Communicated on 14 March 2017

FIRST SECTION

Applications nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14 Hasmik HOVHANNISYAN against Armenia and Tsovinar NAZARYAN again st Armenia lodged on 23 November 2011 and 3 April 2014 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Hasmik Hovhannisyan (the first applicant) and Ms Tsovinar Nazaryan (the second applicant), are Armenian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1976 respectively and live in Yerevan.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The first and second applicants are the mother and the sister of Mr Artak Nazaryan, deceased at the age of 31.

From 2001 to 2003 Artak Nazaryan performed mandatory military service.

In 2009 he was recruited to the Armed Forces of Armenia and assigned to military unit no. 21127 (“the military unit”) with the rank of lieutenant.

On 27 July 2010 Artak Nazaryan was found dead at base no. 12 of the military unit, where he was on duty on that day, with a gunshot injury to his mouth.

On the same date at 9.15 a.m. the administration of the military unit sent an urgent report to the Ministry of Defence which stated, in particular, that according to initial information, lieutenant Artak Nazaryan had shot himself fatally inside the trench.

On the same date the Sixth Garrison Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence of Armenia instituted criminal proceedings into the circumstances surrounding Artak Nazaryan ’ s death under Article 110 § 1 of the Criminal Code (incitement to suicide). The decision to institute criminal proceedings stated, in particular, the following:

“On 27 July 2010 at around 8.10 a.m. there was a report from [the military unit] that at around 7.50 a.m. on the same day at military base no. 12 ... Artak Nazaryan, who had been assigned on duty there, shot himself in the mouth with the assault rifle assigned to him and died instantly.”

The first applicant was recognised as late Artak Nazaryan ’ s legal heir in the proceedings. She was subsequently succeeded in the proceedings by the second applicant.

On the same date the investigator ordered an autopsy to determine, inter alia , the cause of Artak Nazaryan ’ s death, the presence of injuries on his body and, if there were any injuries, the time of their infliction.

On the same date the investigator seized Artak Nazaryan ’ s three magazines with ninety bullets. Also, the investigator conducted an examination of firearms assigned to all servicemen of base no. 12. of the military unit and a relevant record was drawn up, stating that none of those firearms had been fired since the last cleaning.

According to the record of the examination of the scene of the incident dated 28 July 2010, Artak Nazaryan ’ s body, with the barrel of the assault rifle in his mouth and the stock between his legs, was discovered next to a rock within the territory of military base no. 12. The assault rifle was seized by the investigator, who removed the magazine and emptied it, as a result of which one bullet covered with a red blood-like substance came out of the bolt. The investigator then fired a test shot and closed the trigger guard. Twenty-nine bullets were found inside the removed magazine, and were also seized. Also, one fired cartridge was discovered on the ground close to the body. This cartridge, which carried the numbers “78-09”, was also seized. At the end of the examination the body was removed from the scene.

It appears that after Artak Nazaryan ’ s death captain H.M., who had been in charge of base no. 12, removed his notebook from his pocket following the advice of senior lieutenant G.U. Thereafter H.M. handed over Artak Nazaryan ’ s notebook to his superior and asked him not to tell anyone about it.

On 28 July 2010 the investigator assigned a combined ballistic, trace and fingerprint examination to determine, inter alia , whether cartridge no. 78-09 discovered at the scene had been fired from Artak Nazaryan ’ s assault rifle, whether the magazine removed from the assault rifle could contain thirty ‑ one bullets, whether any identifiable fingerprints were present on different parts of the assault rifle and the fired cartridge submitted to the experts.

It appears that on 28 July 2010 S.G., the commander of the military unit, issued orders to put all servicemen of military base no. 12 in disciplinary isolation for violation of military rules. It further appears that those to be isolated had already been confined since 27 July 2010 and included captain H.M., who had been put in charge of the base since 16 July 2010, and servicemen H.K., M.M., A.H. and A.Mk.

It also appears that by S.G. ’ s order of the same date lieutenant V.H., senior officer at another base, was isolated for three days for poor supervision of personnel.

In the course of their isolation the servicemen were questioned and confrontations were held between them. According to the accounts of some servicemen, in particular those of A.Mk., A.M. and Ar.H., Artak Nazaryan had fallen victim to humiliation and ill-treatment by H.M., A.H ., M.M. and H.K. on several occasions.

