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. 8226/19 Shahane VARDANYAN against Armenia lodged on 16 January 2019 communicated on 27 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is the mother of G. Vardanyan, who died during the military clashes in early April 2016 (sometimes referred to as the “Four-Day War”) while performing his compulsory military service in the “Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh” (the “NKR”). G. Vardanyan was conscripted into the Armenian army in 2014 for non-combatant service (“with limitations”) in view of his state of health - “second degree” kyphosis (a condition where the spine curves outward more than it should) and flat feet. He was subsequently assigned to a military unit in the “NKR”. On 3 April 2016 G. Vardanyan was killed by an artillery shell fired by the Azerbaijani army. On 4 April 2016 the Third Garrison Investigative Division of the Military Investigations Principal Department of the Investigative Committee of Armenia (Martakert, Nagorno ‑ Karabakh) instituted criminal proceedings in relation to the deaths of G. Vardanyan and of a number of other servicemen during the events in question. The investigation eventually found it established that on 3 April 2016 at around 9 p.m. G. Vardanyan had been moved to a command post together with several other servicemen to perform watch duty in order to prevent the progression of the Azerbaijani army. Some servicemen had stayed at that command post while several others, including G. Vardanyan, had fallen under a heavy artillery attack when they were on their way from the given command post to the shelter. An artillery shell exploded right next to G. Vardanyan and his fellow serviceman, killing the former on the spot (the other serviceman also then died of the wounds). On 30 March 2017 the investigator decided to suspend the criminal proceedings on the grounds that all the possible investigative measures had been undertaken while there was a force majeure precluding the advancement of the investigation given that any further investigative measures would have required cooperation with the Azerbaijani authorities. The applicant appealed against that decision before the prosecutor and then before the courts. She argued, in particular, that the investigation had failed to establish who had given the order to G.   Vardanyan’s platoon to move to the command post in question despite the fact that there had been no sufficient anti-tank munition there, including missiles and also to identify the person(s) who had been responsible for the shortage of weapon supply. The applicant further argued that the investigation had failed to establish any responsibility for having sent her son to perform combatant duty at the given command post notwithstanding the fact that he had been found not to be fit for combatant service for medical reasons. The Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the Armenian investigating authorities had undertaken all the measures that were possible to be carried out without the participation of the Azerbaijani side. That decision was upheld by the Criminal Court of Appeal. By decision of 31 August 2018 the Court of Cassation refused to grant the applicant leave for appeal. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains about her son’s death and the ensuing investigation. She argues that the Armenian authorities failed to protect her son’s right to life during his compulsory military service in that they assigned him to combatant duty despite his vulnerability due to his medical condition and failed to ensure a sufficient supply of weapons to deter the adversary. The applicant further argues that the authorities failed to carry out a proper investigation into the circumstances of her son’s death. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the applicant’s arguments raised in her domestic appeals and currently before the Court, did the Armenian authorities comply with their obligation to protect G. Vardanyan’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, during his compulsory military service?   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? The parties are requested to clarify the state of domestic law in relation to the regulation of military service  during peace time and in time of war  of conscripts (and military servicemen in general) having health issues. In this connection, the parties are requested to make references to the domestic legal regulations referred to by the domestic courts in the present case, including the Order of the Minister of Defence No. 410-13 ( ՀՀ ՊՆ 410-13 հրաման ) and the Orders of the Chief of Staff of 15 January 2014 ( ԳՇ պետի 03 առ 2014թ․ հունվարի 15-ի «Խաղաղ պայմաններում ՀՀ ՁՈՒ ժամկետային պարտադիր զինծառայողների զինվորական ծառայության պիտանելիության սահմանափակումների վերաբերյալ» հրամաններ ) and any other relevant domestic law provisions.   The parties are also requested to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning the assessment of G. Vardanyan’s state of health during the conscription process, including medical opinions and resultant decisions of the military authorities in relation to the conditions of (limitations to) his military service.