CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 January 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26854/24 Narine MKRTCHYAN against Armenia lodged on 6 September 2024 communicated on 10 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son, A. Mkrtchyan – a military officer prior to his death – and the subsequent investigation. On 20 August 2017 at around 4.20 p.m. A. Mkrtchyan was found dead in his office with a gunshot injury to his chin. On 21 August 2017 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 20 August 2017 an examination of the scene of the incident was carried out during which a note was found in A. Mkrtchyan’s pocket. The note read as follows: “No need to blame anyone and to look for who is at fault. I am aware of what I have done”. On 15 September 2017 a combined handwriting and document forensic examination was ordered. On 24 October 2017 the ensuing report was delivered which established that it was A. Mkrtchyan’s handwriting on the note found in his pocket. It also established that the paper on which the note was written had been torn from a sheet found in A. Mkrtchyan’s room. His legal heir in the proceedings at that time (his father and the applicant’s husband) objected against the conclusion in the report and requested a re ‑ examination of the note using another handwriting sample, which was granted. The subsequent expert report reached the same conclusions as the initial report. On 26 October 2017 the autopsy report was delivered according to which A.   Mkrtchyan’s death had resulted from the ballistic injury, with the bullet entering through the lower chin and exiting through the forehead. The report also identified an ecchymosis on A. Mkrtchyan’s chest and scratches on his face, both inflicted by blunt objects prior to his death and determined to be unrelated to it. Traces of narcotic substances of the cannabinoid group were found in A. Mkrtchyan’s body. At the request of the applicant’s husband, a forensic genetic examination of the note was ordered. According to the ensuing report, delivered on 18   October 2019, it was impossible to identify the DNA found on the note as belonging to any specific individual, as it originated from at least four persons. On 23 December 2019 the investigation was suspended apparently on the grounds that the person/people who had committed the crime could not be established. On 10 October 2022, the applicant requested that the offence be re ‑ qualified from incitement to suicide to murder, complaining that the investigation had focused on the suicide hypothesis from the outset and failed to explore alternative hypotheses, including murder. In her request she referred to the findings in the advisory conclusion of the Working Group on Examination of the Criminal Cases Concerning Non-Combat Deaths of Servicemen. The applicant also complained that the investigation had failed to elucidate several important circumstances surrounding her son’s death. Her request was dismissed as unsubstantiated, and her subsequent appeals were rejected. On an unknown date the investigation was resumed. On 19 October 2023 the investigator ordered an additional forensic medical examination. In that decision he identified a number of shortcomings in the way the scene of the incident had been examined and the evidence collected. The ensuing report of 8 July 2024 concluded that it could not be ruled out that the gunshot causing A. Mkrtchyan’s death could have been fired either by him or by another person. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention of her son’s death and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the matter carried out by the domestic authorities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was A. Mkrtchyan’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case (see Nana Muradyan v. Armenia , no.   69517/11, §§ 118-23, 5 April 2022; Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v.   Armenia , nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, §§ 116-23, 8 November 2022; and Varyan v. Armenia , no. 48998/14, §§ 87-95, 4 June 2024)?   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 above-cited Nana Muradyan , §§   124-27; Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan , §§ 124-30; and Varyan , §§   96 ‑ 100)?   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 also requested to submit the advisory conclusion of the Working Group on Examination of the Criminal Cases Concerning Non-Combat Deaths of Servicemen of 25 May 2022.