FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF VARYAN v. ARMENIA
(Application no. 48998/14)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 2 (substantive and procedural) • Positive obligations • Life • Failure to take measures to effectively protect life of conscript carrying out mandatory military service who allegedly committed suicide, against backdrop of severe humiliation, bullying and physical ill-treatment • Lack of specific measures to protect against ill-treatment during military service and to prevent suicide • Domestic authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into circumstances of death
Art 13 (+ Art 2) • Lack of an effective remedy • Legal impossibility of claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the loss of life of one’s child
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
4 June 2024
 
FINAL
 
04/09/2024
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Varyan v. Armenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,
 Tim Eicke,
 Branko Lubarda,
 Armen Harutyunyan,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
 Anne Louise Bormann,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 48998/14) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian national, Mr Vano Varyan (“the applicant”), on 27 June 2014;
the decision to give notice to the Armenian Government (“the Government”) of the applicant’s complaints concerning the ill-treatment and death of his son, the alleged inadequacy of the investigation and the impossibility of claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the State, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 14 May 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son during his military service, allegedly by suicide, and the subsequent investigation. It raises issues primarily under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Abovyan. He was granted legal aid and was represented by Ms A. Chatinyan, a lawyer practising in Vanadzor, and Mr A. Sakunts of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Office. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, and subsequently by Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
background to the case
5. In 2011 the applicant’s son, T. Varyan, aged 18, was conscripted into the Armenian army. 6. The applicant submitted that his son had been found fit for non‑combatant service only, in view of his state of health. The Government disputed this, stating that T. Varyan had been recognised as fit for combatant service. In that connection, they submitted a copy of T. Varyan’s personal file from the military commissariat, from which it can be seen that, as a result of the medical examinations carried out during the conscription procedure, he had been diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse causing mitral valve regurgitation (a heart condition where some blood flows the wrong way because the flaps in the valve between the two chambers on the left-hand side of the heart do not close smoothly or evenly as the heart contracts). The file in question contains the Central Medical Commission’s decision finding him fit for combatant service. 7. T. Varyan was subsequently assigned to military unit no. 38862 of the Nagorno-Karabakh armed forces (“the military unit”, situated in the “Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh” (the “NKR”)). 8. On 29 February 2012 T. Varyan was found dead with a gunshot injury to his lower jaw that had been inflicted by the assault rifle assigned to him. Criminal Investigation into the death of the applicant’s son
9. On 29 February 2012 the Third Garrison Investigation Department of the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Armenia (Martakert, Nagorno-Karabakh) decided to institute criminal proceedings concerning T. Varyan’s death. The decision stated, in so far as is relevant for the present case, the following:
“[A]t around 10 a.m. on 29 February 2012 [T. Varyan], while on duty in ... the base ..., shot himself in the lower jaw with the assault rifle ... assigned to him and died instantly as a result of the ballistic trauma received ...”
10. On the same date the investigator carried out an inspection of the scene of the incident and took photos of it with the body in situ. According to the relevant report, T. Varyan’s body had been discovered on the floor inside the command observation post of the military unit. The assault rifle was pointed at his mouth with a distance of about 2 cm between his mouth and the barrel, and the butt was resting on the floor. There was still bleeding from the mouth and ear canal, the teeth (particularly at the front) were broken, and there was coagulated blood in the nasal cavity, a vertical injury on the bridge of the nose, and wounds beneath the chin and on the front part of the crown of the head. A metal cartridge was discovered next to the assault rifle. The investigator seized the rifle and the cartridge, engaging the safety catch on the former for safety reasons. 11. On the same date the investigator ordered an autopsy. The relevant order stated that T. Varyan had committed suicide and that it was necessary to determine, inter alia, the presence of any injuries on his body, the ballistic characteristics of any injuries and their number, and whether he could have inflicted it (or them) on himself. Questioning of the witnesses
12. On the same date the investigator questioned Junior Sergeant E.S. and Private R.A. (both conscripts), who had been assigned to duty with T. Varyan at the base under Senior Lieutenant H.H.’s command. 13. In his statement Junior Sergeant E.S. affirmed, among other things, that at the end of December 2011, when he, Private R.A. and T. Varyan had been put on duty together, T. Varyan had dirtied the latrine, as a result of which it had become impossible to use it. Senior Lieutenant H.H. had then sworn at T. Varyan and hit him in the chest, causing him to fall on the bed. Senior Lieutenant H.H. had also made T. Varyan sign a written undertaking to dig a new hole for the latrine within a week’s time. Senior Lieutenant H.H. had kept that paper and threatened to show it to the commander of the military unit if T. Varyan failed to comply. On the evening of 28 February 2012 Senior Lieutenant H.H. had again sworn at T. Varyan and hit him. Senior Lieutenant H.H. had then demanded that T. Varyan continue digging the hole for a new latrine the next day. Junior Sergeant E.S. and Private R.A. had then left T. Varyan and Senior Lieutenant H.H. for an hour to cut wood. On the morning of 29 February 2012 at around 9.10 a.m. Senior Lieutenant H.H. had gone up to the base to see T. Varyan and come back around five minutes later. E.S. had then gone to the base at around 9.50 a.m. and discovered the body. At that point Senior Lieutenant H.H. had threatened him and Private R.A. and told them not to tell anyone about the incident of the previous night. 