It appears that, based on S.G. ’ s orders, H.M. and V.H. were once again isolated for a period of three days on 31 July 2010 for violation of military service rules. At his interview conducted on the same date, V.H. stated that he had witnessed H.M. verbally and physically abuse Artak Nazaryan while, according to him, he himself had tried to reconcile them.

On 3 August 2010 Artak Nazaryan ’ s fellow servicemen, captain H.M. and conscripts A.H., M.M. and H.K., were arrested.

On 5 August 2010 H.M. was charged with aggravated abuse of power under Article 375 § 2 of the Criminal Code (the CC).

On the same date A.H., M.M. and H.K. were charged with aggravated use of violence against a superior under Article 358 § 2(3) of the CC.

It appears that by S.G. ’ s order of 7 August 2010 A.Mk. and A.M. were isolated for ten days for violation of military rules.

On 9 August 2010 Artak Nazaryan ’ s notebook was submitted to the investigative authority. A torn piece of paper was found inside the notebook, which stated the following:

“I am obliged to do this - tired of everything, my parents ’ upbringing, not finding my place in life, not being able to dream. This is no one ’ s fault, no one ’ s, only mine and my parents ’ .”

On 17 August 2010 the conclusion of the combined ballistic, trace and fingerprint examination was delivered. The relevant parts of the experts ’ opinion read as follows:

“... the submitted cartridge was handed to the expert in order to be examined. As a result of the examination of the cartridge it was found out that ... Numbers “60-78” are stamped on the bottom of the cartridge, which correspond to the number of the producing factory and the last two digits of the production year.

... the submitted cartridge ... had been fired from the assault rifle ... submitted for examination.

The submitted magazine can possibly be loaded with thirty-one bullets of relevant calibre.

...

No traces of papillary ridges have been discovered on the submitted bullet and cartridge. Some parts of the surface of the submitted assault rifle contain fragments of sweat and grease deposits which are not suitable for subsequent comparative examination.”

A number of forensic ballistic examinations were ordered to find out whether the samples taken from Artak Nazaryan ’ s fellow servicemen contained any gunshot residue. According to their conclusions, samples taken from seven of his fellow servicemen, G.S., A.M., H.N., A.Mk., A.H., M.M. and H.K., contained copper particulates which are part of gunshot residue.

On 22 September 2010 the forensic medical examination of Artak Nazaryan ’ s body, including an autopsy, was completed. The relevant parts of the forensic medical expert ’ s conclusion read as follows:

“... [Artak] Nazaryan ’ s death was caused by functional brain failure as a result of the perforating ballistic trauma to the head...The shot has been fired in the mouth... Apart from the above-mentioned, the examination of [Artak] Nazaryan ’ s body has also revealed abrasions in the area of the right cheek, lower jaw and mastoid process, ecchymosis in the area of the right upper arm, which have been inflicted ... about six hours before the death and are not directly linked to the death... Also, abrasions in the area of the left half of the chest, left upper arm, left elbow, left forearm and left hip which have been inflicted ... with blunt objects ... not long before the death, have been discovered; an abrasion in the area of the fifth digit of the right wrist inflicted 3 to 5 days before the death, not directly linked to the death ...

The forensic chemical examination of the blood sample ... has shown 1.8 per mille alcohol; in the urine – 0.7 per mille, which corresponds to average level alcohol intoxication ... the deceased has taken [the alcohol] about 1 to 1.5 hours before death. [Artak] Nazaryan ’ s stomach was empty...

Nineteen photographs ... are being attached to the conclusion.”

On 13 October 2010 R.E., senior sergeant at the military unit, was questioned and stated, inter alia , that he had known Artak Nazaryan as an intelligent and humble officer who, however, was not able to supervise his personnel. He also stated that H.M. had verbally and physically abused Artak Nazaryan in front of the rest of the servicemen, as a result of which some of them, notably M.M., H.K. and A.H., treated Artak Nazaryan the same way, that is they mocked him and were disrespectful.

On an unspecified date Artak Nazaryan ’ s notebook was submitted for forensic document examination which concluded, inter alia , that the entries in it and the statement on the separate piece of paper had been made by him.

On 28 October 2010 the first applicant requested from the investigator photocopies of the documents that contained Artak Nazaryan ’ s handwriting samples, including those in the notebook, with the purpose of submitting them to forensic handwriting experts abroad, since she aimed to dispute the fact that the entries in the notebook had indeed been made by her son.

On 4 November 2010 the investigator, relying on, inter alia , Articles 59 and 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the CCP), rejected the first applicant ’ s request on the ground that the data collected during the investigation was not subject to disclosure before its completion. The first applicant unsuccessfully disputed this decision in court, claiming that the relevant provisions of the CCP restricted the rights of the victim party in criminal proceedings to such an extent that the victim party was deprived of the possibility to submit its position in an efficient manner.

On an unspecified date the first applicant applied to the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of Articles 59 § 1 (9) and 201 § 1 of the CCP.

At his additional questioning as a witness held on 22 February 2011 A.M. stated, inter alia , that he had seen V.H. hitting Artak Nazaryan together with H.M. on 19 July 2010. Other witnesses also confirmed having seen V.H. hitting Artak Nazaryan when the latter was having an argument with H.M. on 19 July 2010.

On 1 April 2011 lieutenant V.H. was charged with aggravated abuse of power under Article 38-375 § 2 of the CC for having ill-treated and humiliated Artak Nazaryan in complicity with H.M.

On 9 April 2011 the investigator ordered a posthumous forensic psychological and psychiatric examination to determine, inter alia , whether Artak Nazaryan had suffered from any psychiatric disorders and what had been his psychological condition during the time-period preceding his death. The experts were also asked to determine whether there existed a causal link between the actions of the individuals listed in the decision (H.M., V.H., G.U., A.H. M.M. and H.K.) and Artak Nazaryan ’ s death.

On 1 June 2011 the commission of experts, which had conducted the posthumous forensic psychological and psychiatric examination, delivered its opinion according to which, inter alia , Artak Nazaryan had never suffered from a psychiatric disorder and was fully accountable for his actions. Based on the materials provided by the investigative authority (statements by Artak Nazaryan ’ s superiors and fellow servicemen, the statement of the facts as presented in the decision to order the forensic examination) the commission found that Artak Nazaryan, despite his being a highly intellectual person who moreover held the rank of lieutenant, had fallen victim to continual humiliation by fellow servicemen, including both higher ranking officers and conscripts. The materials of the criminal case reflect an entire chain of humiliation and violence which had originated from the commander of the first battalion of the military unit, captain H.M. The commission concluded that Artak Nazaryan ’ s suicide was linked to his humiliation, debasement and ill-treatment by officers H.M. and V.H. and conscripts A.H. and M.M., and that the actions of conscript H.K. had probably played a role.

On 14 June 2011 the charges against H.K. were modified and he was charged under Article 358 § 1 of the CC with having verbally and physically abused Artak Nazaryan, his superior, on 23 July 2010 after the latter had reprimanded him.

On 15 June 2011 the charges against H.M. were modified and he was charged under Articles 360 § 2, 365 § 1 and 375 §§ 1 and 2 of the CC with having humiliated and ill-treated Artak Nazaryan, his subordinate, on various occasions in the period between 15 and 26 July 2010, which actions had led to Artak Nazaryan ’ s eventual suicide on 27 July 2010.

On 2 August 2011 a bill of indictment was finalised. The relevant parts of the bill of indictment state the following:

“Almost all Artak Nazaryan ’ s fellow servicemen described him as a modest, intellectual, positive individual, who, however, was not suited for military service ... was unable to control the actions of the platoon staff under his command as a result of which he was constantly being reprimanded by the administration.

As a result of the above circumstances, the attitude of the platoon officers towards Artak Nazaryan gradually changed in a negative way, he was not being taken seriously, was being insulted, and so on.

On 16 July 2010 the first battalion of the military unit was put on active duty.

Lieutenant Artak Nazaryan was assigned to military base no. 12 as its senior... Captain H.M. was put in charge of ... [military base no. 12] ...

On 16 July 2010 ... Artak Nazaryan called ... company commander G.U. informing him that he could not be present on that day because of his father ’ s illness ...

... in relation to this there was an argument between G.U. and H.M. during which the latter swore at Artak Nazaryan and told G.U. that he would punish Artak Nazaryan.

...

When on 17 July 2010 ... Artak Nazaryan returned to the military base, captain H.M. swore at him...

... on 19 July 2010 H.M. beat up Artak Nazaryan ... [Artak Nazaryan] tried to hit him back but could not. ... thereafter H.M. sent for ... senior lieutenant V.H. who was his friend.

... H.M. and V.H. together started beating Artak Nazaryan, in particular punching and kicking him in the head, stomach area, chest, and so on.

As a result of the blows Artak Nazaryan ’ s nose bled, his face was swollen ...

