CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 2017

.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 } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 28 August 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 51949/14 Semyon ALLAHVERDYAN against Armenia lodged on 15 July 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Semyon Allahverdyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Hrazdan. He is represented before the Court by Ms I. Petrosyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2010 the applicant’s son, Edvard Allahverdyan, aged 18, was drafted into the Armenian army. He was assigned to military unit no.   38401 (‘the military unit’), situated in the unrecognised Republic of Nagorno Karabakh. On 29   July 2011 Edvard Allahverdyan was found dead in military position no.   121 of the military unit, with a gunshot injury to the chin. According to the duty schedule, the staff of military position no.   121 on this date included squad commander junior sergeant A.H., private V.M., conscripts S.A., V.H., K.H., Edvard Allahverdyan and A.A. Officer R.V. was in charge of the military position. On the same date the scene of the incident was examined. According to the relevant record, the assault rifle discovered at the scene had been in full automatic fire mode. On the same date, the Second Garrison Investigation Department took   a   decision to institute criminal proceedings concerning Edvard   Allahverdyan’s death. The investigator’s relevant decision stated, in particular, the following: “ ... at 6.45 a.m. on 29 July 2011 ... [Edvard Allahverdyan], while on duty in ... the base ... shot himself in the lower jaw region with the assault rifle ... assigned to him and died. Taking into account that the fact contains the elements of the crime stated in Article   110 § 1 of the Criminal Code... I decide to institute criminal proceedings under Article 110 § 1..., take over the criminal case and conduct an investigation...” It appears that on the same date R.V. made a statement to the effect that at around 6.45 a.m. he had heard a single shot from position no. 121 and had run to the scene immediately, where he had discovered Edvard   Allahverdyan in a seated position holding the gun, which was pointing upwards. The investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of Edvard   Allahverdyan’s body to determine, in particular, the cause of death. According to the expert report of 14 October 2011, Edvard Allahverdyan’s height was 156 cm; the length of his arm from the edge of the third digit to the shoulder measured 65 cm and measured 54 cm up to the armpit. There was a bullet entry hole on the lower jaw and a bullet exit hole on the left side of the head of the deceased. The gunshot wounds had been caused by a single shot. On 30   July 2011 the investigator ordered a forensic ballistic and trace evidence examination to determine, inter alia , the presence of any fingerprints on the assault rifle from which the shot had been fired and, in case of the discovery of identifiable fingerprints, to determine to whom they belonged. It appears that in the course of the investigation a number of servicemen, including K.H., were questioned. According to the statement of K.H., Edvard Allahverdyan was not respected among the officers and on a number of occasions S.A. had hit him. On the day of the incident S.A. had demanded AMD   50,000 from Edvard Allahverdyan and threatened to humiliate him in front of everyone. Shortly thereafter Edvard Allahverdyan had committed suicide. A.H. had witnessed those events but only once had issued a warning to S.A. not to treat Edvard Allahverdyan in such a manner. On 12   August 2011 S.A. was charged with breaching the rules of military conduct under Article   359 §   1 of the Criminal Code of Armenia (“the CC”). The decision of 30 July 2011, whereby the investigator had ordered a forensic ballistic and trace evidence examination, including examination of the assault rifle in question, was sent to the experts on 17 October 2011. On this date, the latter started the forensic examination. On 29 November 2011 the charges against S.A. were modified and he was charged with aggravated breach of the rules of military conduct under Article 359 § 3 and extortion under Article 182 § 1 of the CC. On 12   December 2011 the conclusion of the ballistic and trace evidence examination was received. The experts’ report stated, inter alia , that no traces of fingerprints or of their segments had been discovered on the assault rifle submitted for examination. On 22   December 2011 A.H. was charged with showing a negligent attitude towards military service under Article   376 §   1 of the CC. In March 2012 A., deputy commander of the military unit, was questioned. He stated, inter alia , that on the day of the events he had arrived at the scene of the incident, together with other officers, to find Edvard   Allahverdyan’s body with the assault rifle between his legs. Since the trigger guard was open, K., deputy commander of another military unit who was also present, had held the gun while he himself had removed the magazine. Thereafter K. had unloaded the gun and they had put the gun back in its previous position between Edvard Allahverdyan’s legs. According to A., those actions were undertaken solely for security purposes. K. was also questioned and confirmed that he had taken the gun and unloaded it on the day of the events, prior to the arrival of the police. On 19   April 2012 the investigation was completed. Having studied the case file, the applicant requested a number of additional investigative measures, including questioning experts involved in the case and conducting an investigative experiment to verify whether it would have been possible for Edvard Allahverdyan to fire an intermediate-range shot from the assault rifle in a seated position. By a decision of 19   May 2012 the investigator granted the applicant’s request to question the experts and refused the remaining requests. In May 2012 the trace evidence expert who had been involved in the forensic ballistic and trace evidence examination was questioned. When asked whether it would have been possible for fingerprints to disappear from the assault rifle without someone’s intervention, the expert responded in the affirmative and submitted that fingerprints could be preserved at their best for up to 10 days, and at most for up to one month. It appears that on 25   May 2012 the bill of indictment was finalised and the case was transmitted to Syunik Regional Court for examination on the merits. The prosecution found it established that Edvard Allahverdyan had committed suicide as a result of constant humiliation and ill-treatment by co-serviceman S.A., which had not been prevented or adequately addressed by squad commander A.H. In the course of the trial a number of servicemen were questioned, including A.A., V.H., S.G. Witness V.H. submitted that he had heard it said that Edvard Allahverdyan had committed suicide because of S.A., and that he had learnt from K.H. that S.A. had demanded money from Edvard Allahverdyan, but the other two witnesses did not confirm Edvard Allahverdyan’s humiliation and ill-treatment by S.A. or any other serviceman. It appears that in the course of the trial the Regional Court summoned K.H. a number of times but the latter failed to appear. It was subsequently revealed that K.H. had developed a psychiatric disorder during military service, as a result of which he was dismissed from service early. On 31   May 2013 the applicant requested the Regional Court to order a forensic psychological-psychiatric examination of K.H. in order to determine, in particular, when the latter had developed this disorder and whether he had been able to describe adequately the circumstances surrounding the incident during his pre-trial examination. On the same date the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request to subject K.H. to a forensic psychological-psychiatric examination. The Regional Court eventually examined KH.’s statements made during the investigation and admitted them in evidence. According to the applicant, in the course of the trial it was discovered that a number of the servicemen who had been on duty on 29   July 2011 had been taken to Stepanakert Military Police Department (Nagorno Karabakh) in relation to the incident. In reply to the enquiry of the applicant’s representative, it was confirmed by the Commander of the Nagorno Karabakh Defence Army that junior sergeant A.H. and privates S.A., A.A., K.H., G.H., V.H. and S.G. had been placed in disciplinary isolation for a period of 10 days in relation to the incident of 29   July 2011. By a judgment of 3   July 2013 the Regional Court convicted S.A. and A.H. as charged and sentenced them, respectively to six years’ and one year’s imprisonment. The Regional Court found it established that Edvard   Allahverdyan had committed suicide because of constant humiliation and ill-treatment by S.A. and in particular the latter’s actions shortly before the incident, when he had demanded money from Edvard   Allahverdyan and threatened to humiliate and ill-treat him. Upon appeals by the applicant, A.H. and S.A., on 5   November 2013 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment as regards S.A.’s conviction and quashed its part concerning the conviction of A.H., ruling that the prosecution of the offence was time-barred. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by a decision of the Court of Cassation of 15   January 2014. B.     Relevant domestic law Criminal Code Article   110 §   1 provides that, with indirect intention or involuntarily, provoking a person to commit or attempt suicide through threats, cruel treatment or repeatedly degrading his dignity shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years. Article   182 §   1 provides that extortion shall be punishable by either a fine or detention for a period not exceeding three months or imprisonment not exceeding four years. Article   359 §   3 states that the breach of rules of conduct for military servants in the absence of subordination between them committed by teasing or humiliation or beating or other violent acts which has resulted in grave consequences shall be punishable by four to eight years’ imprisonment. Article   376 §   1 states that a military official’s negligent attitude towards service which has caused considerable damage shall be punishable by temporary exclusion from military service for a maximum period of two years or a maximum of two years’ military confinement or a maximum of three years’ imprisonment. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article   2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his son’s death. He disputes the official version of the investigation, according to which his son committed suicide.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Do the matters complained of fall within the jurisdiction of Armenia within the meaning of Article   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant’s son’s right to life, guaranteed by Article   2 of the Convention, violated in the present case?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of the guarantees under Article   2 of the Convention, as alleged by the applicant?   The Government are requested to provide a copy of the report of the internal investigation into the incident of 29   July 2011.