Police treatment of journalist in Armenia during 2016 hostage-crisis protests violated his freedom of expression

when he was allegedly grabbed by police officers, hit, and had his mobile telephone and camera

seized. The protests followed the storming of the premises of the Patrol Service Regiment of the

Armenian Police. The police returned the camera to Mr Grigoryan with the footage of the police

reaction to the protests allegedly deleted.

The Court found in particular the assault on Mr Grigoryan and seizure of his camera by the police

while he had been working had neither been lawful nor had a legitimate aim.

Principal facts

The applicant, Hayk Grigoryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Yerevan.

On 17 July 2016 a group of armed men stormed the premises of the Patrol Service Regiment of the

Armenian Police. Hostages were taken. Widespread protests, with demands for the resignation of

the then Armenian president, followed.

During those events Mr Grigoryan, at that time a freelance journalist, was covering a demonstration

in the Sari Tagh neighbourhood of Yerevan in the evening of 19 July 2016. The protest turned

violent, involving clashes with the police. At one point Mr Grigoryan tried to film in close-up with a

camera a group of police officers who were allegedly assaulting a demonstrator. The officers

allegedly grabbed Mr Grigoryan, hit him, seized his mobile telephone and camera. The camera was

returned to him after the intervention of a senior police officer. Allegedly his footage of the protests

was deleted.

Following this Mr Grigoryan went to Surb Grigor Lusavorich Medical Centre with a bleeding and

swollen lip.

An investigation into the incident was launched and is still pending.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

.The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 January 2017.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Mattias Guyomar (France), President,

Armen Harutyunyan (Armenia),

Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Monaco),

Gilberto Felici (San Marino),

Andreas Zünd (Switzerland),

Diana Sârcu (the Republic of Moldova),

Kateřina Šimáčková (the Czech Republic),

and also Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

The Court observed that although Mr Grigoryan had not been wearing a press card, he and his

colleague had informed the police officers that Mr Grigoryan was a journalist at work. Despite the

commotion around them, the officers could not have missed seeing him working, and indeed they

had acknowledged the fact he was filming. It was clear from footage provided to the Court (the

Government had not contested its authenticity) that Mr Grigoryan had been assaulted by at least

one officer, which had resulted in his sustaining some injuries. Despite repeated requests, it took

considerable time for Mr Grigoryan’s equipment to be returned, and only following the intervention

of a senior officer.

Given this, the Court held that the police officers had interfered with Mr Grigoryan’s work as a

journalist. It did not consider it necessary to establish whether the officers had also deleted his

video footage from the camera or had seized his mobile telephone because the foregoing

considerations were sufficient to conclude that the attack on the applicant and the seizure of his

camera had seriously hampered the exercise of his right to receive and impart information.

No reasonable justification had been put forward by the officers for their actions against

Mr Grigoryan, who had been neither violent nor armed, and who, the Court held, had not been

threatening.

The Government had failed to show that there had been a lawful and legitimate aim behind the

actions of the officers in this case. Therefore, such interference was not considered to have been

“necessary in a democratic society”. As a result, the Court found a violation of Article 10.

The Court held that Armenia has to pay the applicant 4,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary

damage.