4 HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 24. In the proceedings before the Syunik Regional Court, the applicant’s lawyer asked that the applicant’s confession statements of 16 and 17 April 1999 and the statements made by witnesses T. and A. during the investigation in 1999 be declared inadmissible, since they had been obtained under torture. By that time criminal proceedings had already been instituted against the relevant military police officers on account of the torture of the applicant and servicemen T. and A. 25. On 19 June 2002 the Syunik Regional Court found the applicant guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The sentence was to be calculated from the first day of the applicant’s detention on 17 April 1999. In its judgment, the Regional Court stated that “[T]he following ha[d] been established during the court examination” and went on to describe the circumstances in which the applicant had shot serviceman H. The Regional Court then stated: “For these actions [the applicant] was charged [with premeditated murder]. During ... questioning on 16 April 1999 [the applicant] admitted to the investigating authority that [serviceman H.] had died from a bullet accidentally shot from [the applicant’s] machine gun. On 17 April 1999 during questioning as an accused he again admitted that [serviceman H.] had died from a bullet which had been shot by [the applicant] as a result of a violation of the rules for the handling of weapons. [The applicant] confirmed this statement during the re-enactment of the circumstances of the incident [on 17 April 1999], the video recording of which has been examined during the court proceedings. [The applicant] later revoked this confession. During the court proceedings [the applicant] pleaded not guilty and stated that he had not killed [serviceman H.]; they had not had an argument on the day of the incident, they had not sworn at each other, he was unaware of the circumstances of [serviceman H.’s] death, and his confession had been made under the influence of the violence and threats inflicted on him by the [police officers]. Such arguments [by the applicant] are unfounded, contradict the evidence obtained during the court examination and cannot serve as a basis for avoiding criminal liability and punishment. [The applicant’s] ... arguments have been rebutted and his commission of the offence has been proven by the following evidence obtained during the court examination: ...” 26. As an example of such evidence, the Regional Court went on to cite the statement made by witness T. on 5 March 1999. It further stated: “[Witness T.] made the same statement before the Syunik Regional Court at [the hearing of 26 October 1999].