The European Court of Human Rights examined the application lodged by three applicants from Armenia in the case of H.T. and Others v. Azerbaijan, concerning the alleged torture, decapitation, and mutilation of the body of their relative, H.T., during the April 2016 hostilities.
The Court first found that, at the relevant time, neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia exercised effective control over the disputed territory, and therefore territorial jurisdiction had not been established. However, having assessed the case materials, forensic reports, witness statements, communications, and other publicly available information, the Court found that H.T. had been under the authority and control of Azerbaijani State agents. On that basis, the Court concluded that the events fell within Azerbaijan’s jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention.
According to the Court’s assessment, H.T. was first wounded by fire from Azerbaijani servicemen and was then, while in a defenseless condition and unable to move independently, subjected to severe physical violence, his hands were severed, and he was killed by decapitation. The Court found that this conduct was incompatible with international humanitarian law and resulted in a violation of Article 2 of the Convention with regard to the right to life, as well as a violation of Article 3 with regard to the torture inflicted on H.T.
The Court also separately assessed the applicants’ personal suffering. It noted that their emotional distress had been aggravated by H.T.’s brutal killing, the mutilation of his body, the failure to recover the missing body parts, and the impossibility of conducting a proper burial. The Court considered these circumstances to constitute degrading treatment towards the applicants, finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of them personally as well.
At the same time, the Court held that the complaints raised under Articles 8, 13, and 14 of the Convention did not require separate examination, as the principal legal issues had already been resolved under Articles 2 and 3.
With regard to just satisfaction, the Court jointly awarded the first two applicants EUR 60,000 and the third applicant EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, as well as EUR 14,210 for costs and expenses.