CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 5 avril 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sB2B1ABC4 { margin-left:12.12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s53D4691F { width:35.23pt; display:inline-block } .s6B870CDD { width:153.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF NANA MURADYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 69517/11)         JUDGMENT Art 2 (substantive and procedural) • Life • Positive obligations • Failure to take any measures to protect life of conscript who committed suicide, against backdrop of harassment, monetary disputes and discouragement of reporting misconduct in his military unit • Ineffective investigation   STRASBOURG 5 April 2022   FINAL   05/07/2022   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Yonko Grozev, President,   Tim Eicke,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   69517/11) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian national, Ms Nana Muradyan (“the applicant”), on 23 January 2012; the decision to give notice of the application to the Armenian Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 27 May and 21 September 2021 and 15   March 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last-mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son, allegedly by suicide, during his compulsory military service and raises issues under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Armavir. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Shushanyan and Mr R. Revazyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   Y.   Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. background to the case 5.     The applicant is the mother of V. Muradyan, who died at the age of 18. 6 .     In November 2009 V. Muradyan was drafted into the Armenian army. He was then assigned to military unit no.   39318 of the Nagorno-Karabakh armed forces (“the military unit”, situated in the “Republic of Nagorno ‑ Karabakh” (the “NKR”)). 7.     On 15 March 2010, at around 12.35 a.m., V. Muradyan’s body was found hanging from a metal pole at the back of the officers’ room of the military unit’s maintenance company. INVESTIGATION INTO THE APPLICANT’S SON’S DEATH Initial investigation 8 .     On the day of the discovery of V. Muradyan’s body investigator A. of the First Garrison Investigation Department of the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Armenia (Stepanakert, Nagorno ‑ Karabakh) decided to institute criminal proceedings concerning V.   Muradyan’s death. The investigator’s decision stated, in particular, as follows: “... having considered the report concerning private [V. Muradyan’s] suicide, I found out that at around 12.35 a.m. on 15 March 2010 ... private [V.   Muradyan’s] body was found hanging from a metal pole with a rope at the back of the officers’ room of the maintenance company of [the military unit]. This fact contains the elements of a crime under Article 110 § 1 of the [Criminal Code of Armenia] ... I [have] decided to institute criminal proceedings under Article 110 § 1..., take over the criminal case and conduct an investigation ...” 9 .     Between 1.30 and 2.50 a.m. investigator A. conducted an examination of the scene of the incident. According to the report of that examination, the investigator found a military belt with the number 118733 by the door to the contractual servicemen’s office situated in a building next to the officers’ room of the military unit’s maintenance company. The belt was seized by the investigator. A couple of metres away the investigator found a military hat and a belt, both with the number 00000276, and a military jacket with the number 105388, all of which were seized. The report then went on to describe the position of V.   Muradyan’s body, which was said to have been hanging from a metal pole. It was stated, inter alia , that V. Muradyan was in military uniform and that there was a chair on the floor, 5   cm away from his left heel. After V. Muradyan’s body had been removed and taken on a stretcher to the officers’ room of the maintenance company, the remainder of the rope that had been left on the metal pole was also seized. 10 .     From 2.55 until 3.30 a.m. investigator A. examined V.   Muradyan’s body. His clothes, including his military jacket, were removed and seized. 11.     Later that morning investigator A. conducted an additional examination of the scene of the incident. It appears that a torn and empty cardboard box with the applicant’s son’s name written on it was found and seized. No other items relevant to the investigation were reported as being found during the examination of the officers’ room of the maintenance company and the contractual servicemen’s office. 12 .     On the same date investigator A. ordered a forensic medical examination of V. Muradyan’s body to determine, inter alia , the cause of his death, the presence of injuries on his body, whether his death had resulted from hanging or the knot had been put in place after his death, and whether it was possible that his death had resulted from suffocation by other means. 13 .     In the aftermath of the incident, several servicemen from the maintenance company, including privates N.G., H.H., A.K. and junior sergeant K.A., were questioned. According to their version of events, V.   