European Court of Human Rights court ruled out that Armenia is to pay € 12,000 to Albert Movsesyan – father of a dead pregnant woman – in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ECHR reported.
The applicant alleged, in particular, that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his daughter’s death.
It was noted that on 7 September 2007 at 10 p.m. K.M., who was in the early weeks of pregnancy at the time, was at home with her parents and husband when she fainted and began to have convulsions. An ambulance was called, which arrived 40-45 minutes later.
Upon arrival, the ambulance doctor, A.G., found K.M. nearly unconscious, with impaired breathing and low blood pressure. According to the applicant, the doctor was told at that point that K.M. was pregnant. A.G. diagnosed a convulsion syndrome, gave K.M. two injections – one of relanium and one of magnesium – and took her to hospital. Although K.M. had not regained consciousness after the injections, A.G. chose not to sit beside her during the journey to hospital, but instead sat beside the driver in the driver’s cab.
On 14 September 2007 K.M. died in hospital without ever regaining consciousness.
On 30 April 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Avan and Nor-Nork District Court of Yerevan concerning the investigator’s decision of 25 April 2008 seeking the institution of criminal proceedings against A.G. and the nurse. The applicant submitted, in particular, that the panel of experts performing the additional forensic medical investigation had not taken due account of his arguments, which had been based on relevant medical literature and Government decrees. He reiterated his arguments with regard to the contra-indication of relanium and magnesium in cases of pregnancy and low blood pressure and the other arguments previously submitted in his complaint lodged with the District Prosecutor’s Office.
On 26 May 2008 the Avan and Nor-Nork District Court of Yerevan dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the inquiry into K.M.’s death had been thorough and adequate. In doing so, the District Court referred to the results of the fresh forensic medical opinion. As regards the late arrival of the ambulance, incorrect completion of the visit record and the doctor’s failure to sit beside the patient during the journey to the hospital, the District Court referred to the fact that A.G. had been reprimanded for poor performance of her duties.
On 16 July 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with the Criminal Court of Appeal. On 4 September 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the District Court.