CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29048B37 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s14BE19CF { margin-bottom:14pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sC8B49151 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding:1pt 4pt 14pt; font-size:10pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sBBEDD775 { margin-left:47.21pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sF4E2F6FE { margin-left:50.2pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .s599F5480 { 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; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B52A9A9 { 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; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; 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 } .s7A7B69A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s915ECF9D { width:130.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION CASE OF HASMIK KHACHATRYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 11829/16)   JUDGMENT Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Positive obligations • Respondent State’s failure to adequately respond to serious acts of domestic violence • Domestic legal framework in force at the time fell short of the respondent State’s duty to establish and effectively apply a system punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims • Domestic authorities’ failure to conduct autonomous, proactive and comprehensive risk assessment of further violence and take adequate and sufficient measures to protect the applicant • Law-enforcement authorities’ lack of awareness of the specific character and dynamics of domestic violence when dealing with the applicant’s complaints • Adoption of a purely formalistic approach by the domestic courts • Reclassification of charged offence and imposition of a more lenient sentence on the perpetrator without careful scrutiny of all relevant considerations • Defective implementation of the criminal-law mechanisms, specifically the application of an amnesty resulting in the perpetrator not serving his sentence • Existence of a positive obligation under Art 3 to enable domestic violence victims to claim compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage from perpetrators directly, or indirectly through the State • Unconditional legislative restriction preventing the applicant from obtaining enforceable award against the perpetrator for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of his ill-treatment Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 12 December 2024   FINAL   12/03/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Hasmik Khachatryan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar, President ,   María Elósegui,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Gilberto Felici,   Andreas Zünd,   Diana Sârcu,   Kateřina Šimáčková, judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no. 11829/16) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian national, Ms Hasmik Khachatryan (“the applicant”), on 22   February 2016; the decision to give notice to the Armenian Government (“the Government”) of the applicant’s complaints concerning the domestic authorities’ alleged failure to protect her from further acts of domestic violence during the criminal proceedings against the perpetrator, to impose on him a proportionate punishment for the serious acts of violence committed against her and the lack of legal means for her to claim compensation from him for non-pecuniary damage and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case mainly concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention that the respondent State failed to protect her from further acts of domestic violence while criminal proceedings against her former common-law spouse were ongoing; failed to impose on him a proportionate punishment for the acts of violence committed against her; and failed to ensure that the imposed punishment was executed; and that she had no legal means of claiming compensation from her former common-law spouse for the non-pecuniary damage which she had sustained as a result of the domestic violence inflicted by him. THE FACTS 2 .     The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Yerevan. She was represented by Mr T. Muradyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Background to the case 5 .     In 2004 the applicant married S.H. (there was no State registration of the marriage, the case file contains a certificate issued by the Armenian Apostolic Church attesting to their marriage in church (hereinafter “marriage”)). The couple lived with S.H.’s parents in the village of Gandzak in Gegharkunik Region. They had two children – a daughter, V.H., born in 2006, and a son, H.H., born in 2007. 6 .     It appears that the applicant did not work, either before or during the marriage. 7.     According to the applicant, her relationship with S.H. gradually deteriorated because he started abusing alcohol after it was discovered that their daughter, V.H., had a disability. Under the influence of alcohol, he started arguments, harassed and threatened her, and resorted to physical violence against her. incidents of violence in May and june 2013 8 .     On 5 May 2013 S.H. came to the family home in the village of Gandzak and started blaming the applicant for the scratches on the face of their daughter. He then punched the applicant and hit her in the head. As a result, she fell to the floor while S.H. continued to hit and kick her. Thereafter S.H. hit the applicant in the back with a chair and the chair broke. He then continued hitting the applicant’s head and different parts of her body with a broken part of the chair. The applicant lost consciousness from the shock of the pain. She regained consciousness as a result of the blows which she continued to receive. The applicant sustained a number of injuries during the assault, including various wounds and a concussion. 9 .     On an unspecified date at the end of May 2013, in the kitchen of their home, S.H. pressed a burning cigarette onto the applicant’s left forearm, threatening to “gouge her eyes out” if he suspected that she was cheating on him. 10 .     On 16 June 2013 S.H. hit the applicant in the right ear, knocked her down and severely beat and kicked her face and body. The applicant ran away from their home and stayed outside for hours, in the village. She was found by her parents, who took her to their house for the night. the applicant’s medical assistance and initial police inquiry 11 .     On 17 June 2013 the applicant went to Yerevan and was admitted to the Armenia Medical Centre (“the hospital”), where she was provided with medical assistance and her injuries were recorded. She refused to undergo the inpatient treatment recommended by the medical staff there. 12 .     The applicant left the hospital after being provided with medical assistance, and sought support from a non-governmental organisation which specialised in protecting victims of domestic violence. It provided her with assistance, psychological counselling and advice on how to deal with S.H. It also gave her shelter for a period of one month. 13 .     On 18 June 2013 the hospital informed the police about the admission of the applicant and her injuries. In particular, it reported that the applicant had sought medical assistance in relation to a broken nose and had said that her “husband” S.H. had beaten her in their home. 14 .     On the same date the applicant was invited to come to the Mashtots station of the Yerevan Police Department (“the Yerevan police”) to lodge a criminal complaint and make a statement. 15 .     An inspector from the Yerevan police drafted that day a record of a “refusal [by the applicant] to lodge a criminal complaint”, which was signed by the applicant and two attesting witnesses. It stated, in particular, that the applicant had been invited to come to the police station to lodge a criminal complaint and make a statement but she had refused, stating that “her husband had beaten [her] at home”. 16 .     The Yerevan police notified the Gavar Police Department (“the Gavar police”) about the hospital’s report (see paragraph 13 above) and the fact that the applicant had refused to lodge a criminal complaint and make a statement. 17 .     On 20 June 2013 the Yerevan police referred the case to the Gavar police. 18.     On the same date S.H. gave a statement to the Gavar police saying that on 16 June 2013 he had hit the applicant in the face once. 19 .     The applicant, who was in Yerevan, also made a statement on the same day and said that on 16 June 2013 S.H. had punched her in the head, face and arms and had kicked her in the back. In response to a question from the investigator as to whether she had hit S.H. or not, the applicant denied that she had hit him. 20.     A relative of the applicant who was living in Yerevan made a statement the same day, as did the applicant’s parents. 21 .     Inspector N.K. of the Gavar police ordered a forensic medical examination that same day to determine whether the applicant had injuries and, among other things, when and how they had been inflicted and how serious they were. According to the ensuing expert report received on 2 July 2013, the applicant had sustained a concussion, a nasal bone fracture, closed craniocerebral trauma, a rupture of the eardrum, and haematomas on the left arm, left ilium bone and left forearm which had been caused by a hard, blunt object. It was noted that the injuries could have been inflicted on 5 May and 16 June 2013 as a result of violence. The report concluded that the applicant’s injuries amounted to minor bodily harm. 22.     On 21 June 2013 Inspector N.K. examined the scene of the incident – the relevant rooms in S.H.’s parents’ house (see paragraph 5 above) – and took statements from S.H. and his parents. S.H. reiterated that he had hit the applicant in the face once on 16 June 2013, and his parents gave an identical account of the events on that day. criminal complaint concerning incidents of 5 May and 16 June 2013 23.     On 2 July 2013 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Gavar police in relation to the violent incidents of 5 May and 16 June 2013 (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above). 24 .     On the same date the applicant made an additional statement (see paragraph 19 above). She stated, inter alia , that on 5 May 2013 S.H. had hit her in the head and back with a chair, breaking the chair; he had then punched and kicked various parts of her body. Her mother-in-law had tried to intervene, but S.H. had not allowed her into the room and had continued beating her. S.H. had also beaten her on 16 June 2013. 25.     On 3 July 2013 Inspector N.K. reported to his superior that it had been discovered that on 5 May 2013 S.H. had beaten the applicant, and he asked for instructions in that regard. An entry was made in the register of the Gegharkunik Regional Police Department (“the Gegharkunik police”) concerning a report of bodily injury sustained on 5 May 2013. 26.     Inspector N.K. referred that day the material gathered during the preliminary inquiry to the investigation unit of the Gegharkunik police. The relevant decision stated, in particular, that it had been discovered that S.H. had beaten the applicant on 5 May and 16 June 2013, inflicting bodily injuries on her, that is to say, his acts had contained the elements of the crime provided for in Article 117 of the former Criminal Code (in force until 1 July 2022, see paragraph 51 below). 27 .     On 16 July 2013 the applicant submitted a written application to the head of the investigation unit of the Gegharkunik police. She stated, in particular, that a criminal case had been initiated in relation to the injuries which her husband had inflicted on her, that she had health problems for which she was receiving medical treatment in Yerevan and that she could not go to Gavar to be questioned. She also stated that her husband was threatening her with “revenge” should she return to her place of residence. As a result, and to ensure her own safety, the applicant requested that the investigator be instructed to question her and her relatives in Yerevan. She received no response. institution of criminal proceedings and subsequent events 28 .     On 24 July 2013 the investigation unit of the Gegharkunik police instituted criminal proceedings against S.H. under Article 117 of the former Criminal Code (see paragraph 51 below) in relation to the incidents of 5 May and 16 June 2013 (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above). The applicant was recognised as a victim in the proceedings. 29.     On 25 July 2013 the applicant was acquainted with the forensic medical expert’s report (see paragraph 21 above). As noted in the relevant record, she disagreed with the assessment of the seriousness of the bodily harm which she had suffered, and requested that an additional forensic medical examination be carried out. 30 .     On the same date H.M., an investigator from the investigation unit of the Gegharkunik police, ordered an additional forensic medical examination. The relevant decision mentioned that the applicant had also stated that at the end of May 2013 S.H. had burnt her left forearm with a cigarette. According to the ensuing expert report issued on 22 August 2013, the following bodily injuries were detected on the applicant: scars from various wounds on the scalp (in the right frontal, crown and crown-occipital areas), left wrist and left shin; a haemorrhage in the left forearm; a rupture of the right eardrum; concussion; and haematomas on the outer part of the left arm and forearm and on the left part of the ilium bone which had been inflicted as a result of multiple blows from blunt and hard objects or tools which, together or separately, had caused minor bodily harm entailing a short-term deterioration in the applicant’s health. The injuries on the scalp could possibly date from 5   May 2013, considering the state of the scarring. The wounds in the occipital and crown-occipital areas and on the left shin could be the same age as the other wounds, considering the state of the scarring, but it could not be ruled out that there might be a certain difference in time (days or weeks) which could not be determined with certainty, owing to a lack of sufficient medical evidence and the lapse of time between the infliction of the injuries and the forensic examination. The remaining injuries, as well as the concussion and the rupture of the right eardrum, could date from 16 June 2013. A roundish area of irregular hyperpigmentation had been detected on the left forearm. It could not be ruled out that this could have been caused by a cigarette burn. 31 .     By a letter of 13 August 2013 the Gavar police informed the investigator H.M. that operational and intelligence measures had revealed that S.H. was described negatively. He often consumed alcohol and, under its influence, created problems at home as well as in his social environment, and he did not obey his parents. S.H. often argued with his wife and evidence in this regard had been gathered by the Gavar police which showed that he had beaten up the applicant on 5 May 2013. 32 .     On 1 October 2013 a formal confrontation was held between the applicant and S.H. at the Gavar police station. According to the applicant, throughout the entire confrontation S.H. behaved arrogantly, insulting her and threatening her with revenge if she continued to complain about him. The investigator H.M. did not attempt to rebuke S.H. Furthermore, a police officer who worked in the same police department and was S.H.’s cousin disrupted the normal conduct of the confrontation by freely entering the room and behaving improperly towards the applicant. In those circumstances, the applicant was obliged to interrupt the confrontation and leave the police station. The record of that confrontation contains a request by the applicant for measures “to ensure [that she had a] safe confrontation”. The Government submitted that the applicant had signed the record of that confrontation and had indicated that S.H. had pressurised and threatened her, while S.H.’s lawyer had indicated in the record that no pressure had been exerted on the applicant and that she had been speaking on her mobile phone the whole time. 33 .     On 10 October 2013 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor General, the Chief of Police and the head of the police criminal investigation unit, requesting that the criminal investigation be transferred to another investigative body. The applicant said that during the confrontation on 1 October 2013 (see paragraph 32 above) S.H. had been screaming at her freely, threatening her and insulting her and saying that he would take revenge on her if she continued complaining about him, and at no point had the investigator done anything about this. Seeing that the applicant had wished to leave, the investigator had tried to calm S.H. down, but he had spoken to the investigator in a very arrogant manner. She had had the impression that at that moment the investigator had been in an even more helpless situation than her, since he had not dared to do anything to rebuke S.H. Moreover, S.H.’s cousin, who worked in the same police department, had interrupted the course of the confrontation at various points and brought coffee for his relative. The applicant argued that the investigators of the Gegharkunik police were “terrified” of S.H. and his relatives (owing to their influence in the region), which impeded their ability to carry out an impartial investigation into the case. The outcome of that transfer request is unknown. 34 .     On 5 November 2013 S.H. met the applicant outside the school where their daughter was studying. According to the applicant, S.H. hit her in the face, shouting swear words and insulting her. The applicant reported the incident to the Yerevan police (see paragraph 14 above). 35 .     On 6 November 2013 the applicant submitted an application to the investigation unit of the Gegharkunik police, describing the assault of 5   November 2013 (see paragraph 34 above) and stating that there was a real risk to her life and safety in the light of S.H.’s unlawful actions and the fact that he was following her around. She therefore did not wish to participate in a face-to-face interview with him and requested that her prior statements be taken into account. 36 .     On 14 November 2013 the investigator H.M. brought charges against S.H. under Article 119 § 2 (3) of the former Criminal Code (aggravated torture of a person who is “otherwise dependent” on the perpetrator, see paragraph 54 below). The relevant parts of the relevant decision read as follows: “... [S.H.] is accused of having ... tortured [the applicant] – a person who was otherwise dependent [on him] ... that is, [a person with whom he was] in a marital relationship – by having repeatedly beaten [her], causing [her] bodily and psychological suffering ... On 5 May 2013 ... [S.H.] hit [the applicant] on her left cheek and [the applicant] consequently felt severe pain and screamed ... having heard that, [S.H.’s mother] entered the bedroom wishing to get [the applicant] out ..., but [S.H.] grabbed [the applicant] by the hair and pulled [her] back into the room ... thereafter, he took a glass full of water ... and hit [the applicant] in the head ... and consequently [the applicant] fell to the floor and [remained there] for about 20 minutes. [S.H.] walked around the room, very agitated, and punched and kicked [the applicant] in the head, face and back ... [The applicant] cried and asked [him] not to hit her, but [S.H.] paid no attention to this and, as if he was excited and took pleasure in hitting her ..., he took a wooden chair ... and hit [the applicant] in the back ..., as a result of which the chair broke and he dealt multiple blows to [the applicant’s] head and different parts of her body with a [part of the broken chair]. [The applicant] consequently passed out and regained consciousness [afterwards] because of the blows which she continued to receive ... In addition to that, at the end of May 2013 ... [S.H.] had an argument with [the applicant] ... [and] brought his cigarette near to her face ... [the applicant] covered her face with her hands, after which [S.H.] burnt her left forearm with the lit cigarette. Thereafter, on 16 June 2013 at around [11 p.m., S.H.] had an argument with [the applicant] during which [he] hit [her] in the right ear, which caused her severe pain ... [S.H.] then kicked [the applicant] in the face and on different parts of [her] body ... [S.H.] then left ... and came back about an hour later ... and hit [the applicant] on the left cheek, after which [the applicant] left the house ... [S.H.] chased her, but [the applicant] hid because she was afraid of [him] and stayed outside until around 4 a.m. on 17 June [2013], when she went to her parents’ house. ...” 37 .     On 15 November 2013 the Yerevan police refused to open a criminal case in relation to the incident of 5 November 2013 (see paragraph 34 above) for lack of corpus delicti in S.H.’s actions. The relevant decision stated that although it had been substantiated that S.H. had started an argument with the applicant after meeting her in the courtyard of a school for children with hearing impairments and had hit her in the face and caused her physical pain, a single blow which did not result in bodily harm could not be legally classified as battery (Article 118 of the former Criminal Code – see paragraph   52 below). Nor could S.H.’s behaviour be classified as hooliganism, considering that the incident had been brief, people had not gathered and the argument had concerned a family matter; S.H. had not aimed to oppose society and be disrespectful towards his social environment. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 38 .     On 27 November 2013 the bill of indictment – based on the charges and the description of events contained in the decision of 14 November 2013 (see paragraph 36 above) – was finalised and the case was sent to the Gegharkunik Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) for trial. In particular, the prosecution sought S.H.’s conviction under Article 119 § 2 (3) of the former Criminal Code (see paragraph 54 below), since he was considered to have subjected the applicant to the ill-treatment at issue in a situation where she had been “otherwise dependent” on him, given that she had been his wife. trial 39 .     On 19 December 2013 the applicant, represented by Mr T. Muradyan (see paragraph 2 above), submitted an application to the Regional Court, requesting that S.H. be placed in detention. Referring, inter alia , to the evidence in the case file which indicated that S.H. had been described negatively (see paragraph 31 above) and the incident of 5 November 2013 (see paragraph 34 above), the applicant submitted that S.H. had behaved improperly during the proceedings – he had continued to beat and trouble her, had threatened her a number of times both in person and through his relatives, had tried to convince her to withdraw her complaint, and had consumed alcohol and created tension. The applicant made a similar application at a hearing of 29 January 2014. 40 .     At a hearing of 24 February 2014 the applicant made the same request. She added that S.H. had insulted and threatened her over the telephone, stating that “everything was arranged, he was not going to be held responsible”, but that he would take his revenge on her after the completion of the proceedings. At the same hearing the Regional Court decided that it would deal with the applicant’s applications after it had finished examining the evidence. 41 .     In a statement which she made at the same hearing, the applicant said that their religious wedding had taken place on 30 October 2004. S.H. had not allowed her to maintain contact with her family and relatives. Their daughter V.H., who had a hearing problem, needed special care and speech therapy; for that reason, they had moved to Yerevan, where S.H. had been working at the relevant time. After some time it had become clear that S.H. was having a relationship with another woman in Yerevan. On the pretext of lacking the financial means to pay for V.H.’s classes in Yerevan, S.H. had sent the applicant and their children back to live with his parents. For around three years S.H. had lived with another woman in a rented apartment in Yerevan; every time he had come home (to his parents’ house) he had returned late at night, drunk, and had sworn and created problems and then left, taking money with him to pay his rent and meet his needs. He had come back only when he had needed more money. Every time he had come back, he had beaten the applicant. The applicant then recounted the incident of 5   May 2013 (see paragraph 8 above) when S.H. had severely beaten her because he had blamed her for not having been sufficiently attentive to V.H., who had injured her face when playing outside. Between 5 May and 16   June 2013 S.H. had been in the village more often and had even stayed for a couple of days. The applicant had not dared to contradict him about anything because she had known that that would result in another argument. She then recounted the incident of 16 June 2013 (see paragraph 10 above) during which S.H.’s father had tried to step in to protect her and in response S.H. had said “... she’s my wife, I can do as I please ...” After she had fled from the house, she had not gone to her parents because she had known that S.H. would be looking for her there. She had called her father to warn him that S.H. was going to pay them a visit and had switched off her phone, hiding from S.H. near the river, where she had stayed almost until dawn. There had been nobody around and she could only hear S.H.’s car. She had been extremely frightened that he would ill-treat her again. She had refused to stay in the hospital (see paragraph 11 above) because she had been afraid that S.H. would be able to locate her, because his family had acquaintances everywhere and if somebody had found out who she was then they would have persuaded her to go back. S.H.’s mother and sisters had then spoken with her. During that conversation the applicant had agreed not to pursue a complaint against S.H. if she were allowed to keep the children and live alone, and they had agreed on that arrangement. However, afterwards they had not allowed her to keep H.H. (her son), nor had they allowed her to talk to him. The applicant stated that S.H. had also regularly beaten her while they had been living in Yerevan; she had told only S.H.’s parents and sisters about that. She stated that she could not divorce him because she had been afraid of him; he had stated that he would hang her and nobody would know and she did not doubt that he had been capable of doing it. In response to a question from the presiding judge as to why she had not left and had instead borne such torture, the applicant replied that she had had no way out and had had no right to leave their house. In response to a question from S.H.’s lawyer as to why she had not turned to the police, the applicant stated that she had been afraid of S.H.’s threats. She had been living apart from him for a year, but he continued to threaten her. 42 .     At a hearing of 7 May 2014 S.H. gave evidence, referring to the applicant as his wife. He stated, among other things, that he had a normal relationship with her and considered that the argument of 5 May 2013 had been a “minor family argument”. According to S.H., the applicant had left his house on 16 June 2013 because she had misbehaved in relation to their children. 43 .     During her final submissions on 30 October 2014 the applicant said, inter alia , that from the very beginning of the proceedings S.H. had behaved improperly, putting pressure on her and her relatives. Every time he had been under the influence of alcohol he had threatened, insulted and frightened her and her relatives, demanding that they withdraw their statements. She and her relatives had been obliged to change their place of residence to stay away from S.H. because he had been following her, but nothing had changed. The applicant expressed her hope that such negative behaviour on the part of S.H. would be properly assessed by the Regional Court. She also submitted that she was at risk of further ill-treatment should S.H. remain at large, and asked for the maximum sentence to be imposed on him. 44 .     On an unspecified date during the trial the applicant lodged a civil claim against S.H., seeking compensation in the amount of 1,000,000   Armenian drams (AMD) in respect of pecuniary damage (medical expenses relating to her health problems resulting from the ill-treatment). She also requested AMD 3,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from her emotional and psychological suffering due to the treatment to which she had been subjected by S.H. while she had been in a situation where she had been dependent on him. She also argued that S.H.’s offensive words and actions had humiliated her, damaging her honour and dignity. The applicant stated that Article 17 § 2 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 56 below) had lost its legal force on 1 October 2014 pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s ruling in its decision of 5 November 2013 (see paragraph 71 below). However, the legislature had failed to fully regulate the question of compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage. In her civil claim, the applicant stated that she had therefore been obliged to make reference to Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 58 below), which, according to her, was the only legal provision in force that provided for the possibility of seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 45 .     On 22 December 2014 the Regional Court delivered its judgment. The prosecution had originally brought charges against S.H. under Article   119 §   2   (3) of the former Criminal Code (aggravated torture – see paragraphs 36 and 38 above, and paragraph 54 below), but the court reclassified them under Article 119 § 1 of the former Criminal Code (torture in the absence of aggravating circumstances – see paragraph 53 below). It convicted him of torture under the latter provision and sentenced him to one year and six months’ imprisonment. The Regional Court then decided to exempt S.H. from serving his sentence by applying the Amnesty Act of 3 October 2013 (see paragraph 69 below) and rejected the applicant’s civil claim. The relevant parts of that judgment read as follows: “... [S.H.’s lawyer] contested [the applicant’s] civil claim ..., considering that the claim as a whole [in respect of pecuniary damage] was unfounded ... However, his client had stated that his parents were ready to pay [AMD] 300,000 because [the applicant] was, after all, the mother of his children. ... In the course of the trial [the applicant] received [AMD] 300,000 from [S.H.] ... Having examined the evidence ..., [the court] finds that the charges brought against [S.H.] under Article 119 § 2 (3) [of the former Criminal Code] have not been substantiated and the offence committed by him should be reclassified ... The court considers that the arguments put forward by the defence have not been substantiated, considering that [S.H.] realised that he was inflicting severe pain, physical or mental suffering on [the applicant] through his actions, because [S.H.] regularly subjected [the applicant] to physical or mental suffering as a result of his violent actions ... ... As for the argument advanced by the defence to the effect that [the applicant] was not ‘otherwise dependent’ on [S.H.] (through marriage), the court finds that it is well ‑ founded for the following reasons ... Article 119 § 2 [of the former Criminal Code] sets out the aggravating circumstances in relation to torture. In particular, such [circumstances] exist when acts constituting torture have been committed in respect of ... a person who is financially or otherwise dependent [on the perpetrator] ... Financial dependency on the perpetrator may be connected to any situation where the improvement or worsening of the victim’s financial state depends on the perpetrator. Other dependency [on the perpetrator] may result from marriage, for example ... The court finds it established that for around two years [S.H.] and [the applicant] did not keep a common household [and] did not live a married life; [S.H.] did not work anywhere and did not provide financially for [the applicant], [and S.H.’s] mother provided for the family, [and] also took care of [S.H.’s] financial expenses ... It was also established in the course of the trial that for around two years [S.H.] lived with another woman in Yerevan with whom he kept a common household, and that [he] lived in his parents’ house in the village of Gandzak from July 2013 onwards ... In order to determine [S.H.’s] punishment, the court [will] consider the nature and social dangerousness of the offence ..., as well as the mitigating factors – [the fact] that he is described positively, has a [minor] child in his care ... ... The court considers that the reoffending constitutes an aggravating factor. ... It should be noted that during the trial [the applicant] received [AMD] 300,000 from [S.H.], however she still insisted on her civil claim ...   The court finds that [the applicant’s] civil claim must be rejected, since she has not submitted proper documentary evidence to substantiate the sum claimed. In addition, [S.H.] has compensated her in the amount of [AMD] 300,000, which, in the court’s opinion, is a reasonable amount to compensate for the damage caused by the offence ...” The Regional Court then made reference to the case-law of the Court of Cassation concerning compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of insult and defamation, before going on to say: “It follows that ... [the applicant’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage] ... must also be rejected for being ill-founded. In addition, the court considers that by lodging an ill-founded civil claim, the victim [was] pursuing one goal, that is, to prevent the application of the [Amnesty Act] in respect of [S.H.]. In accordance with section 1(3) of [the Amnesty Act] ..., adopted by the National Assembly ... on 3 October 2013 ..., persons who have been sentenced to a maximum of three years’ imprisonment are exempt from serving their sentence ... Considering that, in the light of the foregoing, [S.H.] should be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one and a half years for the commission of the offence provided for by Article 119 § 1 [of the former Criminal Code], and that the circumstances mentioned in [the Amnesty Act of 3 October 2013] which prevent the application [of that Act] do not exist in the present case, the court finds that [S.H.] is exempt from serving his sentence, applying [the Amnesty Act of 3 October 2013] ... ... [as regards the circumstances preventing the application of the Amnesty Act of 3   October 2013 mentioned in section 9(6) of that Act] ..., it should be noted that [S.H.] compensated [the applicant] for the damage caused to [her]. As regards the fact that [the applicant] requested [AMD] 4,000,000 whereas [S.H.] compensated [her in the amount of AMD] 300,000, the court finds that, in the present case, there is no dispute about the damage caused by the crime or the amount thereof because, in view of the foregoing, the court determined the amount of damage to be compensated for ... As for [the applicant’s] application for [S.H.’s] detention as a preventive measure, considering that [S.H.] will be exempt from serving his sentence ..., the court does not find it necessary to deal with the application seeking [his detention] ...” 46 .     The applicant lodged an appeal. She disputed the Regional Court’s finding that she was not considered to be a person who had been “otherwise dependent” on S.H., which had resulted in him receiving a much more lenient punishment compared with the gravity of the offence that he had committed. In particular, the Regional Court had not taken due account of all the circumstances surrounding the ill-treatment in question – the applicant’s vulnerable condition, and S.H.’s influence and opportunities. They had been married in a religious ceremony in 2004. She had accepted S.H. as her husband and the father of her children, had not disobeyed him, had not led a separate life, had been afraid of him and had lived with his parents in their house. She further argued that exempting S.H. from serving his sentence by applying an amnesty had been unjustified, since he had failed to compensate her for the damage inflicted on her prior to the adoption of the judgment. In addition, the Regional Court had unlawfully rejected her civil claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The amount claimed had been incomparable with the suffering which she had endured, but it had corresponded to the maximum amount of compensation allowed for non ‑ pecuniary damage in the case of insult and defamation set out in Article   1087.1 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 58 below). 47 .     The prosecutor also lodged an appeal, arguing that the Regional Court had erred in its assessment of the charges brought against S.H. under Article   119 § 2 (3) of the former Criminal Code (see paragraph 54 below). The relevant parts of the prosecutor’s appeal read as follows: “... The [Regional Court] found it established that [S.H.] and [the applicant] had not kept a common household for around two years [and] had not led a married life, [that S.H.] had not worked anywhere and had not provided for the victim, [and that S.H.’s] mother ... had provided for the family ... A question arises – if the victim and [S.H.] were not in a marital relationship, what was [the applicant] doing in [S.H.’s] house, where they had always lived since their marriage, [where she] kept a common household, did not live apart from [S.H.] and his parents, took care of the two children born during their marriage, [and] did chores in the house? ... on the one hand, [the Regional Court] found that [S.H.] had come home and had tortured the victim ..., and on the other hand, [it found] that they had not been in a marital relationship ... ... It should also be noted that when deciding on [S.H.’s] punishment, [the Regional Court] considered it a mitigating circumstance that [S.H.] had a [minor] in his care [H.H., born in 2007] ..., [whereas it also found that] ... [S.H.] had not worked anywhere and that it was his mother who had provided for the family ... In fact, it had been established that before the incident of torture, [the applicant] had been caring for both children. When [the applicant] left [S.H.’s] house, she was not allowed to take [H.H.] with her ... The child lived with [S.H.’s] parents, who took care of him ...” 48 .     On 17 April 2015 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment in full. The relevant parts of that decision read as follows: “... a victim’s financial or other dependency on the perpetrator restricts the former’s ability and capacity to resist the assault ... Financial dependency presupposes that the victim is fully or partially in the care of the perpetrator. Other dependency presupposes functional [dependency] or such dependency which is connected with family or marital relationships ... In any event, the victim’s dependency on the perpetrator should be significant [and] ‘be capable’ of breaking the victim’s will to show resistance ...   The Court of Appeal also finds it established that for around two years [S.H.] and [the applicant] did not keep a common household [and] did not live a married life. [S.H.] did not work anywhere, did not have earnings of his own and did not provide for the victim; [S.H.’s] mother provided for the family ... Hence, the Court of Appeal ... concludes that there are no objective grounds to reclassify the offence committed by [S.H.] under Article 119 § 2 (3) [of the former Criminal Code]. ... The Court of Appeal finds that [by paying AMD 300,000] to [the applicant], [S.H.] has compensated for the damage caused as a result of the offence, in which case there are no grounds to annul the application of the Amnesty Act ... In the present case, there is no dispute as to the damage caused by the offence or the amount [of damage] which is to be compensated for. As regards the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the victim’s honour and dignity being insulted and defamed, in the Court of Appeal’s assessment, it is not well founded and should be rejected for the following reasons. ... The Court of Cassation has stated that there should be a direct causal link between an offence and the damage to be compensated for ... within the framework of criminal proceedings ... In addition, the grounds ... of a civil claim should be properly substantiated ... The examination of the material in the case file shows that [S.H.] has already compensated [the applicant] for the necessary medical expenses relating to [her] subsequent medical treatment, and the remain