Muradyan owed 6,000 Armenian drams (AMD – approximately 11 euros (EUR)) to serviceman N.G., who had lent him the money to pay back junior sergeant M.B., for a mobile telephone bought from the latter. On 14   March 2010 servicemen H.H. and A.K. had requested AMD 2,000 (approximately EUR 4) from N.G. Stating that he did not have the money, N.G. had referred them to V. Muradyan, who, according to N.G., had agreed to give them AMD   2,000 from the amount initially owed to him. As a result of further discussions that day, A.K. and H.H. learnt that V. Muradyan had lied to them when he had said that another serviceman, T.H., had agreed to lend him the required amount. Later that day servicemen A.K. and H.H. had met N.G. to discuss V. Muradyan’s debt. Junior sergeant K.A. had also joined in the conversation. N.G. had offered to meet V. Muradyan. At around 9 p.m. they had gone to the contractual servicemen’s office, which had been empty at the time. A.K. had then invited V. Muradyan, who had been asked to explain why he had lied about the fact that T.H. had promised to lend him money. V.   Muradyan had bowed his head and not answered. Thereafter, V. Muradyan had stated that he needed to go to the first artillery division urgently. As he had been leaving, A.K. had told him to find the required amount before midnight. The conversation involving N.G, A.K., H.H. and K.A. had lasted about ten minutes. 14.     In their statements, N.G., K.A., H.H. and A.K. denied inflicting any violence on V. Muradyan during the discussions concerning the latter’s debt. 15 .     It was established that platoon commander A.Ar. had been in charge of the maintenance company on 14 March 2010. At about 10.30 p.m., before giving the “lights out” order, A.Ar. had gone to the armoury, where he had seen all the maintenance company servicemen except V. Muradyan. A.Ar. had enquired as to his whereabouts, and junior sergeant K.A. had replied, untruthfully, that V. Muradyan had gone to the toilet. A.Ar. had not then verified whether that was indeed the case and had left for his office to continue watching television, while K.A. had marked V. Muradyan as present in the evening register. 16 .     It was further established that at about midnight, private L.T., seeing that V. Muradyan’s bed was empty, had informed the other servicemen. After searching for V.   Muradyan for some time, the servicemen had discovered his body hanging from a metal pole. 17 .     At some point, the applicant was recognised as V. Muradyan’s legal heir in the proceedings. When questioned, the applicant stated, in particular, that during a telephone conversation a couple of days before the incident her son had told her that he had witnessed a fuel theft at the military unit. She also stated that she did not believe that her son could have committed suicide and that he had been killed by the servicemen whom he had seen stealing fuel. 18 .     On 19 April 2010 the forensic medical expert delivered his report (see paragraph 12 above). The relevant parts read as follows: “... there is a single closed ligature mark on the upper third of the neck ... On the left side on the front surface of the neck there is a 1.2 to 1.3 cm wide dark red snake-like bruise that is horizontal to the ligature mark ... [V. Muradyan’s] death resulted from mechanical suffocation caused by compression of the neck organs by the knot ... The following injuries have been discovered as a result of the forensic examination of [V. Muradyan’s] body: a bruise in the left arm area, an abrasion on the right wrist ... which were inflicted while he was still alive, about 2 to 4 days prior to death ... are not connected with the death ... Apart from the features inherent in the given type of mechanical suffocation, the forensic examination of [V.   Muradyan’s] body has not revealed other specificities ...” 19 .     On 31 May 2010 investigator A. ordered a post-mortem forensic psychiatric and psychological assessment of V. Muradyan’s condition prior to his death. The relevant parts of the experts’ report of 27 July 2010 read as follows: “... It should also be noted that [V. Muradyan’s] fellow servicemen and officers have said in their statements ... that [V. Muradyan] had not complained about military service and was in a good mood during the period preceding his death; moreover, he was happy; no anxiety or despair could be noticed ... It should be noted that the participants in the situation being examined have stated ... that [V. Muradyan] was very upset and did not utter a word or respond during the last conversation with him. It is also worth noting that, apart from the fact mentioned, according to the material in the case file, [V. Muradyan] had not been subjected to any violence by anyone; he had not been seen unhappy or depressed ... ... it can be concluded that while alive and at the moment of committing suicide [V.   