14. Private R.A. stated that T. Varyan had had issues with Junior Sergeant E.S. and Senior Lieutenant H.H. He too stated that there had been an argument on the evening of 28 February 2012 during which Junior Sergeant E.S. had hit T. Varyan once and Senior Lieutenant H.H., who had badly insulted T. Varyan, had also tried to hit him but had been prevented by Private R.A. At around 9 p.m. Private R.A. had come back to the shelter and seen that T. Varyan was very unhappy. When asked why, T. Varyan had merely said that nothing had happened. Private R.A. had then tried to find out what had happened from Senior Lieutenant H.H., who said that nothing had happened and that everything was all right. Private R.A. also stated that T. Varyan had been on duty at the base from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on 29 February 2012. Senior Lieutenant H.H. had gone to the base at around 9.10 a.m. and come back about 10 minutes later. Private R.A. had then heard one shot at around 9.30 a.m., but thought that it was just servicemen from another base training. Junior Sergeant E.S. had gone to the base at 10 a.m. and discovered the body. Before reporting the incident Private R.A., Junior Sergeant E.S. and Senior Lieutenant H.H. had signed the documents on safety rules, which had not been signed for several days. Senior Lieutenant H.H. had asked Private R.A. and Junior Sergeant E.S. to say that T. Varyan had missed his family. Private R.A. added that T. Varyan had been mocked a lot, to the point that he had preferred to be put on watch duty to be away from the servicemen who were mocking him. T. Varyan would perform active duty during the day, doing cleaning, and could take breaks only during the night – a state of affairs that would continue for several days in a row. Private R.A. also described the episode when T. Varyan had been ill-treated because of the latrine (see paragraph 13 above), and an incident in November 2011 when Senior Lieutenant H.H. had kicked T. Varyan in the head and insulted him after finding him asleep when it was time for a shift change. Lastly, Private R.A. recounted that on either 21 or 22 February 2012 Junior Sergeant G.M., an army cook, had beaten up and insulted T. Varyan for not cleaning the kitchen quickly enough. 15. In the course of the investigation a number of servicemen, including officers and conscripts, were questioned. None of them stated that T. Varyan had ever tried to harm himself or expressed any thoughts of doing so. 16. On 1 March 2012 the investigator questioned Junior Sergeant E.S. and Private R.A. again. On that occasion Junior Sergeant E.S. supplemented his earlier statement (see paragraph 13 above) to say that on 27 February 2012 he had pushed T. Varyan and had an argument with him over washing the dishes. Private R.A. also added to his statement to the effect that on 27 February 2012 Junior Sergeant E.S. had hit T. Varyan and sworn at him because of the dishes. He also added that in November 2011 Senior Lieutenant H.H. had beaten up T. Varyan because the latter had refused to give his belt to Senior Lieutenant H.H., who had wanted to cut a small piece from it. Private R.A. and Junior Sergeant E.S. had been there but had not reported that incident to any superior officers. Private R.A. disputed Junior Sergeant E.S.’s statement that in the evening of 28 February 2012 Senior Lieutenant H.H. had hit T. Varyan (see paragraph 13 above) and reiterated his earlier statement to the effect that he had prevented that from happening (see paragraph 14 above). 17. On the same date Senior Lieutenant H.H. was questioned as a witness. He stated, among other things, that T. Varyan would often be on duty instead of Junior Sergeant E.S. and Private R.A. Senior Lieutenant H.H. himself and everyone else would constantly mock T. Varyan because he was slow and naïve. Servicemen called him names, swore at him and took advantage of him because of his naivety, including by making him do the cleaning even if he was not on duty. Senior Lieutenant H.H. conceded that he too bore some responsibility for T. Varyan’s suicide. As regards the day of T. Varyan’s death in particular, he stated that he had woken up at around 9.20 a.m. to be told that T. Varyan could not be found. Soon after, Junior Sergeant E.S. went to the base and returned a minute later saying that T. Varyan had committed suicide. At first he had thought that Junior Sergeant E.S. was joking, but when E.S. repeated his statement, H.H. had immediately gone to the base, where he had found T. Varyan lying on the ground, his head, neck and right shoulder covered in blood. When asked to comment on Private R.A.’s statement (see paragraph 14 above) that he had gone to the base at around 9.10 a.m. that day, Senior Lieutenant H.H. denied that he had done so, insisting that he had only gone up to the base at around 10 a.m. when he had been told that T. Varyan had committed suicide there. 18. On the same date Senior Sergeant V.N. was questioned. He stated that he had been aware of the incident in November 2011 when Senior Lieutenant H.H. had ill-treated T. Varyan because of the belt (see paragraph 16 above). 19. On 2 March 2012 the investigator ordered a forensic fingerprint and ballistic examination. The copy of the relevant order provided by the Government is illegible. 20. On 3 March 2012 the investigator questioned Senior Lieutenant H.H. as a suspect in the case. In addition to his previous statement (see paragraph 17 above), he stated that after the discovery of the body he had decided to make it appear as though T. Varyan had been on duty when he committed suicide, to avoid having to explain his presence at the base when he was supposed to have been off duty. As T. Varyan was without a helmet, belt or the magazine bag, H.H. had returned to the shelter and taken the items in question to the base. Next, he had burnt the military documents concerning hours of duty at base and drafted new ones according to which T. Varyan had been on duty in the base from 8 a.m. until 10 a.m. He had then given the documents, which included safety rules to be observed when on duty, to Private R.A. and Junior Sergeant E.S. so that they could sign their names and had himself signed in T. Varyan’s stead. At around 10 a.m. he had contacted the commander of the unit by radio and reported the death. 