CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEBD403DC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDEA351A4 { width:7.61pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sAFF05A56 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:62.36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:9.09pt; font-family:serif; font-size:8.5pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sAF030A { margin-left:-56.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD6493B2B { width:0.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8B9A8755 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s4F205613 { width:122.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF FARMANYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA (Applications nos. 15998/11 and 8 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT Art 2 (substantive) • Life • Deaths of the applicants’ relatives as a result of injuries sustained during the mass protests after the 2008 presidential elections • Use of lethal force attributable to the respondent State resulting in the deaths of seven of the nine victims not “absolutely necessary” • Deaths resulted from a badly planned and executed operation involving the improper use of crowd-control weapons and the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of lethal force • Court unable to establish that one of the victims was killed as a result of the use of that force • Lack of sufficient evidence for finding a violation in relation to the remaining victim Art 2 (procedural) • Failure to carry out an effective investigation into all the deaths Art 38 • Non-compliance with State obligation to furnish all necessary facilities   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 18 September 2025   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Farmanyan and Others v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Kateřina Šimáčková, President ,   María Elósegui,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Tim Eicke,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges ,   Anna Margaryan, ad hoc judge , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the applications (nos. 15998/11, 15964/11, 16015/11, 16024/11, 16030/11, 16035/11, 16046/11, 16055/11 and 16060/11) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by seventeen Armenian nationals, Mr Vachagan Farmanyan, Ms Lyudmila Farmanyan, Ms Vardanush Farmanyan, Ms Varduhi Baghdasaryan, Mr   Vahan Antonyan, Ms Mariam Hovhannisyan, Ms Ruzanna Harutyunyan, Ms Jemma Vardumyan, Mr Hovsep Khachatryan, Ms Alla Hovhannisyan, Mr Aram Khachatryan, Ms Lilya Minasyan, Ms Gayane Hovhannisyan, Mr   Edik Harutyunyan, Mr Sargis Kloyan, Ms Azatuhi Manukyan and Ms   Ruzanna Hunanyan (“the applicants”), on 28 February 2011; the decision to give notice to the Armenian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention concerning the deaths of the applicants’ relatives and the alleged failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of their deaths, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 9 September 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the deaths of the applicants’ relatives as a result of injuries received during the mass protests which took place in Yerevan on 1   and 2 March 2008. It raises issues under Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants also relied on Article 38 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2 .     The applicants, whose details are set out in the appendix, are the relatives of nine people who died as a result of injuries received during the above-mentioned protests. More specifically: (a)     The applicants Vachagan, Lyudmila and Vardanush Farmanyan (application no. 15998/11) are the father, mother and sister of Mr Armen Farmanyan, who died on 1 March 2008, aged 33; (b)     The applicants Hovsep Khachatryan, Alla Hovhannisyan and Aram Khachatryan (application no. 16035/11) are the father, mother and brother of Mr Tigran Khachatryan, who died on 1 March 2008, aged 23. After notice of the application was given to the respondent Government, Aram Khachatryan informed the Court that he had acquired Belgian nationality; (c)     The applicants Sargis Kloyan, Azatuhi Manukyan and Ruzanna Hunanyan (application no. 16060/11) are the father, mother and wife of Mr   Gor Kloyan, who died on 2 March 2008, aged 28; (d)     The applicants Lilya Minasyan and Gayane Hovhannisyan (application no. 16046/11) are the wife and daughter of Mr Hovhannes Hovhannisyan, who died on 1 March 2008, aged 47; (e)     The applicant Jemma Vardumyan (application no. 16030/11) is the mother of Mr Davit Petrosyan, who died on 2 March 2008, aged 32; (f)     The applicants Varduhi Baghdasaryan and Vahan Antonyan (application no. 15964/11) are the wife and uncle of Mr Grigor Gevorgyan, who died on 1 March 2008, aged 27; (g)     The applicant Edik Harutyunyan (application no. 16055/11) is the father of Mr Samvel Harutyunyan, who died on 11 April 2008 from injuries sustained on 1 March 2008, aged 28; (h)     The applicant Mariam Hovhannisyan (application no. 16015/11) is the sister of Mr Zakar Hovhannisyan, who died on 2 March 2008, aged 30; (i)     The applicant Ruzanna Harutyunyan (application no. 16024/11) is the mother of Mr Tigran Abgaryan, who died on 11 April 2008 from injuries sustained on 1 March 2008, aged 19. 