In general H.M. constantly treated Artak Nazaryan in a disrespectful manner. He did not even let Artak Nazaryan eat around the same table with him, claiming that he “felt disgusted by [Artak Nazaryan]”.

... such behaviour from H.M. was not without consequences.

Taking advantage of the situation ... three conscripts, A.H., M.M. and H.K., who were put on active duty in the military base, bullied Artak Nazaryan.

...

Being conscripts in the first company under Artak Nazaryan ’ s command, [A.H., M.M. and H.K.] mocked him, debased him and used violence against him, taking advantage of his extremely vulnerable psychological condition ... brought about by the actions of H.M. and V.H.

...

It had become evident for the military base staff, including H.M., that Artak Nazaryan was ready to harm himself, in relation to which on 26 July 2010 he had ordered the officers discreetly to take the firing pin out of Artak Nazaryan ’ s assault rifle, which, however, had not been done.

[On 27 July 2010] at around 7.30 a.m. Artak Nazaryan ... had taken the assault rifle ... assigned to him with only one magazine and said ... that he was going to check the watch stations ...

At around 7.50 a.m. Artak Nazaryan approached a rock situated 4 metres away from ... and fired one shot into his mouth from the assault rifle assigned to him ...”

The criminal case was taken over by Tavush Regional Court (the Regional Court).

On 24 January 2012 the Constitutional Court of Armenia found Articles 59 § 1 (9) and 201 § 1 of the CCP to be compatible with the Armenian Constitution.

On an unspecified date during the trial, the second applicant lodged a motion with the Regional Court seeking to have thirty-two pre-trial statements by Artak Nazaryan ’ s fellow servicemen ruled inadmissible on the ground that these had been taken during the period when fourteen of them, including the defendants, had been subjected to unlawful confinement in July and August 2010 based on the orders of the military unit commander in the aftermath of Artak Nazaryan ’ s death.

In the course of the trial captain H.M. testified, inter alia , that during his confinement together with other servicemen the investigator had compelled him to make a statement that he had killed Artak Nazaryan or had incited him to commit suicide.

Senior lieutenant V.H. testified, in particular, that he had never heard that Artak Nazaryan had any problems with fellow servicemen or conscripts under his command. Furthermore, he had never witnessed anyone disobeying Artak Nazaryan ’ s orders.

A.H. retracted his pre-trial statements, stating that he had made them under duress.

M.M. refused to testify before the Regional Court and confirmed his pre ‑ trial statements according to which he had never used any violence against Artak Nazaryan or humiliated him in any way.

H.K. testified that he had never had any problems with Artak Nazaryan and that they had had a good relationship. According to him, Artak Nazaryan organised the military service properly but had slight issues with drafting documents, the reason for which was fatigue. He further testified that after the incident he and another conscript who had been on duty at the base had been taken to the Military Police Department and kept there for several days, first in different cells and then together. He further submitted that he had been interrogated for nine hours without interruption and that he had been on his feet throughout that time. Furthermore, he had been beaten up and compelled to confess that he had killed Artak Nazaryan or incited him to commit suicide.

A number of Artak Nazaryan ’ s fellow servicemen were questioned as witnesses during the trial. Contrary to his pre-trial statement, witness R.E. testified that he had never noticed that lieutenant Artak Nazaryan had any issues with captain H.M. or any other officer. He further submitted that he had told the investigator that he had never witnessed any violence or humiliation in respect of Artak Nazaryan and that the investigator had changed his statements in the record which he had signed without having read it, since he had trusted the investigator to record his statements accurately.

Witness A.Mk. submitted that he had witnessed H.M and V.H. beating up Artak Nazaryan. He had also witnessed other servicemen beating Artak Nazaryan, namely A.H. and M.M., while H.K. had also physically abused him. The witness further submitted that on the day of the incident all servicemen, including himself, had been taken to the Military Police Department of Berd. He had stayed there for about twenty-five days. About ten days into his confinement his brother, also a serviceman, was taken there. According to the investigator, this was in order to protect his brother who could have been harmed because of A.Mk. ’ s statements during the investigation. A.Mk. also submitted that at some point he had retracted his pre-trial statements so that the accused ’ s parents would stop troubling him and his family. However, both his pre-trial and trial statements were true

The commander of the military unit, S.G., testified, inter alia , that the report which mentioned that Artak Nazaryan ’ s body had been discovered in the trench was a preliminary one and that one should not pay too much attention to words; he had described what he had seen personally at the scene and that he had seen Artak Nazaryan ’ s body in the same position as in the photographs contained in the case file.