21. On the same date Junior Sergeant E.S. was questioned again (see paragraphs 13 and 16 above) as a witness. He stated, in particular, that on the day of the incident Senior Lieutenant H.H. had gone to the base more than once and reported the death only about thirty to forty minutes after the discovery of the body. He also stated that he had lied about his and Private R.A.’s having left the base on the previous evening to cut wood (see paragraph 13 above). In reality he and Private R.A. had gone to another military base on personal business. Junior Sergeant E.S. also added that Senior Lieutenant H.H. would often have inappropriate conversations with T. Varyan during which H.H. would mock him because T. Varyan had told him that he had never been with a girl. 22. On the same date the investigator questioned Junior Sergeant G.M., the unit’s cook (see paragraph 14 in fine above), as a witness. Junior Sergeant G.M. stated that at some point between 15 and 20 February he had grabbed T. Varyan and hit him for not performing his duties in the kitchen properly. He also spoke about an episode one day between 25 and 27 January 2012 when he had witnessed Senior Lieutenant H.H. swearing at T. Varyan and hitting him because, when the former had asked T. Varyan to fetch his hat, the latter had responded that he could not do so at once because his hands were not clean. Senior Lieutenant H.H. had then left the kitchen and T. Varyan had cried. Junior Sergeant G.M. had not reported that incident and did not recall T. Varyan having any visible injuries as a result of it. 23. On the same date a confrontation was held between Junior Sergeant E.S. and Private R.A. during which the latter agreed that in the evening of 28 February 2012 Senior Lieutenant H.H. had also hit T. Varyan (see R.A.’s previous statements on the matter in paragraphs 14 and 16 above). Private R.A. maintained that on 27 and 28 February 2012 Junior Sergeant E.S. had hit T. Varyan several times. He also stated that at around 9 a.m. on 29 February 2012 Senior Lieutenant H.H. had gone to the base. Private R.A. had heard a shot at around 9.20 a.m. and Junior Sergeant E.S. had found the body at around 9.50 a.m. 24. On 4 March 2012 a confrontation was held between Private R.A. and Senior Lieutenant H.H. during which the latter denied that he had gone to the base at around 9 a.m. on 29 February 2012. 25. On the same date a confrontation was held between Junior Sergeant E.S. and Senior Lieutenant H.H. during which the former also maintained that in the morning of 29 February 2012 the latter had gone to the base at around 9 a.m. and returned approximately ten minutes later. In turn, Senior Lieutenant H.H. denied that T. Varyan had been beaten in December 2011 because of the latrine, or in the evening of 28 February 2012 (see paragraphs 13, 16 and 23 above). 26. On 5 March 2012 Captain A.H., an officer from the unit command, was questioned and stated, among other things, that T. Varyan was small, physically underdeveloped and even weak. He was also naïve, and his co‑servicemen used to joke with him. Senior Lieutenant H.H. could not properly manage the staff and military duty was not being organised as it should have been. However, Captain A.H. did not have any specific information and as it was being reported to him that everything was fine he had not taken any measures to find out what was actually going on. He had reported Senior Lieutenant H.H.’s failure in his duties but his superior had not taken any measures in that regard. In Captain A.H.’s view the servicemen had been merely joking with T. Varyan and not mocking him. The charges brought against Senior Lieutenant H.H., Junior Sergeant E.S. and Junior Sergeant G.M. 27. On 6 March 2012 Senior Lieutenant H.H. was charged with abuse of authority (Article 375 § 1 of the former Criminal Code; see paragraph 54 below) and a breach of the rules for carrying out military service (Article 365 § 1 of the former Criminal Code; see paragraph 53 below). 28. On the same date Senior Lieutenant H.H. was questioned as an accused. He admitted that in November 2011 he had beaten T. Varyan for having slept while on duty and that he had beaten him again in the same month because of the belt (see Private R.A.’s statement in that regard in paragraph 16 above). He denied having had an argument with T. Varyan in the kitchen because of the hat (see Junior Sergeant G.M.’s statement in that regard in paragraph 22 above), and having insulted and ill-treated T. Varyan because of the latter having accidentally dirtied the latrine (see paragraph 13 above). He admitted that on the evening of 28 February 2012, the day before the incident, he had sworn at T. Varyan, but denied having hit him that day. 29. On 7 March 2012 Junior Sergeant E.S. was charged with a breach of the rules of military conduct (Article 359 § 1 of the former Criminal Code; see paragraph 52 below). On the same date he was questioned as an accused and, among other things, reiterated his previous statement (see paragraph 13 above) that Senior Lieutenant H.H. had left the shelter to go to the base before the body was discovered. 30. On 12 March 2012 Junior Sergeant G.M. was charged with abuse of authority (Article 375 § 1 of the former Criminal Code; see paragraph 54 below). He was questioned as an accused on the same date and admitted that on 21 February 2012, when T. Varyan was on duty in the kitchen, he had hit him for not having finished the cleaning (see Private R.A.’s statement as summarised in paragraph 14 in fine above). 31. On 19 March 2012 the applicant was recognised as the deceased’s legal heir in the proceedings. The same day he was acquainted with the investigator’s decisions to order forensic expert examinations (see paragraphs 11 and 19 above). The autopsy report and other forensic evidence