3.     All of the deceased were civilians, with the exception of Tigran Abgaryan, who at the material time was a conscript performing his compulsory military service with the Police Troops of Armenia ( ՀՀ   ոստիկանության զորքեր ). 4 .     The applicants were represented by Ms J. Evans, Ms J. Gavron, Mr   V.   Grigoryan, Mr P. Leach, Ms K. Levine and Ms J. Sawyer, lawyers from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) based in London, and by Mr T. Yegoryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. 5.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, and subsequently by Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters. 6.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 19 February 2008 presidential election and post ‑ election events Presidential election and post-election demonstrations 7.     On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia. The main candidates were the then Prime Minister, Mr Serzh Sargsyan, who represented the ruling party, and the main opposition candidate, Mr   Levon   Ter-Petrosyan. 8.     Immediately after the preliminary results of the election were announced, Mr Ter-Petrosyan called on his supporters to gather at Freedom Square in central Yerevan to protest against alleged irregularities in the election process, announcing that it had not been free and fair. From 20   February 2008 onwards, daily protest rallies were held across the country by Mr Ter-Petrosyan’s supporters, their main meeting place being Freedom Square and the surrounding park in Yerevan. It appears that the rallies at Freedom Square at times attracted tens of thousands of people, while several hundred demonstrators stayed in that area around the clock, having set up a camp. According to the Government, the authorities addressed the demonstrators gathered at Freedom Square on numerous occasions, informing them of the unlawful nature of their ongoing demonstrations. 9 .     The Government alleged that on 28 February 2008 the National Security Service (“NSS”) had obtained intelligence information, which it had passed on to the police the same day, that large quantities of weapons, including metal bars, wooden bats, firearms, grenades and explosives, were to be distributed to the protestors at Freedom Square in order to incite provocative actions and instigate mass disorder in Yerevan. The Chief of the Armenian police (hereinafter “the Chief of Police”) ordered his two Deputies to examine that information. On 29 February 2008 the head of the Main Department of Criminal Intelligence of the Armenian police reported to the Chief of Police that intelligence information had been gathered during the preceding few days that the demonstrators were planning to destabilise the situation and that they had been seen to be in possession of firearms, explosives, metal bars, Molotov cocktails, wooden bats and other dangerous objects, including specially assembled metal devices with a spiked shape called “hedgehogs”. He then ordered that a “site inspection” be conducted at Freedom Square at 7 a.m. on 1 March 2008 for the purpose of verifying that information. An operational meeting was held, chaired by the Deputy Chief of Police, to discuss and approve the plan for that operation, including an estimate of the number of main and backup forces to be deployed. The “site inspection” was assigned to a group of 133 police officers, led by the Deputy Chief of Police and including members of the police operational service. The backup police forces consisted of 602 police officers, including the patrol service regiment, and were deployed in the areas adjacent to Freedom Square to ensure security in case the situation deteriorated. Members of the Public Order Unit of the Police Troops of Armenia (see paragraphs 152-156 below) were not involved in the “site inspection” and were kept as a reserve at a nearby location. 10.     The applicants stated that none of the above allegations made by the Government were supported by any evidence. Events of 1 and 2 March 2008 and the deaths of the applicants’ relatives The early morning police operation and subsequent developments (a)    Dispersal of the assembly at Freedom Square and gathering of the demonstrators near the Myasnikyan monument 11.     On 1 March 2008, apparently at some point between 6 and 7 a.m., the police forces arrived at Freedom Square. 12.     The applicants alleged that at least a 300 strong police force, without prior warnings or orders to disperse, had brutally attacked the several hundred demonstrators camped at the square and started beating them with rubber batons, causing them bodily injuries and destroying their tents. Within minutes the square was cleared of all the demonstrators and sealed off, while Mr Ter-Petrosyan was escorted by the police to his home, where he was effectively placed under house arrest. 