Today, on November 30, 2021, the ECHR published the case of Derenik Mkrtchyan and Gayane Mkrtchyan vs Armenia.

Derenik G., aged 10, was a fourth-grade pupil at School No. 5 in Charentsavan. On 5 June 2010 he had a mathematics examination. While the teacher was away, the pupils had a fight, as a result of which Derenik G. was beaten up by two of his classmates, I.H. and V.H., who were brothers. During the fighting, Derenik G. and other pupils screamed loudly. Having heard the noise, the janitor entered the classroom. Thereafter, the form teacher and other teachers came in. They found Derenik G. lying unconscious on the floor. Derenik G. was already dead when he was admitted to hospital.

the Court considers that there are insufficient elements in the evidence before it to conclude that the school’s authorities failed to comply with their obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to provide the requisite standard of protection for Derenik G.’s life. Consequently, there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive limb.

the Court is of the view that the investigation into the circumstances of the school incident which resulted in the death of Derenik G. fell short of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. In view of that conclusion, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine whether the other aspects of the investigation met the requirements of the Convention. There has accordingly also been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

Those the Court,

• Holds, by five votes to two, that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive limb;
• Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural limb;
• Holds, unanimously, that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 24,000 (twenty-four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?fbclid=IwAR3dtAwfZ3EF-xC1Mv05DEwnZNZViKXejfMPtAgz8rQwO8cslmfZ1aVxBAI#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-213519%22]}

Today, on November 4, 2021, the ECHR published the case of Petrosyan vs Azerbaijan.

The applicant, Artush Petrosyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Chinari (Armenia). His son, Karen Petrosyan, born in 1981, lived with him in Chinari, close to the border with Azerbaijan. On 7 August 2014 his son crossed the border into Azerbaijan and was captured by the Azerbaijani armed forces. He died while in captivity. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention, the applicant complains that his son was tortured and killed in illegal detention, that his body was not repatriated in a timely manner, that there was no effective investigation and that the alleged violations occurred as a result of discrimination based on ethnic origin. Violation of Article 2 (investigation and right to life) Violation of Article 3 in respect of Karen Petrosyan Violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 40,000 costs and expenses: EUR 8,37

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus#{%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-212965%22]}

Today, on November 4, 2021, the ECHR published the cases of Mamikon Khojoyan and Karen Petrosyan, imprisoned (arrested) respectively on January 28, 2014 and 07.08.2014 by Azerbaijani officials.

The applicants, Hasmik Khojoyan, Heghine Vardazaryan and Haykaz Khojoyan (now deceased), are three Armenian nationals who were born in 1964, 1967 and 1959, respectively. The case concerns the captivity and alleged ill-treatment of the applicants’ father, Mamikon Khojoyan, in Azerbaijan in early 2014. The applicants’ father left his home in Armenia, close to the border with Azerbaijan on the morning of 28 January 2014. It was reported in the Azerbaijani news two days later that he was an armed guide of an Armenian sabotage group and was being detained. He was handed over to the Armenian authorities on 4 March 2014 and died at home ten weeks later. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants allege that their father was tortured during his captivity, including severe beatings, being burnt with incandescent metal and drug injections, which had posed a danger to his life and which had not been investigated, that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty, that they did not have an effective legal remedy and that the alleged violations occurred as a result of discrimination based on ethnic origin. Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Mamikon Khojoyan Violation of Article 2 (investigation) in respect of Mamikon Khojoyan Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) on account of Mamikon Khojoyan’s torture No violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants Violation of Article 5 in respect of Mamikon Khojoyan Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: 40,000 euros (EUR) jointly to the applicants costs and expenses: the Court rejected the applicants’ claim for costs and expenses

The applicant, Artur Badalyan, is an Armenian national who was born in in 1978 and lives in
Haghartsin in the Tavush region of Armenia.
The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the Azerbaijani forces arrested him near the border
between Armenia and Azerbaijan and held him captive for 22 months.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Convention,
Mr Badalyan alleges that he was ill-treated during his detention, leaving him with serious
mental-health issues upon his release.
Also relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that his detention was unlawful. He
argues in particular that as a civilian and not a prisoner of war he should have been immediately
released or informed of the reasons for his detention in a language that he understood, brought
before a judge and given the possibility to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.
Violation Article 3
Violation of Article 5
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 30,000

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22docname%22:[%22Badalyan%20v%20Azerbaijan%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-211103%22]}