The applicants stated before the Regional Court that the investigation into Artak Nazaryan ’ s death had not been effective. They were sure that in reality Artak Nazaryan had been murdered. The first applicant also stated that she believed her son had been murdered before 27 July 2010 since her other daughter had noticed worms in his nose. She also pointed to the fact that initially it had been stated that her son had died in the trench, while later it turned out that he had died next to a rock. The second applicant also outlined a number of deficiencies in the investigation which rendered its results not credible, such as the fact that the investigation had not revealed the origin of the other injuries discovered on Artak Nazaryan ’ s body; the fact that another cartridge, which had a different serial number to the one found at the scene, had been sent to forensic ballistic examination; the fact that sixteen photographs had been attached to the conclusion of the forensic medical expert as opposed to the nineteen indicated. The second applicant also requested, inter alia , a forensic examination of Artak Nazaryan ’ s clothing to determine whether it contained traces of another person ’ s blood, which had not been done during the investigation.

The forensic medical expert, who had conducted the autopsy of Artak Nazaryan ’ s body, was also questioned during the trial. He submitted, in particular, that the mention of the existence of “an abrasion in the area of the fifth digit of the right wrist” had been erroneous and occurred as a result of a mechanical error and that he had never discovered such an injury. He further stated that the time-frames of infliction of the described injuries mentioned in his conclusion were not concrete but approximate. As for the existence of sixteen photographs attached to the conclusion instead of the nineteen mentioned, he explained that this had also resulted from an error.

On 7 May 2013 the Regional Court convicted H.M., V.H., A.H., M.M. and H.K. as charged, sentencing H.M. to ten, V.H., A.H. and M.M. to four and H.K. to three years ’ imprisonment. The Regional Court found it substantiated that Artak Nazaryan had committed suicide as a result of their actions. It rejected all the motions lodged by the second applicant in the course of the trial, including those to exclude from evidence the pre-trial statements of witnesses taken during their military confinement, the record of examination of the scene of the incident on the ground that its date did not correspond to the data contained in the case file, and so on. The Regional Court also rejected the motions submitted by the defendants, including the request to order an additional posthumous psychological examination, on the ground that there were no proven scientific methods to determine the psychological condition of a person who had been under the influence of alcohol.

On 7 June 2013 the second applicant lodged an appeal against the Regional Court ’ s judgment, which was al so appealed against by H.M. and V.H. In her appeal, the second applicant complained in a detailed manner that the circumstances of Artak Nazaryan ’ s death had not been properly investigated since all the motions which could have shed light on them had been rejected by the Regional Court. The Prosecutor ’ s Office submitted a written reply to the appeals, asking for them to be rejected.

On 28 June 2013 the Criminal Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) decided to admit the submitted appeals for examination in accordance with the rules of examination of cases in cassation proceedings, that is without full examination of the body of evidence examined by the lower court.

At the hearing before the Court of Appeal H.M., V.H. and the second applicant requested that it examine all the evidence produced in the proceedings before the Regional Court to enable them to submit the motions that had previously been rejected, since they disagreed with the way the Regional Court had assessed the evidence.

It appears that the Court of Appeal eventually decided to conduct a judicial review in accordance with the rules of examination of cases in cassation proceedings. It upheld the judgment of 7 May 2013 in its entirety in its decision of 1 August 2013, the relevant part of which reads as follows:

“As for the arguments contained in the appeals, the Court of Appeal notes that the defence and the victim ’ s legal successor ... have made a peculiar assessment of the evidence, their position does not correspond to the established facts, the [Regional] court ’ s findings have been properly reasoned in the judgment ...”

On 1 September 2013 the second applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. She reiterated her previous arguments that the investigation into Artak Nazaryan ’ s death had not been effective and complained that by not having conducted a full judicial review of the Regional Court ’ s judgment, the Court of Appeal had carried out a superficial examination of the appeals submitted, since the decision of 1 August 2013 was merely a reproduction of the Regional Court ’ s judgment of 7 May 2013, which in its turn was the reproduction of the bill of indictment.

H.M. and V.H also lodged appeals on points of law.

On 27 September 2013 the Court of Cassation summarily declared all the appeals on points of law lodged against the decision of 1 August 2013 inadmissible for lack of merit. The second applicant was served with this decision on 3 October 2013.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. The Criminal Code (in force since 1 August 2003)

Article 110 § 1 provides that, with indirect intention or involuntarily, provoking a person to commit or attempt suicide through threats, cruel treatment or repeated degrading of his dignity shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years.

