Nikol Pashinyan Against Armenia Applications Communicated to the Government by ECHR: Vahe Grigoryan

Lawyer Vahe Grigoryan, involved in the "March 1" case, made a post on his Facebook page, stating:

"On January 15, 2019, the ECHR communicated the applications of Nikol Pashinyan against Armenia to the Government of Armenia.

The first of these applications was submitted to the ECHR on April 1, 2010, and subsequently, additional submissions were made to the complaints until April 27, 2011 (when the applicant was still in detention). In the application presented to the ECHR on behalf of the applicant, it was stated that the persecutions and his conviction were motivated by his political speeches during protests and marches from February 20 to March 1, 2008, as well as his opposition political stance and activities. The persecutions and his conviction were not based on any minimum threshold of evidentiary standards, but were carried out with distortions of facts and misinterpretations of the law.

Ultimately, the persecutions against him and his conviction were purely politically motivated and aimed at obstructing his opposition political activities and punishing him for expressing such activities and views.

The ECHR raised the following two questions to the Government (which indirectly implies that the examination of this case will take place within this framework):

1. Was the detention of the applicant (from October 12, 2009, to January 19, 2010) compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the ECHR, particularly concerning the protection against arbitrary and unlawful detention?
2. Were the applicant's rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, violated due to criminal prosecution and conviction?

Since the applicant has not made any public statements regarding this matter to date, and considering the importance and public attention of the issue, I would also like to inform you that after consulting with the applicant (after his election as Prime Minister on June 22, 2018), he requested to convey his position to the ECHR, stating that:

• The applicant has waived any claims against Armenia for moral and material damages caused to him within the scope of his complaints;
• No claims for fair compensation will be presented in further stages of the case examination, considering that he views the implementation of justice by the ECHR in his case and the revelation of the truth as complete compensation for the moral and material damage caused by illegal persecutions and long-term imprisonment;
• Since his case directly relates to the entire context of the March 2008 events, whose truth revelation and justice implementation are critically significant for the democratic future of Armenia and the establishment of a stable culture of human rights and freedoms, he will continue to assert his claims as far as they serve those purposes.

Many of you may have noticed that one of the main "arguments" of the anti-campaign against revealing the crime of March 1 is that the ongoing investigation is allegedly attempting to shift the responsibility of the head of the executive authority onto others.

Here lies the international-legal process regarding this trial. It is indeed an opportunity for an independent and impartial court to assess this "guilt." Without any doubt regarding the professionalism and integrity of the representative of the Government of Armenia at the ECHR, I believe that the representation of the Armenian government in this case should be conducted or organized by finding non-standard solutions (since the situation is not only non-standard but also unprecedented, in the truest sense of the word, and not in the sense that has been recently distorted and devalued) aiming not to overshadow the principle of competitiveness in this trial at the ECHR.

P.S. As soon as I have time, I will consolidate and express my thoughts on our interesting times in the field of law and justice. We are indeed living in unprecedented and interesting times in Armenia. Not only for Armenia but also for any other state. I am confident that we will emerge from this situation with great additional value and will also serve as a beacon for similar issues in other states as peers, leaving historical examples for future generations regarding fair and accurate solutions.

The ECHR has not yet published this information in its HUDOC database. I will publish it here as soon as it is available."