32. On 22 March 2012 the investigator ordered a forensic biochemical examination to determine whether there were any traces of blood on T. Varyan’s assault rifle discovered at the scene and, if so, whether they corresponded to T. Varyan’s blood type. 33. On 2 April 2012 the autopsy report (see paragraph 11 above) was received. It stated, in particular, that T. Varyan’s death had been caused by functional brain failure as a result of a perforating ballistic trauma to the head with the bullet entry wound being located in the area beneath the chin and the exit wound on the back of the head behind the forehead. A number of injuries to the skull, chin and mouth areas were attributed to ballistic trauma. The following injuries were also discovered on the body: superficial wounds on the nasal dorsum, and on the parts of the right and left eyelids close to the nose, which had been inflicted with a firm, blunt object (or objects) shortly (seconds) before death and which were not directly linked to the death. 34. On 15 August 2012 a commission of ballistic and medical forensic experts delivered a joint opinion, according to which, inter alia, the ballistic trauma to T. Varyan’s body could have been inflicted by himself or by another person. 35. On 24 August 2012 the charges against Senior Lieutenant H.H. were amended and he was charged with aggravated abuse of authority under Article 375 § 2 of the former Criminal Code (see paragraph 55 below) and a breach of the rules for carrying out military service (Article 365 § 1 of the former Criminal Code; see paragraph 53 below). 36. On an unspecified date in September 2012 the forensic expert who had conducted the autopsy (see paragraphs 11 and 33 above) was questioned by the investigator. The expert was shown the photos taken during the examination of the scene of the incident (see paragraph 10 above) and asked, in particular, whether the non-ballistic injuries present on T. Varyan’s body had been sustained before or after the shot and, if after, whether they could have originated from the shot or the movement of the rifle. In reply, the expert stated that, given the placement and the nature of the injuries, they had most probably been sustained after the shot as a result of bullet deflection. 37. On 15 November 2012 the commission of experts assigned to conduct a posthumous forensic psychiatric examination of T. Varyan delivered their opinion. The relevant parts of the experts’ opinion read as follows:
“... T. Varyan did not suffer from any psychiatric disorder. As a result of continuous humiliation, violence, insults and debasement by fellow servicemen ... at the time of [his death] he had a temporary failure of psychological functioning accompanied by despair [and] low self-esteem ... which was the reason for his committing suicide ... Conclusions:
... The dispute with [Junior Sergeant G.M.] and [G.M.’s] actions in respect of T. Varyan had depressed him but taken alone they would hardly have brought about his suicide. The dispute with [Junior Sergeant E.S.] and [E.S.’s] actions in respect of T. Varyan had depressed him but taken alone they would hardly have brought about his suicide.
[Senior Lieutenant H.H.]’s remarks and violence in respect of T. Varyan could in fact have driven the latter to commit suicide. The actions of [Junior Sergeant G.M.], [Junior Sergeant E.S.] and [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] taken together drove T. Varyan to commit suicide.”
The indictment
38. On 14 January 2013 the case was transferred to the Syunik Regional Court for examination on the merits. The relevant parts of the indictment read as follows:
“... In November 2011 ... [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] ... had kicked Private [T. Varyan] in the head for having slept while on duty in the base ...
... Apart from that, and also in November 2011, [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] ... had an argument with [T. Varyan] because of [the latter’s] non-compliance with the order to dig a hole for a latrine during which he had sworn at [T. Varyan] and punched him in the chest three times...
... As a result of those actions [T. Varyan] shot himself ...
... At around 10 a.m. on 29 February 2012 ... [Junior Sergeant E.S.] went to the base and saw Private [T. Varyan] on the ground with his head bleeding and his rifle on his chest. Having returned to the shelter, he told [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] that Private [T. Varyan] had committed suicide. [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] went to the base and after he came back he took Private [T. Varyan’s] military helmet and his belt (to which the bag with reserve magazines was attached) to the base to make it seem as though [T. Varyan] had been on duty when he committed suicide ... Then [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] burnt the documents [concerning the hours of duty at] the military base and in their place drafted new documents according to which Private [T. Varyan] had been on duty from 8 a.m. until 10 a.m. [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] had [Junior Sergeant E.S.] and [Private R.A.] sign the [newly-drafted documents] and signed in [T. Varyan’s] stead himself ... [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] then told ... [Junior Sergeant E.S.] and ... [Private R.A.] to tell everyone that Private [T. Varyan] had had family issues, because of which he had committed suicide ... On 27 February 2012 ... [Junior Sergeant E.S.] ... had verbally abused and punched Private [T. Varyan] in the chest ... Also, on 28 February 2012 ... [Junior Sergeant E.S.] ... had verbally abused Private [T. Varyan] and punched him in the chest without any justification. On 21 February 2012 ... [Junior Sergeant G.M.] had verbally abused Private [T. Varyan] and punched him in the chest three times ...”
Internal investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s son’s death
39. On 29 February 2012, that is the day of the incident (see paragraph 8 above), the Commander of the Nagorno-Karabakh Defence Army ordered an internal investigation into T. Varyan’s death. A special commission (“the internal commission”) was formed for that purpose. 40. On an unspecified date the internal commission submitted a report to the Commander of the Nagorno-Karabakh Defence Army, based on the results of the internal investigation. The relevant parts of the report read as follows:
“... According to preliminary information [T. Varyan] committed suicide.
... Private [T. Varyan] is described positively ... as having been a disciplined and conscientious serviceman. He was conscripted into the army under medical articles 26(d) [cardiovascular diseases] and 17(b) [physical underdevelopment] [points 26(d) and 17(b) of annex no. 1 to order of the Minister of Defence no. 175 of 26 February 2010] ... [he] did not have any complaints during regular medical check‑ups. An investigation into the matter launched by the Third Garrison Investigation Department of the [Ministry of Defence of Armenia] is underway. Approximately two months before the incident, Private [T. Varyan] had been reprimanded and verbally abused by [Junior Sergeant E.S.] for having slept while on duty in the base ... Within the same time period ... [T. Varyan] had dirtied the ... latrine because of darkness, as a result of which he was humiliated by ... [Junior Sergeant E.S.]. With the active participation of the latter, and in compliance with the order of [Senior Lieutenant H.H.], ... Private [T. Varyan] started to dig a hole for a latrine in another area.
[Two days before the incident] ... [Junior Sergeant E.S.] had verbally abused [T. Varyan] for not keeping the base clean enough ... [and] had punched him in the chest and made him clean the area again. At around 9 p.m. on 28 February ... [Senior Lieutenant H.H verbally abused T. Varyan]. In reply to the threats, Private [T. Varyan] did not say anything. Continuing with the argument [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] added that it was his [Senior Lieutenant H.H.’s] own fault that [Private T. Varyan] had not finished digging the hole for the latrine until then and demanded that he continued digging the next day ... According to the testimony provided by [Junior Sergeant E.S.] and [Private R.A.], at around 9 a.m. on 29 February 2012, that is to say on the day of the incident, ... [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] went to the base where Private [T. Varyan] was on duty and came back to the shelter ten minutes later. Approximately ten to fifteen minutes later a shot was heard. Everybody went up to the base and discovered Private [T. Varyan’s] body. Afterwards ... [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] ordered the staff not to tell anyone of the events preceding Private [T. Varyan’s] suicide and say that he had committed suicide because of a girl he had liked ... According to [Senior Lieutenant H.H.’s] report, he had not gone to the base on the day of the incident ... It was revealed that [T. Varyan] did not have any authority, and was often mocked and humiliated. [Junior Sergeant E.S.] was particularly active in [that].
... The internal investigation has uncovered the following shortcomings:
- ... [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] failed to organise military duty, leaving it [to be arranged] without any supervision. As a result of his inactivity, criminal behaviour started to become prevalent among the servicemen; the degree of culpability on the part of [Junior Sergeant E.S.] and [Private R.A.] in [T. Varyan’s] suicide is particularly significant.
- the duty schedule was often not respected, and Private [T. Varyan] was put on duty instead of ... [Junior Sergeant E.S.] and ... [Private R.A.] ...
- the command of the military unit describes [Senior Lieutenant H.H.] negatively, yet he has never been reprimanded ...
... The following [factors] contributed to [T. Varyan’s] suicide:
- being naturally weak and lacking in confidence, he had fallen under the influence of servicemen who had ‘authority’ in the sub-unit and became a victim of abuse ...
- the verbal abuse and reprimand by [Junior Sergeant E.S.] for having slept at the base;
- constant humiliation and being sworn at by [Junior Sergeant E.S.] ...;
- an unfair distribution of [duties] resulting in [T. Varyan] constantly being assigned to heavy physical work ...;
- the shatter[ing] of [T. Varyan’s] authority [as a result of the above-mentioned factors, which] brought about the decision to end his own life ... The incident took place as a result of ... poor supervision by the military unit command ... the servicemen are governed by the rules of the street and there are cases of humiliation and debasement of servicemen ... some types of work are considered shameful and undignified, which results in the prevalence of the law of ‘the strong and the weak’, [so that], as a rule, those types of work are performed by the ‘weak’.”
41. On 13 March 2012 the Minister of Defence of Armenia issued an order based on the results of the internal investigation (see paragraph 40 above) whereby the commander of the military unit, his deputy and the chief of the unit’s artillery were reprimanded in relation to the incident. The chief of the unit’s artillery was transferred to the reserve. The relevant parts of the order read as follows:
“[T. Varyan] was conscripted on the basis of points 26(d) and 17(b) [of annex no. 1 to order of the Minister of Defence no. 175 of 26 February 2010] ...
... the incident could possibly have been prevented if:
... (3) the ‘Suicide and self-mutilation prevention’ ... group had carried out specific preventive work with servicemen;
... (6) conflicts and lack of sympathy between servicemen had been prevented by the superior officer at the base and reported to the command;
... (9) ... [T. Varyan] had not been subjected to constant abuse by co-servicemen and his direct commander ... (10) the relevant officials had investigated in a timely manner the fact of [T. Varyan’s] being physically weak, self-isolated and lacking confidence, and had taken preventive measures;
(11) there had been a proper moral environment and the servicemen had not been governed by non-statutory and street morals; there had been no episodes of humiliation and debasement of servicemen; ... and ‘weak’ servicemen had not been the only ones to be assigned chores ...”
trialThe first-instance trial

42. On an unspecified date, the trial of Senior Lieutenant H.H. and Junior Sergeants E.S. and G.M. commenced at the Syunik Regional Court sitting in Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh (“the Regional Court”). 43. In the course of the trial the prosecutor requested that the charges against Junior Sergeant G.M. (see paragraph 30 above) be reclassified under the recently adopted Article 358.1 § 2 of the former Criminal Code (see paragraph 51 below). 44. At the trial the applicant argued that the investigation into his son’s death had not been effective in that the circumstances of his death had not been properly established. The applicant submitted in particular that it had not been determined that his son had indeed committed suicide rather than having been killed by another person or persons. In addition, there were significant discrepancies between the facts as established in the report following the internal investigation (see paragraph 40 above) and the version of the events described in the indictment (see paragraph 38 above). 45. On 6 August 2013 the Regional Court found Senior Lieutenant H.H. guilty as charged (see paragraph 35 above) and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment. Junior Sergeants E.S. and G.M. were also found guilty as charged (see paragraphs 29 and 43 above) and both sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. Senior Lieutenant H.H. and Junior Sergeants E.S. and G.M. all refused to testify during the trial. The Regional Court found the facts as described in the bill of indictment (see paragraph 38 above) to have been established. It concluded, in particular, that Senior Lieutenant H.H.’s behaviour and actions towards T. Varyan had negligently caused the latter’s suicide, that Junior Sergeant E.S. had ill-treated T. Varyan both verbally and physically on 27 and 28 February 2012 and that Junior Sergeant G.M. had verbally and physically abused T. Varyan on 21 February 2012 (see paragraph 38 above). The applicant’s appeals
46. The applicant lodged an appeal, arguing, in particular, that the proceedings had not brought to light all the circumstances of T. Varyan’s death or led to the punishment of those responsible for it, including the command staff of the military unit. The applicant argued in detail that a number of important facts pertaining to the death had not been established during the investigation such as, inter alia, the location of the body and the time of death. He also reiterated his argument that there were significant discrepancies between the internal investigation report and the way in which the facts had been established during the criminal investigation (see paragraph 44 above). 47. On 28 October 2013 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment. As regards the arguments raised by the applicant in his appeal, the Court of Appeal stated the following:
“It has been established during the investigation and court examination of the criminal case that T. Varyan died as a result of suicide and not murder; all possible investigative and procedural measures have been employed in order to investigate the crime and those responsible have been held criminally liable.”
48. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision, raising similar arguments to those submitted in his previous appeal. 49. On 27 December 2013 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
criminal code
50. The relevant provisions of the former Criminal Code (in force until 1 July 2022) were as follows. 51. Article 358.1 § 2 provided that beating a subordinate or carrying out other acts of violence in respect of a subordinate, or threatening to do so, in relation to the performance of duties linked to military service was punishable by restriction of advancement in military service for a period of one to three years, detention for one to three months, military confinement for a period of up to three years or a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. 52. Article 359 § 1 provided that breaches of the rules of military conduct by servicemen in the absence of a subordinate relationship between them, in the form of humiliation, bullying, beating or other acts of violence, was punishable by military confinement for up to two years or a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. 53. Article 365 § 1 provided that breaches of combat duty or rules for carrying out military service which were directed at the timely prevention of an unexpected attack on the Republic of Armenia or at ensuring the security of the Republic of Armenia, if such breaches had negligently caused damage or a threat thereof, were punishable by military confinement for a period of up to three years, restriction of advancement in military service for a period of one to two years or a maximum of three years’ imprisonment. 54. Article 375 § 1 provided that abuse of authority or a public position, the exceeding of public authority, and omissions by a superior or public official, if such acts were committed for selfish ends, personal interest or in the interests of a group and resulted in grave damage, were punishable by imprisonment for a period of two to five years. 55. In accordance with Article 375 § 2, where the above-mentioned offence had negligently produced serious consequences, it was punishable by imprisonment for a period of three to seven years with or without confiscation of property.
code of criminal procedure
56. The relevant provisions of the former Code of Criminal Procedure (in force until 1 July 2022) were as follows. 57. Under Article 114 § 2, an expert could be questioned with a view to clarifying his or her opinion. The record of the expert’s questioning could not replace his or her opinion (Article 114 § 3). 58. Under Article 252 § 1, if the expert opinion was not sufficiently clear and contained gaps which could be filled without additional examination, or if there was a need to clarify the methods applied and terminology used, the investigator could question the expert in accordance with the rules applicable to the questioning of witnesses. Right to compensation
59. The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning compensation for damage, as in force at the material time, are set out in Mirzoyan v. Armenia (no. 57129/10, §§ 46-50, 23 May 2019). Law establishing the Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia («ՀՀ զինված ուժերի ներքին ծառայության կանոնագիրքը հաստատելու մասին» ՀՀ օրենք)
60. The Law establishing the Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia (“the Internal Service Regulations”), which was enacted on 3 December 1996, is the principal legal instrument regulating military service in the Armenian armed forces (see also Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, § 86, 8 November 2022). 61. Section 6 of the Internal Service Regulations provides that service personnel are under the protection of the State. Their life, health, honour and dignity are protected by law. Discrediting, threatening, using violence against or encroaching on the life, health and property of service personnel and other actions hindering the performance of their duties and breaching their rights give rise to liability as prescribed by law. 62. Section 11 provides that during the performance of military service, and, if necessary, also outside that service, servicemen have the right to keep, carry, deploy and use weapons. The rules for keeping, carrying, deploying and using weapons are set out in the Internal Service Regulations. Section 11 goes on to list the specific cases when servicemen, as a matter of last resort, have the right to use weapons, including to protect the life and limb of other servicemen and civilians from an attack. 63. Section 12 states, among other things, that weapons should be deployed with prior warning, except in specific cases (set out in the same section). When deploying and using weapons, a serviceman must take all measures necessary to ensure the safety of any civilians in the surrounding area and, if required, provide emergency medical assistance to anyone who is injured.