Article 358 § 1 provides that inflicting physical or other violence on a superior in connection with the latter ’ s performance of military service duties shall be punishable by placement in a disciplinary isolation cell for up to three years or imprisonment for up to five years.

Article 358 § 2 (3) provides that the same offence which has caused medium or grave damage to health or other severe consequences shall be punishable by imprisonment from three to twelve years.

Article 360 § 2 provides that insulting a military officer, that is dishonouring in an indecent manner a military officer in connection with the latter ’ s performance of military service duties committed by a superior in respect of his subordinate shall be punishable by detention for a period up to three months or placement in an isolation cell for up to one year or a maximum of one year ’ s imprisonment.

Article 365 § 1 provides that the violation of combat duty or combat service rules directed at the timely prevention of an unexpected attack on the Republic of Armenia or at ensuring the security of the Republic of Armenia, if that has negligently caused damage or threat thereof, shall be punishable by placement in an isolation cell for up to two years or a maximum of three years ’ imprisonment.

Article 375 § 1 provides that abuse of authority or public position, exceeding public authority, as well as omission by a superior or public official, if such acts were committed for selfish ends, personal interest or interests of a group and resulted in grave damage, shall be punishable by imprisonment from two to five years.

According to Article 375 § 2, the same offence which has negligently caused severe consequences shall be punishable by imprisonment from three to seven years.

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure (as in force at the material time)

Article 59 § 1 (9) provides that the victim has the right to study all the materials of the case file, photocopy them and retrieve any information from the case file from the moment of completion of the investigation.

Article 201 § 1 prescribes that the investigative data can be made public only by permission of the authority conducting the investigation.

3. The Decision of the Constitutional Court of 24 January 2012 on the conformity of the provision ‘ from the moment of completion of the investigation ’ in Article 59 § 1 (9) and Article 201 § 1 of the CCP with the Constitution, adopted on the basis of the application lodged by the first applicant

The Constitutional Court found that the provision “from the moment of completion of the investigation” in Article 59 § 1 (9) and Article 201 § 1 of the CCP was compatible with the Constitution. It found, inter alia , that the provisions in question did not restrict the rights of the victim party in criminal proceedings since the victim party had the right to be provided with copies of a number of documents during the investigation, which enabled him to lodge motions, dispute the actions and decisions of the investigative authority and take other actions. The Constitutional Court at the same time pointed out that the investigative authority ’ s power under Article 201 § 1 was not absolute, and that its exercise should be in the interests of the investigation.

C. Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, following his visit to Armenia from 18 to 21 January 2011, CommDH(2011)12, 9 May 2011

The relevant extracts from the Report provide:

“III. Human rights situation in the army

...

1. Acts of violence within the army

...

132. In the end of July 2010, seven persons serving in the Armenian army died in violent non-combat incidents. One case related to the death of the contracted officer Artak Nazaryan at a military unit located in the Tavush region. The Commissioner met with the mother of the victim. The investigation concluded that he had been incited to commit suicide, whereas the family believes that it was intentional murder, given the numerous injuries found on the body and certain serious discrepancies in the investigation. The forensic expertise confirmed that serious injuries had been inflicted on Mr Nazaryan before his death. According to Mr Nazaryan ’ s relatives, the victim had difficult relations with the commander and deputy commander of the unit. One officer (the deputy commander) and four conscripts have been arrested for ill-treating Mr Nazaryan and driving him to suicide. According to the information at the Commissioner ’ s disposal, the commander has not been held accountable.”

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into Artak Nazaryan ’ s death. They dispute the official version of the investigation, according to which he had committed suicide, and claim that in reality he was murdered.

The first applicant also complains under Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention that she was unable to participate effectively in the proceedings due to the investigating authority ’ s unjustified refusal to provide her with photocopies of the documents that contained Artak Nazaryan ’ s handwriting samples in order to submit them for an independent expert examination.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Artak Nazaryan ’ s right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 2 of the Con vention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to provide copies of the relevant decisions of the investigating authority to bring charges against the accused in the case as well as copies of decisions to modify the charges against H.M. and H.K. The Government are also requested to provide documentary evidence in relation to the disciplinary isolation of the servicemen of military unit no. 21127 in July and August 2010 (for example, copies of orders, isolation notices, and so on).