CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 5 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sAE479F1A { margin-top:28pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s3756EA5F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s957C7903 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.05pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF1F033E { margin-left:-19.04pt; 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 } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .sD415B51C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s700D5773 { margin-left:-17.64pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sEF02C8EA { 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 } .s66053943 { 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 } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .sC76C17BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4EC10A73 { width:26.87pt; display:inline-block } .sB995083 { width:143.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION CASE OF GHAZARYAN AND BAYRAMYAN v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 33050/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 34 • Locus standi • Existence of exceptional circumstances allowing applicants to lodge the application in the name and on behalf of their son without written authority • Cumulative effect of their son’s serious mental health issues and his detention and confinement entailed a vulnerability rendering him unable to lodge a complaint with the Court • Risk of deprivation of effective protection of his rights if applicants not allowed to lodge application in his stead Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman and degrading treatment • Prolonged solitary confinement of applicants’ son, without objective assessment of its necessity and procedural safeguards guaranteeing the measure’s proportionality and his welfare • Suffering of applicants in case-circumstances not of a dimension and character distinct from emotional distress inevitably caused to relatives Art 5 § 1 • Unlawful pre-trial detention Art 5 § 3 • Failure to bring applicants’ son promptly before a judge or another officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power after arrest Art 5 § 4 • Review of lawfulness of detention • Insufficient information for Court to draw conclusions about practical possibility of applicants’ son appealing initial detention decision • No indication appeal not a remedy satisfying Art 5 § 4 requirements   STRASBOURG 5 October 2023   FINAL   05/01/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ghazaryan and Bayramyan v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay,   Alena Poláčková,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Renata Degener, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   33050/18) against the Republic of Azerbaijan 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, Mr Armen Ghazaryan and Ms Astghik Bayramyan (“the applicants”), on 17 July 2018, acting also on behalf of their son, Mr Karen Ghazaryan; the decision to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and, subsequently to the discontinuation of its application; the decision to give notice to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 34 of the Convention; the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the Armenian Government, who had exercised their right to intervene under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention; Having deliberated in private on 17 January, 14 March and 12 September 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last ‑ mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application contains complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 34 of the Convention relating to the detention and trial of the applicant’s son. THE FACTS 2.     The first applicant, Mr Armen Ghazaryan, and the second applicant, Ms Astghik Bayramyan, were born in 1959 and 1958, respectively, and live in the village of Berdavan. They are represented before the Court by Mr Ara Ghazaryan, Mr Artur Ghazaryan and Ms Meri Baghdasaryan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. 4 .     The application concerns Mr Karen Ghazaryan, the applicants’ son, an Armenian national born in 1984 who was apprehended in Azerbaijan on 15   July 2018. He was returned to Armenia on 15 December 2020 as part of an exchange of prisoners. Upon his apprehension in Azerbaijan he was throughout his time there deprived of his liberty, and he was convicted of conspiracy to carry out sabotage and terrorism attacks on the territory of Azerbaijan and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment on 27 February 2019. The facts are disputed, and the parties’ respective accounts of them are as follows. The applicants’ account 5 .     According to the applicants, their son, Mr Karen Ghazaryan, has a history of mental and behavioural disorders. They submitted medical records showing that in 2013 he had been diagnosed with a disorder that had been brought on by excessive consumption of alcohol. According to the applicants, his disorder is characterised by hallucinations, perceptual distortions, delusions, psychomotor disturbance, and “abnormal affect” (a term that encompasses disorders related to moods and emotions). He had been admitted to a mental health unit for nine days in July 2013 and for another eight days in June/July 2014. When not in institutional care, he had taken prescribed medicine to stabilise his condition. Often the medicine had been administered by the applicants, who had mixed it with his food. 6 .     