I incorrectly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in OHANJANYAN v. ARMENIA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2022-10-20
• Communication date: 2018-05-30
• Application number(s): 70665/11
• Country:   ARM
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 2, 2-1
• Conclusion:
  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations
  Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
• Result: No violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.848448
• Prediction: Violation

• Inconsistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Suren Ohanjanyan, was an Armenian national who was born in 1953 and died in 2017.
He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Shushanyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 November 2006 the applicant’s son, Tigran Ohanjanyan, was drafted into the Armenian Army.
He was assigned to military unit no.
55261 in Lusakert, Armenia.
On 14 May 2007 Tigran Ohanjanyan was transferred to military unit no.
28418 (‘the military unit’) in Kartchaghbyur village in Gegharkunik, Armenia.
According to the official version, which was disputed by the applicant, on 30 August 2007 at 10.30 p.m. Tigran Ohanjanyan had left the artillery after the evening call-up, to go to the backup checkpoint of nearby military unit no.
28233.
On the way, his neck and left wrist accidentally came into contact with the guy wires of the antenna mast of the R-419 radio relay station of military unit no.
28233; he was electrocuted and died instantly.
Junior sergeant A.G., who was on duty at the checkpoint, had heard strange sounds coming from the signal corps of military unit no.
28233 and walked in the direction of the sounds.
Having reached the territory surrounding the signal corps, A.G. had found Tigran Ohanjanyan lying on the ground under the metal guy wires of the R-419 radio relay station antenna mast.
Thinking that Tigran Ohanjanyan was unwell, A.G. called for help.
A number of servicemen came, including feldsher H.S.
who tried to provide first aid to Tigran Ohanjanyan.
Having established that Tigran Ohanjanyan was dead, H.S.
organised his transfer to Vardenis garrison military hospital.
At 11.35 p.m. Tigran Ohanjanyan’s body was received at the hospital.
After being confirmed dead, his body was transferred to Yerevan for an autopsy.
On the same day Vardenis Military Police officers visited the scene of the incident.
Since it was night-time, they did not perform an inspection of the scene of the incident but performed a check for electrical current in the R-419 radio relay station telescopic mast guy-wire and a protocol was drawn up.
According to the protocol, the telescopic mast guy-wire had shown a 180-volt electrical current when the R-419 radio relay station was switched on.
On 31 August 2007 prosecutor G.M.
of the Sevan Garrison Military Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 376 § 2 of the Criminal Code for negligence towards military service.
The decision stated in particular the following: “... On 30 August 2007 at around 23.20 ... [Tigran Ohanjanyan’s] body was taken to Vardenis garrison hospital.
The inspection of the corpse has revealed roundish, abrasion-like injuries 15 and 4 centimetres long on the right part of the neck.
Another injury of a diameter of about 0.2 centimetres has been discovered on the outer surface of [Tigran Ohanjanyan’s] left hand index finger.
Taking into account that the materials contain elements of a crime provided for in Article 376 § 2 of the Criminal Code ...” On the same date the Sevan Garrison Military Prosecutor requested the relevant officials of the Ministry of Defence to carry out an inspection at the scene of the incident to find out the reason for the presence of an electrical current in the antenna guy-wires and whips.
On the same date senior prosecutor G.M.
of the Sevan Garrison Military Prosecutor’s Office took over the investigation of the case.
On the same date G.M.
performed an inspection of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s body in Vardenis garrison military hospital in the presence of attesting witnesses and a military doctor.
The following was recorded: “... there is vomited substance on the left thigh part of the trousers ... Two roundish abrasions parallel to each other are present on the right half of the neck ... the upper abrasion is 11.5 [centimetres] long.
The other one [is] 4 [centimetres long].
There is an abrasion ... on the [second] finger of the left hand ... there is also a circular abrasion with uneven edges in the same place ... No other bodily injuries have been found ...” On the same date the Chief of the Military Medical Department of the Ministry of Defence received the following telephone report: “... there is a small abrasion and a bruise on the outer part of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s left hand, two abrasions on the right part of the neck, one of which is 15 centimetres and the other one 3 centimetres long ... which look like the result of a burn ... [Tigran Ohanjanyan] could have received an electric shock immediately after the call‐up, having accidentally touched the metal wires of the signal corps antenna ... of neighbouring military unit no.
