CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juin 2024

.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 1 July 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31577/20 Ashot GRIGORYAN against Armenia lodged on 24 June 2020 communicated on 10 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s brother, E. Grigoryan, died of acute coronary insufficiency in Nubarashen penitentiary facility where he was serving life imprisonment. He suffered from chronic heart disease and was operated on the heart in 2013 when already in prison; he had remained under regular medical supervision in a specialist civilian clinic thereafter. On 3 November 2017 between approximately 12 a.m. and 12.20 a.m. E. Grigoryan complained of pain in the chest. At 12.32 a.m. H.A., the officer on duty, made a call to the emergency services. It transpires from the transcript of the audio recording of that call that no medical personnel was available in the penitentiary facility that night. An emergency response team, led by Doctor R.H., arrived at 12.43 a.m. R.H. examined E. Grigoryan in the cell, diagnosed him with acute coronary insufficiency and administered medication. At 4.22 a.m. the emergency response team was called in again due to a further deterioration of E.   Grigoryan’s health. Having arrived upon the second call at 4.30 a.m., R.H. instructed to arrange E. Grigoryan’s immediate hospitalisation. At 5.15 a.m. E. Grigoryan was admitted to the nearest hospital. At 5.55 a.m. E. Grigoryan died in the hospital. On 13 November 2017 criminal proceedings were instituted on account of E. Grigoryan’s death. During the investigation, R.H. and H.A. presented conflicting accounts whether R.H. had told H.A., upon his arrival at the penitentiary facility with his team after the first call, that E. Grigoryan had a life-threatening condition requiring his urgent hospitalisation, and what had been H.A.’s reaction. A forensic medical examination concluded that the medical assistance provided by the emergency response team during the first visit had been adequate. It also considered impossible to clearly establish whether E.   Grigoryan’s urgent hospitalisation at that point, as well as injections, if administered during the second visit, would have prevented his death. On 27 August 2018 an investigator terminated the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the medical personnel and the prison administration and lack of prospects of obtaining additional evidence. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged that decision before the courts. On 27   December 2019 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that his brother died because of the authorities’ failure to provide him with timely emergency medical assistance and that the investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death was not effective. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s brother’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case (see Jasinskis v. Latvia , no.   45744/08, §§ 58-68, 21 December 2010; Salakhov and Islyamova v.   Ukraine , no. 28005/08, §§ 164-83, 14 March 2013; Karsakova v. Russia , no. 1157/10, §§ 46-53, 27 November 2014)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention (see Jasinskis , cited above, §§ 71-73 and 80; Salakhov and Islyamova, cited above , §§ 186-94; Karsakova, cited above , §§   54-58)?   The Government are invited to submit the full copy of the criminal case in relation to E. Grigoryan’s death.