The applicants submitted that during the night of 15 July 2018 Mr   Karen Ghazaryan had left the home where he lived with them. 7.     The home, a two-story house, is located in the village of Berdavan, which is situated some 2.7 kilometres from Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan. The house is on the edge of the village that lies closest to the border. (At that closest point of the border, the line dividing Armenia and Azerbaijan is not clearly marked.) The applicants stated that they had last seen their son at around 2.30 a.m. as he had been going down to the kitchen for a drink of water. In the morning he had not been in his room. Left behind in the room had been his mobile phone, wallet and cigarettes – items without which, according to the applicants, he would normally have never left home. The weather had been bad throughout the night, with strong winds and heavy rain, and there had been a power outage in the village. The applicants had thought that their son might have gone to check the power generator. 8 .     On the morning of 15 July 2018 the Ministry of Defence of Azerbaijan announced that an armed “diversionist” group had attempted to enter the territory of Azerbaijan and that an Armenian spy, Mr Karen Ghazaryan, had been arrested. A photograph of Mr Karen Ghazaryan, dressed in a black military uniform and a black cap and with black face paint, was disseminated by Azerbaijani media. The applicants submitted that he had not been dressed in such clothing when he had left home. 9.     Later in the day of 15 July 2018 spokespersons for, respectively, the Armenian police and the Ministry of Defence of Armenia made statements to the effect that Mr Karen Ghazaryan had never served in Armenia’s armed forces. The latter’s statement also mentioned that the Minister of Defence, in his capacity as chairman of the Commission on Prisoners of War, Hostages and Missing Persons, had requested the Yerevan office of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to make efforts to bring about the return of Mr Karen Ghazaryan. 10.     On 16 July 2018 a spokesperson for the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Armenia reiterated that Mr Karen Ghazaryan had no connection with the Armenian army and stated that owing to his mental health problems he had never been conscripted. On the same day the head of the village of Berdavan stated that there was an old road leading to the border and that Mr Karen Ghazaryan, whose mental state was known to everyone in the village, had probably walked down that road and accidentally crossed the border. 11.     On 30 and 31 July 2018 the Armenian Security Service interviewed several people about the disappearance of Mr Karen Ghazaryan, including his parents (the applicants), his cousins, his childhood friends, a nurse and two neighbours. 12 .     The applicants further submitted that on an unspecified date, some days after Mr Karen Ghazaryan’s disappearance, representatives of the ICRC had visited them. The ICRC’s representatives had informed the applicants that their son was in detention in Azerbaijan; they had offered to deliver a letter from them to him. The applicants had written a letter and had given it to the representatives of the ICRC, who had promised to deliver it. 13 .     On 3 August 2018 PanArmenian.net, an Internet news portal, published an article which stated that representatives from the Baku office of the ICRC had visited Mr Karen Ghazaryan in captivity. The applicants submitted that during another meeting between themselves and representatives of the ICRC’s Yerevan office, the ICRC representatives had told the applicants that they had handed over to Mr Karen Ghazaryan the letter from them to him (see paragraph 12 above), but that he had not wanted to write a reply. The applicants stated that they had become deeply confused and concerned by this, as they had been certain that their son would have wished to inform them of his wellbeing. 14 .     On 13 August 2018 the Investigations Department of the Armenian Security Service opened a criminal investigation into the suspected illegal crossing of the border and kidnapping of Mr Karen Ghazaryan. 15 .     On 16 August 2018 the applicants again met representatives of the ICRC and informed them that Mr Karen Ghazaryan had a mental illness, that he had been under the supervision of a doctor for the past five years and was taking medicines regularly. The applicants stated that the ICRC representatives had promised to relay this information to their representatives in Baku. 16 .     In another meeting with the ICRC, the applicants were given the opportunity to talk with the ICRC doctor in Baku, via video link. According to the applicants, the ICRC doctor expressed strong doubts that Mr Karen Ghazaryan suffered from any mental illness, stating that he was completely healthy and did not need any medication. The applicants responded that their son had to fake or conceal his illness and asked that he be examined by a psychologist. 