CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 novembre 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 } .s952C702C { margin-top:60pt; 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 } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .sFC44370F { font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; 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 } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8508A14D { width:8.94pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .sB1A859A2 { width:116.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN AND NAZARYAN v. ARMENIA (Applications nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14)     JUDGMENT Art 2 (substantive) • Life • Positive obligations • Failure to take appropriate and effective measures to protect life of contractual military officer who allegedly committed suicide, against backdrop of harassment and ill-treatment • Lack of regulatory framework to safeguard life of military personnel, specifically in relation to prevention of suicide Art 2 (procedural) • Domestic authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into circumstances of death and to secure applicants’ involvement to a sufficient degree   STRASBOURG 8 November 2022   FINAL   08/02/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , President ,   Tim Eicke,   Yonko Grozev,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   2169/12 and 29887/14) 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 two Armenian nationals, Ms Hasmik Hovhannisyan (“the first applicant”) and Ms Tsovinar Nazaryan (“the second applicant”) (together “the applicants”), on 23 November 2011 and 3 April 2014 respectively; the decision to give notice to the Armenian Government (“the Government”) of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 11 October 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the death of A. Nazaryan, the first applicant’s son and the second applicant’s brother during his military service, allegedly by suicide, and the subsequent investigation. It raises issues under Article 2 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The first and second applicants were born in 1949 and 1976 and live in Yerevan and Brussels respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mr V. Grigoryan and subsequently by Mr M. Shushanyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan, and Ms   J.   Evans, Ms   J.   Gavron, Mr P. Leach, Ms   K.   Levine and Ms J. Sawyer, lawyers from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre in London. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, and subsequently by Mr   Y.   Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Background to the case 5.     The applicants are the mother and the sister of Mr A. Nazaryan, an officer of the armed forces of Armenia who died at the age of 31. 6.     From 2001 to 2003 A. Nazaryan performed mandatory military service. 7.     In 2009 he was recruited to the armed forces of Armenia and assigned to military unit no. 21127 (“the military unit”) situated in Armenia with the rank of lieutenant. death of the applicants’ relative and the ensuing investigation 8 .     On 27 July 2010 A. Nazaryan was found dead at base no. 12 of the military unit, where he was on duty on that day, with a gunshot injury to his mouth. 9 .     After A. Nazaryan’s death, Captain H.M., who was in charge of base no. 12, removed A. Nazaryan’s notebook from his pocket (see paragraph 34 below) and handed it over to Major M.N., the company’s chief of staff. 10 .     On the same day at 9.15 a.m. the Ministry of Defence received an urgent report from the military unit which stated that, according to initial information, Lieutenant A. Nazaryan had fatally shot himself in the trench with the assault rifle assigned to him. 11 .     On the same day the Sixth Garrison Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence of Armenia instituted criminal proceedings under Article   110 § 1 of the Criminal Code (incitement to suicide). The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “On 27 July 2010 ... there was a report from [the military unit] that at around 7.50   a.m. on the same day at military base no. 12 ... [A.] Nazaryan, who had been assigned to duty there, shot himself in the mouth with the assault rifle assigned to him and died instantly.” 12.     On the same day the investigator ordered an autopsy to determine, inter alia , the cause of A. Nazaryan’s death, the presence of any injuries on his body and, if there were any injuries, the time of their infliction. 13 .     On the same day the investigator seized three magazines belonging to A. Nazaryan which contained ninety bullets. The investigator also conducted an examination of the firearms assigned to all the servicemen of base no. 12 and of the military unit and a report was drawn up stating that none of those firearms had been fired since they had last been cleaned. 14 .     The first applicant was recognised as the deceased’s legal heir in the proceedings. She was subsequently succeeded in the proceedings by the second applicant. 