CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 novembre 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 4 December 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 49458/18 Boris KARAPETYAN against Armenia lodged on 5 October 2018 communicated on 16 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the death of the applicant’s grandson, A. Karapetyan, in detention and the subsequent investigation. On 3 January 2016 A. Karapetyan was charged with attempted murder and was detained in Armavir Remand Prison. On 4 January 2016 he died in that prison, according to the authorities, by committing suicide by hanging. The same day, criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 110 § 1 of the Criminal Code (incitement to suicide). On 14 January 2016 A. Karapetyan’s father, M.K., was recognised as A.   Karapetyan’s legal heir in the criminal proceedings. On 1 February 2016, at M.K.’s request, the applicant was recognised as A.   Karapetyan’s legal heir in the criminal proceedings instead of M.K. During the investigation, an autopsy was performed which concluded that A. Karapetyan’s death had resulted from a mechanical suffocation caused by hanging from the neck. A forensic psychological examination concluded that in the period prior to his suicide, A. Karapetyan had been psychologically stressed. It had been impossible to determine his psychological state at the time of his suicide due to the lack of relevant information. A. Karapetyan had not had psychological characteristics which could have significantly affected his behaviour and led to his suicide. On 14 September 2016 the investigator decided to stay the criminal proceedings on the grounds that it had been impossible to identify the person who had led A. Karapetyan to suicide. At the same time, the investigator instructed the police to activate operative-intelligence measures capable of identifying the person who had committed the offence. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to stay the criminal proceeding to the prosecutor and then to the Armavir Regional Court. He alleged that the investigation had not been thorough and objective, that a number of essential investigative measures had not been taken and that the possibility that A. Karapetyan had been the victim of a murder had not been taken into account. On 8 September 2017 the Armavir Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the investigation had been thorough and objective, that many investigative measures had been taken, and that the forensic examinations had established that A. Karapetyan had committed suicide. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Criminal Court of Appeal and his further appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation on 7 April 2018. The applicant complains that the State did not take adequate measures to prevent his grandson’s death and did not carry out an effective investigation. He also complains that he is deprived of any opportunity to receive compensation. He invokes Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Was A. Karapetyan’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life ( for the relevant principles, see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169-182, 14 April 2015), was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of the guarantees of Article 2 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?