Muradyan] was not suffering from any psychiatric disorder and could account for his actions and control them. ... [V. Muradyan] had found himself in a conflict situation trying to find money for the payment of the mobile telephone bought from M.B. ... ... according to the material in the case file [V. Muradyan] ... had plans for the future, there is no information about a previous suicide attempt or thoughts [of that sort], his relationships with fellow servicemen were normal ... ... it can be concluded that almost immediately before his death [V. Muradyan] was in a severely depressed psychological state. It should also be mentioned that, according to the material in the case file, [V. Muradyan’s] psychological state before his death was provoked by the ... discussions concerning repayment of the money, to which the actions of [N.G.], [A.K.], [H.H.] contributed ... ... it can be concluded that there is a causal link between the actions of [N.G.], [A.K.], [H.H.] and [V. Muradyan’s] psychological state but that those actions should be subject to legal assessment.” 20.     Dissatisfied with the results of the investigation, the applicant sent various complaints to the authorities claiming that the investigation had failed to establish the true circumstances of her son’s death. 21 .     On 3 August 2010 the investigation of the case was taken over by investigator A.T. of the Investigation Department of Cases of Special Importance of the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence (Yerevan, Armenia). 22 .     On 6 September 2010 A.T. ordered a forensic biological examination of V. Muradyan’s clothes, including his military hat, belt, trousers and jacket, all of which had the number 00000276, and other items found at the scene of the incident, including the military belt with the number 118733 and a military jacket with the number 105388. 23 .     On 16 September 2010 the expert delivered his report, which stated that V. Muradyan’s trousers were dirty and had whitish traces on them, while his shirt was also dirty and the sleeves covered with traces of white mould. No traces of blood, skin or hair particles had been found on the clothes examined. 24.     On the same date A.T. ordered a forensic trace evidence examination to determine, in particular, whether the clothing seized at the scene of the incident contained any evidence of a violent struggle or fight. The expert’s report, delivered on 12 October 2010, concluded that there were no mechanical defects or specific trace evidence on the clothes examined. 25 .     On 4 October 2010 A.T. ordered a forensic biological examination to determine whether there were any traces of blood, hair, skin or other types of tissue on the rope. According to the expert’s report of 15   October 2010, a sparse amount of blood had been found in the sample taken from the part 12   to 13 cm from the knot. However, the blood type had not been determined, probably because of the scarcity of proteins in the sample, which was why the expert had not proceeded to determining the blood group. 26.     It was established during the investigation that the military belt with the number 118733 found at the scene of the incident had belonged to N.G. 27 .     By a decision of 15 January 2011 A.T. decided to stay the criminal proceedings into V. Muradyan’s death. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “... According to the material in the case file, before, during or after the conversation which took place at around 9 p.m. on 14 March 2010 ... servicemen N.G., A.K., H.H. and K.A. did not assault, threaten, degrade or humiliate V. Muradyan ... It was also established that in the days preceding the incident, V. Muradyan had participated in car repair works in the maintenance company and that the bruise in the area of his left arm and the abrasion on his right wrist could have been caused then. ... K.A. and A.Ar. failed to fulfil their duties properly, however no significant damage has been caused by their actions and there is no causal link between their actions or inaction and [V. Muradyan’s] suicide. K.A. and A.Ar. could not have predicted that, by being absent from the evening call-up [V. Muradyan] could have committed suicide ... As a result of the internal investigation into [V. Muradyan’s] suicide ... the officials responsible, who breached the internal rules of military conduct, including A.Ar., were reprimanded. ... The Stepanakert military police and the command of the military unit were instructed to investigate a shortage of fuel in the military unit ... however no cases of fuel shortage were... detected. ... according to the evidence collected in the case [N.G.] left his belt [at the place where V. Muradyan’s body was found] as a result of having forgotten about it and no other information has been received in the case to explain the presence of [N.G.’s] military belt at the place in question. ... The chair that [V. Muradyan] used during the suicide was a metal one and, according to the evidence ..., it did not belong to any division; it was at the back of the maintenance company garages and was not in use. ... Thus, all the possible necessary investigative actions have been taken during the investigation ... however the person or persons to be charged have not been identified.” Resumption of the investigation 28 .     On 31 January 2011 the supervising prosecutor instructed A.T. to resume the investigation, giving specific instructions concerning investigative measures that still needed to be taken. 29.     By a decision of 3 February 2011 A.T. resumed the proceedings. 30 .     