CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 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 27 January 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 46398/20 Harutyun SARGSYAN against Armenia lodged on 21 August 2020 communicated on 6 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son, G. Sargsyan, during compulsory military service and the subsequent investigation. On 10 July 2015 G. Sargsyan was drafted into the Armenian army and assigned to military unit no. 34153 of the Nagorno-Karabakh armed forces (“the military unit”, situated in the “Republic of Nagorno ‑ Karabakh” (the “NKR”)). On 16 January 2017 at around 11.55 p.m. G. Sargsyan was shot in the head at a military base guarded by the military unit where his squad was on watch duty. On 1 March 2017 he died in the Central Military Hospital in Yerevan. On 17 January 2017 the Investigative Committee of Armenia instituted criminal proceedings. Junior Sergeant G.H., the commander of G. Sargsyan’s squad who had been in charge of the military post where the incident happened, was charged under Article 373 § 3 (breach of the rules for handling weapons that had negligently led to the death of a person) of the former Criminal Code (in force until 1 July 2022). According to the findings of the criminal investigation, on the day of the incident Lieutenant A.P., platoon commander, had asked one of the soldiers to unload the rifle assigned to A.P. in order to store it with other rifles. Junior Sergeant G.H. volunteered to do it. According to Junior Sergeant G.H., having forgotten to detach the magazine from the rifle, he had pulled the breech block which, due to his negligence, had resulted in the rifle being loaded instead of it being unloaded. When Junior Sergeant G.H. had then tried to fire a “control shot” to check whether the rifle had been unloaded, he had accidentally shot G. Sargsyan (who was standing in front of him) in the head. The investigation established that the incident had happened in the underground accommodation of the military base where four other soldiers were asleep. During the investigation the four soldiers in question stated (in their pre ‑ trial statements which had identical wording), that they had been asleep and had therefore not witnessed the incident. When Lieutenant A.P. woke them up, they saw G. Sargsyan lying on the ground, covered in blood, and Junior Sergeant G.H. next to him, filled with remorse. Lieutenant A.P. stated that he had not witnessed the incident; he had gone to the accommodation immediately upon hearing the sound of the gunshot, had woke up the four other soldiers who were asleep, had put a bandage on G. Sargsyan’s head and had called an ambulance. Lieutenant A.P. also stated that his rifle had not been loaded before handing it to Junior Sergeant G.H. The servicemen present at the military base on the day of the incident (both the soldiers mentioned above and other witnesses) stated that they had been duly trained on the safety rules concerning the use of firearms according to which loading and unloading of rifles had to be performed in a special place dedicated for that purpose. They stated in their pre-trial statements in identical wording that Junior Sergeant G.H. had most likely felt “lazy” to go to such dedicated space (which was within 15 to 20 meters away) which was why he had unloaded the rifle inside the accommodation. An internal investigation into G. Sargsyan’s death ordered by the Commander of the Nagorno-Karabakh Defence Army found a number of shortcomings and violations of the internal rules concerning organisation of watch duty, including poor supervision by Lieutenant A.P. (who was in charge of the military base) of the process of loading and unloading of assault rifles. The autopsy report of 24 May 2017 found that the cause of G. Sargsyan’s death had been the gunshot injury to his head. The autopsy had identified several bruises on the body and a wound around the left temporal bone. Those injuries, which had been inflicted before G. Sargsyan’s death by blunt objects, were found not to have been linked to the cause of his death. On 26 September 2018 the trial court found Junior Sergeant G.H. guilty as charged and sentenced him to five and half years’ imprisonment. Along with its judgment the trial court issued a supplementary decision pointing out to the fact that the investigator had had three witnesses sign several pages of the records of other witnesses’ pre-trial statements on which grounds the trial court had excluded the statements in question from the evidence. The applicant appealed arguing that the investigation, which had focused on a previously agreed upon scenario, had failed to explore the hypothesis of murder with indirect intent. He pointed out to a number of issues with the investigation including, among other things (i) the identical wording of the statements of the key witnesses which suggested that those had been literally copied from one another; (ii) the fact that certain witnesses had given different accounts of the incident during the investigation and later at the trial; (iii) the practice of questioning one witness in presence of the other; and (iv)   the investigator having the witnesses sign pre-drafted witness statements. The applicant also complained of the leniency of the sentence imposed on Junior Sergeant G.H.. On 11 November 2019 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s judgment as regards the conviction but granted the applicant’s appeal in part by increasing Junior Sergeant G.H.’s sentence to six and a half years’ imprisonment. It was stated at the same time that the imposed sentence could be reduced by two thirds pursuant to a general amnesty after the entry into force of the judgment. On 3 March 2020 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. The applicant questions the authorities’ finding that his son’s death resulted from breach of the rules for handling weapons. He claims that the relevant offence should have been classified as murder with indirect intent and that the investigation into the matter carried out by the domestic authorities was not effective. He relies on Article 2 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the matters complained of fall within the jurisdiction of Armenia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention (see Nana Muradyan v.   Armenia , no. 69517/11, §§ 88-92, 5 April 2022; Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan v. Armenia , no. 67351/13, §§ 59-63, 17 October 2023; and Varyan v. Armenia , no. 48998/14, §§ 69-70, 6 June 2024)?   2.     Was G. Sargsyan’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case (see Mirzoyan v. Armenia , no. 57129/10, §§   68 ‑ 70, 23 May 2019; Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan , cited above, §§   84 ‑ 89; and Dimaksyan v. Armenia , no. 29906/14, §§ 58-61 and 74-81, 17   October 2023)?   3. 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 Muradyan v. Armenia , no.   11275/07, §§ 132-36, 24 November 2016; Hovhannisyan and Ka rapetyan , cited above, §§ 90-95; and Dimaksyan , cited above, §§ 65-69)?   The Government are requested to submit the copies of the autopsy report of 24 May 2017 (no. 0325/10) and of the report on the internal investigation of 17 January 2017. The Government are also requested to clarify whether the Amnesty Law of 1 November 2018 was applied in respect of the sentence imposed on Junior Sergeant G.H. and, if so, provide information and documents concerning the relevant developments.