15 .     According to the record of the examination of the scene of the incident dated 28 July 2010, A. Nazaryan’s body was discovered in a seated position next to a rock within the territory of military base no. 12 with the barrel of the assault rifle in his mouth and the stock between his legs. The assault rifle was seized by the investigator, who removed a thirty-round magazine and unloaded it, as a result of which one bullet covered with a red, blood-like substance came out of the bolt. The investigator then fired a test shot and closed the trigger guard. The magazine which had been removed contained twenty-nine bullets, which were also seized. One fired cartridge was also discovered on the ground close to the body. This cartridge, which bore the numbers 78-09, was also seized. In addition, traces of a red blood-like substance were present on A. Nazaryan’s outer clothing (on the right arm) and on the ground in the same direction (a trace of 60 cm in length). Samples were taken from the traces on the ground. At the end of the examination the body was removed from the scene. 16 .     The Government submitted that the examination of the scene had been conducted on 27 July 2010 but that the investigator had mistakenly indicated in the record that it had been conducted on 28 July 2010. 17 .     On 28 July 2010 the investigator ordered a combined ballistic, trace and fingerprint examination to determine, inter alia , whether cartridge no.   78-09 discovered at the scene had been fired from A. Nazaryan’s assault rifle, whether the magazine removed from the assault rifle could have contained thirty ‑ one bullets and whether any identifiable fingerprints were present on different parts of the assault rifle and the fired cartridge submitted to the experts. 18 .     According to the record of a further examination of the scene of the incident, also dated 28 July 2010, traces of a dried red blood-like substance (17 cm in length) were discovered on the wall of the canteen of the military unit from which samples were taken. 19 .     By an order of 28 July 2010, S.G., the commander of the military unit, issued orders to put all the servicemen of military base no. 12 in disciplinary isolation for breaching military rules. Those to be isolated had already been confined since 27 July 2010 and included Captain H.M., who had been in charge of base no. 12 since 16 July 2010, and Privates H.K., M.M., A.H. and A.Mk. 20 .     It appears that by S.G.’s order of the same date, Lieutenant V.H., a senior officer at another base, was isolated for three days as punishment for poor supervision of personnel. 21 .     In the course of their isolation, the servicemen were questioned and confrontations were held among them. 22 .     In his statement of 27 July 2010, Captain H.M. stated, among other things, that A. Nazaryan had not been properly fulfilling his duties and that he had often had to draw his attention to his omissions. Since A. Nazaryan was a weak officer, he had been attentive towards him, as he suspected that the other servicemen might put pressure on A. Nazaryan. According to him, no servicemen had mistreated A. Nazaryan in his presence. He then recounted an episode from 19 July 2010 when he had had an argument with A. Nazaryan because the latter had used his water bottle as a container for diesel fuel. According to him, A. Nazaryan insulted him during their conversation, in response to which he hit A. Nazaryan once and then again later that day during another argument in the presence of Senior Sergeant Ar.H., Private A.M. and V.H., whom he had asked to come over. Captain H.M. also stated that, while being angry, he had punched A. Nazaryan twice, upon which the latter had turned backwards and hit his face on a wooden board, as a result of which his nose had bled. On their way back to the trench, having noticed that A. Nazaryan was upset about the incident, V.H. discreetly told Captain H.M. to pay attention to A. Nazaryan so that he would not harm himself. Captain H.M. himself did not rule out the possibility that A. Nazaryan might harm himself, as he seemed very upset. After V.H. had left, Captain H.M. spoke with A. Nazaryan until the change of the night shift, trying to console him and to prevent him harming himself. In the following days Captain H.M. reprimanded A. Nazaryan several times for treating the servicemen under his command in a very familiar and informal manner. He denied having insulted A. Nazaryan at that time. Captain H.M. then admitted to having been angry with A. Nazaryan on the afternoon of 26 July 2010 because he had witnessed A. Nazaryan continuing to address the servicemen under his command in a very familiar and informal manner despite his previous warnings in that regard. Captain H.M. then told A. Nazaryan that after the duty shift was over he would ask the deputy commander of the military unit to organise a “court of honour” in respect of A. Nazaryan, adding that the latter did not merit being an