28233.
The body of [Tigran Ohanjanyan] was discovered in an unconscious state by ... A.G. who had immediately informed [the officer on duty].
A.G. had mechanically touched with his right palm the fastening wire, as a result of which he had received an electric shock and fallen down but he had not sustained any injury.
According to preliminary information [Tigran Ohanjanyan] possibly died as a result of an electric shock...” By decision of the same date G.M.
ordered a forensic medical examination of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s body to determine, inter alia, the cause of the latter’s death, the presence of any injuries on his body and whether, after having received the injuries, he would have been able to perform certain actions such as moving, shouting, and so on.
The applicant was present during the autopsy and took pictures of the body before the doctor started the procedure.
On the same date G.M.
examined the scene of the incident.
A relevant record was drawn up.
On the same date senior lieutenant K.K.
presented to a military police officer, in the military unit, a military uniform, hat and belt with a buckle and stated that the items of clothing had belonged to Tigran Ohanjanyan.
A relevant record was drawn up according to which, in particular, the left and right armholes of the outerwear were ripped, there were traces of vomit on the collar and down the chest, and the coat of arms had been ripped from the outer pocket of the sleeve.
Junior sergeant A.G. was interviewed on the same date.
He stated, inter alia, the following: “...
I have been assigned to military unit no.
28233 ...
I was on duty [on 30 August 2007] from [10 p.m.] until 1 a.m. ... At around [11 p.m.] I heard a sound in the bushes ... in the direction of the signal corps of military unit no.
28233 ... but since there was no wind at that time I thought that something had fallen from the tree and at that very moment I heard a strange human moan of severe pain, it sounded more like an animal, for a moment it seemed to me that the sound was coming from the forest and the sound stopped several times for short intervals, I was walking in the direction of the sound to figure out where it was coming from ...
I went towards the signal corps and the sound stopped, I turned around to go back but heard the same sound again and I figured out where it was coming from ...
I saw a person in military gear lying on the ground on his back ...
I approached him and recognised him as one of the servicemen of our military unit ... there was a yellowish substance that had come out of his mouth, he was not moving or making any sound, I did not touch him ...
When I was going back I was curious about the [sound in the bushes previously heard] and I was inspecting the territory ... soldiers were asking me to come back, not to get involved ... on my way back I noticed a steel wire fastening the signal corps antenna that was attached to the ground, I touched the steel wire with my right palm and received an electric shock and fell down ...
I was helped to stand up ...
Question: The serviceman whom you found unconscious is Tigran Ohanjanyan who served in military unit no.
28418, do you know him?
... what was the reason for him being in that area at that hour ...?
Answer: I have known him since June-July 2007 ...
I have never communicated with him, did not know his name, only recognised his face...
I do not know the reason for him being in that area ...” On the same date G.M.
ordered a forensic medical examination in respect of A.G.
The relevant decision read as follows: “... in the course of the investigation ... [A.G.] has stated that on 30 August 2007 at around 11 p.m., when he had touched the antenna guy-wire, he had received an electric shock in the right hand ...
I decide to order a forensic medical examination ... to determine ... the nature, manner of infliction ... of [A.G.’s] bodily injuries ...” On the same date serviceman G.A., who had been Tigran Ohanjanyan’s friend, was interviewed.
He stated, inter alia, that on 30 August 2007 Tigran Ohanjanyan had participated in the evening call-up but he had no idea where he had gone after that, or for what reason Tigran Ohanjanyan had been found near the signal corps.
On 1 September 2007 G.A.
was questioned additionally and stated, in particular, that after the evening call-up Tigran Ohanjanyan had asked him to go to the backup checkpoint to fetch sneakers.
He had refused since he had already changed his shoes and Tigran Ohanjanyan left, stating that he was going to the backup checkpoint.
