CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

JIŘÍ MULÁK that the applicant had been informed of his procedural rights. The applicant was brought to trial and, after a brief hearing in the evening, was immediately convicted and sentenced to eight days of administrative detention. The applicant subsequently objected that he had no right to challenge the court’s decision where his imprisonment was ordered. At the same time, he argued Article 13 to the ECHR, which again the ECtHR found to be an issue which must also be examined under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. The Government maintained their position that the applicant was entitled to a review of his conviction. The applicant countered that the review procedure under domestic law did not provide a clear and accessible right of appeal. The ECtHR notes that the applicant was sentenced in this case following the same procedure as in the Galstyan case, in which the ECtHR concluded that the applicant did not have an appeal procedure available to him that would satisfy the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. The ECtHR therefore sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present case either. Accordingly, the ECtHR held that there had also been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. 27 The case of Karapetyan v. Armenia 28 dealt with the circumstances in which opposition parties in Armenia organised protest actions in the context of the presidential election. The applicant, Karapetyan, claimed that he had not taken part in the demonstrations. Nevertheless, the applicant was visited by the police and asked to report to the police station. The summons concerned participation in an unauthorised demonstration. Although the applicant resisted, he was nevertheless taken to the police station. The police authorities drew up an administrative offence report with him. During the interrogation the applicant used vulgar language. The applicant signed the record, but later claimed that he was unable to read the content. After his arrest, the applicant was brought before a judge and was convicted and sentenced to 10 days of administrative detention. In his complaint, the applicant argued that the hearing was held in the judge’s chambers and he did not even know that the hearing concerned a public order offence. The Government countered by arguing that it was a public hearing, and that the applicant had been duly informed of his procedural rights. On the day of the court’s decision, the applicant was immediately taken to a detention facility. The applicant submitted that he had no right to challenge the decision which restricted his personal liberty, which the ECtHR considers necessary to review within the limits of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. The ECtHR notes that the applicant was sentenced in this case following the same procedure as in the Galstyan case, 29 in which the ECtHR concluded that the applicant did not have an appeal procedure available to him that would satisfy the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. Therefore, the ECtHR saw no reason to depart from its previous case-law in the present case and held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. 30 In Hakobyan v. Armenia , 31 the applicants alleged that their arrest and detention violated their rights guaranteed by Articles 5, 10, 11, and 14 ECHR, and that the administrative 27 ECtHR decision in Gasparyan v. Armenia (no. 2) , of 16 June 2009, application no. 22571/05, §§ 34–37. 28 ECtHR decision in Karapetyan v. Armenia , of 27 October 2009, application no. 22387/05. 29 ECtHR decision in Galstyan v. Armenia , of 15 November 2007, application no. 26986/03, §§ 118–127. 30 ECtHR decision in Karapetyan v. Armenia , of 27 October 2009, application no. 22387/05, §§ 71–74. 31 ECtHR decision in Hakobyan and others v. Armenia , of 10 April 2012, application no. 34320/04.

216