On 4 April 2011 A.T. questioned N.G. again, who stated, inter alia , that he had lent AMD 6,000 to V. Muradyan on 11 March 2010 because he had seemed anxious and frightened as he had had until midnight that day to pay for the telephone bought from M.B. Since M.B. was undergoing a disciplinary punishment (isolation) at the time, V. Muradyan was to give the money to S.B., M.B.’s friend. He further stated that after the evening call-up on 11 March 2010 he had seen V. Muradyan speaking with S.B. Although he did not hear their conversation, he knew that they were talking about the payment to M.B. Since they were not friends, there was nothing else that they could have been talking about. Besides, S.B. had authority in the military unit, while V. Muradyan was a new recruit and did not have authority. Either that same day or the day after he noticed that V. Muradyan was absent from the evening call-up when all the servicemen had lined up. When he asked K.A. where V. Muradyan was, K.A. told him that he had excused himself because he had to have a conversation regarding the payment of some money. N.G. then saw V. Muradyan on his way back trying to button his winter jacket, but he only managed to button some of the lower buttons and fasten his belt. N.G. also stated that V. Muradyan had appeared very confused at that point and had not been acting his usual self, which was why he had thought that something had happened, although he had not known what at that point. Afterwards, he realised that V. Muradyan was late for the line-up because of his conversation with S.B. When asked what consequences he could have suffered if he was unable to pay or was late with the payment, N.G. stated that it depended on who he had owed money to, but if he had failed to keep his word, that would have been shameful for him. 31 .     On 8 April 2011 A.T. questioned junior sergeant K.A., who stated, inter alia , that he would often use V. Muradyan’s mobile telephone, which his family had gifted him on the day of his oath of enlistment. In February 2010 V. Muradyan told him that he had sold his mobile telephone to junior sergeant A.G., a contractual serviceman in the maintenance company of the military unit. However, he did not tell him whether he had received payment. Seven to ten days after that conversation K.A., A.K., N.G. and H.H. were present at a conversation between A.G. and V. Muradyan in which the latter asked him for payment, to which A.G. replied, without any explanation, that he was not planning to pay for the telephone. That conversation was followed by an argument between the two men. K.A., knowing that there was going to be an argument, avoided participating and remained outside. He could hear A.G. shouting while V. Muradyan kept silent. When the noise stopped, V.   Muradyan came out with his eyes red and head down. He then realised that A.G. had definitively refused to pay the money. Those present during the argument, including A.K., N.G. and H.H., then told him that A.G. had hit V.   Muradyan. When asked to explain why he did not intervene in the argument, K.A. said: “Although I was squad commander and had the rank of junior sergeant, I did not have authority among the servicemen ... even if I had tried to intervene, nothing would have changed ... I did not report the incident or inform the [senior] officers.” K.A. then recounted an incident in January or February 2010 in which A.K. had hit him when he had refused to go shopping for him. According to K.A, A.K. was stronger and he could not do anything about his behaviour. He also recounted several other incidents in which A.K. had made him do favours for him, which he had done out of fear of being hit again. K.A. stated that he had not reported any of the incidents to the senior officers since the other servicemen would not have respected him afterwards. Lastly, K.A. described an incident involving A.K. and V. Muradyan in February 2010 in which the former had hit V. Muradyan after he had refused to fetch him water. 32 .     On 30 April 2011 A.T. charged A.G. with breaching military discipline rules. According to the charges, in early February 2010 A.G. had an argument with V. Muradyan over money and deliberately slapped and assaulted him in the presence of a number of servicemen, publicly degrading and humiliating him. 33 .     On 23 May 2011, when questioned again, N.G. recounted the incident between A.G. and V. Muradyan. He confirmed that A.G. had pulled V.   Muradyan’s clothes and hit him several times. According to N.G., A.G. had served in the military unit and then continued serving on a contractual basis, whereas V. Muradyan was a new recruit. 34.     By a decision of 29 June 2011 A.T. terminated A.G.’s prosecution based on the Amnesty Act enacted by Parliament on 26 May 2011 on the grounds that he had a young child in his care and the charges against him included an offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment. 35.     On 4 November 2011 the applicant lodged a claim with the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan, seeking a judicial review of the actions and inaction of investigators A. and A.T., recognition of the violation of V. Muradyan’s right to life and acknowledgment of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his death. The applicant’s main complaint was that investigator A. had failed to undertake the necessary measures to investigate the circumstances of her son’s death properly, having put forward the hypothesis of suicide in a preconceived manner. Furthermore, investigator A.T. had not tried to consider other versions of the incident, apart from the suicide hypothesis. Although he had ordered several forensic examinations, they had not produced any tangible results. 