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this
Article ... shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to
release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to
appear for trial.”
- The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of
the file, determine the admissibility of this part of the application
and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54
§ 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of
this complaint to the respondent Government.
C. Other alleged violations of the Convention
- The
applicant also raised a number of other complaints under Article 3,
Article 5 §§ 1 and 3, Article 6 § 3 (c) and Article 11
of the Convention (see paragraphs 58-59 and 62-64 above).
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these
complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that they do
not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms
set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part
of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn
the examination of the applicant’s
complaints concerning the conditions of his detention, the alleged
unlawfulness of his detention between 23 September and 3 October
2008, and the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his
continued detention;
Declares the remainder of
the application inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Josep
Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President
