Published on 27 September 2021
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 65308/16
Morfila SARGSYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 17 October 2016
communicated on 9 September 2021
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 12 June 2014 the applicant’s daughter, L., was discovered hanging by a rope from a metal pole in a storage room near the house where she lived with her family.
On 18 September 2014 an investigation was opened under Article 110 § 1 of the Criminal Code (incitement to suicide).
By decision of 17 September 2015 the investigator stayed the investigation on the grounds that the identity of the offender had not been established, despite the fact that all the possible investigative steps had been undertaken. The investigator thus decided to stay the investigation until the person against whom charges should be brought was found, and ordered the police to continue operative and search activities in order to find the offender.
On 3 November 2015 the applicant submitted an application to the investigator with a request to undertake a number of investigative measures, including exhumation, an additional forensic expert examination of the body and a post-mortem psychological and psychiatric forensic expert examination. On 9 November 2015 the investigator rejected her application as unsubstantiated. The applicant contested that decision before the Lori Regional Court, which dismissed her appeal on 22 February 2016 on the grounds that the investigator’s decision of 9 November 2015 was not subject to judicial review. This decision was upheld by the Criminal Court of Appeal on 4 April 2016. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation on 1 July 2016.
It appears that the investigation has not been terminated. Relying on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her daughter’s death and that she did not have an effective domestic remedy for her complaint.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the death of the applicant’s daughter in breach of Article 2 of the Convention (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 171-81, 14 April 2015; and Iorga v. Moldova, no. 12219/05, § 26, 23 March 2010)?
2. Did the applicant have an effective remedy for her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to inform the Court of developments in the investigation, if any, and provide copies of relevant procedural and other documents.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy