CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 novembre 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 16 December 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 9970/19 Onik MANUCHARYAN against Armenia lodged on 8 February 2019 communicated on 26 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the death of the applicant’s brother, M. Manucharyan, during compulsory military service and the subsequent investigation. On 27 June 2012 M. Manucharyan was drafted into the Armenian army and assigned to military unit no. 24923 (“the military unit”). On 31 July 2013 at around 1.40 p.m. M. Manucharyan was found dead with a gunshot injury to his head in the observation tower near the car park of the military unit, where he had been performing watch duty. On 1 August 2013 the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence instituted criminal proceedings on account of incitement to suicide (Article   110 of the former Criminal Code in force until 1 July 2022), ordered an autopsy and a combined ballistic, trace and fingertip forensic examination. On the same day took place an examination of the scene of the incident, during which, among other things, a burnt piece of paper, one unfired bullet and three fired cartridge cases were found on the floor of the observation tower and three bullet exits were found on the ceiling. Additionally, two thirty-round magazines were found one of which contained twenty-six bullets. On 17 September 2013 the autopsy was completed. The ensuing report concluded that M. Manucharyan’s death had resulted from a ballistic injury with the bullet entry having been in the chin and bullet exit being in the top of the head. The autopsy revealed another gunshot injury in the lower half of the right ear which was said not to be linked to M. Manucharyan’s death. The following bodily injuries were also discovered: an ecchymosis in the right side of the chest, which had been inflicted by a blunt and hard object before the death and sections of missing skin on the waist inflicted by blunt and hard objects after the death. On 16 October 2013 the expert report following the combined ballistic, trace and fingertip forensic examination was delivered. It established that the three cartridge cases found at the scene had been fired from the assault rifle assigned to M. Manucharyan, which had been in “fire line” mode at the time of the shooting. There were fragments of sweat and grease on M.   Manucharyan’s assault rifle but there were no identifiable fingerprints on it. According to the same report, the rifle could not have fired without pulling the trigger. The examination of M. Manucharyan’s uniform had revealed that his military underwear lacked two buttons one of which had apparently been ripped off. On 17 February 2014 the investigating authority ordered a posthumous combined psychiatric and psychological forensic examination. According to the ensuing report delivered on 1 July 2014, M. Manucharyan had not suffered from any mental illness. Instead, as a consequence of continual violence and humiliation by his fellow servicemen, Sergeant A.S. and Junior Sergeant B.G., he had developed acute depressive reaction in the form of hopelessness and desperation, which could prompt him to commit suicide. The investigation eventually concluded that M. Manucharyan had committed suicide as a consequence of the violence and humiliation to which he had been subjected during military service. In that connection, charges were brought against Sergeant A.S. and Junior Sergeant B.G. under Article   358.1 § 4 of the former Criminal Code (beating or carrying out other acts of violence in respect of a subordinate or threatening to do so, which resulted in grave consequences). During the trial the applicant requested the court to order an additional forensic examination of M. Manucharyan’s trousers in order to find out whether the burn mark surrounded by blood on their back that had been recorded by the investigator upon the examination of his brother’s uniform on 1 August 2013 had resulted from gunshot. He stated that that mark had not been mentioned in the subsequent expert reports. The court rejected that request. In the course of the trial the trial court, having considered that the expert report issued on the basis of the posthumous combined psychiatric and psychological forensic examination was not sufficiently clear and substantiated, ordered a secondary examination of the kind. The ensuing expert report delivered on 23 June 2014 concluded that there had been a causal link between the actions of Junior Sergeant B.G. and M.   Manucharyan’s psychological state before his suicide while the causal link between the latter’s psychological condition preceding his suicide and Sergeant A.S.’s actions was indirect. On 30 August 2017 the trial court mitigated the charges against Sergeant   A.S. and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment which he was exempted from serving because he had been under detention for the duration of the imposed sentence. It found Junior Sergeant B.G. guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment. The applicant appealed arguing that the investigation had failed to explore the hypothesis of murder and to clarify, inter alia , the circumstances surrounding the burn mark on his brother’s trousers, the injuries on his body, and the absence of fingertips on the assault rifle. The applicant also claimed that his brother’s case was one of those cases where a murder in the army was being covered up as suicide. By a decision of 21 February 2018 the Criminal Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal. At the same time, it reduced Junior Sergeant B.G.’s sentence to six years of imprisonment. On 7 August 2018 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. That decision was served on the applicant on 14 August 2018. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about his brother’s death (he alleges that in reality his brother was murdered) and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the matter carried out by the domestic authorities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was M. Manucharyan’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, was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of the guarantees of Article 2 of the Convention (see Muradyan v.   Armenia , no.   11275/07, §§ 133-36, 24 November 2016; Ohanjanyan v.   Armenia ,   no.70665/11, §§ 133-38, 25 April 2023; and Hovhannisyan and   Karapetyan v. Armenia , no. 67351/13, §§ 90-95, 17 October 2023)?