The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has rejected Azerbaijan’s request to have a ruling concerning the torture and killing of an Armenian soldier during the 2016 April War reconsidered by its Grand Chamber, making the judgment final.

According to former Armenian representative on international legal matters Liparit Drmeyan, a five-judge panel of the Grand Chamber rejected Azerbaijan’s request on November 2, leaving the Court’s June 18 ruling in favor of the Armenian applicants unchanged.

The case, “V.T. and Others v. Azerbaijan”, concerns an Armenian serviceman who was tortured and killed by Azerbaijani soldiers near Talish in Artsakh during Azerbaijan’s April 2016 military offensive.

In its June 18 judgment, the ECHR found that Azerbaijani soldiers had tortured and unlawfully killed the serviceman after he was wounded and unable to defend himself. The Court ruled that Azerbaijan violated Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life, and Article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

The Court also found that the soldier’s parents and sister had suffered degrading treatment because of the brutality of his killing, the mutilation of his body and their inability to recover his missing remains for a proper burial.

Azerbaijan was ordered to pay the family €90,000 in compensation, along with €14,210 in legal costs and expenses.

Following the June ruling, Azerbaijan requested that the case be referred to the ECHR’s Grand Chamber for reconsideration. The November 2 rejection means the original judgment is now final and will not be reheard by the Court.

Drmeyan described the ruling as a landmark decision that could establish an important legal precedent for similar cases involving violations committed against Armenians during the 2016 April War.

He also criticized Azerbaijan’s contradictory approach to international judicial institutions, noting that while Azerbaijani authorities have publicly rejected the ECHR’s jurisdiction and suspended cooperation with the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, they continue to use the Court’s legal procedures to challenge unfavorable judgments.