When asked to clarify the reason for the discrepancy between this information and his initial statement of 31 August 2007, G.A.
said that he could not explain with certainty why he had not mentioned the fact in question when interviewed previously.
On the same date the medical expert’s report in respect of A.G. was received.
It stated, in particular, that the injuries to A.G.’s right hand appeared to be electrical wounds and had caused light damage to his health.
On 2 September 2007 serviceman D.H., Tigran Ohanjanyan’s close friend, was questioned.
He stated, inter alia, that earlier on the day of the incident he had accompanied Tigran Ohanjanyan to receive a package from his aunt.
The package had contained some food, including kebab, which he and Tigran Ohanjanyan had shared on their way back to the military unit.
D.H. also stated that Tigran Ohanjanyan had not had any sneakers and that he did not know the reason for his having gone to military unit no.
28233.
On 3 September 2007, in reply to the Sevan Garrison military prosecutor’s letter of 31 August 2007, the Head of Building Construction and Housing Division of the Ministry of Defence sent the following letter: “In reply to your ... letter concerning [Tigran Ohanjanyan’s] so-called electrocution ...
I inform you that as a result of the inspection of the [scene of the incident] on 31 August 2007 the following has been clarified: - in the mentioned area there could not be any electric current in the antenna guy‐wires and whips since the R-419 radio relay station has no direct connection with mains electricity; - the passage of electric current from the aerial cable to the transmitter antenna, all the more to the guy-wires and the whips through [the antenna], is not possible ...” On the same date the Sevan Garrison military prosecutor sent a letter to the commander of the Second Corps to instruct the relevant services not to carry out any modifications at the scene of the incident or its surrounding area as well as to refrain from displacing or disposing of the radio relay stations and other equipment in the signal corps, since there were a number of investigative measures to be undertaken.
It appears that on an unspecified date the radio relay station in question was nevertheless dismantled.
On the same date G.M.
took a sample from military unit no.
28233 telescopic mast guy-wire to be given to a forensic medical expert.
On the same date G.M.
ordered a forensic electrical examination to determine, inter alia, the following: “... the mechanism of [Tigran Ohanjanyan’s] electrocution ... whether there had been a breach of technical requirements, and if so, by whom ...” On 19 September 2007 Gohar Sargsyan, Tigran Ohanjanyan’s mother, was questioned.
She stated, in particular, that her son had told her sister on 7 August 2007 that he had been involved in a fight and was supposed to be sent to the military police for detention but had then been given several days’ holiday.
Furthermore, on 22 August 2007 her other son had visited Tigran Ohanjanyan and noticed that the latter’s eye was red and bloodshot and appeared to have been injured.
At some point during the investigation it became known that, according to the medical records of the military unit, on 27 August 2007 Tigran Ohanjanyan had been assisted by the medical personnel in relation to a laceration on the big toe of his right foot.
It appears that on 6 August 2007 G.A.
and two other servicemen had received a disciplinary penalty in the form of detention in a military isolation facility.
However, the penalty had not been executed.
By decision of 19 September 2007 the applicant was recognised as the victim’s legal heir in the proceedings.
On 1 October 2007 senior lieutenant N.M., who had been in charge of the military unit on 30 August 2007, was questioned.
He stated, in particular, that Tigran Ohanjanyan had been present at the evening call-up, he had checked the presence of servicemen under his command and signed the presence-absence register.
Thereafter he had seen Tigran Ohanjanyan on the stairs in the artillery.
When he asked where Tigran Ohanjanyan was going, the latter had responded that he was going to wash his feet.
N.M. had then instructed Tigran Ohanjanyan to hurry up.
According to N.M. he did not know how Tigran Ohanjanyan had been found near the signal corps and said that the latter had not asked permission to fetch his sneakers, otherwise he would have refused permission to leave the military unit at such a late hour.
On 4 October 2007 G.M.
seized the telescopic mast guy-wire of the military unit no.
28233 signal corps.
The relevant record stated, in particular, that after the incident of 30 August 2007 the telescopic mast had been dismantled for safety reasons upon the order of the command of military unit no.
28233.
On 8 October 2007 the autopsy report was received.
