Published on 17 October 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 42812/16
Alichka NAREKATSYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 15 July 2016
communicated on 27 September 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns the death of the applicant’s husband, P.S., resulting from alleged medical malpractice and the alleged lack of a proper investigation into the matter.
It appears that in 2013 P.S. underwent three surgeries in two different hospitals, the first surgery having been related to hernia and the following two for the placement and subsequent removal of a vascular prosthesis.
It appears that on 15 January 2014 a computed tomography showed, inter alia, a non-homogeneous mass in P.S.’s abdomen.
In early March 2014 P.S., being in a severe condition, was admitted to the same hospital where he had previously undergone the last two surgeries and was transferred to the intensive care unit where he died on 10 March 2014.
P.S.’s nephew filed a police report alleging that the death of P.S. had resulted from inadequate medical treatment. On 20 March 2014 criminal proceedings were instituted into the alleged medical negligence. The applicant was recognised as P.S.’s legal heir in the proceedings. The investigation eventually concluded that P.S.’s death had not been caused by medical malpractice. On 5 December 2014 the criminal proceedings were terminated and the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against that decision to the prosecutor and the courts. On 9 March 2016 the applicant’s appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation was declared inadmissible for lack of merit.
The applicant complains that the investigation has not been thorough because it failed to establish whether the placement of a vascular prosthesis had been necessary and what had caused the complications following its placement. The applicant also complains that no investigation was conducted in relation to the results of the computed tomography carried out on 15 January 2014.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant’s husband’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
In particular, having regard to the procedural obligation to set up an effective and independent judicial system so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, could be determined and those responsible made accountable (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 214-21, 19 December 2017, and also Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, §§ 94 and 106-31, 8 February 2022), were the proceedings in the present case concerning the alleged medical malpractice in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit copies of relevant documents concerning the investigation, including copies of the investigator’s decision ordering a forensic medical examination and the relevant forensic expert report.