The application submitted to the European Court of Human Rights concerning proper investigation of the arson attack on DIY club and the following threats and harassment in 2012 was communicated by the Court, on 17 May, 2019.
The Government of the RA has to answer to the following questions:
- Did the applicant suffer ill-treatment and interference with her right to respect for her private life, in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as a result of the arson attack of 8 May 2012 and the following events, including the alleged threats, humiliation and harassment?
- Regard having had to the positive obligations enshrined in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, was the investigation into the arson attack of 8 May 2012 and into the applicant’s subsequent allegations of ill-treatment and harassment adequate for the purposes of these provisions, including for the unravelling of any discriminatory motives of the insulters?
- Did the applicant have effective domestic remedies at her disposal for her complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
- Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of her sexual orientation contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, this provision taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention?
Parallel to the general questions concerning human rights violations of the co-owner of DIY Armine Oganezova (Tsomak) ECtHR has raised a question on proper investigation of motives of the perpetrators. Position of the Governments in this regard is especially important in circumstances where dozens of hate crime incidents on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity are being reported but we are witnesses of total ignorance by law enforcement bodies towards such kind of dangerous motives.
It’s worthy to remind that the youngsters who were recognized guilty in committing the arson attack on DIY club were released from detention by personal guaranty of the “Armenian Revolutionary Federation” party MPs, after which were disproportionally sentenced to two years of imprisonment by the RA First instance court, which imposed a suspended sentence with two years’ probation.