The relevant parts of the report read as follows: “... [Tigran Ohanjanyan’s] death has resulted from ... electrocution which is substantiated by the electrical wounds on the neck, left wrist, fingers, first toe of the right foot discovered during the forensic medical examination of the body, the ecchymose on the right foot ... electrical wounds on the neck, left wrist, fingers, first toe of the right foot, an ecchymose on the right foot were discovered ... which have been caused by an electric current and are directly linked with the death ... after having received the above-mentioned injuries [Tigran Ohanjanyan] could not perform any actions independently/move, shout and so on.
Moreover the forensic medical examination ... has shown abrasions on the right forearm and left elbow joint which have been inflicted by blunt objects while [Tigran Ohanjanyan was] still alive ...” On the same date G.M.
ordered a forensic biological examination of the telescopic mast guy-wire seized on 4 October 2007.
The experts were asked to determine whether there were any traces of human skin or blood residue on the guy-wire submitted to them.
On 10 October 2007 the Deputy Military Prosecutor sent a letter to the Sevan Garrison Military Prosecutor stating that the investigation into Tigran Ohanjanyan’s death was not being conducted with the necessary promptness and that a number of urgent investigative measures had not been performed in a timely manner or had not been performed at all.
A number of detailed instructions were issued in that respect.
On 16 October 2007 G.M.
ordered a forensic biological examination of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s clothes, namely the outerwear and trousers, in order to examine the vomit traces on them.
On 26 October 2007 the forensic biological examination of the telescopic mast guy-wire was completed.
No traces of human skin or blood residue were discovered on the guy-wire subject to examination.
On 29 October 2007 the Investigative Department of the Military Prosecutor’s Central Office took over the investigation of the case.
It appears that in November 2007 lieutenant-general S.S., the commander of the military unit from 2002, was transferred to another military unit where he started service as its chief of staff.
On 9 November 2007 the forensic biological examination of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s clothes was completed.
The expert stated in his report that it had not been possible to determine the origin of the substance of the dried traces on the clothes submitted.
On 16 November 2007 the forensic electrical examination was completed.
In his report the expert concluded, in particular, that as a result of the antenna power supply cable insulation having been damaged, the antenna mast and the guy-wires had fallen under current, since the mast did not have the necessary grounding.
The report also stated that the R-419 radio relay station had been installed and operated in breach of the technical requirements and that the persons in charge of the radio relay station were responsible for the accident.
On 22 November 2007 the applicant was provided with the autopsy report and the conclusion of the forensic electrical examination.
He stated in the relevant records that he did not agree with either report.
By decision of 1 December 2007 the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Defence took over the investigation.
The case was assigned to H.S., investigator of cases of special importance of this department.
It appears that at some point during the investigation D.H. stated in the applicant’s presence that the former commander of the military unit, S.S., had hit Tigran Ohanjanyan.
On 21 January 2008 the investigator questioned S.S. in the presence of the applicant, who was allowed to put questions to him.
S.S. denied having ever hit Tigran Ohanjanyan.
On 21 February 2008 D.H. was questioned additionally.
He insisted that on the day of the incident Tigran Ohanjanyan had been present at the evening call-up, but could not explain how the latter’s signature was missing from the presence-absence journal, as pointed out to him by investigator H.S.
When asked about Tigran Ohanjanyan’s relationship with the senior officers of the military unit, D.H. stated that at the end of May or beginning of June 2007 he had witnessed S.S. slap Tigran Ohanjanyan in the face.
On 22 February 2008 the investigator questioned N.M. additionally to clarify in particular the discrepancy between the latter’s statement that Tigran Ohanjanyan had performed the evening check and signed the presence-absence journal and the fact that the inspection of the relevant journal had shown that Tigran Ohanjanyan’s signature was missing.
N.M. insisted that Tigran Ohanjanyan had been present in the artillery during the evening call-up at 10.45 p.m. and stated that he had previously affirmed with certainty that Tigran Ohanjanyan had signed the journal based on an assumption that he should have done so.
On 18 March 2008 the investigator held a confrontation between S.S. and D.H.
