Introduction
On 27 August 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee, delivered its judgment in the case of Kuyumjyan v. Armenia (Application no. 24627/16, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0827JUD002462716). The case concerned an application lodged against Armenia on 22 April 2016 under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The applicant, represented by Ms I. Petrosyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan, raised two principal complaints: first, that the domestic courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention, contrary to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; and second, that his right to challenge effectively the lawfulness of his detention had been infringed, contrary to Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
The Committee, composed of President Andreas Zünd, Judge Vahe Grigoryan, and Judge Sébastien Biancheri, deliberated in private on 2 July 2026 and unanimously found a violation of Article 5 § 3, while rejecting the Article 5 § 4 complaint as inadmissible.
Background and procedural context
According to the judgment, the applicant's pre-trial detention began on 24 November 2014 and continued until at least 24 November 2015. During that period, his detention was extended by decisions of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, including decisions dated 19 January and 19 May 2015.
The Armenian Government raised two preliminary objections to the admissibility of the Article 5 § 3 complaint. First, they argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Second, they contended that the applicant had not complied with the six-month time-limit, submitting that each period of detention should be considered separately.
The Court rejected both objections. On the exhaustion point, the Court found no sufficient grounds to accept the Government's argument, comparing the situation to its earlier Committee judgment in Avushyan v. Armenia (no. 34684/13, 31 January 2023). On the time-limit question, the Court reaffirmed that consecutive periods of detention must be regarded as a whole, with the six-month period running from the end of the final period of detention, citing Solmaz v. Turkey (no. 27561/02, 16 January 2007).
The legal standard under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
The Court reiterated the established principles governing pre-trial detention under Article 5 § 3. It confirmed that the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the arrested person has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of continued detention, but that after a certain lapse of time this ground alone no longer suffices.
Beyond the initial period, the Court must assess whether the other grounds relied upon by the judicial authorities were both 'relevant' and 'sufficient' to justify the continued deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds exist, the Court must further ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed 'special diligence' in the conduct of the proceedings.
Importantly, the judgment underlines that justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities. The authorities are also obliged, when deciding on release or continued detention, to consider alternative measures for ensuring the person's appearance at trial.
The Court further recalled, citing Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC] (no. 23755/07, 5 July 2016), that the requirement to give relevant and sufficient reasons applies already at the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand, that is to say promptly after the arrest.
Application of the standard and finding of a violation
The Court noted that the issues raised in the present case were similar to those already examined in the leading cases of Muradkhanyan v. Armenia (no. 12895/06, 5 June 2012) and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia (no. 629/11, 20 October 2016), in both of which violations had been found.
Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court found no fact or argument capable of leading it to a different conclusion on admissibility or merits. It determined that the domestic courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant's pre-trial detention.
The Article 5 § 3 complaint was accordingly declared admissible and found to disclose a breach of that provision. The Court awarded the applicant the sums indicated in the appended table, having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, in particular the Muradkhanyan judgment.
The Article 5 § 4 complaint
The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that his right to challenge effectively the lawfulness of his detention had been infringed. Specifically, he alleged that the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan had failed to serve on him the decision of 18 July 2015 extending his detention.
After examining the application in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court concluded that this complaint either did not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or its Protocols.
This part of the application was therefore rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
Significance of the judgment
The judgment in Kuyumjyan v. Armenia forms part of a consistent line of Committee decisions in which the Court has found structural or recurring problems in Armenia relating to the adequacy of reasoning provided by domestic courts when ordering or extending pre-trial detention.
By situating the present case within the framework established by Muradkhanyan v. Armenia and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, the Court signals that the obligations under Article 5 § 3 require domestic courts to engage substantively with the grounds for detention at each stage, including at the very first decision, and to consider alternatives to custodial measures.
The judgment also illustrates the Court's approach to consecutive periods of detention: they are assessed as a whole for the purposes of the six-month rule, preventing respondent states from fragmenting a continuous period of pre-trial detention into discrete segments in order to argue time-bar.
Conclusion
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Kuyumjyan v. Armenia, on the ground that the Armenian domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant's pre-trial detention. The Article 5 § 4 complaint was declared inadmissible.
The judgment reinforces the Court's well-established case-law requiring that detention on remand be justified by relevant and sufficient reasons at every stage, including from the moment of the first remand decision, and that authorities actively consider alternatives to detention. It also confirms the rule that consecutive periods of pre-trial detention are treated as a continuous whole for admissibility purposes.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- CASE OF KUYUMJYAN v. ARMENIA - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications