Published on 19 December 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 54266/17 Pertch MARGARYAN against Armenia lodged on 17 July 2017 communicated on 30 November 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son, A. Margaryan, according to the authorities by suicide, during his compulsory military service and the subsequent investigation.

On 24 December 2013 A. Margaryan was drafted into the Armenian army and assigned to military unit no. 38636 of the Nagorno-Karabakh armed forces (“the military unit”, situated in the “Republic of Nagorno ‑ Karabakh” (the “NKR”)).

On 4 December 2014, at around 3:30 pm, A. Margaryan was found with a gunshot injury to his chest in a trench 24 meters away from the sentry post where he was on duty that day.

During the examination of the scene of the incident, the assault rifle assigned to A. Margaryan and one fired cartridge were found. No fired bullet was found.

On the same date the Investigative Committee of Armenia instituted criminal proceedings under Article 110 of the Criminal Code (incitement to suicide) and ordered an autopsy.

On 5 December 2014 the investigator ordered a forensic medical and biological examination, a combined forensic trace (fingerprint) and ballistic examination, and a separate ballistic examination.

On 8 December 2014, following a preliminary internal investigation ordered by the Commander of the NKR Defence Army in connection with the incident, a report was drawn up proposing that, irrespective of the final results of the internal investigation, the latter apply disciplinary penalties in respect of nine commanding officers of the military unit.

On 13 December 2014 the applicant was recognised as A. Margaryan’s legal heir in the criminal proceedings.

On 28 February 2015 the autopsy report was delivered which concluded that A. Margaryan’s death had resulted from traumatic, haemorrhagic shock caused by a penetrating, perforating ballistic injury to the thoracic and abdominal cavities . At the moment of the injury A. Margaryan could have been in any possible position with the front surface of the left side of his chest directed towards the muzzle of the rifle. The bullet trajectory had been front to back, left to right and in downward direction.

On 18 March 2015 the report of the combined forensic trace and ballistic examination was delivered which stated, inter alia , that there were separate, distorted fragments of sweat and grease on different parts of A. Margaryan’s assault rifle but there were no identifiable fingerprints. The cartridge found at the scene of the incident had been shot from the rifle assigned to A. Margaryan.

On 17 November 2015 a post-mortem forensic psychiatric and psychological assessment was sought. According to the ensuing report delivered on 18 January 2016, A. Margaryan had not suffered from any mental illness and had not been in a state of any temporary mental disorder. He had had “strongly pronounced personality traits” and a high degree of maladaptation. He had collided with a reality which had contradicted his internal disposition and feelings. It had led to disharmony between the image of reality and his personal disposition, resulting in cognitive dissonance. He had perceived that as a threat and had committed suicide to protect himself.

On February 2016 the criminal proceedings were terminated. The investigation concluded that A. Margaryan had committed suicide which had had no connection with anyone’s unlawful action.

The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against that decision to the prosecutor and subsequently before the courts.

The applicant’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation on 31 January 2017.

The applicant complains about his son’s death, the investigation carried out by the domestic authorities into the matter and the absence of an effective legal mechanism to claim compensation for death which occurred under the control of the authorities. He relies on Articles 2 and 13 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?

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

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?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to provide copies of the record of the examination of the scene of the incident and of the final report of the internal investigation carried out by the NKR Defence Army.