CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8D82008A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:205.55pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 17 October 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 619/18 Lusine PARSADANYAN against Armenia lodged on 11 December 2017 communicated on 27 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the death of the applicant’s daughter, E.P., at the age of   one year, resulting from alleged medical malpractice and the domestic proceedings in that respect. On 24 August 2012 E.P. was taken to Arabkir Medical Centre and was admitted for in-patient treatment. It appears that upon admission she was diagnosed with epilepsy. During her stay at the hospital, she was diagnosed, inter alia, with multiple organ failure. On 4 September 2012 E.P. died in the same hospital. The same day an autopsy was performed. The applicant alleges that it was performed without her knowledge and consent. On 29 January 2013 the applicant filed a police report in relation to E.P.’s death. A forensic medical examination was ordered which essentially concluded that E.P.’s death had not been caused by any mistakes in her diagnosis or treatment. The investigator initially refused to institute criminal proceedings. Upon the applicant’s appeal the District Court found that the preliminary investigation had not been thorough and had failed to ensure the applicant’s participation. On 5 February 2014 criminal proceedings were instituted. The applicant was recognised as E.P.’s legal heir in the proceedings. Another forensic medical examination was carried out which concluded, inter alia , that E.P.’s diagnosis and treatment had been performed correctly. Subsequently, the criminal proceedings were terminated. Upon the applicant’s new appeal, the District Court found that the applicant had not been informed about the decision to order a new forensic medical examination and had therefore not been able to exercise her rights in that connection or to request a new examination. Following the prosecutor’s unsuccessful appeal, the criminal proceedings were resumed. The third forensic medical examination was ordered which concluded, inter alia , that E.P. died from multiple organ failure and that her death had not been caused by any mistakes in her diagnosis or treatment. The investigation eventually concluded that E.P.’s death had not been the result of medical malpractice. On 16 April 2016 the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the prosecutor and before the courts. On 13 June 2017 the applicant’s appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation was declared inadmissible for lack of merit. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has E.P.’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, having regard to the procedural obligation to set up an effective and independent judicial system so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, could be determined and those responsible made accountable (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, no. 56080/13, §§ 214-21, 19 December 2017; and Botoyan v. Armenia , no. 5766/17, § 94, and 106-31, 8 February 2022), were the proceedings effective in terms of enabling the applicant to effectively participate in them and being thorough, prompt and concluded within a reasonable time?