Published on 3 January 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 13866/17 Murad KHACHATRYAN against Armenia lodged on 3 February 2017 communicated on 9 December 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son, G.K., during his compulsory military service in Armenia.

On 10 August 2013 G.K. was drafted into the Armenian army.

From 9 to 20 June 2014 G.K. was put on guard duty.

On 20 June 2014 at 10.35 a.m. G.K. was found dead in a defence position trench with a gunshot injury to the right side of his head, inflicted with his service gun. During the examination of the scene of the incident it was established that the gun had been in full fire mode.

On the same date criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 104 § 1 of the Criminal Code (murder).

According to the autopsy report, G.K. had died from serious malfunction of vital functions of the brain as a result of perforating ballistic trauma to the head.

The internal investigation into the circumstances of G.K.’s death carried out by the Ministry of Defence established breaches in the organisation of duty service on 20 June 2014 and concluded that the commanding officers had failed to ensure a safe environment for the servicemen under their supervision. On 18 July 2014, based on the results of the internal investigation, the Minister of Defence issued an order imposing disciplinary penalties on a number of commanding officers of the military unit.

On 20 June 2015 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of corpus delicti . The investigation found it established that G.K’s death had resulted from self-inflicted ballistic injuries due to failure to observe the rules for handling weapons.

The applicant appealed, arguing that the investigation into his son’s death had not been effective. He argued that the hypothesis of a breach of the rules for handling weapons had not been properly substantiated while other hypotheses such as murder or suicide had not been considered. Referring to the results of the internal investigation, the applicant further complained that the investigation had not addressed the issue of the criminal responsibility of the command of the military unit. By decision of 18 February 2016 the Ararat and Vayots Dzor Regional Court dismissed his appeal. On 20 April 2016 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation on 3 August 2016.

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the State failed to protect the life of his son during military service. In this connection, he submits that the senior military officials in charge of the military unit failed in their duty to train and supervise properly the military personnel under their control. He further complains under the same provision and Article 13 of the Convention that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into his son’s death, because none of the military officials in charge of the military unit were held responsible for poor supervision and improper training of personnel on the rules for handling weapons.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

In particular, having regard to the State’s positive obligation to protect the right to life, was there a violation of that provision in the instant case having regard to the manner in which G.K.’s military service was organised (see Kılınç and Others v. Turkey , no. 40145/98, §§ 40-41, 7 June 2005; Mosendz v. Ukraine , no. 52013/08, §§ 91-92, 17 January 2013; and Mirzoyan v. Armenia , no. 57129/10, § 70, 23 May 2019)?

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 the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169‑82, 14 April 2015; Mosendz , cited above, §§ 94-95; and Muradyan v. Armenia , no. 11275/07, §§ 133-36, 24 November 2016)? In particular, were the issues concerning the responsibility of the military unit command for the incident of 20 June 2014 resulting in G.K.’s death adequately addressed during the investigation?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to provide a full copy of the report issued by the Ministry of Defence on the basis of the results of the internal investigation into the incident of 20 June 2014.