CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC295E44D { border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .s9D38DC82 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sAC012AE5 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE33A8ED { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF42CB81 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85D71A24 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DE46EBF { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B88E32 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 25 November 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 19243/16 K.S. and N.A. against Azerbaijan and 21 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are either Armenian nationals (16 applications) or state that they are nationals of the “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” (“NKR”) (six applications); in one application (no. 26950/16), one of the applicants is a Russian national. They are relatives of soldiers in the “NKR Defence Army” who were killed during the military clashes that took place between 1   and   5   April 2016 close to the border between the “NKR” and Azerbaijan (sometimes referred to as the “Four-Day War”). The soldiers’ bodies were repatriated during or after the clashes. As they showed signs of mutilation, the Prosecutor-General of the “NKR” opened criminal investigations. Subsequent forensic examinations indicated that the bodies had been mutilated post-mortem. In most cases, one or both ears had been cut off; in three cases, the bodies had been beheaded. In a few cases, the report of the forensic examination stated that the mutilation had taken place while the victim was still alive. COMPLAINTS A.     Complaints made in all 22 applications (except no. 54855/16, where complaint no. 3 has not been made) 1.     The applicants claim that they have suffered extreme mental distress and anguish amounting to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. They refer to the mutilation of their relative by the Azerbaijani forces. Also, many applicants did not know the fate of their relative for several days, during which time videos and pictures were circulating of soldiers of the “NKR Defence Army” who had been killed and mutilated by the Azerbaijani forces. In addition, some applicants complain under Article 3 of the failure of or the delay in returning the missing body parts. In one application (no. 19243/16), further reference is made to the exposure of their relative’s cut-off head to public scorn and the wide circulation of photographs and videos of the head on social media sites. Moreover, by allegedly rewarding and glorifying the perpetrator of the beheading and the soldiers displaying the head as a trophy and by failing to investigate and punish the perpetrators, the Azerbaijani have allegedly breached also the procedural aspects of Article 3. 2.     Referring to the failure or delay of the Azerbaijani authorities in returning the cut-off body parts and the resultant inability to bury the complete body of their relative, the applicants complain that their right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 has been violated. 3.     In respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 8 (as well as Article 2, in the applications mentioned below under B), the applicants maintain that they have not had an effective remedy, in breach of Article 13. They state that there are no diplomatic relations between Azerbaijan and either Armenia or the “NKR” and that ethnic Armenians have no right to enter Azerbaijan where a culture of hatred and racism towards Armenians is promoted. 4.     Moreover, in conjunction with Articles 3, 8 and 13 (as well as Article   2, in the applications mentioned below under B), the applicants claim, under Article 14, that the violations in the case are due to the ethnic and national origin of their dead relative and themselves. They assert that the mutilation of corpses of ethnic Armenians is part of a State-administered practice by Azerbaijani authorities to intimidate the Armenian community as a whole and send a message of hatred and intolerance to ethnic Armenians. B.     Additional complaints made in applications nos. 20075/16, 26947/16 and 26954/16 5.     The applicants claim, under Article 2 of the Convention, that their relative was unlawfully killed by the Azerbaijani forces. They argue that their relative was already defenceless and hors de combat from gunshot or explosion injuries and that the subsequent killing was an unnecessary and unlawful act. 6.     Referring to the removal of body parts or cut wounds on the body which, according to the reports of the forensic examinations, were performed while the relative was still alive, the applicants further assert, under Article 3, that he was tortured before he was killed. C.     Additional complaint made in applications nos. 54854/16 and 54855/16 7.     The applicants complain, on behalf of their relative, that the mutilation of his body constituted a war crime in breach of international humanitarian law and a violation of his rights to physical integrity and personal dignity under Article 8.   QUESTIONS A.     Questions posed in all 22 applications (except no. 54855/16, where question no. 4 is not posed) 1.     Do the facts of which the applicants complain in the present cases fall under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan? 2.     Do the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention? If so, have they exhausted this remedy, as required by Article   35 § 1 (see further Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, §§   115-120, ECHR 2015)? 3.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in regard to the mental anguish allegedly caused to the applicants by the circumstances related to their relative’s death and the recovery of his body (see, for instance, Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey , no. 56760/00, §§ 84-87, 27 February 2007)? 4.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in regard to the applicants’ difficulties in recovering the allegedly severed part of their relative’s body and burying the body according to their tradition (see, for instance, Maskhadova and Others v. Russia , no. 18071/05, § 208, 6 June 2013)? 5.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights due to ethnicity or nationality or on any other ground contrary to Article 14 of the Convention? 6.     Finally, the Government are requested to provide all relevant information and documents concerning the cases. B.     Additional questions posed in applications nos. 20075/16, 26947/16 and 26954/16 7.     Has the right to life of the applicants’ relative, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present cases? 8.     Was the applicants’ relative subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, before his death? C.     Additional question posed in applications nos. 54854/16 and 54855/16 9.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ son’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, by virtue of the alleged post-mortem mutilation of his body?   APPENDIX   List of applications     Case no. Case name Date of lodging 1. 19243/16 K.S. and N.A. v. Azerbaijan 09/04/2016 2. 20075/16 V.T. and Others v. Azerbaijan 13/04/2016 3. 20753/16 R.G. and Others v. Azerbaijan 15/04/2016 4. 26944/16 A.A. and N.A. v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 5. 26945/16 E.B. and Y.B. v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 6. 26946/16 A.H. and Others v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 7. 26947/16 K.S. and G.A. v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 8. 26948/16 A.A. and Others v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 9. 26949/16 S.A. and Others v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 10. 26950/16 G.A. and Others v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 11. 26951/16 A.N. and Others v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 12. 26952/16 R.O and Others v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 13. 26953/16 A.Y. v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 14. 26954/16 A.Z. and Others v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 15. 26955/16 S.A. and Others v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 16. 26956/16 K.H. and Others v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 17. 26957/16 Z.G. and R.G. v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 18. 26958/16 L.G. and G.B. v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 19. 26959/16 S.A. v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 20. 26960/16 G.M. and Others v. Azerbaijan 14/05/2016 21. 54854/16 V.P. and Others v. Azerbaijan 15/09/2016 22. 54855/16 K.S. and Others v. Azerbaijan 15/09/2016