Published on 19 June 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 60421/17 Hayk KHANUMYAN against Armenia lodged on 9 August 2017 communicated on 30 May 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

At the material time, the applicant was a Member of Parliament of the unrecognised “Nagorno Karabakh Republic” (“the NKR”). It appears that on 5 June 2016 he delivered a speech criticising the actions of the local military during heavy clashes that had erupted close to the border between the NKR and Azerbaijan in April of the same year.

On 6 June 2016 a group of persons attacked the applicant in public, in Stepanakert – the capital of the NKR – and wrestled him into their car. They then took the applicant to a nearby village where they continued beating him up. Thereafter, their driver brought the applicant back to Stepanakert. The applicant was subsequently hospitalised in the Republican Medical Centre where he was diagnosed with polytrauma.

On the same day a criminal case was instituted by the NKR authorities on account of the applicant’s abduction and assault. On 7 June 2016 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination, according to which he had suffered medium damage to health with long-term effects. His injuries included contusions, abrasions and fractures to his face and body.

The investigator in charge of the criminal case interviewed the applicant’s assailants who all admitted to having assaulted the applicant because they had been furious about his speech of 5 June 2016. They were charged with abduction accompanied with violence dangerous for life or health.

On 5 August 2016 the investigator modified the charges against the perpetrators and qualified their actions as hooliganism, a gross and intentional violation of public order, committed in group and accompanied with infliction of bodily harm. Then, on 26 August 2016 the investigator decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings and to terminate the criminal prosecution against the applicant’s assailants in application of an amnesty.

The applicant appealed against both decisions to no avail. The decisions of the last-instance court in respect of his appeals were taken on 22 February and 10 April 2017.

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the authorities breached their positive obligations under the said Article because they qualified his assailants’ actions as a breach of public order and later applied an amnesty and discharged them.

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 (see Avanesyan v. Armenia , no. 12999/15, §§ 36-37, 20 July 2021; Christian Religious Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the NKR v. Armenia , no. 41817/10, §§ 48-49, 22 March 2022; and Nana Muradyan v. Armenia , no. 69517/11, § 91, 5 April 2022)?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see M.C. v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003 ‑ XII), did the authorities discharge their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment and to bring his assailants to account ( Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine , no. 54755/08, §§ 42-44, 14 November 2013, and Pulfer v. Albania , no. 31959/13, § 83, 20 November 2018)?

The respondent Government are requested to submit the applicant’s medical report drawn up at the Republican Medical Centre following his hospitalisation there on 6 June 2016.