officer. Thereafter Captain H.M. saw that A. Nazaryan was feeling upset and thought that it was because of their earlier conversation. When Captain H.M. woke up on 27   July 2010, he saw A. Nazaryan leaving the trench with his assault rifle on his shoulder. He then heard a sound similar to that of a rifle being loaded but thought that A. Nazaryan had probably forgotten to unload his gun after the last shift change. He then started asking other servicemen whether they had seen A. Nazaryan. At around 7.50 a.m. a shot was heard. Captain H.M. then asked two privates to urgently check what had happened. He then went to the toilet and on his way back to the trench, one of the privates called from a distance asking for a stretcher, as A. Nazaryan had shot himself. 23.     According to the statements of Privates A.Mk. and A.M., Senior Sergeant Ar.H. and Junior Sergeant G.S. given between 27 and 28 July 2010, A. Nazaryan had fallen victim to humiliation and ill-treatment by Captain H.M. and the conscripts A.H., M.M. and H.K. on several occasions. 24.     On 29 July 2010 the investigator ordered a forensic biological examination to determine, inter alia , whether the traces of blood-like substance discovered near A. Nazaryan’s body and in the canteen (see paragraphs 15 and 18 above) contained blood and, if so, whether they could have come from A. Nazaryan. The outcome of this forensic examination is unknown. 25 .     It appears that on the basis of Commander S.G.’s orders Captain H.M. and Lieutenant V.H. were once again isolated for a period of three days starting on 31 July 2010 for breaching military service rules. At an interview conducted on the same day, Lieutenant V.H. stated that he had witnessed Captain H.M. verbally and physically abusing A. Nazaryan, while he himself had tried to reconcile them. 26 .     Following a request from the Court to provide documentary evidence in relation to the disciplinary isolation of the servicemen of the military unit in July and August 2010, the Government provided copies of S.G.’s orders from 27 and 28 July 2010. In accordance with the order of 27 July 2010, the entire personnel of military base no. 12, that is, eleven servicemen, were to be returned from the base “because of the incident at military base [no. 12] on the basis of the results of [S.G.’s] internal investigation prior to the [criminal investigation] as well as the psychological condition of the staff ...”. In accordance with S.G.’s order of 28 July 2010, the eleven servicemen in question were put in disciplinary isolation for a “breach of internal service rules discovered as a result of the internal investigation carried out prior to the [criminal investigation] into the incident”. They included, among others, Captain H.M. and Senior Sergeant Ar.H., who were isolated for three and five days respectively, and Privates H.K., M.M., A.M., A.H. and A.Mk., who were put in isolation for ten days. The Government did not provide any documents in relation to the other episodes of disciplinary isolation of the servicemen, which they did not contest had taken place (see paragraphs 20 and 25 above and paragraph 30 below). 27.     On 3 August 2010 Captain H.M. and Privates A.H., M.M. and H.K. were arrested. 28.     On 5 August 2010 Captain H.M. was charged with aggravated abuse of power under Article 375 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 29.     On the same day Privates A.H., M.M. and H.K. were charged with aggravated use of violence against a superior under Article 358 § 2 (3) of the Criminal Code. 30 .     It appears that by S.G.’s order of 7 August 2010, Privates A.Mk. and A.M. were isolated for another ten days for breaching military rules. 31 .     On 9 August 2010 A. Nazaryan’s notebook was submitted to the investigating authority. A torn piece of paper was found inside the notebook, on which was written the following: “I am obliged to do this – tired of everything, my parents’ upbringing, not finding my place in life, not being able to dream. This is no one’s fault, no one’s, only mine and my parents’.” 32 .     The notebook was then submitted for forensic document examination. According to the ensuing expert report dated 13 August 2010, the entries in it and the statement on the separate piece of paper had been written by A.   Nazaryan. 33 .     On 10 August 2010 the Minister of Defence issued an order whereby several officials of the military unit were reprimanded in relation to the incident. The relevant parts of the order read as follows: “... The internal investigation has revealed that Captain [H.M.] ... was assigned responsibility for military bases [including] no. 12 and ... [he] was mainly present in military base no. 12 ... On 18 July [2010] bread and diesel fuel were delivered to military base no. 12. Because there was no container, [A.] Nazaryan poured the diesel fuel into a water bottle ... knowing, however, that [the bottle] belonged to [H.M.]