DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE H Ü SEYNOV

The reason for my dissenting from the majority opinion is that, in my view, the present application should have been declared inadmissible as having been introduced outside the six-month time limit.

The respondent Government did not raise in their observations an admissibility objection on that ground, but this could not prevent the Court from examining the matter of its own. The Court has repeatedly stressed that the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is a public-policy one which the Court can, and indeed must, apply even of its own motion (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC] , no. 72508/13, § 247, 28 November 2017, and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC] , nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 138, 20 March 2018).

The majority did touch upon the matter, but confined themselves to stating that “the final domestic decision was taken on 3 January 2011 when the investigator at the Military Prosecutor ’ s Office in Baku terminated the two investigations relating to Manvel Saribekyan ... and that, consequently, the application, introduced some five months later, was lodged in time” (see paragraph 49 of the judgment). Thus, the date when the Azerbaijani investigator terminated the criminal investigation into incitement to suicide (as no third-party involvement in his death had been found) as well as the investigation against him (owing to his passing) was taken by the majority as the starting date for the running of the six-month period. The majority did not provide any explanation as to why the above decision was to be considered a “final decision” within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, it is not clear why the applicants had to await the outcome of those investigations in order to complain before the Court that their son had been tortured while in detention.

It is evident that the term “final decision” in Article 35 § 1 refers exclusively to the final decision in the process of exhaustion of all domestic remedies. In other words, the term “final decision” becomes meaningless if no domestic remedy is available. In this context, considering the decision of 3 January 2011 as the starting point for the running of the six-month period might imply that there was an effective remedy in Azerbaijan. However, the judgment clearly states that there was no remedy in Azerbaijan “capable of providing redress in respect of [the applicants ’ ] Convention complaints and offering reasonable prospects of success” ( see paragraph 48 of the judgment). In a situation where it is clear from the outset that no effective remedy is available in the country, there is no need for an applicant to await any domestic decision in order to lodge a Convention complaint. In such situations, the six-month period runs from the date on which the act complained of took place or the date on which the applicant was directly affected by or became aware of such an act or had knowledge of its adverse effects (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC] , nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 157, ECHR 2009, and Aydarov and Others v. Bulgaria ( dec. ), no. 33586/15, § 90, 2 October 2018 ).

Thus, in this case, it was clear from the outset that there were no effective remedies for the applicants to try in Azerbaijan, and therefore time, for the purposes of calculating the six-month limit, should run from the act (the alleged murder on 4 October 2010), or from the date of knowledge of the alleged violation (4 or 5 November 2010).

The applicants ’ son was found dead on 4 October 2010. Incidentally, on 6 October 2010 the Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandyan , addressing the Armenian Parliament, accused the Azerbaijani authorities of the killing of an Armenian man found hanged in Azerbaijani custody. He described the death of 20-year-old MS as “horrendous” and the result of “terrorist” and “medieval” methods. On the same day the Minister of Defence of Armenia stated that Manvel Saribekyan had been killed intentionally (report by RFE/RL ’ s Armenian Service on 7 October 2010).

The body of Manvel Saribekyan was handed over to the Armenian authorities on 4 November 2010. On 5 November 2010 a criminal investigation was immediately launched in Armenia concerning aggravated murder. Thus, at the latest, the applicants became aware of the alleged violations on 4 or 5 November 2010. Moreover, it is stated in the judgment that during the investigation in Armenia the applicants attested that the body of their son “bore several marks of injuries and torture” ( see paragraph 20 of the judgment). Hence, at the latest by early November the applicants knew of the fact of the violation or violations, and they also knew (or should have known) that no remedy existed in Azerbaijan in respect thereof. Nevertheless they only submitted their application to the Court on 10 June 2011, that is to say, after seven months.