13 .     The Government contested the above allegations and claimed that the purpose of the police operation had been to conduct the “site inspection” ordered the previous day (see paragraph 9 above). Both the main and backup police forces that participated in the police operation were all unarmed and without any means of personal protection, with the exception of 250 officers of the patrol service regiment who were equipped with shields, rubber batons and helmets. The main police forces entered the square and requested the protestors to allow them to inspect the location, but around 800 to 900 angry demonstrators, who were already aware of the arrival of the police, attacked the police officers with wooden bats, metal bars, stones and other random objects. An operational decision was made to immediately quell the resistance and to call in the backup police forces, including the patrol service. The police operation lasted for about half an hour and a corridor was created for the demonstrators to leave the square. After the square had been cleared of all the demonstrators, the police conducted the site inspection, during which they found numerous weapons stashed. These included three pistols, ammunition, grenades, metal bars, wooden and rubber bats, “hedgehogs” (see paragraph 9 above), Molotov cocktails, gas masks and knives. 14 .     The applicants contested the allegation that the demonstrators had been carrying any weapons or that weapons would be distributed among them. The alleged site inspection was not supported by any photographic or other convincing evidence and there was no evidence linking any of the weapons allegedly found at Freedom Square to the demonstrators. The sole purpose of the police operation at Freedom Square was to disperse the demonstrators camping there and prevent the continuation of the rallies. 15.     The applicants further alleged that for two hours following the dispersal of the assembly at Freedom Square the demonstrators who had fled from there had been chased through the streets of Yerevan by the police. Some of them relocated to the area of the Myasnikyan monument, about 1.7 ‑ 2   km from Freedom Square, where a number of foreign embassies were located, including the French, Italian and Russian embassies, as well as the Yerevan mayor’s office, in the belief that they would be safe there. As news of the early morning violent police intervention and the house arrest of the main opposition candidate spread, thousands of people poured into the streets of Yerevan to voice their discontent, many of whom headed to the area of the Myasnikyan monument. From around 10 a.m. a large crowd started to form there, soon reaching several thousand people. 16 .     It appears that the epicentre of the gathering was the square in front of the Myasnikyan monument (“Myasnikyan Square”) and the surrounding area. It further appears that at some point the demonstrators started building barricades using a derailed trolleybus and gradually adding other vehicles, including cars and possibly a refuse truck. The applicants alleged that the protestors had done so to protect themselves from another possible police attack. 17 .     According to the Government, following the police operation at Freedom Square the patrol service regiment was divided into smaller groups, which were ordered to secure order in Yerevan and not to allow any new gatherings of protestors in the city centre. At 11 a.m. information was received from one of the groups that around 300 aggressively behaving demonstrators had assembled near the French embassy, where they had been guided by the leaders of the opposition. Fifty officers of the patrol service were immediately dispatched to that area, where a decision was made to thwart the unlawful actions of the uncontrollable crowd. The demonstrators attacked the police, throwing stones and various other objects in their direction. A number of streets leading to Myasnikyan Square were closed by the police. 18.     The applicants disputed the Government’s account and submitted that no violence had been committed by the demonstrators during the whole period of the demonstration near the French embassy. It was the police that committed numerous acts of violence towards the demonstrators, who remained peaceful even in the face of police brutality. 19 .     It appears that around 12 noon several opposition leaders and activists, including members of parliament, arrived at the scene and were able to address the crowd by loudhailer. The police forces, led by two Deputy Chiefs of Police and the head of the Main Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime, entered into negotiations with those opposition leaders about the possibility of moving the demonstration to an area outside the centre, but these ended unsuccessfully at around 2.20 p.m. since the demonstrators refused to move to the location proposed by the police. It further appears that at around this time an incident happened involving a police car which – allegedly accidentally – drove into the crowd of demonstrators, injuring at least two of them. This infuriated some of the demonstrators, who attacked and set fire to the police car after the officers driving it had fled. 20.     The Government alleged that the demonstrators had refused to move to another location because they had been told by some of the opposition leaders and activists to stay put. At around the same time the demonstrators derailed another trolleybus and used it to block one of the entrances to the square. One of the active members of the opposition allegedly gave a speech over loudspeakers urging the demonstrators to arm themselves “whichever way possible” and prepare for resistance. (b)    Subsequent developments as alleged by the Government 21 .     The Government made the following allegations regarding the subsequent course of events. 22 .     At 3 p.m. a new order was given to reinforce the police units in the vicinity of the President’s residence, the government building and the Public Television building, which involved 200 police officers of the Department of State Protection of the Armenian police and 300 servicemen of the Police Troops. The other police forces were ordered to go to Freedom Square. Another 150 police officers of the Department of State Protection were ordered to block the northern part of the demonstration in order to prevent access to Republic Square, where the government building was situated. 23.     At around 3.40 p.m. a group of protestors stole shields and batons from a police car and at around 5.30 p.m. a group of young protestors tore off pieces of iron pipe from pavement railings and a nearby construction site. 24.     At 6 p.m. the aggressive part of the crowd closed off the sections of the road leading to the Yerevan mayor’s office and Mashtots Avenue, bringing traffic to a standstill, while cars that happened to be approaching those sections were hijacked, looted and used to build barricades. There was a gradual movement of the aggressive part of the crowd towards Mashtots Avenue and Republic Square. 25 .     From around 7.45 p.m. the protestors, armed with stones, metal bars, wooden bats and Molotov cocktails and launching repeated attacks on the police, tried to advance down Grigor Lusavorich Street towards its intersection with Mashtots Avenue and Paronyan Street. According to the Government, their intention was to continue up Paronyan Street and eventually reach the President’s residence and the National Assembly building, which were situated a few kilometres in that direction. In order to stop them moving forward, the Police Troops formed a chain and started advancing, equipped with shields, rubber batons and helmets. Non ‑ commissioned officers of the Police Troops were positioned at the rear, equipped with “special means” (such as non-lethal equipment for crowd control), including tear-gas launchers. The demonstrators threw stones, Molotov cocktails and other objects at them. 26.     At around 8.15 p.m. the first shots were fired and the first grenades thrown from the crowd, as a result of which some police officers received their first injuries, one of which, caused by shrapnel, proved fatal. To protect his officers, the Commander of the Police Troops decided to withdraw them, use special means, including tear gas, and fire blank cartridges for psychological impact. The protestors hid behind cars and responded by throwing stones and Molotov cocktails. 27.     The Commander of the Police Troops decided to send forward a barbed wire installing vehicle to try to install barbed wire. However, the onslaught of the crowd forced the driver and others in the vehicle to abandon it. Five minutes later a similar action was carried out at the intersection of Mashtots Avenue and Grigor Lusavorich Street, which also failed since the crowd charged and the barbed wire remained half open. Part of the aggressive crowd managed to capture some police vehicles, including the two barbed wire installing vehicles, a bus and other vehicles, some of which were set fire to on the spot. The rest were used to attack the police lines and were later burnt at the intersection of Leo Street and Paronyan Street. 28 .     At around 10 p.m. three water cannons were put to use. They temporarily repelled the crowd and prevented it from advancing, but were forced to retreat once the water ran out. The crowd again advanced down Grigor Lusavorich Street towards Paronyan Street, attacking the water cannons and throwing metal bars, stones and Molotov cocktails at police officers and servicemen of the Police Troops. In view of the possible loss of officers as a result of clashes with the crowd, the police decided to form a battle array and to retreat towards Leo Street. In order to stop the attacks, seven officers of the Police Troops armed with assault rifles fired tracer bullets in the air to exert psychological pressure on the protestors. Approximately 200 officers of different police units formed a chain blocking Paronyan Street. 29 .     