. The latter, having found out about this, summoned [A.] Nazaryan for an explanation. Their conversation evolved into mutual insults, after which [H.M.] gave [A.] Nazaryan until 10 p.m. the next day [19 July 2010] to restore the bottle, while threatening to ... demean him... The next day ... [A.] Nazaryan went to the nearest village ... to obtain a new bottle. ... When asked by [H.M.], who was angry, to explain his absence from the military base, [A.] Nazaryan expressed his discontent ... The conversation evolved into an argument, mutual insults, a scuffle and a fight ... Thereafter, those involved in the argument invited [V.H.] to military base no. 12 to be present during the conversation ... The conversation once again evolved into insults and a fight, as a result of which [A.]   Nazaryan’s nose bled. Captain [H.M.], being in charge of ... military base no. 12 ... and [A.] Nazaryan’s direct commander, abused his official position by assaulting [A.] Nazaryan in front of the staff, thereby affronting his dignity and creating an unhealthy moral environment in the military base, which resulted in [A.] Nazaryan having been ill-treated by conscripts [H.K.], [M.M.] and [A.H.]. This situation was concealed from the command, as a result of which, having isolated himself, [A.] Nazaryan’s external conflicts were transformed into internal ones, creating an unbearable psychological condition leading to a fatal outcome ... The incident would not have taken place if: (1) when selecting staff to be included in military duty, the personal characteristics of the service personnel, their social and psychological compatibility and interpersonal relations had been taken into account; (2) the work with the personnel, ... especially that which was aimed at preventing non ‑ statutory relations ..., had been conducted properly; (3) the ... staff had been guided by the proposals in [a special address by the Minister of Defence] and had drawn conclusions therefrom; (4) the   deputy commander of [the military unit] responsible for working with the personnel had examined in detail the professional and moral characteristics of the officers; (5) ... the summaries of the monthly results and the assessments after military duty shifts had not been carried out in a superficial manner (according to the statements of the commander of the military unit, Lieutenant [A.] Nazaryan had been described negatively; however, he had never been mentioned in summary reports as having performed poorly); ... In order to penalise those responsible for what has happened and to prevent similar incidents in the future, I order: 1. the imposition of [the following penalties]: ... (2) a strict reprimand in respect of: -   the   deputy commander of [the military unit] ... (3) a warning about partial compatibility with the requirements of the post in respect of: (a) the   deputy commander of [the military unit] responsible for military duty ... (b) ... Captain [G.U.] ... for not having supervised the personnel or established order and a stable moral environment for the personnel ... 2. the dismissal from post and reassignment to a lower post of: (a) the   deputy commander of [the military unit] responsible for working with the personnel ... for failure to ... prevent negative incidents in interpersonal relations; ... ... until the termination of the examination of the criminal case, ... Captain [H.M.] and Lieutenant [V.H.] are to be placed at the disposal of ... the staff of the [armed forces]. ... 6. commanders of [military units] to: – discuss the incident ... and take measures to prevent the recurrence of such   [incidents] ... ...” 34 .     During an additional interview on 11 August 2010, Captain H.M. stated that after the incident he had approached the body and taken a notebook from A. Nazaryan’s pocket. He had then given the notebook to Major M.N., asking the latter to keep it and not to tell anyone about it. When asked for the reason for giving the notebook to M.N., he said that he was afraid that his fingerprints might have remained on it. He admitted that he and M.N. had read the entries in the notebook but said that he did not remember what they were about. 35 .     On 17 August 2010 the conclusions of the combined ballistic, trace and fingerprint examination (see paragraph 17 above) were delivered. The relevant parts of the experts’ report read as follows: “... the submitted cartridge was given to the expert in order to be examined. As a result of the examination of the cartridge it was found that ... the numbers 60-78 were stamped on the bottom of the cartridge, [the first two digits] of which correspond to the number of the factory which produced it and the last two digits to the production year. ... the submitted cartridge ... had been fired from the assault rifle ... submitted for examination. The submitted magazine can possibly be loaded with thirty-one bullets of relevant calibre. ... No traces of papillary ridges have been discovered on the submitted bullet and cartridge. Some parts of the surface of the submitted assault rifle contain fragments of sweat and grease deposits, which are not suitable for subsequent comparative examination.” 