Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Ishkhanyan v. Armenia:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
– The case concerns the unlawful arrest and detention of a participant in a peaceful protest in Yerevan against electricity price increases. The Court found that the applicant’s arrest after the dispersal of a sit-in demonstration was conducted en masse without individual assessment of criminality and without reasonable suspicion, violating Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The Court determined that being under exclusive police control for over seven hours constituted deprivation of liberty, and the placement in police custody did not follow prescribed legal procedures as no proper arrest record was drawn up.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The Court first examined whether the applicant was actually deprived of liberty, analyzing both objective elements (confinement in restricted space) and subjective elements (lack of valid consent)
– The Court established that the period of deprivation of liberty lasted from 6 AM until 1:30 PM on June 23, 2015
– The Court assessed whether the deprivation of liberty was lawful under Article 5 § 1(b) and (c)
– The Court found that the arrest was not justified under Article 5 § 1(b) as there was no longer any obligation the applicant could be said to have disobeyed
– The Court determined that while the arrest was effected under Article 5 § 1(c), it lacked reasonable suspicion and proper documentation
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court reaffirmed that mass arrests without individualized assessment of criminality violate Article 5 § 1
– The decision establishes that being under exclusive police control, even without formal arrest, constitutes deprivation of liberty if the person cannot leave freely
– The Court emphasized that proper documentation of arrest is essential for its lawfulness – lack of proper arrest records makes detention unlawful
– The decision confirms that questioning arrested persons as witnesses shortly after arrest without explanation undermines the claimed reasonable suspicion for arrest
– The Court awarded €4,600 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,500 for legal costs
