Communicated on 9 July 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 25589/16 Islam ALIYEV against Armenia lodged on 3 May 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Islam Aliyev , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Gapanli in the region of Tartar. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Baghirov , a lawyer practising in Baku.

A. General background

1. At the time of the demise of the Soviet Union, the conflict over the status of the region of Nagorno-Karabakh arose. In September 1991 the establishment of the “Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh” (the “NKR”; in 2017 renamed the “Republic of Artsakh ”) was announced, the independence of which has not been recognised by any State or international organisation. In early 1992 the conflict gradually escalated into a full-scale war which ended with the signing, on 5 May 1994, of a ceasefire agreement (the Bishkek Protocol) by Armenia, Azerbaijan and the “NKR”. Following the war, no political settlement of the conflict has been reached; the situation remains hostile and tense and there have been recurring breaches of the ceasefire agreement (see further Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 12-31, 16 June 2015). The most serious such breach started during the night between 1 and 2 April 2016 and lasted until 5 April and involved heavy military clashes close to the border between the “NKR” and Azerbaijan (sometimes referred to as the “Four-Day War”). Further clashes took place later that month. Estimates of casualties vary considerably; official sources indicate at least 100 dead on either side of the conflict. The great majority of the casualties were soldiers but also several civilians died. Many residents in the targeted towns and villages had to leave their homes for certain periods of time. Furthermore, the clashes led to substantial property and infrastructure damage.

B. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. The situation in Gapanli

3. On 2 April 2016, at around 3 a.m., the Armenian armed forces began shelling Azerbaijani towns and villages located along the line of contact between Azerbaijan and the “NKR”, using artillery and rocket launchers. Later that day, the village of Gapanli , situated next to the line of contact, came under shellfire from the Seysulan village on the “NKR” side.

4. Following the conclusion of a ceasefire agreement on 5 April 2016 an emergency commission, consisting of representatives of various local authorities, was established to assess the damage to civilian property in the region. Among other things, it conducted site examinations.

2. The circumstances of the applicant

5. At around midnight on 4 April 2016 some shells hit the area surrounding the applicant ’ s house, situated 400-500 metres away from the line of contact. Fragments broke windows and damaged doors and roof tiles. The applicant and all members of his family were at home but escaped injury.

6. On 8 April 2016 the above-mentioned commission conducted a site examination at the applicant ’ s house. According to the protocol of the examination, the shelling had destroyed 48 sq. m of window glass and 250 sq. m of asbestos roof tiles as well as several doors.

7. The applicant has submitted an Azerbaijani ID card indicating his birth year and residence in Gapanli , an official certificate indicating the composition of his family, an extract from the land register concerning his ownership of the house and the land on which it stands, the site examination protocol, photographs and a video-recording of the damage and several witness statements.

COMPLAINTS

8. The applicant complains, under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, that the actions of the attacking forces had put his life at risk and caused him anguish and distress.

9. He also claims under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his family life and home had been infringed.

10. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complains that his house had been damaged during the shelling, thereby depriving him of the peaceful enjoyment of his property.

11. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he maintains that there was no effective remedy in Armenia for his complaints.

12. Finally, under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2, 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant alleges that the military attacks had been directed against Azerbaijanis due to their ethnic and national origin.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Do the facts of which the applicant complains in the present case fall under the jurisdiction of Armenia?

2. Has the applicant had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints, within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention? If so, has he exhausted this remedy, as required by Article 35 § 1 (see, for instance, Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 115-120, 16 June 2015)?

3. Was the applicant ’ s life threatened in the present case and, if so, was his right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated? In particular:

(a) Was the force used in compliance with the Convention or international humanitarian law?

(b) What types of weapons were used by the armed forces on the “NKR” side during the clashes in April 2016?

(c) Were specific targets pre-determined and, if so, which were these targets? Was the applicant ’ s property or the area in which he and his family live a target and, if so, why?

(d) Were the military operations planned and organised in such a way as to avoid or minimise as far as practicable any injury to the civilian population and any damage to private property? If so, what were the precise precautions taken?

4. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as a consequence of the military operations and their effects?

5. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, did the applicant have to leave and stay away from his home due to the clashes in April 2016 and, if so, for how long was he unable to return?

6. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the m eaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference justified?

7. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights due to ethnicity or nationality or on any other ground contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?