Published on 13 October 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos. 13426/22 and 19157/20
Larisa YETARYAN and Satenik MELKONYAN against Armenia
and Satenik MELKONYAN and Larisa YETARYAN against Armenia
lodged on 17 February 2022 and 10 March 2020 respectively
communicated on 22 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applicants are the mother (the first applicant) and the widow (the second applicant) of E.Tsatinyan, who died after he was taken into police custody.
On 7 April 2019 E. Tsatinyan swallowed three grams of methamphetamine while he was in police custody on suspicion of murder. Initially taken to “Grigor Lusavorich” hospital at around 8 p.m. that day, he was not admitted there due to the absence of a toxicology unit after which he was transferred to “Armenia” medical centre at around 9 p.m. On 8 April 2019 at 5.40 a.m. E. Tsatinyan died from intoxication in the latter hospital. According to the applicants, before his death E. Tsatinyan had told that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in the police station and that the officers had put the methamphetamine in his pocket in order to intimidate him into making certain statements in relation to the murder case.
On 15 April 2019 two separate sets of criminal proceedings were instituted: one on account of inadequate medical care resulting in death (Article 130 § 2 of the former Criminal Code (in force until 1 July 2022)) and the other on account of E.Tsatinyan’s ill-treatment by police officers (Article 309.1 § 2 (4 and 7) of the former Criminal Code). The first applicant was recognised as E. Tsatinyan’s legal heir in both sets of proceedings.
In the scope of the criminal proceedings on account of possible medical negligence an autopsy and a forensic medical examination by a commission of experts were ordered. The autopsy report delivered on 30 May 2019 revealed a number of ecchymoses and bruises on E. Tsatinyan’s body, which were found to have been inflicted by a blunt object(s) up to 24 hours before his death. The forensic medical report of the relevant expert commission delivered on 28 July 2020 concluded that E. Tsatinyan had been provided with timely and proper medical assistance, that the medical personnel of either of the 2 hospitals in question had not committed any medical error that would have a causal link with E. Tsatinyan’s death, which had resulted from a lethal dose of methamphetamine.
On 10 July 2020 the criminal proceedings into E. Tsatinyan’s alleged ill‑treatment were terminated for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. The first applicant appealed claiming that the investigation had not been thorough and effective referring, in particular, to the failure to preserve the CCTV recordings at the police station concerned, contradictory witness statements, etc. On 28 July 2021 the Court of Cassation returned the first applicant’s appeal on points of law instructing her to rectify certain errors namely to send its copy to “all the interested parties” (apparently to the implicated police officers). The first applicant did not do so referring to Article 407 § 2.1 of the former Criminal Code of Procedure (in force until 1 July 2022), according to which, as far as relevant, the copy of the appeal should be sent to the participants of the proceedings except for the investigator and the inquiry body. On 31 August 2021 the Court of Cassation concluded that the error indicated in its decision of 28 July 2021 had not been rectified and left the appeal without examination.
In the meantime, on 9 October 2020 the criminal proceedings concerning alleged inadequate medical assistance to E. Tsatinyan were also terminated. The first applicant unsuccessfully complained before the Prosecutor General that the investigation had been carried out by the investigative unit of the same district as the police station where her son had been allegedly ill‑treated and which had initiated the proceedings.
The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention about E. Tsatinyan’s ill-treatment by police officers and his death and the domestic authorities’ failure to effectively investigate those matters.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants exhaust the domestic remedies with regard to their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?
2. Was E. Tsatinyan’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular, did the police officers of Nor Nork police station take basic precautions in respect of E. Tsatinyan as a person in their custody in order to minimise any potential risk (see Fanziyeva v. Russia, no. 41675/08, §§ 46-50, 18 June 2015; P.H. v. Slovakia, no. 37574/19, §§ 111-15, 8 September 2022; and Ainis and Others v. Italy, no. 2264/12, §§ 53-57, 14 September 2023)?
3. Was E. Tsatinyan subjected to treatment incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention while in police custody (see Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, §§ 148-58, 2 October 2012, and Nalbandyan v. Armenia, nos. 9935/06 and 23339/06, §§ 95-112, 31 March 2015)?
4. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life and the procedural protection from ill-treatment, was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic, no. 23944/04, §§ 130-35, 16 February 2012; Virabyan, §§ 161-79; Nalbandyan v. Armenia, §§ 118-30, both cited above; Matevosyan v. Armenia, no. 52316/09, §§ 72-82, 14 September 2017; and P.H. v. Slovakia, cited above, §§ 99-107)?
The Government are invited to submit copies of the documents concerning the internal investigation into E. Tsatinyan’s alleged ill‑treatment at the Nor Nork police station.