36.     A number of forensic ballistic examinations were ordered with a view to finding out whether the hand, mouth and ear swab samples taken from A.   Nazaryan’s fellow servicemen contained any gunshot residue deposits. According to their conclusions, swabs taken from seven of his fellow servicemen, G.S., A.M., H.N., A.Mk., A.H., M.M. and H.K., contained copper particulates which are part of gunshot residue. 37 .     On 22 September 2010 the forensic medical examination of A.   Nazaryan’s body, including an autopsy, was completed. The relevant parts of the forensic medical expert’s conclusion read as follows: “... [A.] Nazaryan’s death was caused by functional brain failure as a result of a perforating ballistic trauma to the head ... The shot was fired in the mouth ... Apart from the above observations, the examination of [A.] Nazaryan’s body has also revealed abrasions in the area of the right cheek, lower jaw and mastoid process and bruising in the area of the right upper arm, which were inflicted ... about six hours before the death and are not directly linked to the death ... Also, abrasions in the area of the left half of the chest, left upper arm, left elbow, left forearm and left hip, which were inflicted ... with blunt objects ... not long before the death, have been discovered; [as well as] an abrasion in the area of the fifth digit of the right wrist inflicted three to five days before the death, but not directly linked to the death ... The forensic chemical examination ... has shown 1.8 per mille alcohol in the blood sample and 0.7 per mille in the urine sample, which correspond to average-level alcohol intoxication ... the deceased ingested [the alcohol] about one to one and a half hours before his death. [A.] Nazaryan’s stomach was empty ... Nineteen photographs ... are attached to this conclusion.” 38 .     On 13 October 2010 R.E., a senior sergeant in the military unit, was questioned and stated, inter alia , that he knew A. Nazaryan to have been an intelligent and humble officer who, however, was unable to supervise his personnel. He also stated that Captain H.M. had verbally and physically abused A.   Nazaryan in front of the rest of the servicemen, as a result of which some of them, notably M.M., H.K. and A.H., had treated A. Nazaryan in the same way, that is, they had mocked him and had been disrespectful. 39 .     At an interview on 27 October 2010, Senior Sergeant Ar.H. was asked whether he had reported to his superiors the situation in which A. Nazaryan had found himself, referring to the incidents of his humiliation and ill ‑ treatment by the other servicemen. Ar.H. replied in the negative, stating that he was not aware that he was supposed to report this. 40 .     On 28 October 2010 the first applicant requested from the investigator photocopies of the documents that contained A. Nazaryan’s handwriting samples, including those in the notebook, with the purpose of submitting them to forensic handwriting experts abroad, since she aimed to dispute that the entries in the notebook had been made by her son. 41 .     On 4 November 2010 the investigator, referring to, inter alia , Articles   59 and 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), refused the first applicant’s request on the ground that the data collected during the investigation was not subject to disclosure before the completion of the investigation. The first applicant unsuccessfully disputed that decision in court, arguing that the relevant provisions of the CCP restricted the rights of the victim party in criminal proceedings to such an extent that the victim party was deprived of the possibility of submitting his or her position in an efficient manner. 42.     On 20 November 2010 the investigator ordered a combined forensic medical, ballistic and trace examination to determine, inter alia , whether A.   Nazaryan could have inflicted the gunshot injury on himself and, if so, in view of the position of the body upon its discovery, the detected injuries and the direction of the gunshot wound, to determine the positions of the weapon and the body at the time the shot had been fired. The experts were further requested to determine whether other persons could have inflicted the gunshot injury on A. Nazaryan and what the wound trajectory would have been in such a case and whether it was possible that A. Nazaryan’s death had occurred in another place and that his body had then been transferred to the place where it was later discovered, and whether there were signs of such a transfer on his clothing. 43 .     