4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Baku. 5.  The applicant’s son, Urkhan Mammadov (U.M.), was born in 1989. On 7 July 2010 he was drafted into the army for his compulsory military service. 6.  At the request of the military authorities, before joining the army, on 21 May 2010 U.M. underwent a medical examination in Narimanov District Polyclinic no. 8, where it was established that he was suffering from rheumatism. In May and June 2010 U.M. underwent further medical examinations at the Central Oil Workers’ Hospital and the Research Institute of Cardiology. During these examinations, no heart disease or any other disease was revealed which might prevent him from performing his military service. 7.  On 6 July 2010 U.M. underwent a medical examination at the Narimanov District Military Commissariat (the army recruitment office) which declared him partially fit for military service (məhdudiyyətlə hərbi xidmətə yararlı) in accordance with Articles 49 (ç) (nasal cavity illness) and 66 (ç) (spine illness) of the “Table of Diseases” (“Xəstəliklər cədvəli”). 8.  On 7 July 2010 U.M. joined a military unit in Barda region and on an unspecified date he was transferred to a military unit located in Shaki region. 9.  On 13 July 2010 U.M. called his family by telephone, asking them to provide him with some belongings. During the conversation he did not complain about his state of health. 10.  At around 10 a.m. on 14 July 2010 the applicant was invited to the Narimanov District Military Commissariat, where he was informed of the death of his son. 11.  It appears from the case file that at around 5 a.m. on 14 July 2010 at reveille in the dormitory of the military barracks U.M. did not wake up. At that moment the soldiers realised that U.M. was wheezing. They took U.M. out of the military barracks and tried to give him artificial respiration. However, as U.M. did not respond, he was immediately taken to the Shaki Central Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. 12.  On 14 July 2010 a record of an inspection of the scene of the incident (hadisə yerinə baxış protokolu) was drawn up and signed by an investigator at the Zagatala Military Prosecutor’s Office. It was further signed by two attesting witnesses (hal şahidi), S.R. and A.F., who were serving in the same military unit, as well as, by a participant (iştirakçı), M.M., who was also serving in the same military unit. The record states that the inspection began at 9 a.m. and ended at noon. According to the record, no object relevant to the investigation was identified. The investigator also noted that U.M.’s bed had been made by other soldiers after U.M.’s transfer to the hospital and the floor of the dormitory had been cleaned with chlorine and kerosene in the morning before the beginning of the inspection. 13.  On 14 July 2010 the Zagatala Military Deputy Prosecutor examined U.M.’s body and drew up a record of this inspection (meyitə baxış keçirilməsi haqqında protokol) in the presence of two experts. It appears from the record that various injuries were found on U.M.’s body. In particular, the following injuries were mentioned in the record: a blue-violet bruise (qançır) of an elongated shape, measuring 8 x 3 cm, on the right side of his lower back; a scratch (cızıq), measuring 0.8 x 0.1 cm, on the left side of his back; a subcutaneous haemorrhage (dəridaxili qansızma), measuring 5.5 x 1 cm, on his upper right hip; and two abrasions (sıyrıq), measuring 0.3 x 0.1 cm and 0.5 x 0.2 cm on the fingers of his left hand. Blood and cell samples were taken from the body and sent for biological and histological forensic examinations. Eighteen photographs of the body were taken during the inspection and were added to the record. The Government provided the Court with a copy of that record, together with black and white versions of these photographs, in which no sign of injury to the body can be seen. The applicant provided the Court with a copy of a colour version of photograph no. 5 added to the record. It appears from this photograph that there was a bruise on the left side of his neck between the ear and the shoulder and a bruise around the left eye. However, there was no mention of such injuries in the record of 14 July 2010. 14.  On 12 August 2010 the two experts who had examined U.M.’s body on 14 July 2010 issued report (akt) no. 21 on the forensic medical examination (meyitin məhkəmə-tibbi müayinəsi) of the body, which was considered as an annex to the record of 14 July 2010. The report was based on the examination of the body on 14 July 2014, as well as on the results of the biological and histological forensic examinations of the samples taken from the body and the opinions of two other specialists. The experts concluded that, taking into consideration that there was no injury which might have caused the death, U.M.’s death had probably resulted from a severe dysfunction of the respiratory system (kəskin tənəffüs çatışmazlığı) caused by swelling of the thymus gland and the development of a brain tumour. As for the injuries found on the body, the experts concluded that they were not related to U.M.’s death. They further found that those injuries had been caused by a hard blunt object, that the abrasions, bruise and haemorrhage were likely to have been inflicted one to three days before the death, and the scratch not more than one week before the death. 15.  It appears from the documents in the case file that on various dates the investigator in charge of the case questioned a number of soldiers of the military unit in which U.M. had served. The soldiers stated that they had never witnessed any case of ill-treatment during their military service. 16.  On 25 August 2010 the investigator ordered a forensic examination. The investigator asked the experts conducting that examination to answer various questions concerning the cause of U.M.’s death and the existence of any relationship between U.M.’s previous health problems and his death. The investigator also asked the experts to establish whether the injuries on U.M.’s body could have been sustained when he had performed physical exercises during his military service or when the soldiers had tried to resuscitate him. 17.  On 24 September 2010 the experts issued forensic report no. k/82, which mainly reiterated the findings of the report of 12 August 2010. The experts concluded that U.M.’s death had probably resulted from severe dysfunction of the respiratory system caused by swelling of the thymus gland and the development of a brain tumour, because there was no potentially lethal injury on his body. They further noted that U.M. had probably been suffering from this disease before joining the army, but it had not been possible to reveal it during the medical examinations. As regards the investigator’s question concerning the origin of the injuries, the experts noted that as they had not examined the body they could not give a clear answer to that question. However, they pointed out that, taking into consideration the morphological characteristics of the injuries, it was possible from the medical forensic point of view that they could have been sustained when U.M. had been performing physical exercises during his military service or when the soldiers had tried to resuscitate him. 18.  On 16 October 2010 an investigator from the Zagatala Military Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with U.M.’s death. Relying on the forensic medical reports, the investigator concluded that the death had probably resulted from severe dysfunction of the respiratory system caused by swelling of the thymus gland and the development of a brain tumour. He further held that, as U.M. had not complained about his state of health and had had no clear symptoms, it had not been possible to establish the existence of this health problem during the medical examinations that U.M. had undergone before joining the army. As regards the injuries on U.M.’s body, the investigator noted that U.M. had never been ill-treated during his military service and that these injuries could have been sustained when U.M. had been performing physical exercises or when the soldiers had tried to resuscitate him. 19.  On 12 November 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ganja Military Court against the investigator’s decision of 16 October 2010, complaining of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation. He disputed the investigator’s conclusions relating to the cause of his son’s death, arguing that U.M. had not been suffering from any disease. In particular, he argued that, if U.M. had really died of the swelling of the thymus gland and a brain tumour, there would have been prior medical symptoms. The applicant further disputed the investigator’s explanation as regards the origin of the injuries found on U.M.’s body. In that connection, he submitted that, although the experts concluded that the injuries were likely to have been inflicted one to three days before the death, the investigator held that the injuries could have been sustained when the soldiers tried to resuscitate U.M. on 14 July 2010. 20.  On 24 November 2010 the Ganja Military Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court reiterated the investigator’s findings as regards the cause of the death and the origin of the injuries found on U.M.’s body. 21.  On 7 December 2010 the applicant appealed against that decision, reiterating his previous complaints. He complained, in particular, that the criminal investigation had failed to establish clearly the cause of his son’s death and the origin of the injuries found on U.M.’s body. 22.  On 24 December 2010 the Shaki Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.