CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 11 December 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 15688/17 Nana MURADYAN and Irina GHAZARYAN against Armenia lodged on 17 February 2017 communicated on 23 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 13 May 2015 the applicants, mothers of conscripts deceased during military service, and three other parents of deceased conscripts gathered in front of the main gates of the presidential residence demanding a response to their letters addressed to the President concerning the investigation into their sons’ deaths. After several unsuccessful demands to continue the demonstration on the opposite pavement, police officers forcibly pushed and dragged the applicants across the carriageway to the opposite pavement. As it can be seen from the relevant video and photo materials, the applicant Muradyan (the first applicant) was grabbed by her breast and waist, and the applicant Ghazaryan (the second applicant) – by her arms. Following the applicants’ complaint filed the same day, criminal proceedings were instituted. It appears that the applicants were referred to a forensic medical examination by the investigator in charge. As to the first applicant, she refused to undergo the examination because it would have involved an examination of her naked body by a male medical expert since no female forensic medical experts were available. After her refusal, the first applicant was referred to a polyclinic to get a consultation in connection with her injuries, but it is not clear whether there was any follow up. The second applicant underwent forensic medical examination. According to the medical expert’s conclusions, she had bruises on both of her arms. The criminal proceedings, in the framework of which the applicants raised complaints concerning excessive use of force by the police and unjustified interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly, were discontinued by the investigator for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. The investigator found, in particular, that the use of force by the police officers had been lawful and justified. This decision was upheld by the prosecution. The applicants unsuccessfully contested that decision before the domestic courts, the final decision being served on the applicants’ representative on 17   August 2016. The applicants allege violation of both substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3, as well as of the right to freedom of assembly and lack of effective remedy in respect of their above Convention complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, was the force used in respect of the applicants proportionate and strictly necessary in the circumstances of the case (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§   81 ‑ 90, 100-101, ECHR 2015)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, §131, ECHR 2000-IV and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114-123), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   3.     Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 11 of the Convention and applied to the Court within six months from the date of the final decision, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the criminal proceedings (no.   62212715) instituted upon the applicants’ criminal complaint of 13 May 2015 an effective remedy for that purpose? The Government are specifically requested to explain what kind of redress the applicants could have obtained in respect of their complaint under Article 11 of the Convention by pursuing this remedy, as well as to submit examples of relevant domestic case-law and practice, if any. If the criminal proceedings pursued by the applicants were not an effective remedy, did the applicants have at their disposal any other effective remedies to exhaust for their complaint under Article 11?   4.     Assuming that the proceedings in question were an effective remedy, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention (see Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos.   29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 103, 114-115, 118, and 128, 15   November 2018)?   5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?