Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Farmanyan and Others v. Armenia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Armenia in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in connection with the deaths of several individuals during the mass protests that followed the 2008 presidential elections. The Court concluded that the use of lethal force by the State was not “absolutely necessary” in most of the cases examined. It also determined that the Armenian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths and did not comply with their obligation to provide all necessary facilities to the Court.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The decision addresses nine applications concerning the deaths of relatives of the applicants during the Yerevan protests on March 1-2, 2008.
* The Court examined the events leading up to the deaths, including the police operation at Freedom Square and subsequent clashes.
* The Court analyzed the use of force by the police, including firearms and special means like tear gas.
* It assessed the domestic legal framework and the effectiveness of the investigation into the deaths.
* The Court considered evidence from various sources, including forensic reports, witness statements, and reports from parliamentary and international bodies.
* The Court found violations of Article 2 (right to life) regarding both the use of force and the lack of an effective investigation.
* The Court also found a violation of Article 38 due to the State’s failure to provide necessary facilities to the Court.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* The Court emphasized that the use of force by law enforcement must be “absolutely necessary” and proportionate, even in quelling riots.
* The decision highlights the importance of proper planning and control of police operations to minimize the risk to life.
* The Court stressed the need for an effective, independent, and impartial investigation into deaths resulting from the use of force by State agents.
* The decision underscores the State’s obligation to provide all necessary facilities to the Court for the effective examination of applications.
* The Court awarded damages to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
**** This decision is related to deaths of Ukrainian citizens, so it can be used in future to protect rights of Ukrainians.