36.     By a decision of 12 December 2011 the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan left the applicant’s complaint unexamined on the grounds that she had failed to specifically mention the action or decision complained of. 37.     Following an appeal by the applicant, on 26 January 2012 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 12 December 2011. 38.     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which on 21 March 2012 was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation. 39 .     The case was then taken over by investigator A.M. of the Investigation Department of Cases of Special Importance of the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence. 40.     On 25 June 2013 the applicant enquired about the status of the investigation, in particular about the investigative measures which had taken place the previous year. 41.     By a letter of 4 July 2013 A.M. replied that the investigation was continuing and that the applicant would be able to study the file upon its completion. 42 .     On 10 December 2013 A.M. ordered an additional forensic medical examination by a panel of experts based on the material in the case file, including the photographs attached to the initial forensic medical report (see paragraph 18 above) and those taken during the examination of the body and at the scene of the incident (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above). The relevant expert panel was requested to determine the nature and origin of the bruises visible in the photographs of V. Muradyan’s body, as well as the possible time of their infliction and severity. The experts were also requested to clarify whether the bruises could have been caused by hanging and, if so, the manner of their infliction. 43.     On 11 March 2014 the applicant asked to examine the package containing her son’s clothes that had been seized by investigator A. at the scene of the incident (see paragraph 10 above). 44 .     On 28 March 2014 an expert panel composed of three forensic medical experts (see paragraph 42 above) delivered its report, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “... we find that ... the injury in question [the bruise on the left front side of the neck] located [horizontally] beneath the ligature mark could have been sustained during death as a result of pressure on the neck while hanging ... The severity of said bruise is no different from the ligature mark from the rope and the other injuries and changes brought about by mechanical suffocation ...” 45 .     On 8 August 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General which stated, in particular, as follows: “... At my request ... investigator [A.M.] has conducted an additional examination of the sealed package in which my son’s clothes, which are physical evidence in the case, were kept. As a result of the examination, the following has come to light: 1. My son’s military boots, which were on him when his body was discovered, were missing from the package; ... In view of the above, I request that the Special Investigative Service [of the Republic of Armenia] be instructed to investigate the above-mentioned circumstances.” 46 .     By decision of 12 September 2014 the Special Investigative Service refused to institute proceedings against investigator A. The decision referred to A.’s statement that he had not considered it important to examine V.   Muradyan’s military boots and had not put them in the package with the rest of the clothes since he had not detected any injuries on V. Muradyan’s lower extremities or damage to his clothes, including his socks, which was why the boots had not been sent later to the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence. 47.     The decision of 12 September 2014 was unsuccessfully challenged before the Prosecutor General, after which the applicant sought a judicial review. 48.     On 24 December 2014 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan upheld the decision of 12 September 2014. 49.     The applicant lodged an appeal, which was dismissed by a decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal on 26 February 2015. 50.     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 51.     By a decision of 23 July 2015 the applicant was refused leave to appeal by the Court of Cassation. 52 .     On 7 December 2015 A.M. decided to stay the criminal proceedings. The decision stated, in particular, as follows: “... no evidence has been obtained to substantiate that [V. Muradyan] suffered ... humiliation or ill-treatment. ... Thus, in the course of the investigation ... all possible investigative measures have been taken to identify the person/persons who should be charged with inciting [V.   Muradyan] to commit suicide ...” THE APPLICANT’S APPEALS 53.     The applicant appealed against the decision of 7 December 2015 to the Military Prosecutor. 54.     By a decision of 19 February 2016 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed. 55.     The applicant lodged a complaint with the Arabkir and Kanaker ‑ Zeytun District Court of Yerevan against the decisions of 7   December 2015 and 19 February 2016. 56.     On 7 November 2016 that court fully upheld the decisions of 7   December 2015 and 19 February 2016. 57 .     On 29 November 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal. 58 .     On 21 December 2016 the Prosecutor General sent a letter to the Head of the Investigative Committee, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “On my instructions, the criminal case [concerning V. Muradyan’s death] was examined by the Department of Organisation, Supervision and Legal Assistance of the Prosecutor General’s Office... It has come to light as a result of the examination of the criminal case that it is necessary to carry out a number of investigative and procedural activities with the purpose of ensuring a full and objective investigation, therefore a decision was taken on 21 December 2016 to quash the decision of 7 December 2015 by which the criminal proceedings were stayed. ... I propose to discuss the question of continuing the investigation with the Department for the Investigation of Cases of Special Importance of the Investigative Committee ...” 59.     On the same date the case was transferred to the Investigative Committee to continue the investigation. 60 .     Subsequently, senior investigator R.M. of the Department for the Investigation of Cases of Special Importance of the Investigative Committee took over the case. 61.     On 23 January 2017 the applicant withdrew her appeal against the decision of 7 November 2016 of the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan (see paragraph 57 above) on the grounds that the investigation had since resumed. 62.     The Criminal Court of Appeal discontinued the examination of the applicant’s appeal on the same date. 63 .     On 7 July 2017 former servicemen N.G. and A.K. (see paragraph 13 above) were charged under Article 359 § 3 of the Criminal Code (breach of military conduct by servicemen, see paragraph 77 below). In particular, according to the charges, on 14 March 2010 N.G. and A.K. had harassed V.   Muradyan with the intention of oppressing and humiliating him for having given a false promise and failing to return the promised amount of money in time, which had resulted in the latter committing suicide by hanging later that day at around midnight. On the same date N.G. and A.K. were put on the wanted list since they could not be located. 64 .     On 20 July 2017 R.M. decided to stay the criminal proceedings under Article 31 § 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (fleeing an investigation or trial) on the grounds that N.G. and A.K. were hiding from the prosecution and it had not been possible to find out their location. The Prosecutor General dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that decision on 13 November 2017. 65.     On 11 December 2017 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan against the decisions of 20 July and 13 November 2017. 66 .     By a decision of 23 October 2018 the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan (“the Yerevan Court”) allowed the applicant’s complaint and ordered the investigating authority to eliminate the violations of the applicant’s procedural rights. It found, in particular, that the applicant’s involvement in the investigation had been of a formal nature as she had not had a genuine possibility to exercise her rights specifically in so far as she had not been informed of a number of forensic expert examinations beforehand, which would have allowed her to get acquainted with the investigator’s decision to assign a forensic expert examination, challenge the experts, put additional questions to them and so forth. Furthermore, it found that the investigating authority had failed to carry out a full and objective investigation while the applicant’s arguments had not been addressed. The court also concluded that the investigation had been unreasonably lengthy, in breach of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. As a result, the applicant’s right to a plausible explanation for her son’s death and her right to obtain criminal prosecution of those responsible could have been infringed. 67.     On 21 December 2018 the supervising prosecutor quashed R.M.’s decision of 20 July 2017 (see paragraph 64 above) and sent the case to the Investigative Committee for further investigation. 68 .     On 24 December 2018 investigator R.S. of the Department for the Investigation of Cases of Special Importance of the Investigative Committee took over the investigation of the case. 69 .     In March 2019 the investigator made enquiries with the police to clarify whether N.G. and A.K. had crossed the Armenian border. Instructions were issued to the police and military police. 70 .     On 19 May 2019 R.S. interviewed T.H. (see paragraph 13 above), who stated that he had been questioned a number of times in relation to V.   Muradyan’s death and had disclosed everything he knew. He did not make any new statements and merely stated that he had not been aware of any violence or threats against V. Muradyan. 71 .     