At 11 p.m. the President of Armenia declared a state of emergency in the city of Yerevan. Despite that, the mass disorder continued and included the breaking into and looting of shops in the area. 30.     As a result of the mass disorder ten people died, including eight civilians and two servicemen of the Police Troops. Thirty-five civilians and 186 police officers and servicemen were injured, ninety-two public and private vehicles were damaged and twelve commercial premises were looted. (c)    Subsequent developments as alleged by the applicants 31 .     The applicants contested the Government’s account of events and alleged that until 5 p.m. the police had not called on the protestors to disperse. The leaders of the opposition present called on the protestors to stay calm and not provoke the police. The protestors built barricades to prevent the police from attacking them and called for Levon Ter-Petrosyan to make an appearance. 32.     From 7.30 to 8 p.m. the police forces, armed with firearms, launched their first aggressive attack on the protestors gathered at Myasnikyan Square but then retreated, provoking the protestors to break through the barricades in the direction of Mashtots Avenue, Paronyan Street and Leo Street. 33 .     Shortly after 9 p.m., without prior warning, the police forces started firing tracer bullets intensively into the air, apparently intending to intimidate the demonstrators and make them disperse. The first firing of tracer bullets lasted about ten to fifteen minutes. After the first protestor was shot, the resistance of the protestors intensified. Half an hour later, police in riot gear began approaching from the direction of Paronyan Street and Leo Street. Organised in four to five rows, they advanced towards the demonstrators, accompanied by the second firing of tracer bullets. 34.     Facing resistance from the demonstrators, the police retreated, leaving the large crowd gathered at Myasnikyan Square alone, and regrouped at the intersection of Paronyan Street and Leo Street, several metres from an arch that led to the central district police station. There they were confronted by several dozen demonstrators, most of them young, who were chanting “Levon, Levon!” and throwing stones at the police from a distance of 15 to 20 metres. Some demonstrators were also armed with iron bars and wooden sticks. It appears that the police used tear gas in response and clashes ensued. 35.     Eyewitnesses described several instances of police targeting protestors with either sub-machine guns or using tear gas, as well as instances of random firing of Makarov pistols and opening indiscriminate fire at protestors. The police also attacked and beat civilians and ill-treated protestors indiscriminately. 36 .     It appears that the situation started to deescalate after the declaration of a state of emergency and the clashes in the Mashtots Avenue and Grigor Lusavorich Street, Paronyan Street and Leo Street slowly subsided, although it appears that some public buildings were damaged and some shops were broken into and looted before the disorder finally stopped. The main rally at the Myasnikyan monument involving several thousand people (see paragraph   16 above) apparently continued until around 3 a.m. on 2 March 2008. The deaths of the applicants’ relatives (a)    The death of Armen Farmanyan (application no. 15998/11) 37 .     Armen Farmanyan was fatally wounded on Paronyan Street at around 9 p.m. on 1 March 2008, according to a parliamentary inquiry into the events (see paragraphs 125-131 below). It appears that at 9.50 p.m. his body, with firearm wounds to the head, was taken to the morgue for a forensic medical examination, which was performed the next day. 38 .     According to the results of the forensic medical examination (see paragraph 67 below), the cause of death was an injury to the left side of his head. There were foreign bodies inside the skull and multiple bruises to the tissue and muscles of the head, the soft membrane and dura mater, the brain tissue and brain cavities. The dura mater was torn and the brain was partially crushed, accompanied by a secretion. Two foreign bodies were removed from Armen Farmanyan’s right cerebral hemisphere: a cylindrical metal object measuring 3.9 x 1.85 cm and a cylindrical whitish plastic object measuring 2.35 x 1.9 cm. 39 .     According to the results of the forensic ballistic examination (see paragraph 72 below), the metal and plastic objects removed from Armen Farmanyan’s body were parts of a fired Cheremukha-7 type cartridge canister, namely a tear-gas grenade and its detached plastic cap, intended to be fired from a KS-23 (23 mm carbine). The shot marks on the canister were characteristic of a KS-23. There was a deformation and a crack in the front part of the cap, which could have been caused by collision with a hard object or having passed through an obstacle. 40 .     The Government alleged, and the applicants disputed, that the investigation had established that Armen Farmanyan had recruited participants in the mass disorder, distributed metal bars and Molotov cocktails to them and directed their actions (see paragraphs 97 and 100 below). (b)    The death of Tigran Khachatryan (application no. 16035/11) 41 .     