Judgment Hasmik Khachatryan v. Armenia - Armenia’s failure to respond adequately to serious acts of domestic violence breached the Convention

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 297 (2024)   12.12.2024   Armenia’s failure to respond adequately to serious acts of domestic violence   breached the Convention   The case Hasmik Khachatryan v. Armenia (application no. 11829/16) concerned severe domestic   violence inflicted on Ms Khachatryan by her common-law husband. After she had brought criminal   proceedings against him, and even though she had requested protection from him, he continued to   pursue and threaten her, and ended up assaulting her again. Although he was convicted, he was   ultimately exempted from serving his sentence.   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,   that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation) of the   European Convention on Human Rights as concerned the legislative and regulatory framework, and   the State’s obligation to respond adequately to reports of domestic violence and to carry out an   effective investigation.   The Court found in particular that the legislative framework in force at the time had fallen short of   the State’s duty to establish and effectively apply a system punishing all forms of domestic violence   and providing sufficient safeguards for victims. The national courts had adopted a purely formalistic   approach and had not taken into account a number of relevant factors for the overall assessment of   the case and the sentencing process. The way in which the criminal-law mechanisms that existed at   the time had been implemented, specifically the application of the amnesty, was flawed to the point   of constituting a breach of the State’s duties under Article 3 of the Convention. Armenia had failed in   its obligation to respond adequately to the serious domestic violence suffered by Ms Khachatryan.   In addition, the Court considered that enabling the victims of domestic violence to seek   compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the perpetrator was one way of making sure that   States took into account the full extent of the harm, not only physical but also psychological,   suffered by them. It concluded that there was an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention for   States to enable the victims of domestic violence to claim compensation in respect of non-pecuniary   damage from the perpetrator.   A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link).   Principal facts   The applicant, Hasmik Khachatryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1986 and lives in   Yerevan.   In 2004 Ms Khachatryan married S.H. in a non-State-registered church ceremony. The couple lived   with S.H.’s parents in the village of Gandzak, and had two children – a daughter, born in 2006, and a   son, born in 2007. The couple’s relationship gradually deteriorated, allegedly because S.H. turned to   alcohol after they discovered that their daughter had a hearing problem and needed special care. He   picked arguments, harassed and threatened his common-law wife, and resorted to physical violence.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its 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.   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.   After one such occasion, Ms Khachatryan was treated at the Armenia Medical Centre in Yerevan. The   hospital reported her injuries to the police, but she refused to lodge a complaint. A forensic medical   examination ordered by the police showed that she had sustained concussion, a nasal bone fracture,   closed craniocerebral trauma, a ruptured eardrum, and haematomas caused by a hard, blunt object.   She did make a statement a couple of days later when the police in Yerevan notified the police in   Gavar, as did her parents and another relative. She also sought support from a non-governmental   organisation in Yerevan which provided her with shelter for a month, assistance, counselling, and   advice on how to deal with S.H.   Ms Khachatryan lodged a criminal complaint with the Gavar police on 2 July 2013. Two weeks later,   she asked if she and her relatives could be questioned in Yerevan for her own safety, as S.H. was   threatening her with “revenge” should she return. She received no response.   Criminal proceedings were instituted on 24 July 2013. A second forensic examination found, in   addition to the injuries previously identified, multiple scars on her scalp., left wrist and shin. A formal   confrontation was held between Ms Khachatryan and S.H. on 1 October 2013. According to   Ms Khachatryan, S.H. shouted at her and threatened her throughout, with the investigator not   daring to interfere, and one of the police officers, who was S.H.’s cousin, interrupting the meeting   several times, even bringing his cousin coffee. She asked for the criminal investigation to be   transferred elsewhere. A month later, S.H. hit Ms Khachatryan outside their daughter’s school, and   shouted and swore at her. Reporting the incident to the police, Ms Khachatryan asked not to have to   have any more face-to-face interviews with him.   Charges of aggravated torture  aggravated since Ms Khachatryan was considered to be   “dependent” on him, never having been in paid employment  were brought against S.H. on 14   November 2013. The police refused to open a criminal case in relation to the incident outside the   school.   In December 2013, and again at hearings in January and February 2014, Ms Khachatryan asked for   S.H. to be placed in detention, since he kept insulting and threatening her and saying he would take   his revenge. When giving evidence Ms Khachatryan told the trial court that she had been scared of   what S.H. might do to her. For instance, he kept telling her that he would hang her and that nobody   would find out. She described how S.H. had stopped her from having contact with her family once   they were married, that they had moved to Yerevan to enable their daughter to receive care for her   hearing problem but that S.H. had sent her and the children back to live with his parents after a year   while he lived with another woman for three years. Every time he returned to his parents’ house, he   would beat her up and take money. She had been too afraid of him and his threats to leave him.   During the trial, S.H. described his relationship with his wife as “normal” and stated that they had   had a “minor family argument”.   