TOVMASYAN v. ARMENIA

• Court: Fifth Section Committee (European Court of Human Rights)
• Judgment Date: 03 September 2026
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0903JUD000544215
• Application Number: 5442/15
• Date: 03 September 2026
• Counsel: Minasyan, Lusine
• Applied Rules: 2;2-1
• Respondent State: Armenia

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF TOVMASYAN v. ARMENIA

(Application no. 5442/15)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

3 September 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Tovmasyan v. Armenia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Andreas Zünd, President,
Mykola Gnatovskyy,
Vahe Grigoryan, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 5442/15) 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”) on 16 January 2015 by an Armenian national, Mr Romels Tovmasyan (“the applicant”), who was born in 1945, lives in Byureghavan and was represented by Ms L. Minasyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of the applicant’s daughter to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their former Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 2 July 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the allegedly ineffective investigation into the death of the applicant’s daughter, M. Guloyan. The applicant relied on Article 2 of the Convention.

2. M. Guloyan married G.G. in 2009. The couple had a child and lived with G.G.’s parents, brother, uncle and the uncle’s family in the same house.

3. On 12 July 2012 M. Guloyan contacted her brother, M.T., asking him to come over. At around 4 p.m. that day M.T. came to speak with M. Guloyan, who told him that she wanted a divorce (she and G.G. had frequently been fighting because of the latter’s unemployment and gambling). It was agreed with G.G. and his family members that M.T. would return that evening with their parents to discuss the matter.

4. At 8.50 p.m. on the same date the Kotayk Regional Police Department (“the Kotayk police”) received a report from the Abovyan Medical Centre (“the hospital”) informing them that M. Guloyan had died. According to a record in the hospital’s general register, she had been admitted at 7.20 p.m. that day. Another record, which was written at 9 p.m. in a special register of persons who had been admitted with injuries whose origins were “of a criminal nature”, noted that a “[dead] body” had been brought in.

5. The same day, the Kotayk police opened a criminal investigation into account of M. Guloyan’s death (incitement to suicide) and ordered an autopsy.

6. The Kotayk police also took a statement from A.G., the wife of G.G.’s uncle (see paragraph 2 above). A.G. stated that at around 7 p.m. she had started to search for M. Guloyan, since she had become worried after noticing that M. Guloyan’s one-year-old child was alone. Entering the kitchen, she had seen M. Guloyan hanging by a cloth from a metal pole in the bathroom (which was situated next to the kitchen). She had screamed and, picking up a knife at random, had cut the rope, taken the body down and called for help. Her husband had come and the two of them had taken M. Guloyan to the hospital, where she had been pronounced dead. M. Guloyan had not spoken during the journey and A.G. had been unable to detect a pulse.

7. A photojournalist working for a well-known investigative journalism website attended M. Guloyan’s funeral, which took place one or two days later, and took pictures of several visible injuries on the body, including a bruise on the neck and wounds and bruises on the hands.

8. On 16 August 2012 a forensic expert, A.M., issued the autopsy report. No photographs of the body were attached to it, contrary to the requirements of the law. According to the report, M. Guloyan had died of unnatural causes. The ligature mark on the neck was the result of direct application of a relatively firm object, possibly the bathrobe belt believed to have been used by M. Guloyan to hang herself. Bruises were discovered on the front of the neck. There was also a scratch on the right side of the neck. The report further stated that “no objective signs of other injuries [had] been identified apart from the ligature mark on the neck, the bruises and the scratch”, and that at the time of death M. Guloyan had been in a state of subclinical alcohol intoxication. She had been 7‑8 weeks pregnant.

9. After the photographs taken during the funeral (see paragraph 7 above) were provided to the authorities, the investigator ordered a forensic technical examination, which confirmed in a report issued on 12 November 2012 that the photographs had not been manipulated.

10. On 23 November 2012 the investigator ordered an additional forensic medical examination (by exhumation), stating that, in view of those photographs (see paragraph 7 above), there was some doubt as to the conclusions of the autopsy report. The ensuing expert report, which was issued on 25 December 2012, indicated the same injuries as those included in the autopsy report (see paragraph 8 above). According to the expert report, other injuries – including the “injuries and traces” pictured in the photographs in question – could have remained undiscovered because of the decomposition of the body.

11. On 28 December 2012 an expert commission, including an expert psychiatrist, V.B., delivered a report based on the results of a posthumous forensic psychiatric and psychological assessment. According...