The latter insisted on his previous statement that S.S. had slapped Tigran Ohanjanyan while S.S. continued to deny the episode.
By decision of 28 April 2008 the investigator decided not to prosecute S.S.
The decision stated, in particular, the following: “... [D.H.] had stated that ... S.S., being angry with [Tigran Ohanjanyan] ... had slapped him in his presence ... [S.S.] had denied [D.H.’s] statement ... ... during the confrontation ... [S.S.] had denied it while [D.H.] had insisted on his statement.
The latter had also mentioned that only the three of them had been present on the day of the incident ... nobody else had seen it ...
Thus, the fact of [S.S.] having slapped [Tigran Ohanjanyan] has not been substantiated during the investigation ...” By decisions of the same date the investigator brought charges of negligence under Article 376 § 2 of the Criminal Code against captain R.A., the chief of the signal corps of military unit no.
28233 and junior sergeant K.T., head of the signal corps radio bureau.
The charges were based on the forensic electrical expert’s report of 10 November 2007.
During their interviews R.A. and K.T.
expressed disagreement with the electrical expert’s report, mainly the finding that the antenna connected to the R-419 radio relay station should have been grounded, which had not been done.
On 5 May 2008 the electrical expert was questioned and reiterated that the failure to check the grounding system had resulted in the antenna mast and the guy-ropes falling under current and causing the incident.
On 8 May 2008 the investigator questioned prosecutor G.M.
in relation to the initial stage of the investigation.
The relevant parts of the interview read as follows: “Question: According to the case file materials on 16.10.07 you took a decision to order a forensic biological examination ... What was the reason for your submitting [Tigran Ohanjanyan’s] uniform, outerwear and trousers to the expert 56 days after the incident?
Answer: In view of the fact that [ Tigran Ohanjanyan] had received an electric shock in the neck and the submission of the uniform for forensic examination would not have revealed any new circumstance, I did not find it necessary ... ...
Question: Why did you not take photographs of the body when you performed an inspection of the body in Vardenis garrison military hospital ...?
Answer: ...
I did not have a camera with me ... ...
Question: On 8.10.07 you took a decision to order a forensic biological examination [of the guy-wire] ... you asked the experts to determine whether there were any traces of human skin ... or blood... on the guy-wire ... Why did you submit the guy-wire to the experts 38 days after the incident when there were no longer fresh traces?
Answer: There were more urgent investigative measures to undertake ... that is, a number of witness interviews, other forensic examinations ...
Besides, I was investigating another complex case at that time ...” On 13 May 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Military Prosecutor, submitting the photographs of his son’s body taken prior to the autopsy which, according to him, clearly showed that his son had suffered injuries.
In particular, his son was missing teeth, there was an injury to his occiput, there were burn marks on the sole of his foot and injuries to the head, ear, jaw and under the eye, none of which had been recorded by the expert.
On 16 May 2008 the expert who had performed the autopsy was questioned and insisted on the accuracy of his report.
On 30 May 2008 the investigator indicted R.A. and K.T.
for having installed and operated the R-419 radio relay station in breach of technical requirements as a result of which the antenna power cable, being connected to the mast, which was not properly grounded, had caused the mast and guy-wires to fall under current, resulting in Tigran Ohanjanyan being electrocuted when he accidentally touched the radio relay station antenna mast guy-wires.
The case was taken over by the Gegharkunik Regional Court for examination.
By decision of 23 June 2009 the Gegharkunik Regional Court ordered a combined electrical and medical forensic examination to be performed by exhumation of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s body.
In so far as the electrical examination was concerned, the experts were requested to determine, inter alia, whether or not the antenna had an insulator and if so, whether the transfer of current from the antenna to the mast and the steel guy-wires could have been possible.
The electrical experts were also requested to determine whether the radio relay station subframe, from which the electrical cable was connected to the antenna, was able to produce a 180‐volt current and whether the technical requirements concerning the operation of the antenna included the grounding of the antenna mast.
As for the medical part, the experts were requested to determine, inter alia, the cause of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s death and, if there were any injuries on his body, to determine the time and the manner of their infliction and their gravity.
