Published on 17 October 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 54676/17 Susanna ANTONYAN against Armenia lodged on 10 July 2017 communicated on 27 September 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son, A.A., as a result of alleged medical malpractice and the domestic proceedings in that respect.

In November 2009 A.A. underwent an examination in the Metropolitan Rehabilitation Centre for Sexual Pathology (“the Centre”), a private clinic. From 17 January to 27 February 2010 A.A. received treatment for infertility in the same clinic.

In late March 2010 A.A. experienced severe deterioration of his health. It appears that an ambulance was called for him three times. A.A. was eventually taken by ambulance to Hospital Complex No. 1 in Vanadzor. He was then transferred to Vanadzor Hospital for Infectious Diseases where he was diagnosed with hepatitis B. On 1 April 2010, being in a state of a coma, he was transferred to Nork Hospital for Infectious Diseases in Yerevan. He died there on 5 April 2010 without having regained consciousness.

On 31 May 2010 the applicant filed a crime report with the Prosecutor General’s Office in relation to A.A.’s death.

On 23 June 2010 criminal proceedings were instituted. It appears that on 15 March 2012 the applicant was recognised as A.A.’s legal heir in the proceedings. The forensic medical examinations carried out during the investigation concluded that A.A. had died from acute liver failure resulting from fulminant hepatitis B.

The applicant alleges that A.A. had contracted the virus while receiving treatment at the Centre.

The criminal proceedings were terminated and subsequently resumed three times. The investigation eventually did not establish any medical malpractice. On 29 February 2016 the investigator decided to terminate the criminal proceedings for the fourth time. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against that decision to the prosecutor and before the courts.

On 30 January 2017 the applicant’s appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation was declared inadmissible for lack of merit.

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the investigation was not accessible to her. She further complains that the investigation failed to determine the circumstances in which A.A. had contracted the virus and the possible omissions of the ambulance emergency crews. Lastly, she complains about the excessive length of the domestic proceedings.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has A.A.’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

In particular, having regard to the procedural obligation to set up an effective and independent judicial system so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, could be determined and those responsible made accountable (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, no. 56080/13, §§ 214-21, 19 December 2017; and Botoyan v. Armenia , no. 5766/17, § 94, and 106-31, 8 February 2022), were the proceedings in the present case effective in terms of enabling the applicant to effectively participate in them and being thorough, prompt and concluded within a reasonable time?