CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 juillet 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6A849601 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4CF7DFA3 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFF39B71E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC10BA3A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD4DA54E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3EED6C7D { width:199.31pt; display:inline-block } .s9269B87C { width:9.86pt; display:inline-block } .sD1E7D622 { width:236.46pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 18071/05 by Kusama Yazedovna MASKHADOVA and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 May 2005, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mrs Kusama Yazedovna Maskhadova, Mrs Fatima Aslanovna Maskhadova and Mr Anzor Aslanovich Maskhadov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1950, 1983 and 1975 respectively and live in Azerbaijan and Norway. They were represented before the Court by Interights, an NGO specialising in the legal protection of human rights based in London. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant is the widow of Aslan (the first name may also be spelled Oslan) Aliyevich Maskhadov. The second and third applicants are their children. 1.     Background to the case Aslan Maskhadov, born in 1951, was one of the military and political leaders of the Chechen separatist movement during and after the armed conflict of 1994-96. For some time after the elections held in Chechnya on 27 January 1997 he was President of the so-called Chechen Republic of Ichkeriya. (a)     Criminal case no. 59027 In 1999 Chechen armed groups began a military incursion into Dagestan. On 18 February 2000 a criminal investigation was initiated by the Russian authorities on suspicion of military revolt and sedition in this connection. On 2 March 2000 Aslan Maskhadov acquired the status of accused in this case. On the same date the investigator decided to detain him. Since the whereabouts of Aslan Maskhadov could not be established, the investigator placed his name on the national and international lists of wanted persons. (b)     Criminal case no. 14/17 On an unspecified date the authorities also opened a criminal investigation into terrorist activity in the Nadterechnyy District of the Chechen Republic in 2000. (c)     Criminal case no. 20/849 On 1 September 2004, the day of the terrorist attack on a school in the town of Beslan, the authorities instituted criminal proceedings in connection with this event on suspicion of hostage-taking, murder, illegal arms trafficking and terrorist acts. On 8 September 2004, having collected various items of evidence indicating the involvement of Aslan Maskhadov in masterminding the attack, the investigator formally identified him as an accused. On the same date Aslan Maskhadov’s name was again put on the national and international wanted lists. (d)     Applicants’ allegations concerning attempts on the life of Aslan Maskhadov The applicants alleged that repeated attempts on Aslan Maskhadov’s life had taken place in 1996, 1998 and 2000 and that these attacks had been “conducted by or with the connivance of State agents”. According to the applicants, on 9 September 2004 the Russian Federal Security Service ( Федеральная Служба Безопасности РФ – “the FSB”) offered 300 million Russian roubles for information leading to his arrest. 2.     Events of 8 March 2005 It appears that prior to 8 March 2005 Aslan Maskhadov lived in hiding as a fugitive in various unspecified locations in Chechnya. On 8 March 2005 between 9 and 10 a.m. the FSB conducted a special operation aimed at tracking down and arresting members of unlawful military formations at 2 Suvorov Street in Tolstoy-Yurt, a village in the Groznenskiy Selskiy District of the Chechen Republic. According to the authorities, the operation resulted in the discovery of a concealed underground shelter and the arrest of four individuals, including V.U. Khadzhimuradov and V.L. Murdashev, Mr Aslan Maskhadov’s bodyguard and press officer respectively. The authorities also discovered the corpse of an “unidentified person” bearing traces of injuries. On the same date the four detained individuals identified the person as Aslan Maskhadov. In the afternoon of 8 March 2005 investigator Sh. from the Investigative Unit of the Directorate of the FSB in the Chechen Republic ( следователь следственного отдела Управления ФСБ России по Чеченской Республике ) arrived on the scene and, in the presence of two witnesses and with the assistance of a military mining specialist, conducted an inspection of the house and grounds. The resulting report, containing numerous colour photographs, described the property in detail, including the location of the house, the adjacent structures and the concealed underground shelter. It further described the corpse in the following manner: “... In the middle of the aforementioned concrete platform, under the canopy, was the corpse of an unidentified man, apparently resembling Aslan Maskhadov. The corpse was lying on its back with the arms and legs spread wide. There were socks on the corpse’s feet. The corpse was shoeless. The person was wearing dark-grey trousers heavily stained with dirt. The left trouser leg was rolled up. Grey pants with black vertical stripes were visible. The upper part of the body was naked, and no visible signs of injuries were detected. There were some remnants of rolled-up clothes (blue t-shirt and dark-blue jacket) on the right forearm and the left wrist. The corpse’s eyes were closed; the person had a moustache and beard of medium length. There was an entry hole in the area of the right temple, bordered by dried blood of a dark-brown colour. There was dried blood on the left outside ear. ...” The report also described various items which had been