CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mars 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 14 April 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31688/20 Vachik PETROSYAN against Armenia lodged on 2 July 2020 communicated on 27 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son, H. Petrosyan, during compulsory military service and the subsequent investigation. On 25 April 2016 at around 7.45 p.m. H. Petrosyan was found dead with a gunshot injury to his head in the vehicle assigned to him as a driver while performing patrolling duty. On the same day the Investigative Committee of Armenia instituted criminal proceedings on account of incitement to suicide (Article 110 of the former Criminal Code in force until 1 July 2022) and ordered an autopsy. On 26 April 2016 a combined ballistic, trace and fingertip forensic examination was ordered. On 8 May 2016 the applicant was recognized as H. Petrosyan’s legal heir in the criminal proceedings. He stated that his son had told him about a conflict with his commander V.H. because the latter had tried to steal fuel and weapons from the vehicle assigned to H. Petrosyan. The applicant further voiced H. Petrosyan’s allegation that the officers in his military unit might have stored drugs in the vehicle assigned to him. The applicant also claimed that V.H. had been collecting money from soldiers. These allegations were denied by other servicemen and V.H. who in turn stated in his witness statement that after finding H. Petrosyan asleep while being on watch duty (several days prior to his death), he spoke with the applicant on the phone and informed him that his son had not been performing well in his capacity as a driver and recommended the applicant to have H. Petrosyan’s military function changed. V. H. apparently died in a car accident when the investigation was pending. On 13 June 2016 the autopsy report was delivered according to which H.   Petrosyan’s death had resulted from ballistic injuries with the two bullet entries having been in the forehead and in the right nostril and the bullet exit for both entries being in the nape of the neck ( ծոծրակ ). On 27 September 2016 the applicant requested to order a toxicological and chemical forensic examination to reveal traces of drugs or psychotropic substances in the blood of V.H. and other officers of the military unit where H. Petrosyan was serving. This request was rejected as unsubstantiated and irrelevant. On 2 June 2017 the report on the combined ballistic, trace and fingertip forensic examination was delivered which established that the two cartridge cases found on the scene of the incident had been fired from the assault rifle assigned to H. Petrosyan and that there were no identifiable fingerprints on that rifle. A follow up combined medical and ballistic forensic examination was ordered. On 15 November 2017 the ensuing report was delivered according to which the rifle in question could fire two bullets after pulling the trigger once if in the “fire line” mode. The first injury was the one on the forehead and the second – the one on the right nostril. The report further established that the gunshots could have been fired both by H. Petrosyan and by another person. The applicant requested to order a posthumous psychological forensic examination which was granted. On 5 February 2018 the ensuing report was delivered which stated that it was impossible to establish a causal link between V.H.’s actions and H. Petrosyan’s psychological state before his death and that the latter was not in such an emotional state that could significantly influence his “consciousness and psychological activity”. According to the investigation, witness statements and other investigative and operative-search activities did not reveal any problems or conflicts between H. Petrosyan and other servicemen. On 23 November 2018 the investigator decided to suspend the investigation on the grounds that following all the possible investigative and operational-search activities the person/persons who had committed the crime could not be established. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision. On 20 January 2020 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 of his son’s death, the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the matter carried out by the domestic authorities and the lack of access to the full case file. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was H. Petrosyan’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case (see Beker v. Turkey , no. 27866/03, §§ 41-43, 24 March 2009; Ohanjanyan v. Armenia , no. 70665/11, §§ 132-34, 25 April 2023 and Petrosyan v. Armenia , no. 51448/15, §§ 110-12, 9 January 2025)?   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 Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia , nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, §§ 124-130, 8 November 2022; Ohanjanyan v. Armenia , cited above, §§ 135-38 and Petrosyan v. Armenia , cited above, §§ 113-17)?   The Government are requested to submit the full copy of the criminal case in question with the exception of the materials already submitted by the applicant. The Government are further requested to clarify whether there has been an internal investigation into H. Petrosyan’s death and submit the ensuing report, if any.