17 .     On 11 September 2018 the second applicant wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General of Azerbaijan, requesting an opportunity to communicate with her son and visit him. Alternatively, she requested to speak with her son’s defence lawyer. Because of the lack of diplomatic and postal links between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the letter was sent via the applicants’ son-in-law in the United States. No answer to the letter was received. 18.     On 1 November 2018 the Interfax.az news portal published an article citing an unnamed source stating that Azerbaijan had suggested exchanging three Armenian “divergents” for three Azerbaijani captives. According to the article, the Armenian side did not respond. The applicants asked the Armenian government authorities whether any official process of exchange of prisoners was to take place, to which the authorities responded that they were not aware that any such official process was underway. 19.     On 6 November 2018 the Report.az news portal published an article stating that the trial of Mr Karen Ghazaryan on criminal charges had started. 20.     During November 2018 the applicants, along with fellow villagers, staged several public protests against the Armenian authorities by, inter alia , blocking a highway and demanding that those authorities start negotiations with the government of Azerbaijan. 21.     On 19 November 2018 the Minister of Justice of Armenia held a meeting with representatives of the ICRC. The head of the delegation explained that an ICRC representative periodically visited Mr Karen Ghazaryan in Azerbaijan and would visit him again soon. She also stated that the ICRC was not entitled to intervene in any negotiations on the exchange of prisoners. 22 .     On the same date, 19 November 2018, the Investigations Department of the Armenian Security Service, within the framework of the criminal case that had been instituted on 13 August 2018 (see paragraph 14 above), lodged an official request with the Azerbaijani investigative body for cooperation and legal assistance in respect of the case of Mr Karen Ghazaryan within the framework of the 1993 Minsk Convention on the Legal Assistance and Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases. 23.     On 20 November 2018, at a press conference, Armenia’s acting prime minister stated that he was willing to meet the applicants, but denied the government’s involvement in any negotiations involving Mr Karen Ghazaryan’s return. He stated that it was not possible to take effective measures to return Mr Karen Ghazaryan to Armenia and that a proposed exchange of him for two citizens of Azerbaijan was unacceptable. 24 .     On the same day, the news portal Report.az published photographs and video footage of the trial of Mr Karen Ghazaryan. According to the applicants, their son had in the video been shown being held (together with two security guards) during the trial in a cage; his lawyer had not been visible either in the video or in the photographs. To the applicants, their son had been almost unrecognisable; he had lost a lot of weight and had been pale. 25 .     The applicants maintained that in another meeting that they had had with the ICRC representatives (see paragraphs 12, 13, 15 and 16 above), the latter had stated that their son had requested warm clothing and sweets. However, the ICRC representatives had not taken any clothing from the applicants to give to him as they had said that they themselves would provide it. Moreover, the representatives had not on this occasion handed over any letter or any other message from Mr Karen Ghazaryan to his parents. 26 .     The applicants submitted that towards the end of November 2018, some time after the footage from the trial had been broadcast (see paragraph   24 above), they had asked the ICRC to arrange an independent psychological examination of Mr Karen Ghazaryan; they had asked that the examination should also check the level of psychotropic substances in his blood, as he had been taking such medicines for the past five years. After several days, the ICRC had replied, stating that an the ICRC doctor was in contact with the doctor at the prison at which Mr Karen Ghazaryan was being held and had passed along suggestions and advice from the ICRC, but that it was not in the ICRC’s mandate to suggest such an examination. 27.     On 17 December 2018 the applicants submitted a letter to the ICRC again requesting an examination of Mr Karen Ghazaryan (see paragraph 26 above). They emphasised that their son required an immediate medical intervention and they requested that a blood test (or another type of test) be conducted to establish the level of psychotropic substances within his organism. In response to the letter, ICRC reiterated that the action requested fell outside its mandate. 28 .     The applicants further submitted that on 11 January 2019 they had had a Skype call with an ICRC doctor who had expressed concerns about Mr   Karen Ghazaryan’s mental state, reporting that he had not eaten for several days, had refused to take delivery of a parcel sent by the applicants and had refused to open the letters sent to him by the applicants. The doctor had stated that in the light of the current situation, he had requested an examination by an ICRC doctor (attended by an Azerbaijani doctor). 29 .     Moreover, the applicants submitted that on 1 February 2019 the ICRC doctor had told them that their son was not eating properly (consuming only small portions of food), “selectively” refusing to go outdoors and not wanting to listen to talk about his returning to Armenia (instead speaking only about going on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem). According to the applicants their son had displayed the same symptoms during previous such episodes, when his health condition had worsened and he had experienced fear and doubts. 30 .     On 27 February 2019 Mr Karen Ghazaryan was convicted and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment (see paragraph 4 above). 31.     On 11 March 2019 the Azerbaijani Prosecutor General’s Office had replied to the Armenian Security Service’s above-mentioned request of 19   November 2018 for assistance (see paragraph 22 above) by stating that the Republic of Azerbaijan was ready to cooperate with Armenia and to restore diplomatic relations if the Armenian side ceased its occupation of a number of territories. The applicants had learned of that reply in May 2019, when it had been sent to their lawyer. 32 .     In the meantime, on 8 May 2019, an ICRC doctor (according to the applicants) had told them that their son’s mental state was still a cause for concern. The doctor had stated that even though Mr Karen Ghazaryan remained under the supervision of Azerbaijani doctors, his treatment was not being documented. Accordingly, the doctor had lodged a request with the Azerbaijani Ministry of Health for a fresh examination to be carried out. 33 .     On 15 May 2019 the applicants’ representative had met with the ICRC officials, who had again confirmed that Mr Karen Ghazaryan’s state of health remained the same. 34 .     On an unspecified date in June 2019, the ICRC representative had handed over to the applicants a note containing the address of the prison in which Mr Karen Ghazaryan was being held and the telephone numbers on which the applicants had been told that they could supposedly contact Mr   Karen Ghazaryan. The applicants’ son-in-law called the numbers on 27   June 2019 and was then told to send a written request for permission to contact Mr Karen Ghazaryan to the email address of the prison. On 17 July 2019 the applicants’ lawyers duly sent a written request by email, but no response was received. 35 .     On 10 January 2020 the applicants had their last meeting with ICRC representatives and were then told that Mr Karen Ghazaryan’s health was assumed to be satisfactory and that he was not taking any medication. 36 .     Upon his return to Armenia on 15 December 2020 (see paragraph 4 above), Mr Karen Ghazaryan was transferred to a mental-health facility, the Avan Mental Health Center (“the Avan facility”) for a medical check-up and treatment, as his behaviour was not satisfactory – namely, he was unable to control his behaviour or to coordinate his movement and speech. A medical report from the Avan facility, dated 16 December 2020, includes the following: “He is lying in bed in a free [that is, unrestrained] position, his face is tense, hypomanic; his gaze is fixed towards the front. [Interaction with him] is almost [impossible]; he only says ‘Israel’ when referring to himself by name. He does not answer questions, does not follow simple instructions. According to the treating doctor, he ate only the previous evening; he also said briefly: ‘there is no Armenia, there is no Armenian ․․․, there is no doctor ․․․’. Judging by his behaviour, the existence of psycho-productive disorders is assumed. ․․․ It is noteworthy from the [report] that he is doubly ill ․․․. On the night of 15.12.2020, he was admitted to the military hospital of the Ministry of Defence, where he displayed ... restless behaviour; [all attempts at interaction were] unproductive, [with him] monotonously repeating ‘Israel’. In view of the above, K․ Ghazaryan’s mental health is a danger to his own health and life, and his treatment can be carried out only in hospital conditions”. The applicants also maintained that their lawyer before the Court, Mr.   A.   Ghazaryan, had visited Mr Karen Ghazaryan in the Avan facility and had noticed bruises and injection marks on his arms, and abnormal swellings in his legs. 37 .     On 19 January 2021 an investigator of the Armenian Security Service attempted to question Mr Karen Ghazaryan as a victim (injured party) within the framework of the instituted criminal investigation (see paragraph 14 above). However, as it appears from the record of the questioning, the interview had been unproductive, as he had been in a “mentally unbalanced state”. According to the same record, a doctor, M. Nersisyan, who had been present in the questioning, had stated that the applicants’ son was in an “acute psychotic state”, “disoriented in time and space” and “commented on events going on around him in a deluded manner”. According to the record, Mr   Karen Ghazaryan had refused to sign it or to make any annotations to it. 38.     On 2 February 2021 the investigator decided to resume the investigation. Further to this decision, the investigator ordered a forensic psychological and psychiatric examination in order to establish the mental state of Mr Karen Ghazaryan – specifically, whether he was mentally fit to take part in the criminal investigation into his case. 39 .     On 8 February 2021 Mr Karen Ghazaryan was released from the Avan facility to continue his treatment at home on an out-patient basis under the supervision of his parents (the applicants). The Avan facility issued diagnoses upon his release according to which Mr Karen Ghazaryan was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia; the report also stated, inter alia , that there were keloid scars on his wrists (in respect of which a report was submitted to the police). 40 .     On 21 February 2021, in connection with his discharge from the Avan facility, a medical report with the following information was issued: “He answered to questions only by saying that he was not Karen, but that he was the [State of] Israel. He stared at one single point, smiled inadequately, and whispered. He [removed the bedclothes and] lay on the mattress without a blanket, saying ‘It’s so good’, or he just stood motionless for a long period. He was restless, tense, [wearing an expression] of passive negativity. He received medical treatment. After receiving treatment, interaction with him became possible; he said that he ‘heard voices from above’, that he was ‘directed by God’ and that he was ‘the Christ.’ As regards lodging [an application] with the [Strasbourg] Court, he mentioned the following: ‘I will whisper a word and the trial will end; what trial? In my opinion, there is no Armenia, there is no ­ doctor; there is only Israel’. His thoughts were incoherent, illogical. The emotional sphere is somewhat subdued. Gradually he started attending to [his own] personal hygiene and taking showers. Initially, he avoided answering questions, bypassing them in every way possible. He also did not want to talk about being in Azerbaijan; he only mentioned that he did not have any ... opportunity to wash himself when he wanted. He ate poorly [while in Azerbaijan], he remembers, as if his mother and sister had visited him there and brought him grapes from their yard. He mentioned that he had not received any medicine [while he had been] there. ... CONCLUSION / DIAGNOSIS: Paranoid schizophrenia” The Government’s account 41.     The Government submitted that Mr Karen Ghazaryan had been apprehended on 15 July 2018 in the village of Kamarli, in Gazakh District of the Republic of Azerbaijan – that is to say about six kilometres inside the territory of Azerbaijan. Witness statements had indicated that at around 5 a.m. local shepherds had noticed a person moving from the border in the direction of the town of Gazakh and had informed military servicemen, who had apprehended Mr Karen Ghazaryan in the area of Kamarli. On the same date he had been placed under disciplinary arrest for a period of five days by order of the deputy commander of the relevant military unit. 42.     On 19 July 2018 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan had initiated a criminal investigation into Mr Karen Ghazaryan’s illegal crossing of the State border of Azerbaijan and his attempts to commit acts of terrorism, sabotage and deliberate murder and had arrested him as a suspected person. A defence lawyer and an interpreter had been appointed for him. 43 .     On 21 July 2018 the Gazakh District Court had ordered that Mr Karen Ghazaryan be held in pre-trial detention for a period of four months. The Government maintained that he had later been held in the temporary detention facility of the State Security Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Baku with necessary security measures taken in his respect. 44.     The Government stated that Mr Karen Ghazaryan had not been subjected to any physical or psychological pressure while he had been held in the temporary detention facility, and that he had been detained in a manner that respected his human dignity. He had undergone a medical examination, which had uncovered no signs of any torture, physical violence or injury, and his psycho-neurological status had been assessed as stable. An interpreter and a defence lawyer had been appointed for him. 45.     The Government submitted that in the decisions on the initiation of criminal proceedings and on the placing of Mr Karen Ghazaryan in pre-trial detention, conclusions had been drawn to the effect that Mr Karen Ghazaryan had been secretly recruited in December 2016 by a named official of the Armenian Security Service and had received training in firearms, explosives and ammunition at the end of 2017 in the Noyemberyan area (south of Berdavan). On the evening of 14 July 2018 he had been given instructions to set off explosions in Gazakh. The purpose had been to undermine public security, to spread panic among the population, to commit mass killings and cause other damage to the health of the population, to weaken the military and economic security of Azerbaijan and to destroy enterprises and infrastructure – all in the name of national and religious hatred and hostility. He had been equipped with a pistol, several explosive devices, other military equipment and ammunition and a set of black clothes, and had been accompanied by two other persons, who had not been identified. They had crossed the mined border area at about 1 a.m. on 15 July. Before being apprehended, Mr Karen Ghazaryan had hidden the military equipment that he had been carrying under a bush near the village of Kamarli. At the hearing concerning his pre-trial detention he had been questioned; during his questioning he had reportedly confirmed that he had received instructions from Armenian Security Service officials and had been given the equipment mentioned, which he had hidden after crossing the border when he had noticed that he had been spotted by civilians. According to the record of his statement, the aim of the operation had been to set off an explosion at the central marketplace in Gazakh. 46 .     On 27 February 2019 the Ganja City Serious Crimes Court had convicted Mr Karen Ghazaryan in a public hearing of conspiracy to carry out sabotage and terrorist attacks on the territory of Azerbaijan under Articles 29, 120.2.1; 29, 120.2.5; 29, 120.2.7; 29, 120.2.11; 29,120.2.12; 206.3.2; 214.2.1; 214.3.1; 228.1; 276; 29, 282.1; 318.2 and 66.3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He had been sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment, with the starting date calculated as 15 July 2018. 47.     The Government maintained that after 27 March 2019, following his transfer from the pre-trial detention centre to the prison where he was to begin serving his sentence, Mr Karen Ghazaryan had been regularly examined by doctors (including professional psychiatrists). However, he had started to have conflicts with other inmates. 48.     On 24 May 2019, on the basis of recommendations made by the ICRC, Mr Karen Ghazaryan had (according to the Government) been transferred to the prison medical centre. He had been treated at the medical centre and had served his sentence there until his release on 14 December 2020. Upon his admission there, his rights and responsibilities had been explained to him and he had been afforded with all necessities for living. 49 .     The Government also submitted that, for safety reasons, Mr Karen Ghazaryan had been placed in solitary confinement in an area of nine square metres, where he had been supervised by prison doctors at least once a day, as well as by a special doctor assigned to him who had monitored his health and had provided the first response to any problems that he had had. At least once a day, he had been allowed to go for a walk at any time of the day lasting for at least one hour, with safety measures in place. 50.     The Government submitted that Mr Karen Ghazaryan had not been subjected to any moral or physical pressure from prisoners or prison management, doctors or employees, and he had not been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. 51 .     The Government maintained that the ICRC had facilitated contact between Mr Karen Ghazaryan and his family members and close relatives – as well as the delivery of food parcels and clothing sent by his relatives. Conditions had been created enabling him to hold private meetings with the representatives of the ICRC, and there had been no obstacles to his holding those meetings within a confidential setting. They stated that such meetings had been held as follows: – Five times in the pre-trial detention centre (the Government mentioned the following dates: 6 June and 26 November 2018, and 9 September, 25   January and 7 February 2019); – three times while Mr Karen Ghazaryan had been serving his sentence at the prison (although the Government mentioned only two dates – 10 April and 7 May 2019); and – eighteen times during Mr Karen Ghazaryan’s detention in the medical centre (11 April, 19 June, 20 June, 3 July, 19 July, 15 August, 10 September, 11   October, 8 November and 21 November 2019, and 6 February, 10 March, 14   April, 20 May, 1 July, 12 August, 16 September and 28 October 2020). The Government submitted that there had been no restrictions on Mr   Karen Ghazaryan’s right to contact the ICRC or on his right to send and receive correspondence. No other international organisations or local representatives had sought to hold any meetings with him. 52.     Moreover, according to the Government, all of Mr Karen Ghazaryan’s rights relating to applying to the relevant organisations and bodies had been explained to him and no obstacles to the effective implementation of those rights had been raised. However, he had not expressed any wish to avail himself of those rights. 53 .     The Government submitted to the Court a document produced in consultation with a professor of psychiatry, T. Gafarov, on 29 October 2020, in which the following was stated: “According to the information in the Department, the examined prisoner, K.   Ghazaryan, [has exhibited] peculiar behaviour since the first day. For the whole time, except for a few [instances of] selective, aggressive behaviour against others, he has not tried to injure himself. In general his behaviour [reflects] the situation [at any given moment]. For the whole period of his stay [so far], he has complied with the personal sanitary-hygienic rules. Such selective behaviour is observed also in his [i] taking of medicine (he takes therapeutic drugs without resistance, but flatly refuses to take drugs regulating mood and sleep, and other regulatory drugs), [ii] [consumption] of food and cigarettes and [iii] his [social interact] within the Department. During the whole period [during which Mr Karen Ghazaryan was] under supervision, no pathology was found in the clinical laboratory tests, ECG, ultrasound test, X rays, and EEG examination. Moreover, no pathology was found during the examinations [conducted] by neurology specialists. According to the results of the pathopsychological examination carried out on 22 October 2020, the test [questions were] not answered sincerely; Mr [Ghazaryan maintained his] awareness of [his] environment. [Mr Karen Ghazaryan] replied to the [questions] in a thoughtful manner; sometimes, despite understanding the [questions], [he] acted as if he hadn’t understood them (see [the account of] the whole examination contained in the clinical opinion). And the final outcome is that, at present, a serious psychological and personality disorder is not observed in the person in question. The clinical pathopsychological examination carried out by us [did not find] any psychopathological disorder ... . The characteristics [that he displays] in the Department – selective behaviour and communication – were also clearly revealed during the examination. Presenting himself as “Israel” during the first session (at the same denying being a Jew), answering to his name adequately after the examinations [and] denying that he is ill evidences his selective ... behaviour, [which he manifests] according to the situation [in hand]. He is stable emotionally. He has a sufficient degree of control over himself. He doesn’t complain about his health, [the staff’s] attitude towards him or about the place in which he finds himself. Taking into account above-mentioned, his situation can be described as conscious simulation of psychological disorders. Diagnosis: Conscious simulation of psychological disorders.” 54.     A medical report dated 3 November 2020 was also submitted to the Court. This report contained the following: “On 24 May 2019, the prisoner Ghazaryan Karen Armenovich was transferred to the Department of Mental Illnesses of the prison medical centre and was supervised by the doctors in [the Department’s] solitary confinement room owing to security reasons. During his stay in the Department [of Mental Illnesses], general blood and urine tests, biochemical blood tests, an echocardiogram, an electrocardiogram [and an] ultrasound test have been administered numerous times. An X-ray revealed no pathology. He has on numerous occasions been examined by [doctors specialising in] therapy, ... infectious diseases, ... and ophthalmology. Moreover, he has been regularly examined by Professor Fuad Ismayilov, Ph.D., the director of the Ministry of Health’s Psychological Health Centre. In the interests [of carrying out a comprehensive review], neurological examinations were performed: an EEG, an examination carried out by a neurologist and a neurosurgeon, and pathopsychological tests conducted by a clinical psychologist. As a result of all these examinations, no pathology was found, but owing to the haemoglobin level being 10.8 g/dl, [drugs were] prescribed by the therapist. He took these drugs without resistance, but flatly refused to take drugs offered to regulate mood and sleep. During his stay at the Department, he took the following drugs: Verospiron tablets, Furosemide solution, Megafer solution, Vitamin C, Begamma solution. On 25 September 2019, a special medical expert meeting was convened, and it was decided that there was no need for the application of compulsory medical measures in connection with [Mr Karen Ghazaryan’s] psychological status. He was examined by Teymur Gafarov, the Chief Psychiatrist at the Ministry of Health. During his stay at the Department, no behavioural disorders or psychopathological symptoms were observed. Strong purposeful behaviour on the part of the prisoner was noted. He stood out owing to his peculiar behaviour; he sometimes tried to mimic psychopathological symptoms, [but he] never tried to injure himself or the people around him, [and] complied with personal sanitary-hygienic rules. His selective behaviour was observed in all aspects [of his behaviour]: in taking food and prescribed drugs, in communicating within the Department, during examinations by doctors. The prisoner is to be transferred to his prison. Diagnosis: Currently, no psychological disorder is observed. Conscious simulation of psychological disorders.” 55.     The Government explained that, following the commitments arising from a trilateral agreement concluded on 10 November 2020 to end the hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the negotiations conducted with the participation of international organisations and Russian peacekeeping forces – as well in the interests of acting humanely – an agreement had been reached with Armenia on an exchange of prisoners of war and other captives. 56.     