On 2 February 2011 the report on the combined forensic medical, ballistic and trace examination was delivered. Its relevant parts read as follows: “... the expert commission concludes that the injuries described on [A.] Nazaryan’s head and [the bullet exit hole] on his hat originated from gunfire ... as a result of one shot into the mouth cavity. The location and the infliction mechanism of the bullet exit hole on [A.] Nazaryan’s hat ... correspond to the bullet exit injury on [A.] Nazaryan’s head ... Considering the position of the body upon its discovery, the detected corporal injuries and the direction of the gunshot wound, it should be concluded that [A.] Nazaryan could have inflicted the wound in question on himself, whereas the position of the victim and of the weapon at the moment of the shot could have been such that the above-mentioned conditions of the infliction of the gunshot injury could have been ensured. ... it is not ruled out that [A.] Nazaryan’s corporal injury could have been inflicted by himself as well as by another person ... The forensic examinations of [A.] Nazaryan’s body and clothing have not shown traces of being transferred (by dragging)... In view of the position of [A.] Nazaryan’s body when it was discovered, it should be concluded that the self-infliction of a gunshot injury of that kind was possible. His ballistic injuries, the gunfire exit hole in the hat [and] the direction of the barrel of the assault rifle ... all correspond to each other. The locations of the damaged parts of [A.] Nazaryan’s [clothing] do not correspond to the injuries (bruising and abrasions) discovered on his body during the autopsy ...” 44 .     On 14 February 2011 Junior Sergeant G.S. was further questioned. He submitted, in particular, that at around 5 or 6 p.m. on 26 July 2010 he had been in the canteen with other servicemen, including A.Mk., having coffee. A. Nazaryan was also sitting in the canteen, looking upset. When A. Nazaryan had left, Captain H.M. ordered that the firing pin be taken out of A.   Nazaryan’s assault rifle so that he would not harm himself. Captain H.M.’s order was not directed at G.S. personally, but in general to those present, although G.S. did not remember exactly who else was there except A.Mk. 45 .     At an additional interview on 22 February 2011, A.M. stated, inter alia , that on 19 July 2010 he had seen Lieutenant V.H. together with Captain H.M. hitting A. Nazaryan. Other witnesses, including Junior Sergeant G.S., also confirmed having seen V.H. hitting A. Nazaryan. 46.     On 1 April 2011 Lieutenant V.H. was charged with aggravated abuse of power under Article 38-375 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 76 and 83 below) for having ill-treated and humiliated A. Nazaryan in complicity with Captain H.M. 47.     On 9 April 2011 the investigator ordered a posthumous forensic psychological and psychiatric examination to determine, inter alia , whether A. Nazaryan had suffered from any psychiatric disorders and what his psychological condition had been during the period preceding his death. 48 .     On 1 June 2011 the commission of experts which had conducted the posthumous forensic psychological and psychiatric examination delivered its report, which stated, inter alia , that A. Nazaryan had never suffered from a psychiatric disorder and had been fully accountable for his actions. On the basis of the material provided by the investigating authority (statements by A. Nazaryan’s superiors and fellow servicemen and a statement of the facts as set out in the decision to order the forensic examination), the commission found that A. Nazaryan, despite his being a highly intellectual person who, moreover, held the rank of lieutenant, had fallen victim to continual humiliation by fellow servicemen, including higher-ranking officers and conscripts. The material of the criminal case reflected an entire chain of humiliation and violence which had originated from the commander of the first battalion of the military unit, Captain H.M. The commission concluded that A. Nazaryan’s suicide was linked to his humiliation, debasement and ill ‑ treatment by officers H.M. and V.H. and conscripts A.H. and M.M., and that the actions of conscript H.K. had probably also played a role. 49.     On 14 June 2011 the charges against H.K. were modified and he was charged under Article 358 § 1 of the Criminal Code with having verbally and physically abused A. Nazaryan, his superior officer. 50.     On 15 June 2011 the charges against Captain H.M. were modified and he was charged under Article 360 § 2, Article 365 § 1 and Article 375 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code with having humiliated and ill-treated A.   Nazaryan, his subordinate, on various occasions in the period between 15 and 26 July 2010, such actions having led to A. Nazaryan’s eventual suicide on 27 July 2010. 51 .     On 25 June 2011 the applicants were provided with the material in the case file. 52 .     