CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 July 2023     FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43517/20 Armenia against Türkiye lodged on 4 October 2020 communicated on 13 June 2023 QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the events allegedly constitutive of violations of Articles 2, 3, 10 and 13 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which took place during the active phase of the international armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan (lasting, according to the applicant Government, from 27 September to 10 November 2020), encompass an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by Türkiye for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (compare, mutatis mutandis , Georgia v. Russia (II) ([GC], no. 38263/08, §§ 83 and 125-144, 21 January 2021)).   1.1.     In this respect, can the applicant Government’s allegations under Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention concerning mistreatment of dead bodies and detention and treatment of captured civilians and prisoners of war by the Azerbaijani armed forces, purportedly aided and assisted by Türkiye, be considered as “other events carried out in the context of the international armed conflict” and thus be different in nature from “military operations”? If so, did the events fall within the jurisdiction of Türkiye in its purported auxiliary role (ibid., §§ 83, 239, 269 and 292-295)?   2.     Did the alleged recruitment and training of mercenaries and their transfer and deployment to the theatre of war by Türkiye trigger the jurisdiction of the respondent State for the purposes of Article 1   of the Convention?   3.     Did the events which occurred after the cessation of hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan – namely the applicant Government’s allegations under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the Armenian nationals’ inability to return to their homes and properties in the conflict zone – attract Türkiye’s jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (compare, mutatis mutandis , ibid., §§ 292-295)?   4.     Having regard, inter alia , to the fact that the applicant Government complain on behalf of individuals allegedly affected by the events which took place both during and after the active phase of the conflict, have domestic remedies been exhausted for the purposes of each of the relevant complaints, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   4.1.     In this respect, has there been an investigation by the Turkish authorities into any of the events and issues covered by the complaints made by the applicant Government? If so, the respondent Government are required to submit a copy of all relevant domestic decisions.