HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 7 in criminal proceedings had the right to appeal only if the proceedings had been instituted on the basis of his or her complaint. 36. On 26 December 2002 the Court of Cassation (ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարան) upheld this decision. F. Appeal and cassation proceedings in the applicant’s criminal case 37. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against his conviction of 19 June 2002. 38. In the proceedings before the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal, the applicant submitted that he was not aware of the circumstances of serviceman H.’s death and that he had been coerced into making his confession statement. 39. Witness T. submitted that he had not seen who had killed serviceman H., since he and witness A. had been absent at the material time. He further submitted that the statement made by him during the preliminary investigation, to the effect that he had witnessed the murder, was untrue and that he had been forced to make it. Immediately after the incident all five servicemen had agreed to say that serviceman H. had been killed by an Azeri sniper, but in reality he knew nothing about the circumstances of H.’s death. Witness A. made similar submissions. 40. On 1 April 2003 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal decided to uphold the applicant’s conviction. In doing so, the Court of Appeal found that the above submissions were made as a result of collusion between the applicant and the witnesses, aimed at helping him to avoid criminal liability. These submissions were rebutted by the evidence obtained in the case, such as: (a) The applicant’s confession of 16 April 1999 to the investigator. Later and in court the applicant had revoked this statement, as having been made under coercion, but had failed to indicate the details of any coercion applied to him in the investigator’s office. (b) Submissions by witnesses T. and A. to the Syunik Regional Court at the hearing of 26 October 1999, to the effect that one of them had witnessed and the other was aware of the murder. Witnesses T. and A. had later revoked these submissions but accepted that no coercion had been applied to them in court and that these submissions, albeit untrue, had been made voluntarily. (c) Other circumstantial and hearsay witness statements, the relevant expert opinions, various records and the video recording. 41. The Court of Appeal concluded by stating that the evidence obtained under coercion in the military police station, which was corroborated by the factual circumstances of the case, had not constituted the basis for the charges and had not been used as evidence.