On 2 August 2011 a bill of indictment was finalised. The relevant parts of the bill of indictment state the following: “Almost all [A.] Nazaryan’s fellow servicemen described him as a modest, intellectual, positive individual, who, however, was not suited for military service ... [he] was unable to control the actions of the platoon staff under his command, as a result of which he was constantly being reprimanded by the administration. As a result of the above circumstances, the attitude of the platoon officers towards [A.] Nazaryan gradually changed in a negative way: he was not being taken seriously, was being insulted, and so on. On 16 July 2010 the first battalion of the military unit was put on active duty. Lieutenant [A.] Nazaryan was assigned to military base no. 12 as its senior [officer] ... Captain H.M. was put in charge of ... [military base no. 12] ... On 16 July 2010 ... [A.] Nazaryan called ... company Commander Captain G.U., informing him that he could not be present on that day because his father was ill ... ... in that connection, an argument ensued between G.U. and H.M. during which the latter swore at [A.] Nazaryan and told G.U. that he would punish [A.] Nazaryan. ... When ... [A.] Nazaryan returned to the military base on 17 July 2010, Captain H.M. swore at him ... ... on 19 July 2010 H.M. beat [A.] Nazaryan ... [A. Nazaryan] tried to hit him back but could not. ... thereafter H.M. sent for ... Senior Lieutenant V.H., who was H.M.’s friend. ... H.M. and V.H. together started beating [A.] Nazaryan, in particular punching and kicking him in the head, stomach, chest, and so on. As a result of the blows, [A.] Nazaryan’s nose bled [and] his face was swollen ... In general, H.M. continually treated [A.] Nazaryan in a disrespectful manner. He did not even let [A.] Nazaryan eat at the same table with him, claiming that he ‘felt disgusted by [him]’. ... such behaviour from H.M. was not without consequences. Taking advantage of the situation ... three conscripts, A.H., M.M. and H.K., who were put on active duty in the military base, bullied [A.] Nazaryan. ... Being conscripts in the first company under [A.] Nazaryan’s command, [A.H., M.M. and H.K.] mocked him, debased him and used violence against him, taking advantage of his extremely vulnerable psychological condition ... brought about by the actions of H.M. and V.H. ... It became evident to the military base staff, including H.M., that [A.]   Nazaryan was at risk of harming himself, in relation to which on 26 July 2010 H.M. ordered the officers to discreetly take the firing pin out of [A.] Nazaryan’s assault rifle, which, however, was not done. [On 27 July 2010] at around 7.30 a.m. [A.] Nazaryan ... took the assault rifle ... assigned to him with only one magazine and said ... that he was going to check the watch stations ... At around 7.50 a.m. [A.] Nazaryan ... fired one shot into his mouth from the assault rifle assigned to him ...” proceedings before the constitutional court 53 .     In the meantime, the first applicant applied to the Constitutional Court, challenging the constitutionality of Article 59 § 1 (9) and Article   201 §   1 of the CCP. 54 .     On 24 January 2012 the Constitutional Court found Article 59 § 1 (9) and Article 201 § 1 of the CCP to be compatible with the Armenian Constitution (see paragraph 88 below). trial 55.     The criminal case was taken up by the Tavush Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). 56 .     During the trial the second applicant lodged an application with the Regional Court seeking to have thirty-two pre-trial statements by A.   Nazaryan’s fellow servicemen ruled inadmissible on the grounds that they had been taken during the period when fourteen of them, including the defendants, had been subjected to unlawful confinement in July and August   2010 on the basis of the orders of the military unit commander in the aftermath of A.   Nazaryan’s death. 57 .     In the course of the trial, Captain H.M. testified, inter alia , that during his confinement together with other servicemen, the investigator had compelled him to make a statement that he had killed A. Nazaryan or had incited him to commit suicide. 58 .     Senior Lieutenant V.H. testified, in particular, that he had never heard that A. Nazaryan had had any problems with fellow servicemen or conscripts under his command. Furthermore, he had never witnessed anyone disobeying A. Nazaryan’s orders. 59 .     A.H. retracted his pre-trial statements, stating that he had made them under duress. 60.     M.M. refused to testify before the Regional Court and confirmed his pre ‑ trial statements, according to which he had never used any violence against A. Nazaryan or humiliated him in any way. 61 .     H.K. testified that he had never had any problems with A. Nazaryan and that they had had a good relationship. According to him, A.   Nazaryan had organised the military service properly but had had slight issues with drafting documents, the reason for which was fatigue. He further testified that after the incident he and another conscript who had been on duty at the base had been taken to the Military Police Department and kept there for several days, at first in different cells and then together. He further submitted that he had been interrogated for nine hours without interruption and that he had been on his feet throughout that time. Furthermore, he had been beaten and compelled to confess that he had killed A. Nazaryan or incited him to commit suicide. 62.     A number of A. Nazaryan’s fellow servicemen were questioned as witnesses during the trial. 