order of the minister of defence no. 175 of 26 February 2010 (ՀՀ պաշտպանության նախարարի 2010թ․ փետրվարի 26-ի թիվ 175 հրամանը զինապարտների բժշկական եվ զինծառայողների ռազմաբժշկական փորձաքննության կարգը հաստատելու մասին)
64. This order, which has ceased to be in force since 11 June 2013, set out the procedure for, inter alia, medical examinations of individuals subject to mandatory conscription with a view to determining their fitness for military service. It stated, among other things, that medical and military medical commissions were to carry out the relevant examinations in accordance with the annexes to the order (point 2). The Central Medical Commission’s decisions concerning conscripts were final (point 29). The Central Military Medical Commission’s functions included, among other things, deciding to confirm or refuse the conclusions of subordinate examination bodies, as well as, when necessary, decisions concerning the examination of military servicemen and persons subject to conscription. 65. Annex no. 1 to this order set out an extensive list of illnesses and physical impairments with corresponding decisions to be taken by the relevant medical and military medical commissions. Point 17(b) of annex no. 1 stated that in cases of physical underdevelopment, if an individual’s weight was more than 45 kg and his height was more than 150 cm, he was fit for combatant service. Point 26 of annex no. 1 to the order concerned various heart and heart-related conditions. In accordance with point 26(d), individuals who had such a condition that did not cause haemodynamic impairment were fit for non-combatant service. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
66. The applicant complained about the death of his son during compulsory military service, and asserted that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. He relied on Article 2 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.”
AdmissibilityJurisdiction

67. The Government submitted that Armenia’s jurisdiction should be acknowledged on the basis of the exception of “State agent authority and control”, as all the acts complained of were attributable to the Armenian authorities. In particular, the investigation into the circumstances of T. Varyan’s death, as well as the subsequent judicial proceedings, had been conducted by the Armenian authorities. 68. The applicant submitted that the matters complained of fell within Armenia’s jurisdiction. 69. The Court notes that it has previously examined the issue of Armenia’s jurisdiction in other cases concerning fatalities during military service in Nagorno-Karabakh and found that there was a jurisdictional link for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention between Armenia and individuals who had died while performing military service in the territory in question (see Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, §§ 123-27, 24 November 2016; Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, §§ 86-92, 5 April 2022; Dimaksyan v. Armenia, no. 29906/14, §§ 43 and 44, 17 October 2023; and Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan v. Armenia, no. 67351/13, §§ 59-63, 17 October 2023, concerning the deaths of conscripts during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh; and compare Mirzoyan v. Armenia no. 57129/10, §§ 55-56, 23 May 2019, concerning the murder of a conscript during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh). 70. The applicant’s son died on 29 February 2012 in a military unit situated in the “NKR” (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above). The Court notes that the facts of the case took place prior to the changes in the situation on the ground as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh war, which ended on 10 November 2020 with Azerbaijan capturing all the surrounding territories and part of the “NKR” proper and with the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the area (see Nana Muradyan, cited above, § 91) and a further change in the situation on the ground in September 2023 as a consequence of the nine-month blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, the subsequent actions of Azerbaijan and the exodus of the Armenian population of Nagorno‑Karabakh. The Court therefore finds no particular circumstances in the present case that would require it to depart from its findings in the cases cited in paragraph 69 above. It therefore considers that there was a jurisdictional link for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention between Armenia and the applicant’s deceased son in the present case on the ground that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories at the material time (see, for example, Dimaksyan, § 44, and Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan, § 62, both cited above). Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and compliance with the six‑month rule
71. In their further observations, dated 11 October 2017, made in reply to those of the applicant, the Government submitted that he had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had failed to bring a civil claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and that, if he had considered that that was not an effective remedy, he should have lodged his application within six months from the date of the publication of the results of the internal investigation. In that connection, the Government argued that the starting-point for the calculation of the six-month period should be 13 March 2012 (see paragraph 41 above). 72. The Court notes that, under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party, in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allow, in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application. Any omission by the Government to raise such objections in their initial observations on the admissibility of the case may lead the Court to conclude that they are estopped from raising those objections at a later stage in the proceedings (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 51-54, 15 December 2016). 73. In their observations of 11 April 2017 on the admissibility and merits of the present application the Government raised an objection as to non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see paragraph 138 below), whereas the question of a failure by the applicant to exhaust the domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and of his compliance with the six-month time-limit, were raised for the first time in their further observations of 11 October 2017, which were submitted in reply to those of the applicant (see paragraph 71 above). 74. The Court notes that the Government have previously raised similar objections in other cases concerning fatalities in the army (see, for example, Nana Muradyan, cited above, § 101; Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, § 92, 8 November 2022; and Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan, cited above § 64). However, they did not explain why in the present case their objections were not raised in their first written observations on the admissibility of the application nor have they provided any explanation for the delay in raising the objections. The Court finds no exceptional circumstance capable of exempting them from their obligation to raise an objection to admissibility in a timely manner. 