The Case of Manuchar Manucharyan’s Death Will be Included in the List of Cases for Examination by the European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) confirmed in an email dated January 29, 2024, that it would examine the case surrounding the death of Manuchar Manucharyan. Submitted to the ECHR in 2019 by Onik Manucharyan, the brother and legal successor of the deceased soldier who died under suspicious circumstances on July 31, 2013, in the RA MoD Military Unit N24923, the case has garnered significant attention. Official reports claim the cause of death was suicide, a conclusion contested by the family and supported by the Peace Dialogue NGO in their legal challenge to the European Court.
Legal representation for the Manucharyan family, attorney Mushegh Shushanyan, has argued that the Armenian government failed to protect Manucharyan’s life within the military unit under its control and subsequently neglected its duty to conduct a thorough investigation into his death, which would hold those responsible accountable.
Evidence of procedural violations during the preliminary investigation and trial phases has been highlighted by experts R. Martirosyan from Peace Dialogue NGO, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the case handling. Notably, the absence of sufficient fingerprints on the alleged suicide weapon and its magazine, the lack of a proper investigation into these discrepancies, and the courts’ failure to address these issues cast doubt on the official narrative.
Additionally, the courts inadequately evaluated testimonies from A. Abrahamyan and A. Sahakyan, who claimed their initial statements were coerced and did not reflect the truth. Moreover, the preliminary investigation body did not satisfactorily explore the various injuries found on Manucharyan’s body, both pre-mortem and post-mortem, leaving unanswered questions about their origins and the responsible parties.
A particularly troubling piece of evidence is a 5 mm diameter hole in the back of Manucharyan’s right leg trouser, suggestive of a gunshot wound, which was acknowledged in a 2013 forensic report but later contradicted by forensic expert A. Hambardzumyan during the 2016 trial.
It was inferred that the bullet had lodged in Manucharyan’s right leg, given the absence of an exit hole elsewhere on the trouser. The claimant proposed the possibility of confirming this through exhumation. However, the court denied both the request for a secondary forensic examination of the trouser and the exhumation.
Despite these compelling arguments, the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the family’s complaint in 2018 as unfounded, a decision upheld by the Court of Cassation’s refusal to review the case.
Posted 27 February, 2024