63 .     Contrary to his pre-trial statement (see paragraph 38 above), Senior Sergeant R.E. testified that he had never noticed that Lieutenant A. Nazaryan had any issues with Captain H.M. or any other officer. He further submitted that he had told the investigator that he had never witnessed any violence or humiliation in respect of A. Nazaryan and that the investigator had changed his statements in the record, which he had signed without having read it, since he had trusted the investigator to record his statements accurately. 64 .     A.Mk. submitted that he had witnessed Captain H.M and Senior Lieutenant V.H. beating A. Nazaryan. He had also witnessed other servicemen beating A.   Nazaryan, namely A.H. and M.M., while H.K. had also physically abused him. On the day of the incident all the servicemen, including himself, had been taken to the Berd Military Police Department. He had stayed there for about twenty-five days. About ten days into his confinement, his brother, also a serviceman, had been taken there as well. According to the investigator, this had been done in order to protect his brother, who could have been harmed because of A.Mk.’s statements during the investigation. A.Mk. also submitted that at some point he had retracted his pre-trial statements so that the accused’s parents would stop bothering him and his family. However, both his pre-trial and trial statements were true. 65 .     The commander of the military unit, S.G., testified, inter alia , that the report which mentioned that A. Nazaryan’s body had been discovered in the trench was a preliminary one and that too much attention should not be paid to the exact words used; he had described what he had seen personally at the scene and he had seen A. Nazaryan’s body in the same position as in the photographs contained in the case file. 66 .     The applicants stated before the Regional Court that the investigation into A. Nazaryan’s death had not been effective. They were sure that A.   Nazaryan had actually been murdered. The first applicant also stated that she believed that her son had been murdered before 27 July 2010 since her other daughter had noticed worms in his nose. She also pointed to the fact that it had been initially stated that her son had died in the trench, whereas it had later turned out that he had died next to a rock. The second applicant also pointed out a number of deficiencies in the investigation on account of which its conclusions could not be considered credible, such as the fact that the investigation had not revealed the origin of the other injuries discovered on A. Nazaryan’s body; the fact that another cartridge, which had a different serial number to the one found at the scene, had been sent for forensic ballistic examination; and the fact that only sixteen photographs had been attached to the conclusion of the forensic medical expert as opposed to the nineteen indicated. During the investigation the second applicant had also requested, inter alia , a forensic examination of A. Nazaryan’s clothing to determine whether it contained traces of another person’s blood, which had not been done. 67 .     The forensic medical expert who had conducted the autopsy was also questioned during the trial. He submitted, in particular, that the mention of the existence of “an abrasion in the area of the fifth digit of the right wrist” had been erroneous and had occurred as a result of a mechanical error and that he had never discovered such an injury. He further stated that the time frames of the infliction of the described injuries mentioned in his conclusion were not concrete but approximate. As for the existence of the sixteen photographs attached to the conclusion instead of the nineteen indicated, he explained that this had also resulted from an error. 68 .     On 7 May 2013 the Regional Court convicted Captain H.M., Senior Lieutenant V.H., A.H., M.M. and H.K. as charged, sentencing Captain H.M. to ten years’ imprisonment, Senior Lieutenant V.H., A.H. and M.M. to four years’ imprisonment and H.K. to three years’ imprisonment. The Regional Court found it substantiated that A. Nazaryan had committed suicide as a result of their actions. It dismissed all the applications lodged by the second applicant in the course of the trial, including those to have excluded from the evidence the pre-trial statements of witnesses taken during their military confinement and the record of the examination of the scene of the incident on the ground that its date did not correspond to the data contained in the case file. The Regional Court also dismissed the applications submitted by the defendants, including a request to order an additional posthumous psychological examination, on the ground that there were no proven scientific methods to determine the psychological condition of a person who had been under the influence of alcohol. appeals 69.     On 7 June 2013 the second applicant lodged an appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment, which was also appealed against by Capt