Tigran Khachatryan was fatally wounded at the intersection of Leo Street and Paronyan Street at some point after 8 p.m. on 1 March 2008, according to the parliamentary inquiry (see paragraphs 125-131 below). At 10 p.m. his body was taken by ambulance to the morgue for a forensic medical examination, which was performed the next day. 42 .     According to the results of the forensic medical examination (see paragraph 67 below), Tigran Khachatryan received an open and blunt head injury. He died as a result of a serious malfunction of the vital functions of the brain resulting from the head injury. During the post-mortem examination, a metal object was removed from his skull. 43 .     According to the results of the forensic ballistic examination (see paragraph 72 below), the metal object removed from Tigran Khachatryan’s body was a tear-gas grenade of a fired Cheremukha-7 type cartridge without its plastic cap, intended to be fired from a KS-23 (23 mm carbine). Since the plastic caps of the gas canisters rubbed against the walls of the carbine bores during firing, it was impossible to determine the type of weapon from which the gas grenade in question had been fired. The plastic caps had most likely become detached due to collision with a hard object or having passed through an obstacle. (c)    The death of Gor Kloyan (application no. 16060/11) 44 .     Gor Kloyan was wounded at the intersection of Grigor Lusavorich Street and Mashtots Avenue at around 9 p.m. on 1 March 2008, according to the parliamentary inquiry (see paragraphs 125-131 below). It appears that at around 9.30 p.m. he was transported by a group of unidentified people to Yerevan Clinic no. 3 with a wound in the area of the left side of his groin. It appears that he underwent surgery and that a metal object was removed from that area. It further appears that six 1 mm black particles were also removed from his body. Gor Kloyan died at 4.30 a.m. on 2 March 2008. On the same day a forensic medical examination was carried out. 45 .     According to the results of the forensic medical examination (see paragraph 67 below), Gor Kloyan had a crushed fragmented injury in the area of the left side of the groin involving an avulsion of the femoral artery, damage to the femoral veins and a fracture of the pubic bone. The injury was accompanied by acute blood loss and resulted in his death. 46 .     According to the results of the forensic ballistic examination (see paragraph 72 below), the metal object removed from Gor Kloyan’s body was a fired Cheremukha-7 cartridge canister, namely a tear-gas grenade together with its plastic cap, intended to be fired from a KS-23 (23 mm carbine). The shot marks on the plastic cap were characteristic of a KS-23. There was a deformation and a crack on the plastic cap which could have been caused by collision with a hard object or having passed through an obstacle. There were also six 1 mm black particles removed from his body but, given their small size and lack of necessary features, it was impossible to determine what they were. (d)    The death of Hovhannes Hovhannisyan (application no. 16046/11) 47 .     Hovhannes Hovhannisyan was shot dead on Mashtots Avenue at around 9 p.m. on 1 March 2008, according to the parliamentary inquiry (see paragraphs 125-131 below). The applicants stated that it was alleged in an investigative documentary concerning the events of 1 and 2 March 2008 that the incident had happened at 10.05 p.m. It appears that his body, with a gunshot wound to the chest, was transported by a group of unidentified people to Yerevan Medical Centre no. 2 at around 9.40 p.m. on 1 March 2008. At 12.20 a.m. on 2 March 2008 his body was taken by ambulance to the morgue for a forensic medical examination, which was performed the same day. A 5.45 mm bullet was removed. 48 .     According to the results of the forensic medical examination (see paragraph 67 below), the cause of death was a blunt gunshot wound to the chest and internal bleeding. 49 .     According to the results of the forensic ballistic examination (see paragraph 72 below), the bullet removed from Hovhannes Hovhannisyan’s body was part of a 5.45 mm ball cartridge. Such cartridges were intended to be used with AK-74 assault rifles, RPK-74 machine guns or their modified models. The shot marks on the bullet were characteristic of bullets fired from 5.45 mm AK-74 assault rifles, RPK-74 machine guns or their modified models. (e)    The death of Davit Petrosyan (application no. 16030/11) 50 .     Davit Petrosyan was shot on Paronyan Street shortly after 9 p.m. on 1   March 2008, according to the parliamentary inquiry (see paragraphs   125 ‑ 131 below). The applicants stated that it was alleged in the above-mentioned investigative documentary (see paragraph 47 above) that the incident had happened at 10.10 p.m. It appears that at around 10.30 p.m. Davit Petrosyan was taken by a group of unidentified people to Yerevan Hospital no. 2 with a gunshot wound to his back, after which he was transported to Margaryan Hospital where it appears that surgery was performed and a 9 mm bullet was removed from his body. Davit Petrosyan died in hospital at 12.30 a.m. on 2 March 2008 from his injuries. His body was then taken for a forensic medical examination, which was performed the same day. 51 .     