CourtFirst Section (European Court of Human Rights)
Judgment Date22 November 2018
Respondent StateArmenia
Application Number1837/10
Applied Rules6;6+6-3-d;6-1;6-3-d
<a href="https://international.vlex.com/vid/convenio-europeo-libertades-fundamentales-67895138">ECHR</a>



(Application no. 1837/10)



22 November 2018



This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Avagyan v. Armenia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,
Ksenija Turković,

Aleš Pejchal,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Tim Eicke,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Abel Campos, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 10 July and 23 October 2018,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:


1. The case originated in an application (no. 1837/10) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian national, Mr Khosrov Avagyan (“the applicant”), on 28 December 2009.

2. The applicant was represented by Ms H. Harutyunyan and Mr A. Melkonyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan and by Ms H. Harutyunyan, a non-practising lawyer. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, Representative of the Government of Armenia to the European Court of Human Rights.

3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been deprived of the possibility to have experts testifying against him examined in the criminal proceedings.

4. On 24 May 2016 the complaint concerning the applicant’s inability to examine experts was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.



5. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Yerevan.

6. On 2 January 2007 M.G. and V.G., two elderly sisters, were found dead in V.G.’s apartment, where they lived together following which the prosecution started an investigation into their death. It appears that the applicant had known V.G., who had drawn up a will on 5 April 2006 according to which she had bequeathed her apartment to the applicant.

7. On the same day forensic medical examinations, including autopsies, were ordered to determine, inter alia, the cause of death of the two sisters.

8. On 2 February 2007 the expert A.D. issued two opinions (nos. 22 and 23). According to the first one, M.G. had died as a result of acute heart failure brought about by low body temperature while opinion no. 23 stated that V.G. had died as a result of hypothermia.

9. On 9 February 2007 the prosecutor decided to terminate the investigation. Relying on forensic medical opinions nos. 22 and 23, the prosecutor found that the sisters’ death had not been intentional or caused by negligence.

10. On 14 February 2007 the applicant submitted V.G.’s will to the notary and gave his acceptance to inherit her apartment.

11. On 1 June 2007 M.G. and V.G.’s niece applied to the prosecutor’s office, stating that although V.G. had bequeathed the apartment to her by the will certified by a public notary back in 1991, she had been informed that the applicant had submitted another will in respect of the same apartment according to which the apartment was to pass down to him. She alleged that her aunt’s signature had been forged on that will.

12. It appears that on 11 July 2007 additional post-mortem forensic medical examinations following the exhumation of the bodies of M.G. and V.G. were ordered to determine, inter alia, whether forensic opinions nos. 22 and 23 had correctly determined the causes of their death and, if...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT