On October 27 European Court for Human rights held two judgments against Armenia.

Following alleged irregularities in the 2003 presidential elections, the applicants Zaven Karapetyan and Stepan Stepanyan alleged that they were sentenced to administrative detention on account of their political opinions and activities.

Both applicants were arrested (Mr Karapetyan in March 2003 and Mr Stepanyan in May 2004), and, within the same day, were taken to their local police station, charged, brought before a court and convicted under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences to, respectively, ten and eight days' detention for disobeying the police and using obscene language.

Mr Karapetyan complained about the conditions of his detention when serving that sentence, notably overcrowding, poor ventilation, lack of natural light and inadequate food.

Mr Stepanyan, who was released after six days of detention on health grounds, lodged an extraordinary appeal to the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal. In that appeal he denied at length the account of events as presented by his arresting police officers, the only witnesses at his trial, and on the basis of which he was convicted. In June 2004 the President of the Court of Appeal, in the light of written submissions and without having heard the police officers or the applicant, upheld Mr Stepanyan's conviction.

Both applicants relied in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), complaining about the unfairness of the proceedings against them, notably that their cases were examined in an expedited procedure, therefore not giving them adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence. Mr Stepanyan further alleged that there had been no oral hearing before the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal which tried him. Mr Karapetyan also complained that he had no appeal procedure at his disposal, in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters). Lastly, Mr Karapetyan complained that the conditions of his detention were in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).

The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 September 2003 and 7 December 2004, respectively.

The court composed of 7 judges desided:

In case of Karapetyan there was a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) taken together with Article 6 § 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence), violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters)

In the case of Stepanyan there was a violation of Article 6 § 1

The Court awarded Mr Karapetyan 4,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. Mr Stepanyan was awarded EUR 1,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.

On October 27 the court made a decision on another case; Bayatyan v. Armenia too.

The applicant Bayatyan is a Jehovah's Witness. Declared fit for military service, the applicant became eligible for the spring draft of 2001. In letters sent, among others, to the General Prosecutor and the Military Commissioner he declared that he refused to perform military service for conscientious reasons but that he was prepared to do alternative civil service. He did not appear for military service in mid-May 2001, as ordered by a summons, and temporarily moved away from home so that he would not be drafted by force. Two weeks later the Parliamentary Commission for State and Legal Affairs informed the applicant that since there was no law in Armenia on alternative service, he was obliged to serve in the Armenian army.

In October 2001 the applicant was charged with draft evasion. Placed in detention, the district court convicted him as charged in October 2002 and sentenced him to one year and six months in prison, later increased by the Court of Appeal to two and a half years. That court stated essentially that the applicant did not accept his guilt and that he had hidden from preliminary investigation. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation in January 2003. In July of that year the applicant was released on parole after having served ten and a half months of his sentence.

The applicant complained that his conviction for refusal to serve in the army had violated his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention. He also submitted that the Article should be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions, namely the fact that the majority of Council of Europe Member States had recognised the right of conscientious objection and that Armenia in 2000, before becoming a member, had committed to "pardon all conscientious objectors sentenced to prison terms".

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 July 2003.

The Court held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 9 (right to freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Judge Power expressed a dissenting opinion.