At some point during the trial, Ms Khachatryan lodged a civil claim against S.H. seeking   compensation for the medical expenses she had incurred due to treatment for her injuries. She also   asked for damages for the emotional and psychological suffering he had inflicted.   The Regional Court delivered its judgment on 22 December 2014. It dropped the original charge of   aggravated torture since it considered that Ms Khachatryan had not been financially or otherwise   dependent on S.H. since he had been living with his mistress and it was S.H.’s mother who provided   for the family. The Regional Court sentenced S.H. to one year and six months’ imprisonment, which   rendered him eligible for an exemption from serving his punishment under the Amnesty Act of 3   October 2013, and exempted him from serving his sentence. It also rejected Ms Khachatryan’s civil   claim. Upon appeal, that judgment was upheld in full in April 2015. Subsequent appeals lodged by   Ms Khachatryan and S.H. were declared inadmissible.   2 Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for   private and family life) taken separately and in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective   remedy), the applicant complained that the Armenian authorities had failed to protect her from   S.H.’s violence throughout the criminal proceedings; that they had failed to impose a proportionate   punishment and make sure it was carried out; and that she had had no legal means of claiming   compensation for non-pecuniary damage from him.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 February 2016.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Mattias Guyomar (France), President,   María Elósegui (Spain),   Armen Harutyunyan (Armenia),   Gilberto Felici (San Marino),   Andreas Zünd (Switzerland),   Diana Sârcu (the Republic of Moldova),   Kateřina Šimáčková (the Czech Republic),   and also Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   As the national legislation at the time had not distinguished between domestic violence and violence   in general and lacked any form of protection from acts of domestic violence, the Court found that   the legal framework that had been in force had fallen short of the State’s duty to establish and   effectively apply a system punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient   safeguards for victims.   On a number of occasions during the investigation and the trial, Ms Khachatryan had asked for   protection from S.H. She had repeated her request when giving evidence before the Regional Court.   However, the authorities dealing with the applicant’s case at different stages of the criminal   proceedings had failed to take any measures for her protection. As a result, she had been denied the   effective protection to which she was entitled under the Convention.   The Court found that the national courts had taken a purely formalistic approach and had not taken   into account a number of relevant factors for the overall assessment of the case and the sentencing   process. They had disregarded that Ms Khachatryan and S.H. had been married in church in 2004,   had children together, had never separated and that, having no paid employment, Ms Khachatryan   had been financially dependent on S.H.’s family with whom she lived. Moreover, throughout the   proceedings and also before the trial court, S.H. had consistently referred to her as his “wife”, and   the threats he had made had included threats of what he would do to her if he ever suspected that   she was being unfaithful.   While there was no obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence,   the national courts should not be prepared to allow grave attacks to go unpunished or allow serious   offences to be punished by excessively lenient sanctions. The Court found it concerning that the   national criminal courts, having completely ignored the context of domestic violence, first   reclassified the offence to its non-aggravated form, which carried a significantly lower penalty, then   imposed on S.H. a sentence at the lower end of the range of applicable penalties for the reclassified   3 offence, and finally exempted him from serving even that sentence, thereby completely removing   the deterrent effect of the criminal-law framework.   In the Court’s view, such an approach by the national courts could be interpreted as a certain   leniency towards punishing violence against women, instead of communicating a strong message to   the community that domestic violence would not be tolerated. That kind of leniency could also   discourage victims from reporting domestic violence, and this was already an issue of significant   concern in so far as Armenia was concerned.   The Court considered that the manner in which the criminal-law mechanisms that existed at the   time had been implemented, specifically the application of the amnesty, which had resulted in S.H.   being let off for his criminal conduct, had been flawed to the point of constituting a breach of the   State’s duties under Article 3 of the Convention. Armenia had therefore failed in its procedural   obligation to respond adequately to the serious domestic violence suffered by Ms Khachatryan.   In this case, the Court had to determine whether the State was under an obligation under Article 3   of the Convention to enable a victim of domestic violence to claim compensation in respect of non-   pecuniary damage from the perpetrator. It considered that enabling the victims of domestic violence   to seek compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the perpetrator was one way of making sure   that States took into account the full extent of the harm, not only physical but also psychological,   suffered by them. It concluded that there was an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention for   States to allow victims of domestic violence to claim compensation in respect of non-pecuniary   damage from the perpetrator of the violence directly, or indirectly through the State concerned.   The Court concluded that the legislative restriction that had prevented Ms Khachatryan from   obtaining compensation from S.H. for the non-pecuniary damage which she had suffered had been   in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.   Other Articles   The Court examined the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention alone.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Armenia was to pay the applicant 24,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-   pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X   (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4