CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2026

.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 2 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18196/23 Irina GHAZARYAN against Armenia lodged on 28 March 2023 communicated on 12 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son, A. Ghazaryan, during compulsory military service and the subsequent investigation. On 21 December 2010, at 12.30 a.m., A. Ghazaryan died in the Central Military Hospital following a surgery. On the same day the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence ordered an autopsy. On 23 February 2011 the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence instituted criminal proceedings on account of negligent attitude towards military service (Article 376 of the former Criminal Code in force until 1   July 2022). According to the findings of the official investigation, on 15   December 2010 A. Ghazaryan was assigned with certain maintenance tasks at a military base guarded by his military unit. At around 12 noon he began to feel unwell and complained of an acute headache. He continued to take part in the maintenance work intermittently while the headache persisted. He requested pain-relief medication which proved ineffective. On 16   December 2010 at approximately 9 p.m. he was examined at his military unit’s infirmary and was given pain-relief medication. Shortly thereafter he fainted and was transferred to a hospital in a nearby town. On 17   December 2010 A. Ghazaryan was transferred to the Central Military Hospital where he died approximately three days later following a surgery (see above). On 9 March 2011 the autopsy report was delivered, according to which A.   Ghazaryan’s death had resulted from acute dysfunction of vital cerebral functions, cerebrovascular malformation, acute obstructive hydrocephalus, diffuse cerebral edema and associated conditions. On 14 April 2011 a forensic medical panel examination was ordered. The ensuing report established that A.   Ghazaryan had suffered from cerebrovascular malformation prior to his conscription into the army and that the medical personnel had not made any errors in providing medical assistance to him. The panel also concluded that A.   Ghazaryan had been eligible for conscription, as he had not exhibited any of the relevant symptoms prior to being drafted. The forensic medical examination revealed no traces of violence on A. Ghazaryan’s body. On 15 July 2011 the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings due to the absence of corpus delicti . On 20 July 2018 the prosecutor decided to resume the criminal proceedings on the basis of certain deficiencies in the prior investigation. On 21   November 2018 a new forensic medical panel examination was ordered to elucidate numerous circumstances essential for the investigation, including the cause of rapid deterioration of A. Ghazaryan’s state of health, the possible negative effects of pain-relief medication administered at his military unit, the detailed description and explanation of the applicant’s diagnosis and whether its symptoms had been overlooked, etc. It appears that that examination has not yet been completed. On 20 January 2022 the investigator ordered another examination which also appears to be pending. The applicant submitted a number of applications requesting that various investigative measures be carried out and complaining that the investigation had failed to elucidate important circumstances surrounding her son’s death, such as when and how A. Ghazaryan had been transferred from the military base to the military unit, what medical assistance had he been provided with on 17 December 2010, among other matters. She also expressed doubts as to the impartiality of the autopsy report, noting that the experts involved were employees of the Ministry of Defence. It appears that the majority of those applications and complaints were rejected. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention of her son’s death and the ineffectiveness, including the length, of the investigation into the matter carried out by the domestic authorities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was A. Ghazaryan’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular, did the authorities fail to protect his right to life (see Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan , no.   30500/11, §§   64-68, 1 June 2017; Ashot Malkhasyan v. Armenia , no.   35814/14, §§   89 ‑ 92, 11 October 2022; and Dimaksyan v. Armenia , no.   29906/14, §§   58 ‑ 64, 17 October 2023)?   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 Malik Babayev, cited above , §§   79-81; Nana Muradyan v. Armenia , no. 69517/11, §§ 124-27, 5   April 2022; and Dimaksyan , cited above, §§ 65-69)?   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 report of the internal investigation into A. Ghazaryan’s death, if any.