Detention Without Judicial Review
On 10 March, police detained Aram, a journalist, at a protest in Yerevan for allegedly disobeying police orders. He was held at a police station for 72 hours without being brought before a court. The prosecutor argued that the detention was necessary to prevent him from continuing to film police operations. Aram's lawyer filed a habeas corpus petition on 11 March, but the court scheduled the hearing for 14 March, after the 72-hour period. Aram claims his right to liberty under Article 6 of the Armenian Constitution and Article 5 of the ECHR was violated. The police counter that the detention was justified under the Law on Police, which allows detention for up to 72 hours for administrative offenses.
1. Does Aram's detention violate his constitutional right to liberty? Discuss the relevant constitutional and international standards.
Read the worked answer
Aram's detention likely violates Article 6 of the Armenian Constitution (right to liberty) and Article 5 of the ECHR. Under the Constitution, anyone deprived of liberty must be brought before a judge within 72 hours. However, the ECHR requires that detention be lawful, necessary, and subject to prompt judicial review. The 72-hour limit is a maximum, not a mandatory period; authorities must bring detainees before a judge as soon as possible. Here, the court hearing was scheduled after the 72-hour period, meaning Aram was held without any judicial review for the entire duration. The prosecutor's justification (preventing filming) is not a valid ground for detention under Article 5(1)(c) ECHR, which permits detention only to prevent flight or the commission of a crime, not to hinder journalistic activity. The Law on Police cannot override constitutional guarantees. Therefore, the detention was arbitrary and violated Aram's rights.
2. What remedies are available to Aram under Armenian law and the ECHR? Explain the procedure and potential outcomes.
Read the worked answer
Under Armenian law, Aram can file a habeas corpus petition under the Administrative Procedure Code, challenging the lawfulness of detention. The court must review the petition promptly, ideally within 24 hours. If the court finds the detention unlawful, it can order immediate release and compensation for moral damages. Additionally, Aram can file a complaint with the Human Rights Defender (Ombudsman) and seek compensation under the Civil Code for non-pecuniary damage. Under the ECHR, after exhausting domestic remedies, Aram can apply to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) under Article 5(5) for compensation. The ECtHR may find a violation and award just satisfaction. However, the ECtHR requires that domestic remedies be exhausted, so Aram should first pursue the domestic habeas corpus and compensation claims. The likely outcome is a finding of violation and an award of compensation, as the detention clearly exceeded the permissible limits without judicial control.