75. The Court reiterates that its usual practice - where a case has been communicated to the respondent government - is not to declare the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies unless the matter has been raised by the Government in their observations (see Y v. Latvia, no. 61183/08, § 40, 21 October 2014, with further references). Having regard to the fact that the Government failed to raise their preliminary objections in a timely manner (see paragraph 74 above), they are estopped from raising an objection that the applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in respect of the complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 195-96, ECHR 2012, and Khlaifia and Others, cited above, §§ 53-54). Their objection must accordingly be dismissed. On the other hand, although the Government did not raise an objection concerning the application of the six-month time-limit in the first round of observations on the admissibility and merits of the instant case (see paragraph 73 above), the Court can, and indeed must, apply – even of its own motion - the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as it is a public‑policy one (see, mutatis mutandis, Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 247, 28 November 2017, with further references). That being said, and in so far as the Government argued that the six-month period in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention should be calculated from 13 March 2012, the date on which the order of the Minister of Defence had been adopted imposing disciplinary measures following an internal investigation into the incident in question (see paragraph 41 above), the Court observes that it has recently examined whether such orders issued by the Minister of Defence in cases involving fatalities in the army could be considered a “final decision” within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and concluded that they did not (see Ashot Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 35814/14, §§ 69-71, 11 October 2022; Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan, cited above, §§ 95-99; and Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan, cited above, § 67). The Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present case. Furthermore, it has no reason to consider that the criminal proceedings regarding the circumstances of T. Varyan’s death were an ineffective remedy in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court observes in this connection that the final decision in those proceedings was delivered by the Court of Cassation on 27 December 2013 (see paragraph 49 above), and that the applicant lodged his application on 27 June 2014, that is, in compliance with the six-month rule. The Court therefore finds that the application was not lodged out of time. Other grounds for inadmissibility
76. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsThe parties’ submissions

(a)   The applicant
77. The applicant submitted that his son had committed suicide while he was performing mandatory military service under the exclusive control of the State authorities, which, he argued, had failed to protect his right to life, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention. 78. The applicant further submitted that his son had been subjected to constant physical and psychological ill-treatment which had led to his suicide. Furthermore, there had been a lack of discipline in the military unit which had resulted in a failure to organise the performance of military duty properly and an unhealthy environment where both fellow conscripts and superior officers had taken advantage of opportunities to mock T. Varyan and humiliate him on a regular basis. In addition, although the applicant’s son had been found fit for non-combat service only (see paragraph 6 above), he had been put on watch duty at the military base – often instead of his co‑servicemen – and forced to do hard physical work. As a result, his son had been put under heavy physical and psychological pressure, which could have been the reason for his having fallen asleep while on duty. That had been another occasion on which he had been ill-treated. 79. As regards the investigation into the matter, the applicant argued that it had failed to clarify the real circumstances of his son’s death and to lead to the identification of all those responsible. The only hypothesis that had been put forward had been that of suicide. A number of important points had been disregarded, including the fact that, despite having been found fit for non‑combatant duty only, T. Varyan had been assigned heavy manual labour. As a result, those who had involved him in such activities had not been identified and held accountable. (b)   The Government
80. The Government submitted that, as had been confirmed by all the witnesses questioned during the investigation, T. Varyan had never talked about committing suicide and had never exhibited any warning signs (see paragraph 15 above). They referred to T. Varyan’s medical examinations at the time of his conscription, which had not revealed any particular psychological problems, as well as reports on his personal characteristics drawn up during his military service, in which T. Varyan was described as a diligent and responsible serviceman who did not have any bad habits. 81. While, admittedly, T. Varyan’s suicide had been provoked by the actions of Senior Lieutenant H.H. and Junior Sergeants E.S. and G.M., the decision to commit suicide had been rapid and instantaneous and therefore the commanding staff of the military unit had not known and could not have known of such a risk. 82. With reference to Articles 359 § 1 and 375 § 1 of the former Criminal Code (see paragraphs 52 and 54 above) and section 6 of the Internal Service Regulations (see paragraph 61 above), the Government submitted that the relevant domestic regulations provided effective law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of any breaches of the right to life, as well as both preventive and punitive measures in order to secure the safety and protection of military servicemen. 83. Turning to the investigation into the matter, the Government submitted that it had been prompt, independent, adequate and accessible to the victim party. 84. As to the adequacy of the investigation in particular, the Government referred to the vast number of witness interviews (see, for example, paragraphs 13-18, 20-22 and 26 above) and the several confrontations that had been held in order to throw light on the discrepancies between the statements of the accused (Senior Lieutenant H.H. and Junior Sergeants E.S. and G.M.) and the main witness, Private R.A. (see paragraphs 23-25 above), as well as the various forensic expert examinations that had been carried out (see, for instance, paragraphs 19, 32 and 37 above). 85. As regards, specifically, the non-ballistic injuries discovered on T. Varyan, the Government submitted the record of the questioning of the forensic medical expert who had conducted the autopsy (see paragraph 36 above), during which he had stated that the non-ballistic injuries described in the autopsy report had been caused by the nose and the base of the skull coming into contact with the rifle. 86. Lastly, concerning the forensic ballistic and medical examination which had found that T. Varyan’s ballistic trauma could have been inflicted by himself or by another person (see paragraph 34 above), the Government submitted that the investigation had established, from the entire body of the evidence gathered, that T. Varyan had committed suicide. Taking into account the location of the firearm injury and the fact that no other injuries had been discovered on the body, the Government found it quite unbelievable that someone could have shot T. Varyan at such close range without his putting up any resistance.

Outcome for Article 13: violation