On 17 July 2009 the applicant requested a document-based forensic medical examination on the ground that the specialists had not provided any guarantees of the effectiveness of the forensic examination by means of exhumation when two years had already passed since the death.
The request was granted, while the questions put to the experts remained the same.
On 20 October 2009 the combined electrical and medical report was produced.
The relevant parts of the report read as follows: “...
There was an insulator between the R-419 radio relay station and the mast.
Power transfer from the antenna to the mast is possible in case of breach of the insulator’s insulation.
...
The R-419 radio relay station ... subframe from which the electrical cable goes to the antenna operates with a 27-volt direct current, therefore the mentioned subframe is unable to produce 180-volt power.
... Based on the [autopsy report] and primarily the results of forensic histopathological examination, it can be concluded that the injuries found on the body (right side of the neck, left wrist) have signs of impact of technical electricity.
At the same time a number of circumstances should be noted, including scarce and unclear information about the circumstances of the incident, as well as the lack of performance of an additional forensic medical examination by means of exhumation ... the impossibility at present of obtaining new additional information because of the ... lapse of time.
In view of the foregoing, the forensic medical commission does not have sufficient grounds either unequivocally to confirm or reject the electric shock as being the cause of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s death ... Having regard to the question concerning the time of infliction of injuries found on the body, it should be noted that the injury to the first toe of the right foot, according to the materials of the case, had been recorded in the military unit medical records already on 27 August 2007 and had been diagnosed as a “laceration” ... the uncertain clinical assessment of the injury to the first toe of the right foot ... , the failure to determine credibly the reason for the described changes on both feet, the location of electrical wounds mentioned in the [autopsy report] do not make it possible precisely to [determine the location of entry and exit of electrical current] ...” On 13 January 2010 the Gegharkunik Regional Court acquitted R.A. and K.T.
finding, inter alia, that the initial electrical expert report had not been credible in many aspects.
Furthermore, the court stated that the forensic expert who had performed the autopsy had mentioned the injury to the big toe on the right foot as the electrical current exit while the histopathologists had not confirmed the presence of an electrical burn on the injury in question.
It was also pointed out in the judgment that the investigating authority had failed to determine the exact time of the incident since there were significantly conflicting accounts in that respect in the statements of different witnesses, in particular those of N.M., H.S.
and A.G.
The prosecution lodged an appeal.
On 30 March 2010 the Criminal Court of Appeal fully upheld the judgment of 13 January 2010.
The prosecution lodged an appeal on points of law which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the decision of the Court of Cassation of 7 June 2010.
It appears that on 20 July 2010 the investigation was taken over by the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Defence and the case was assigned to investigator L.P. On 25 August 2010 L.P. ordered an additional forensic medical examination to be conducted by a commission of experts on the ground that the forensic medical part of the 20 October 2009 report was unsubstantiated, the cause of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s death was not established therein.
It appears that the applicant submitted a list of questions to be put to the commission of experts, together with the photographs of the body taken prior to the autopsy.
It further appears that on 12 January 2011 the expert commission’s report was received.
The report, inter alia, concluded that the autopsy report had been scientifically substantiated.
On 24 January 2011 the applicant requested L.P. to establish the inadmissibility as evidence of the commission’s report of 12 January 2011.
The applicant argued, in particular, that the report was not credible in that, instead of establishing the cause of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s death and providing clear answers to the questions put, the commission had attempted to confirm the conclusions contained in the autopsy report and discredit the report prepared by the court-appointed experts.
A number of the findings in the report itself conflicted with those of the autopsy report.
L.P. rejected this request.
By decision of 4 April 2011 L.P. ordered an additional electrical examination to be conducted by a commission of experts.
The decision read, in particular, as follows: “Taking into account that ... the court-appointed combined forensic electrical and medical report’s ... electrical part is unsubstantiated, doubtful...
I decide to order an additional forensic electrical examination to be conducted by a commission ... put the following questions to the experts: 1.