According to the results of the forensic medical examination (see paragraph 67 below), there was a gunshot entrance wound on the right rear side of Davit Petrosyan’s chest and penetrating injuries to the right kidney, liver, diaphragm and right lung which had been caused while he was alive and which were the result of a gunshot. The cause of death was acute blood loss. 52 .     According to the results of the forensic ballistic examination (see paragraph 72 below), the bullet removed from his body during surgery was part of a 9 mm cartridge. Such cartridges were intended for PM (Makarov pistol) and APS type guns. The shot marks on the bullet were characteristic of a PM pistol. There were scratches on the bullet primarily on the front part, caused by collision with a hard object, possibly a ricochet, or having passed through an obstacle. (f)      The death of Grigor Gevorgyan (application no. 15964/11) 53 .     Grigor Gevorgyan went to the area of the mass protests with his brother ‑ in-law, R.B., at around 8 p.m. on 1 March 2008. It appears that they lost each other at the intersection of Grigor Lusavorich Street and Zakyan Street at around 9 p.m. because of the chaotic situation. According to the parliamentary inquiry (see paragraphs 125-131 below), at around 9.15 p.m. he went with a group of other protestors to the intersection of Paronyan Street and Leo Street, where he was shot in front of a shoe repair shop and died instantly. On 2 March 2008 a forensic medical examination was performed. 54 .     According to the results of the forensic medical examination (see paragraph 67 below), Grigor Gevorgyan died from a penetrating gunshot wound to the head, which entered in the nasal area and exited the left part of the forehead, damaging the brain. The entrance wound measured 0.5   x   0.4   cm. There were no additional gunshot elements in the area of the entrance wound, such as traces of ash, burns and burnt or half-burnt gunpowder particles, which meant that the shot had been fired beyond the limits of such additional elements typical of the firearm in question. 55 .     The bullet that killed Grigor Gevorgyan was never found. (g)    The death of Samvel Harutyunyan (application no. 16055/11) 56 .     Samvel Harutyunyan received a head injury at the junction of Grigor Lusavorich Street and Mashtots Avenue at around 9 p.m. on 1 March 2008, according to the parliamentary inquiry (see paragraphs 125-131 below). It appears that at around 10 p.m. he was taken by a group of unidentified people to Yerevan Clinic no. 3 unconscious and with an open wound to his skull. He was then transported to the Armenia Medical Centre, where he died on 11   April 2008 from his injuries without regaining consciousness. A forensic medical examination was carried out on 13 April 2008. 57 .     According to the results of the forensic medical examination (see paragraph 67 below), Samvel Harutyunyan received an open, blunt and penetrating injury to the skull, involving a contusion in the left parietotemporal area with an avulsed defect of the dura mater, crushing and secretion of the brain, and multi-fragmented fractures of the left parietal and temporal bones. The injuries had been caused by a blunt object while he was alive. (h)    The death of Zakar Hovhannisyan (application no. 16015/11) 58 .     Zakar Hovhannisyan was shot by the market on Mashtots Avenue, about 100-150 metres from the intersection of Mashtots Avenue and Grigor Lusavorich Street at around 1.30 a.m. on 2 March 2008, according to the parliamentary inquiry (see paragraphs 125-131 below). It appears that at 2   a.m. a group of unidentified people took him to Yerevan Clinic no.   3 unconscious and with a gunshot wound to the abdomen. It appears that a 9   mm bullet was removed from his body. He died during surgery from his injuries and at 2.55 a.m. his body was taken by ambulance to the morgue for a forensic medical examination, which was performed the same day. 59 .     According to the results of the forensic medical examination (see paragraph 67 below), there was a gunshot entrance wound on the front surface of Zakar Hovhannisyan’s abdomen, as well as penetrating injuries to the liver, diaphragm, lower part of the left lung and waist muscle. A haemorrhage in the left part of the waist was also recorded. The cause of death was acute blood loss. 60 .     According to the results of the forensic ballistic examination (see paragraph 72 below), the bullet removed from Zakar Hovhannisyan’s body was part of a 9 mm cartridge. Such cartridges were intended for PM (Makarov pistol) and APS type guns. The shot marks on the bullet were characteristic of a PM pistol. (i)      The death of Tigran Abgaryan (application no. 16024/11) 61 .     