The European Court to examine the complaint on journalist Gayane Arustamyan's case
The European Court of Human Rights received the complaint of Gayane Arustamyan, a journalist arrested on May 7, 2015, who was subjected to inhuman, degrading treatment and physical violence by the police. Gayane Arustamyan’s interests are presented by Ani Chatinyan, HCAVO advocate. The complaint is based on the rights to avoid torture (Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and respect for private and family life, Article 8 of the ECHR and an effective remedy, as set in Article 13 of the ECHR) Gayane Arustamyan was arrested and taken to the central office of the Police of Yerevan on May 7, in 2015, because of saying “What are you whistling, you idiot!” to a policeman who whistled when she was passing the street in the permitted place. The policems, evaluated this as an insult, and took her to the police station with his colleagues. As stated by G. Arustamyan, on the way to the police station and at the station, the policemen evinced misguided behavior and expressions, hurting her both psychologically and physically. As a result, G. Arustamyan felt herself bad and called for help. The forensic-psychological examination, subsequently initiated by her, has confirmed the impact of the above-mentioned cases on her psychology. On the basis of G. Arustamyan’s and A. Saqunc’s, head of the HCAVO, reports criminal case was filed on abusing position; but on August, 2015, the case was stopped, on the basis of absence of criminals. After appealing to authorities and to the court, G. Arustamyan’s representative T, Siradeghyan, the HCAVO advocate, appealed to the Court of Cassation, but was rejected. With the complaint filed by the European Court of Human Rights, Arustamyan's representative A. Chatinyan justified the fact that no proper investigation was carried out to detect and punish those who were guilty. The victim's petitions for examination to reveal the link between her illness and the policemen’s activities were denied, and the results of her own examination of the case were not recognized as evidence by the court. Details are available here