Which one of the submitted forensic electrical reports is scientifically substantiated – the initial one... or the court-appointed one ...?” On 8 April 2011 the applicant raised written objections to L.P.’s decision to order an additional electrical examination alleging that its main purpose was to cast doubt on the court-appointed expert report of 20 October 2009.
This request was also rejected.
In a separate set of judicial proceedings the applicant contested the investigative authorities’ refusal to prosecute G.M.
based on the applicant’s earlier complaint that he had deliberately distorted the facts of the case, had followed a wrong line of inquiry and so on.
The applicant’s complaints were dismissed in the final instance by the decision of the Court of Cassation of 3 November 2011.
On 11 November 2011 the commission of experts delivered its report.
According to the report, there were a number of shortcomings in both the initial and court-appointed electrical reports.
Nevertheless, the commission confirmed the finding of the court-appointed experts that the malfunctioning of the radio relay high frequency subframes could not possibly have resulted in the passage of supply current to the antenna.
By decision of 2 October 2012 L.P. ordered a forensic image examination of the photographs of Tigran Ohanjanyan’s body taken by the applicant prior to the autopsy.
According to the report of 8 November 2012 the photographs in question had not been edited.
It appears that the investigation was then taken over by the Investigative Committee Chief Military Investigative Department and assigned to investigator A.M. By letter of 13 February 2015 the applicant asked A.M. to be provided with information concerning the investigative measures undertaken during 2014 and part of 2015 in order to establish the circumstances of his son’s death.
In reply, A.M. informed the applicant that the victim’s legal heir had the right to be acquainted with the records of the relevant investigative measures upon completion of the investigation.
By decision of 7 December 2015 A.M. decided to suspend the proceedings on the ground that all possible investigative measures had been undertaken during the investigation but the radio relay station that was in use on the day of the incident had not been found, it had not been clarified how and by whose fault the guy-wires of the relay station antenna had fallen under current; it had equally not been clarified in what circumstances Tigran Ohanjanyan had touched the antenna mast guy-wire.
The applicant’s appeal against the above decision was rejected by the Military Prosecutor’s Office on 11 January 2016.
On 25 January 2016 the applicant sought judicial review of the decisions of 7 December 2015 and 11 January 2016.
By decision of 18 March 2016 the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan granted the applicant’s complaint.
On 5 May 2016 the Criminal Court of Appeal rejected the prosecution’s appeal.
On 1 June 2016 A.M. took a decision to resume the proceedings.
On 23 May 2017 the applicant enquired about the progress in the investigation, to be told by A.M. in a letter of 26 May 2017 that a number of investigative measures had been undertaken but the relevant records could not be provided since no such procedure was envisaged by the Criminal Procedure Code.
By decision of 1 August 2017 A.M. suspended the proceedings on the same grounds as before.
On 16 August 2017 the applicant lodged a complaint against A.M.’s decision of 1 August 2017 with the Military Prosecutor.
By decision of 18 August 2017 the Military Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s complaint.
On 26 August 2017 the applicant died.
On 5 September 2017 Ms Gohar Sargsyan, the applicant’s wife and Tigran Ohanjanyan’s mother, asked to be recognised as the victim’s legal heir in the proceedings.
By decision of 6 September 2017 A.M. resumed the proceedings and by another decision of the same date recognised Gohar Sargsyan as the victim’s legal heir in the proceedings.
On 11 September 2017 A.M. took a decision to suspend the proceedings on the same grounds.
On 19 September 2017 Gohar Sargsyan lodged a complaint with the Military Prosecutor against the decision of 11 September 2017 which was rejected by a decision of 22 September 2017.
On 4 October Gohar Sargsyan sought judicial review of A.M.’s decision of 11 September 2017.
By letter of 6 October 2017 Gohar Sargsyan expressed her wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in the late applicant’s stead.
B.
Relevant domestic law Article 376 § 2 of the Criminal Code states that a military official’s negligent attitude towards service, which has caused grave consequences, shall be punishable by three to six years’ imprisonment.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the State failed to protect his son’s life during his military service.
He further complains under the same provision and Article 13 of the Convention that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his son’s death.