CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2025

.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 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 37089/19 Harutyun ZAKARYAN against Armenia lodged on 28 June 2019 communicated on 13 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is the father of H. Zakaryan who died in a car accident on 26 November 2015. On 27 November 2015 the Investigative Committee instituted criminal proceedings on account of breach of road traffic and vehicle operation rules that negligently resulted in death (Article 242 § 2 of the former Criminal Code (in force until 1 July 2022)). On 28 December 2015 the applicant was recognised as the victim’s legal heir in those proceedings. A number of forensic examinations carried out during the investigation showed that the car details and traces of paint found at the scene of the incident had originated from an accident involving two cars one of which had belonged to S.E., a witness in the criminal proceedings. The second car was not identified but the experts stated that a plastic frame of a rear-view mirror found at the scene could have belonged to certain types of cars, including a Range Rover. It was apparently established at some point that K.S., driver of a Range Rover, had also been involved in the accident and that his car presented damage which could have been caused by a runover. When questioned about the given accident, K.S. denied his involvement in it or in any other accident on 26 November 2015. On an unspecified date K.S.’s garage and an adjacent building were searched but apparently nothing of interest for the investigation was found. On 10 February 2017 S.E. was charged with breach of road traffic and vehicle operation rules which negligently caused H. Zakaryan’s death. A written undertaking not to leave his place of residence was applied as a preventive measure. On 18 July 2017 the Yerevan Prosecutor’s office sent the case for a further investigation. K.S. was additionally questioned in relation to the damage to his car which could be indicative of a runover. He again denied his involvement in the accident and stated that the damage had not resulted from a runover. K.S. was also questioned in relation to his connections with the Chief of Police and the cell phone numbers that he had made calls from on the day of the accident. On an unspecified date an investigative experiment was carried out which showed that the plastic frame of the rear-view mirror found at the scene of the incident matched the left ‑ side rear-view mirror on K.S.’s car. On 13 December 2017 an additional combined forensic trace, chemical, auto technical and medical examination was ordered. The ensuing report delivered on 25 October 2018 established that both S.E.’s and K.S.’s cars had caused the fatal incident. Following this, K.S. was summoned to be questioned on 29 October 2018; he did not appear. It was later established that on 9 May 2018 K.S. had left to the United States. On 7 December 2018 K.S. was charged with breach of road traffic and vehicle operation rules which negligently caused H. Zakaryan’s death as well as with abandoning the place of a traffic accident (Article 244 of the former Criminal Code). On 28   December 2018 the criminal proceedings were stayed on the grounds that K.S. was hiding, his whereabouts had not been established and all the measures that were possible to carry out in his absence had already been carried out. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the investigation into his son’s death was not effective in that it lacked due diligence and was excessively lengthy allowing K.S. to flee from justice. The applicant also invokes Article 13 of the Convention in relation to his complaint under Article 2. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v.   Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 157-68, 25 June 2019)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file concerning the criminal case instituted in relation to H. Zakaryan’s death.