ECtHR cases October – December 2021
| DOI | 10.1177/20322844221076787 |
| Author | Ben Wild |
| Published date | 01 March 2022 |
| Date | 01 March 2022 |
| Subject Matter | ECHR Updates |
ECHR Update
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2022, Vol. 13(1) 130–149
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20322844221076787
journals.sagepub.com/home/nje
ECtHR cases October –
December 2021
Ben Wild
Crown Prosecution Service, London, UK
Article 2
Khayauri and Others v. Russia (nos. 33862/17, 83040/17, and 83409/17)
The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the Republic of Ingushetia (Russia). The y are close
relatives of Magomed Khayauri, born in 1991, Islam Tachiyev,born in 1992, and Artur Karsamauli,
born in 1986. The case concerns the killing by State agents of the three young men on a university
campus in July 2012. The investigation into the incident was terminated, owing to the death of the
suspects, and reopened by decision of the investigators’superiors more than ten times. It is still
pending.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicants allege that State
agents killed their relatives in a botched security operation and that the authorities failed to in-
vestigate the matter effectively. Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention,
the applicants complain that they had no effective remedy at their disposal.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Violation of Article 2 (right to life)
Just satisfaction: Details of the amounts awarded to the applicants for pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, are appended to the judgment.
Khojoyan and Vardazaryan v. Azerbaijan (application no. 62161/14)
The applicants, Hasmik Khojoyan, Heghine Vardazaryan and Haykaz Khojoyan (now deceased),
are three Armenian nationals who were born in 1964, 1967 and 1959, respectively. The case
concerns the captivity and alleged ill-treatment of the applicants’father, Mamikon Khojoyan, in
Azerbaijan in early 2014. The applicants’father left his home in Armenia, close to the border with
Azerbaijan on the morning of 28 January 2014. It was reported in the Azerbaij ani news 2 days later
that he was an armed guide of an Armenian sabotage group and was being detained. He was handed
over to the Armenian authorities on 4 March 2014 and died at home ten weeks later.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and
security), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of
the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants allege that their father was tortured
during his captivity, including severe beatings, being burnt with incandescent metal and drug
injections, which had posed a danger to his life and which had not been investigated, that he was
unlawfully deprived of his liberty, that they did not have an effective legal remedy and that the
alleged violations occurred as a result of discrimination based on ethnic origin.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Mamikon Khojoyan
Violation of Article 2 (investigation) in respect of Mamikon Khojoyan
Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) on account of Mamikon Khojoyan’s torture
No violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants
Violation of Article 5 in respect of Mamikon Khojoyan
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: 40,000 euros (EUR) jointly to the applicants costs and
expenses: the Court rejected the applicants’claim for costs and expenses
Petrosyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 32427/16)
The applicant, Artush Petrosyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Chinari
(Armenia). His son, Karen Petrosyan, born in 1981, lived with him in Chinari, close to the border
with Azerbaijan. On 7 August 2014 his son crossed the border into Azerbaijan and was captured by
the Azerbaijani armed forces. He died while in captivity.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and
security), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 13 (right to an effective
remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention, the applicant
complains that his son was tortured and killed in illegal detention, that his body was not repatriated
in a timely manner, that there was no effective investigation and that the alleged violations occurred
as a result of discrimination based on ethnic origin.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (investigation and right to life)
Violation of Article 3 in respect of Karen Petrosyan
Violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant
Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 40,000, costs and expenses: EUR 8,370
M.H. and Others v. Croatia (applications nos. 15670/18 and 43115/18)
The case concerned the death of a 6-year-old Afghan child, MAD.H., who was hit by a train after
allegedly having been denied the opportunity to seek asylum by the Croatian authorities and ordered
to return to Serbia via the tracks. It also concerned, in particular, the applicants’detention while
seeking international protection. The Court found in particular that the investigation into the death
had been ineffective, that the applicant children’s detention had amounted to ill-treatment, and that
the decisions around the applicants’detention had not been dealt with diligently. It also held that
some of the applicants had suffered a collective expulsion from Croatia, and that the State had
hindered the effective exercise of the applicants’right of individual application by restricting access
to their lawyer among other things.
Wild 131
To continue reading
Request your trial