Recently, the European Court of Human Rights reached its verdict for the lawsuit presented by Armenia, according to which the Armenian government had infringed upon the freedom of Armen Mkrtchyan to organize peaceful meetings. The lawsuit was filed to the European Court of Human Rights in May 2002 by oppositionist, former member of the political board of the “Hanrapetutyun” political party and current member of the “National Renaissance” political party Armen Mkrtchyan who had been incurred with a penalty after a demonstration in Yerevan. The European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously that the 11th article of the European Court of Human Rights Convention had been violated according to which each individual has the freedom to organize peaceful gatherings. On May 14, 2002, the “Hanrapetutyun” party and other political forces organized a demonstration at Freedom Square in Yerevan. On the same day, in the evening, a couple of members of the youth wing of the “Hanrapetutyun” party were arrested and, with the purpose of releasing them, Armen Mkrtchyan went to the Arabkir police station and was also arrested. The first instance court had incurred an administrative fee to Mkrtchyan for participating in a non-authorized demonstration and was fined 500 drams. The appeal court left the first instance court’s verdict unchanged and the Cassation Court refused to examine the case. Afterwards, the leader of the oppositional party filed a lawsuit to the European Court of Human Rights. after a demonstration held in Yerevan. In its verdict, the European Court of Human Rights mentioned that recognition of the court regarding the 11th article of the European Convention of Human Rights “already consists of just compensation to the defendant for non-material damage.” According to Radio Liberty, the Armenian government, in response to a survey by the European Court of Human Rights, claimed that the organizing and conduct of the demonstrations and street marches had been defined by the law, which was passed in 1988 and had remained in effect until the approval of the Constitution of Armenia in 1995. With this, the European Court had stated that there hadn’t been any law, which could state whether or not the Soviet Union laws were applied in Armenia. The European Court also stated that the Armenian government couldn’t present any decision to the court, which would then assess the issue or would be a reference to the former Soviet legislation. According to the European Court, “local Armenian courts weren’t even able to come up with a legal act, which defined the rules that the defendant had violated.” The court also mentioned that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there hasn’t been one law in Armenia, which would define the conduct of demonstrations and marches. Only in April 2004 did the Armenian government pass such a law. The European Court of Human Rights accepts the fact that time was needed for the country to form the legislative field, but it doesn’t justify the 13-year postponement of the approval of the law.
