Published on 2 October 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 54896/17
Elnur GULIYEV and Others
against Armenia
lodged on 14 July 2017
communicated on 11 September 2023
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are Azerbaijani nationals and live in the village of Alikhanli in the Fuzuli district of Azerbaijan. They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Baghirov, a lawyer practising in Baku.
General backgroundAt the time of the demise of the Soviet Union, the conflict over the status of the region of Nagorno-Karabakh arose. In September 1991 the establishment of the “Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh” (the “NKR”; in 2017 renamed the “Republic of Artsakh”) was announced, the independence of which has not been recognised by any State or international organisation. In early 1992 the conflict gradually escalated into a full-scale war which ended with the signing, on 5 May 1994, of a ceasefire agreement (the Bishkek Protocol) by Armenia, Azerbaijan and the “NKR”. Following the war, no political settlement of the conflict has been reached; the situation remains hostile and tense and there have been recurring breaches of the ceasefire agreement (see further Chiragov v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 12-31, 16 June 2015).
The circumstances of the caseThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants’ home village, Alikhanli, was located along the line of contact between Azerbaijan and the “NKR”. On 4 July 2017 the village was shelled by ethnic Armenian armed forces.
Two people were killed as a result of the shelling:
- the first applicant’s mother and the second applicant’s wife Sahiba Allahverdiyeva, born in 1966;
- the first applicant’s daughter and the second applicant’s granddaughter Zahra Guliyeva, born in 2016.
The third applicant was wounded in her left breast, left hand and left leg.
When the shelling started the three victims were outside their houses waiting for the cattle to return from pasture.
The third applicant was taken to hospital where she underwent surgery. Four fragments of mortar were taken out of her body.
The applicants have submitted the following documents: the birth certificate and the ID card of Zahra Guliyeva mentioning the first applicant as her father and indicating her birth year and residence in Alikhanli; the second and the third applicants’ ID cards indicating their birth years and residence in Alikhanli; the marriage certificate between the second applicant and Sahiba Allahverdiyeva; official certificates indicating that the applicants, Zahra Guliyeva and Sahiba Allahverdiyeva lived in Alikhanli and mentioning their family relationship; a report on the forensic examination of the corpses of Zahra Guliyeva and Sahiba Allahverdiyeva; a medical certificate describing the third applicant’s wounds; witness statements and photographs of the corpses of Zahra Guliyeva and Sahiba Allahverdiyeva.
COMPLAINTS
1. The first and the second applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention about the killing of their relatives. The third applicant complain under the same provision that the shelling put her life at risk.
2. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that regular shelling of their home village and alleged deliberate targeting of civilian residential areas caused them anguish, distress and constant fear to be killed at any moment.
3. The applicants complain under Article 8 that regular shelling of their village put them before a difficult choice of either leaving their homes or living in constant fear of being killed.
4. The applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy in Armenia for their complaints.
5. The applicants complain under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2, 3, 8 and 13 that the military attacks had been directed against Azerbaijanis due to their ethnic and national origin.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Do the facts of which the applicants complain in the present case fall under the jurisdiction of Armenia (compare Banković and Others v. Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII;
Issak and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44587/98, 28 September 2006; Pad and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 60167/00, §§ 52-55, 28 June 2007; Solomou and Others v. Turkey, no. 36832/97, §§ 48-51, 24 June 2008; Andreou v. Turkey, no. 45653/99, § 25, 27 October 2009; and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 64, ECHR 2010)?
2. Have the applicants had at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints, within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention? If so, have they exhausted this remedy, as required by Article 35 § 1 (see, for instance, Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 115-20, 16 June 2015)?
3. Has the first and second applicants’ relatives’ right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? Has the third applicant’s life been threatened in the present case and, if so, was her right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated? In particular:
(a) Was the force used in compliance with the Convention or international humanitarian law?
(b) What types of weapons were used by the armed forces on the “NKR” side on 4 July 2017?
(c) Were specific targets pre-determined and, if so, which were these targets? Was the area where the applicants and their families live a target and, if so, why?
(d) Were the military operations planned and organised in such a way as to avoid or minimise as far as practicable any injury to the civilian population? If so, what were the precise precautions taken?
4. Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as a consequence of the military operations and their effects?
5. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 8 § 2?
6. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights due to ethnicity or nationality or on any other ground contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?
7. The parties are requested to provide English translations of all relevant documents.
APPENDIX
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
1.
Elnur GULIYEV
1990
2.
Salman GULIYEV
1959
3.
Salminaz GULIYEVA
1965