Tigran Abgaryan was on duty at around 7 p.m. on 1 March 2008 at Grigor Lusavorich Street as a serviceman of military unit no. 1033 of the Police Troops of Armenia. According to the parliamentary inquiry, he received a penetrating gunshot wound to his neck at around 11 p.m. on Leo Street in front of a shop called Svin, (see paragraphs 125-131 below). The applicants stated that it was alleged in the above-mentioned investigative documentary (see paragraph 47 above) that the incident had happened at 10.25 p.m. He was then transported to a hospital, where surgery was performed. He remained paralysed and on a ventilator, but in the following weeks his condition deteriorated and he died on 11 April 2008. A forensic medical examination was carried out the next day. 62 .     According to the results of the two forensic medical examinations (see paragraph 67 below), Tigran Abgaryan died of a failure of the vital functions of the spinal cord as a result of his injury. The wound was caused by a bullet which had passed from front to back on the right side of his neck, accompanied with explosion-type complications. The entrance wound on the front of his neck measured 3 x 3 cm. The forensic medical expert noted that there were no traces of additional effects of being shot at close range, but that that question could be answered definitively after conducting a trace evidence examination of the clothing. He also added that, as regards determining the type of firearm and the calibre of the bullet, these questions were outside his competence. 63 .     The bullet that killed Tigran Abgaryan was never found. criminal proceedings The opening of the criminal cases and the forensic examinations 64 .     On 1 March 2008 criminal case no. 62202508 was instituted by the Special Investigative Service (“the SIS”) under Article 225.1 §§ 1 and 2, Article 235 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 316 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 138, 140 and 141 below) in connection with the events at Freedom Square. That decision instituting the case stated: “After the announcement of the preliminary results of the presidential election of 19   February 2008, the presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrosyan, members of parliament [K.S. and S.M.], the editor-in-chief of the Haykakan Zhamanak daily newspaper [N.P.] and others organised and held mass public events at Yerevan’s Freedom Square in violation of the procedure prescribed by law and incited disobedience of the decisions ordering an end to the events held in violation of the procedure prescribed by law, while a number of participants in the mass events were in illegal possession of and carrying illegally obtained weapons and ammunition. On 1 March 2008, at around 6 a.m., when the police took measures aimed at forcibly ending the public events held in violation of the procedure prescribed by law, in compliance with the requirements of section 14 of the Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations Act, the organisers and participants in the events, disobeying the lawful orders of the [police officers], who were carrying out their official duties, committed a life-threatening and health-threatening assault on them with bats, metal bars and other adapted objects which they had in their possession for that purpose, causing the police officers injuries of varying severity.” 65 .     On 2 March 2008 another criminal case, no. 62202608, was instituted under Article 225 § 3 and Article 235 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 139 and 140 below). That decision stated: “[Ter-Petrosyan], the candidate running for President at the presidential election of 19 February 2008 and his followers and supporters, [namely] members of parliament [K.S. and S.M.], the editor-in-chief of the Haykakan Zhamana k daily newspaper [N.P.] and others, unwilling to admit defeat in the election, with the aim of casting doubt on the election, instilling mistrust in the results among large sections of the population, creating illusions of public discontent and revolt and discrediting the election and the authorities, from 1 March 2008 in the area of the Yerevan mayor’s office and central streets organised mass disorder involving murder, violence, massacres, arson, destruction of property and armed resistance to public officials, using firearms, explosives and other adapted objects.” 66 .     On the same date the SIS investigator decided to join criminal cases no. 62202508 and no. 62202608 under the latter number on the grounds that the events and the offences in question had involved the same individuals. It appears that at least 140 people, including four opposition MPs and numerous other opposition leaders and supporters, were charged within the scope of the joint criminal case (some of these cases were later brought before the Court, see Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia , no. 23086/08, 20 September 2018; Myasnik Malkhasyan v. Armenia , no. 49020/08, 15 October 2020; Jhangiryan v. Armenia , nos. 44841/08 and 63701/09, 8 October 2020; Smbat &