The Government noted that on 14 December 2020 Mr Karen Ghazaryan’s sentence had been suspended following the reaching of the above-mentioned trilateral agreement, and that he had been transferred to Armenia together with other Armenian captives. Proceedings before the Court 57 .     On 17 July 2018 the applicants requested the Court to apply Rule   39 of the Rules of Court and to indicate to the Government of Azerbaijan interim measures aimed at protecting their son’s health and to arrange for his return to Armenia. On the same day the duty judge decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to the Government of Azerbaijan that they should take all necessary measures to protect the life and physical integrity of Mr Karen Ghazaryan. The duty judge further decided to request the Government, under Rule   54 § 2 (a), to submit information about the place and the conditions in which Mr Karen Ghazaryan was being held and whether any criminal proceedings had been instituted against him. If any such proceedings had been instituted, they were requested to provide all the relevant details and documents. The applicants were asked to submit a complete application form by 14 August 2018, which they did. 58.     On 29 November 2018 the applicants lodged another request for Rule   39 of the Rules of Court to be applied. This time they requested that the Court indicate to the Government that they ensure that the applicants be allowed to enter Azerbaijan, to visit their son in prison and to attend his trial, and to allow them to communicate directly with him in written form, by telephone or via any other form of electronic communication and without interference on the part of any public bodies. In response, the applicants were informed that the request fell outside the scope of Rule 39. 59.     On 4 and 14 June 2019 the applicants again requested the Court to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in response to which they were informed that the request was incomplete. 60.     On 26 July 2019 the applicants submitted further information and lodged further complaints via the Court’s application forms. 61.     On 1 July 2020 the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Azerbaijan and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. 62 .     On 7 April 2021 the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as decided on 17 July 2018, was discontinued, after information was provided to the Court indicating that the applicants’ son had been returned to Armenia. THE LAW PRELIMINARY objection REGARDING THE APPLICANTS’ standing to lodge an application on mr karen ghazaryan’s behalf 63.     The Court notes that the Government lodged an objection, submitting that the applicants did not have the requisite standing to lodge the application. They referred to Article 34 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.” The parties’ and the third-party’s submissions The Government 64.     The Government argued that the applicants were not – and did not claim to be – “direct victims” and that there were no reasons to allow them to apply on behalf of their son, Mr Karen Ghazaryan, who was not a disappeared person, but rather one who had served a sentence in another country. In particular, the applicants’ son had not been in any more vulnerable a situation than any other person who had been prosecuted and sentenced and he could at any stage have applied to the Court himself. The Government also asserted that there appeared to be a conflict of interest between the applicants and their son, in so far as there was no indication of Mr Karen Ghazaryan having requested his parents to apply to any international body on his behalf. The applicants 65.     In their application of 14 August 2018 (a date on which their son was still in Azerbaijan) the applicants maintained that their son was in a vulnerable position: he was under the total control of the authorities of Azerbaijan, being kept in incommunicado detention without any access to the outside world; he was not covered by human rights guarantees since the authorities of Azerbaijan deemed him to be a military prisoner; he was being kept in a hostile and discriminatory environment on the basis of his ethnicity; and the situation was ongoing. 66.     In their subsequent observations, submitted after Mr Karen Ghazaryan had been transferred to Armenia, the applicants maintained that the above-mentioned detention incommunicado had lasted from 15 July 2018 until 15   December 2020 (the date of Mr Karen Ghazaryan’s transferral), and that this had been a decisive factor with regard to his vulnerability and the validity of their application on his behalf. 67.     As to the arguments of the Government to the effect that the applicants had been communicating with their son through the ICRC, the applicants responded that throughout the entire period that they had been in contact with the ICRC’s Armenia office, the latter had categorically refused to engage in any “legal process” between the applicants and their son. The ICRC officials had repeatedly stated that their mission could extend only to “family matters” and had categorically denied the repeated requests of the applicants for the Court’s application form to be sent to Mr Karen Ghazaryan for his signature. Reference was made