issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 398 (2018)
22.11.2018
Judgments and decisions of 22 November 2018
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1 and six decisions2:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one
other Chamber judgment in the case of Konstantinopoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 2)
(nos. 29543/15 and 30984/15);
a separate press release has also been issued for one decision, in the case of Wanner v. Germany
(no. 26892/12);
one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Avagyan v. Armenia (application no. 1837/10)
The applicant, Khosrov Avagyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Yerevan.
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he had not been able to examine forensic experts
in court although their evidence had played a key role in his conviction for murder.
The charges arose from the fact that he had inherited an apartment from an elderly lady who had
died in January 2007. The initial autopsy found that the lady and her sister, who died at the same
time, had suffered from hypothermia. In June the ladies’ niece complained that the apartment had
actually been left to her in an earlier will and the authorities began an investigation. They ordered
post-mortem forensic examinations, which found that both sisters had died of phosphorous
poisoning.
Mr Avagyan was charged with fraud and two counts of murder for gain in September 2007 and
placed in detention. At his subsequent trial he asked for the experts who had delivered the
conflicting autopsy reports to be summoned but the courts repeatedly rejected that request. He was
found guilty on two counts of aggravated murder for gain and sentenced to life imprisonment in
October 2008. His appeals were all dismissed.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination
of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Avagyan complained that he had
not been given the opportunity to examine the experts in order to challenge the credibility of their
opinions, which had been decisive in securing his conviction.
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)
Just satisfaction: 900 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
