ECHR: Communicated cases

GABRIELYAN v Armenia, VIRABYAN v Armenia

These two cases concern the 2003 presidential election held in Armenia. Both applicants were involved as authorised election assistants for the candidate representing the People's Party of Armenia (PPA), who was the main opposition candidate in the election. Following his defeat by the incumbent President, the PPA candidate challenged the election results in the Constitutional Court recommended that a referendum of confidence in the re-elected President be held in Armenia within a year. As the one-year deadline approached, the opposition stepped up its campaign to challenge the legitimacy of the re-elected President.

The applicant in Gabrelyan alleges that he was repeatedly harassed because of his political activity from February 2003 until April 2004 when he was arrested (on the count that he had made calls for a violent overthrow of the government). In particular, the police frequently called him to the police station without any reasons and demanded that he stop his political activities and support for the opposition. These actions amounted to treatment that aroused in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him (Article 3). The applicant also filed complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention as well as under under Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d).

In Virabyan v Armenia the applicant alleges that the authorities retaliated by arresting and harassing opposition supporters. According to him, during this period the local police officers visited on a daily basis his home in Shahumyan village where his mother lived, with the intention of taking him to the police station. The applicant was eventually arrested on 12 April 2004 following a rally organised by opposition parties. He complains under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention that he was ill-treated at the police station and that the authorities have failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. The applicant also complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest was arbitrary and was not based on a reasonable suspicion.

IVOŠEVIĆ against Croatia

The applicant was dismissed from the company she was working for, because of allegedly having voted for the formation of the so-called Serbian Autonomous Territory of Western Slavonia (Srpska Autonomna Oblast [WINDOWS-1250?]�Zapadna [WINDOWS-1250?]Slavonija�) and its secession from Croatia, in the referendum held in 1991. After lengthy proceedings, the first-instance court quashed the decisions on her dismissal but failed to order her reinstatement and salary arrears. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings, and about the fact that her reinstatement was no ordered.

Xi. v France

This case concerns a woman from Guinée Conakry who left her country because she was abused by her tutor following her parents' death, and then she was forced into marriage with a 60 year-old man, who intentionally caused her suffering. She invokes Article 3, 2, 12, and 13 of the Convention in order not to be sent back from France.

SITAROPOULOS and others v Greece

Invoking Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they were refused their right to vote in their place of residence due to a lack of relevant national legislation.

ALEXANDRIDIS et PAPANIKOLATOU v Greece

The applicants are representatives of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights While taking part in a court procedure, they were both summoned to take oath by placing their right hand on the Bible. Neither of the applicants being of orthodox christian faith, they had to inform the court of this fact and express their wish to take oath in an secular way. The applicants complain that they had to disclose personal information (Article 8) and that they had to state that they were not orthodox christian (Article 9). They also complained that they were thus discriminated against because of their faith (Article 14) and that there is no recourse in the national law for such cases (Article 13).

BIELECKI v Poland

In this case the applicant complains that his rights under Article 3 of the Convention have been violated due to the poor material conditions of his detention. The applicant bases his application -inter alia- on the fact that the space he had in his cell did not reach the statutory limit.