On 21 May 2019 R.S. interviewed two other servicemen. Both of them similarly made no new statements and stated that they had already been questioned and had disclosed everything they knew. When asked about possible ill-treatment of V. Muradyan, they submitted that they had not been aware of any such treatment. 72 .     On 5 August 2019 R.S. questioned L.T. (see paragraph 16 above), who also stated that he had nothing to add to his numerous other statements. When asked about the whereabouts of N.G. and A.K., he stated that to his knowledge they were in Russia, but that he did not know where specifically as he had not kept in touch with them. 73.     On 16 July 2019 R.S. requested that the investigation be extended for a period of two months. 74.     By a decision of 19 July 2019 the supervising prosecutor extended the investigation period until 21 September 2019. 75 .     According to the information provided by the Government on 1 July 2020, the investigation concerning V. Muradyan’s death was, on that date, still pending. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK DOMESTIC LAW Criminal Code 76 .     As in force at the relevant time, Article 110 § 1 provided that indirectly or negligently causing a person to commit or attempt suicide by threats, cruel treatment or repeated humiliation was punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to three years. 77 .     Article 359 § 3 provided that breaches of military conduct by servicemen in the absence of a subordinate relationship between them by humiliation, bullying, beating or other acts of violence which have negligently led to serious consequences, was punishable by imprisonment of four to eight years. Civil Code 78.     The relevant provisions of the Civil Code concerning civil liability for damage and the obligation to compensate for damage provide as follows. 79.     Under Article 17 § 1, a person whose rights have been violated may claim full compensation for the damage suffered, unless the law or contract provides for a lower amount of compensation. Damage is the expenses borne or to be borne by the person whose rights have been violated, in connection with restoring the violated rights, loss of property or damage to it (material damage), including loss of income, as well as non-pecuniary damage (Article   17 § 2). Non-pecuniary damage may only be compensated in the cases provided for by the Civil Code (Article 17 § 4). 80 .     Article 162.1 § 2 provides that a person has the right to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage if it has been established by the prosecuting authority or a court that, as a result of a decision, action or omission by a State or local governance body or one of its officials, his or her fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention, including the right to life, have been violated. 81.     Article 1087.2 §§ 3 and 4 provide that non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of a violation of fundamental rights may be compensated regardless of whether there is any fault on the part of a State official. Non-pecuniary damage is compensated from the State budget. If the fundamental right included in Article 162.1 has been violated by a local governance body or one of its officials, non-pecuniary damage is compensated from the relevant local budget. 82 .     The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the violation of a person’s right to life cannot exceed three thousand times the minimum salary (approximately EUR 6,000) (Article 1087.2 §   7   (1)). The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage may, in exceptional cases, exceed that limit if the damage has led to serious consequences (Article 1087.2 § 8). 83.     A claim for compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage may be submitted to a court together with a claim seeking to establish a breach of the rights set out in Article 162.1 within one year of the time the person became aware of the breach, as well as within six months of the date on which a judicial decision establishing the breach of the right in question came into force. If the breach has been established by a law-enforcement body, a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage may be submitted no earlier than two months but no later than one year after the date on which the person concerned became aware of the matter (Article 1087.2 § 9). DOMESTIC CASE-LAW 84 .     The Civil and Administrative Chamber of the Court of Cassation dealt with a case concerning an individual’s claim for compensation for, inter alia , non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of an unlawful conviction. After analysing Articles 162.1 and 1087.2 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 80-82 above), in a decision of 27 December 2017 (ԵԿԴ /3296/02/14) the Court of Cassation stated, in particular, as follows: “In [Armenia], compensation for non-pecuniary damage is only possible in the cases where the specific requirements of [Articles 162.1 and 1087.2 of the Civil Code] have been met, taking into account the restrictions set out in those Articles, the analysis of which consists of the following: (a) ... compensation for non-pecuniary damage can only be claimed in the case of a violation of one or more of the rights set out in [Article 162.1 § 2]. (b) ... the violation [of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention] should be established by a court or prosecuting authority... (c) The basis for compensation of non-pecuniary damage is physical or mental suffering ... The Court of Cassation notes that the Civil Code prescribes limits to the amounts of compensation for non-pecuniary damage which can be exceeded in exceptional cases if serious consequences have arisen because of the [non-pecuniary] damage suffered (for instance serious damage to health) ...” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 85.     The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention about the death of her son during military service, and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Since it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114, 124 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court finds it appropriate to examine the applicant’s complaints solely under Article 2 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.” Admissibility Jurisdiction 86.     The Government submitted that the investigation into the circumstances of V. Muradyan’s death had been and was still being conducted by the Armenian authorities. There was therefore solid evidence to support the theory that Armenia had jurisdiction over the matter complained of. The Government considered that Armenia’s jurisdiction should be acknowledged on the basis of the exception of “State agent authority and control”, as all the acts complained of as regards the procedural obligation were attributable to the Armenian authorities. 87.     The applicant made no submissions in this regard. 88.     The Court notes that it has already examined in other cases the issue of Armenia’s jurisdiction over the territory in question and found that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories and that, therefore, complaints pertaining to events that happened in that area came within the jurisdiction of Armenia for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 169-86, ECHR 2015; and Muradyan v. Armenia , no.   11275/07, §§ 123-27, 24 November 2016, specifically concerning the death of a conscript during compulsory military service in Nagorno ‑ Karabakh; and compare Mirzoyan v. Armenia , no. 57129/10, § 56, 23 May 2019, concerning the murder of a conscript during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh). 89.     In the present case, the applicant’s complaints about the death of her son fall to be examined under both the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 of the Convention. 90 .     It should be noted that in the above-cited case of Mirzoyan , the Court concluded that there was a jurisdictional link between Armenia and the applicant’s deceased son, considering that, as established during the investigation (ibid. § 62), the applicant’s son had been killed by an officer of the Armenian army on the territory of the “NKR” (see paragraph 6 above). 91 .     In the present case, however, at the date of the latest information available to the Court (that is, 1 July 2020 – see paragraph 75 above) the exact circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son, which occurred under the authority of the Nagorno-Karabakh armed forces at a military unit situated in Nagorno-Karabakh and administered by that entity, had not been elucidated while, as noted above, the applicant complained under both aspects of Article   2 of the Convention about the death of her son, including as regards the State’s failure to protect her son’s right to life during his compulsory military service. The Court therefore considers that, like in the Muradyan case (cited above, § 126), the jurisdictional link between Armenia and the applicant’s deceased son in the present case should be established on the basis of the Court’s earlier finding in the Grand Chamber case of Chiragov and   Others that at the relevant time (that is, prior to the changes in the situation on the ground as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh war, which ended on 10   November 2020 with Azerbaijan capturing all the surrounding territories and part of the “NKR” proper and with the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the area for at least five years) Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories and was under an obligation to secure in that area the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see Chiragov and Others , cited above, §§ 169-86). 92.     It follows that, for the reasons set out above, there was a jurisdictional link for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention between Armenia and the applicant’s deceased son. The applicant’s victim status 93.     The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention since there had been an acknowledgement of the breach, which had resulted in the criminal proceedings being resumed and provided her with the possibility to obtain redress. In particular, the decision of the Yerevan Court dated 23 October 2018 (see paragraph 66 above) had established a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb and “had mirrored the violation under the procedural limb to the substantive limb of Article 2”, finding that the breach of the procedural obligation could have violated the applicant’s right to be provided with a plausible explanation for her son’s death. Furthermore, by virtue of that decision the in