found at the scene, apparently piled up in the yard of the property. Among these items were a number of arms and ammunitions, including four AK-74 automatic rifles, two Stechkin machine pistols, one PM machine pistol bearing the number MA 7863, six grenades and an explosive belt. In addition, there were a few laptop computers and portable radio transceivers with accessories. With regard to the concealed underground shelter, the report noted its location and mentioned that it was three metres deep and was equipped with a metal ladder with five steps. It was also noted that the floor of the shelter was covered with rubble due to the fact that the entrance had been broken down using mechanical force. No detailed inspection of the shelter was conducted because of the “justified fear that the shelter may have been booby-trapped”. The report contained two photographs of the entrance to the shelter. It appears that on the same date the corpse was transported to the military base in the village of Khankala. According to the applicants, on 13 March 2005 the authorities blew up the house and its cellar. 3.     Official investigation into the circumstances of the death of Mr   Aslan Maskhadov It appears that the circumstances of the death of Mr Aslan Maskhadov were investigated by the authorities in the context of the criminal investigation in case no. 20/849. (a)     Investigator’s actions in respect of the corpse and various items found at the scene of the incident On 9 and 10 March 2005 investigator K. from the Prosecutor General’s Office ( следователь Генеральной прокуратуры РФ ) examined the corpse and other items found at the scene and decided that a number of expert examinations should be carried out. On 9 March 2005 the corpse of A.A.   Maskhadov was identified by V.U. Khadzhimuradov and R.S.   Maskhadov, apparently one of Aslan Maskhadov’s relatives. (i)     Examination report of 9 March 2005 On 9 March 2005 investigator K. conducted an examination of the corpse in the presence of two witnesses and with the participation of deputy Prosecutor General Sh., two medical experts Mal. and Mat., and prosecutor S. It appears that both video and photographic records of the examination were made. The report contained the following description of the injuries found on the corpse: “... In the right temple area, two centimetres above the right eyebrow and five centimetres towards the outer edge of the right eye there is a round-shaped wound one centimetre in diameter. On the edges of the wound are grazes one and a half to two millimetres wide. The wound is gaping. There is an irregular oval-shaped bruise surrounding the wound measuring three and a half to four centimetres. ... ... In the left cheekbone area, four centimetres towards the outside of the bridge and half a centimetre below the lower edge of the left eye socket there is a wound of an irregular star-like shape measuring between 1.2 and 1.7 cm. The wound has six rays pointing at twelve, three, five, six, eight and nine o’clock, assuming that the body is placed in a straight vertical position. ... ... In both eye-sockets there are crimson-violet bruises measuring 3.5 to 4 cm on the right side and 1.8 to 4.5 cm on the left side. ... ... In the parietal region there is a wound of an irregular round shape with six rays at one, three, five, seven, eight, and eleven o’clock. The wound measures between 1.4   and 1.10 cm. ... ... In the right scapular area along the central scapular line, in the area of the fifth intercostal space and 131 cm from the soles of the feet, there is a round-shaped wound with its longitudinal axis pointing at four and ten o’clock. The right edge has grazes of up to four millimetres with a sloped wall. The opposing left edge has grazes of up to two millimetres with a sapped wall, the wound is open ...” (ii)     Forensic medical examination of 10 to 24 March 2005 On 10 March 2005 investigator K. ordered a forensic medical examination of the corpse, having put fourteen questions to the expert (see the list of questions and answers below). On the same date between 2 and 4   p.m. a medical expert, NK, carried out the examination of the body. The resulting report, bearing the number 13-e, contained a brief summary of the circumstances of the case, a very detailed description of the condition of the corpse both internally and externally, the forensic diagnosis and the expert’s conclusions, together with the answers to the fourteen questions put by investigator K. The forensic diagnosis was the following: “Firearm injury. Multiple (five) gunshot perforating wounds to the head (four) and one blind multi-trauma penetrating wound to the chest and the upper extremity: –     on the head: four perforating wounds penetrating the cavity of the skull with a one ‑ sided buttonhole fracture to the left temporal, left parietal and cervical bones and a multi-fragment fracture to the frontal bone, with damage to brain tissue, haemorrhaging in its ventricles and above and beneath the hard and soft brain tunic, a perforating fracture to the big wing of the main bone on the left, a fracture to the left cheekbone and haemorrhaging into the soft tissue of the head; –     on the chest and the upper extremity: one blind multiple wound to the chest perforating the pleural cavities, with a fracture of the seventh right rib and damage to the lungs, a double-sided buttonhole fracture to the main part of the seventh thoracic vertebra, damage to the soft tissue of the left half of the sternum and the soft tissue of the back surface of the upper part of the left shoulder, with the presence of a bullet at the end of the wound tract. Double haemothorax (550 ml).” The report gave the following answers to the fourteen questions: “1.     Answer to question no. 1: ‘What are the injuries to the presented corpse, what is their location, what was the method used and from what distance were they inflicted?’ A.A. Maskhadov had five gunshot wounds to the head, chest and the left upper extremity: –     on the head: four perforating wounds penetrating the cavity of the skull with a one ‑ sided buttonhole fracture to the left temporal, left parietal and cervical bones and a multi-fragment fracture to the frontal bone, with damage to brain tissue, haemorrhaging in its ventricles and above and beneath the hard and soft brain tunic, a perforating fracture to the big wing of the main bone on the left, a fracture to the left cheekbone and haemorrhaging into the soft tissue of the head; –     on the chest and the upper extremity: one blind multiple wound to the chest perforating the pleural cavities, with a fracture of the seventh right rib and damage to the lungs, a double-sided buttonhole fracture to the main part of the seventh thoracic vertebra, damage to the soft tissue of the left half of the sternum and the soft tissue of the back surface of the upper part of the left shoulder, with a bullet at the end of the wound tract. No other injuries or marks have been found on the body of A.A. Maskhadov. The following proves that the wounds were inflicted by gunfire: the perforating and multiple character of the injuries; the presence of the bullet at the end of the wound tract ...; bleeding in a cylindrical pattern along the line of the wound tracts; the oval shape and small size of the wounds; the slightly irregular, tucked-in edges of the wounds; the tissue damage in the centre of the wounds and the contusion collar on the edges of the wounds. The gunshot entry wounds are situated: –     no. 1: in the left postotic area; –     no. 2: two and a half centimetres towards the back and two centimetres lower than wound no. 1; –     no. 3: 3.3 cm to the right of wound no. 2; –     no. 4: in the left parietal area, one centimetre to the left of the midline of the head; –     no. 8: in the projection of the sixth intercostal space on the right, along the midline of the scapula. The following features indicate that these are entry wounds: the oval shape, the relatively small size, the presence of damaged skin in the centre, the slightly irregular edges, the presence of a contusion collar on the edges and the circular haemorrhage in the subjacent tissues. The exit wounds are situated: –     no. 5: on the front to the left; –     no. 6: on the front to the right; –     no. 7: in the left cheekbone area. The following features indicate that these are exit wounds: the irregular star-like and slot-like shape of the wounds; the irregular, ragged edges. ... The entry wounds (nos. 1-3) on the head were inflicted as the result of a burst of fire from a hand firearm, which could have been an APS (Stechkin automatic) or a PM (Makarov) pistol, as suggested by the following indications: (a) the presence of a few entry holes situated on the same body surface; (b) the similar morphology of the entry wounds, which suggests that they were inflicted almost simultaneously, by the same type of arm and from the same or almost the same range. Entry wound no. 8 on the back of the corpse of A.A. Maskhadov could have been inflicted as the result of a burst of automatic fire or as the result of a single shot from a manual gun of the type described above. Entry wound no. 4 was inflicted as the result of a single shot from a gun. The diameter of the shell was no less than 0.9 cm, as confirmed by the size of the wound and the perforating fracture of the left parietal bone. Most probably the shell exited through the open mouth. ... The shots which wounded A.A. Maskhadov were not fired from close range ( с неблизкой дистанции ), a finding confirmed by the absence in the area of the entry gunshot wounds of any traces of impact from the by-products of shooting (gunpowder gases, soot, gunpowder particles, metal particles). The way in which the injuries are formed ... suggests that they were probably inflicted from a distance of one metre. All injuries were inflicted shortly before death, as confirmed by: –     the character of the wounds – perforating wounds with massive destruction of the brain tissue as well as damage to the internal organs in the chest; –     slight haemorrhaging coupled with pronounced bone fractures; –     the lack of indication of healing of the injuries. 2.     Answer to question no. 2: ‘In what sequence were the injuries inflicted?’ On the head the first to be inflicted was wound no. 1, then wound no. 2 and wound no. 3, then wound no. 4; this is confirmed by the smaller space between wounds no. 1 and no. 2 in comparison to the space between wounds no. 2 and no. 3 and the location of wound no. 4. It is impossible to answer the question concerning the sequence in which the wounds on the head and the wound on the chest were inflicted because of the absence of objective signs indicating the sequence. 3.     Answer to questions nos. 3, 4, 5 and 12: ‘Which injury exactly was the cause of death?’, ‘Did death occur immediately or within a certain period of time?’, ‘Would M. have been capable of performing any actions after receiving the injuries?’, ‘What was the cause of death?’ The cause of death of A.A. Maskhadov was bullet injuries to the head with damage to (destruction of) the cerebral hemispheres and membranes. The death of A.A. Maskhadov occurred immediately on infliction of the gunshot wounds to the head (in a period of time ranging from a few seconds to a few minutes). This is confirmed by: –     the character of the injuries (perforating wounds with massive destruction of brain tissue); –     the slight haemorrhaging coupled with the presence of pronounced injuries to the bones; –     the absence of indications of healing of the said injuries. After infliction of the said injuries A.A. Maskhadov could have performed actions (for a period ranging from a few seconds to a few minutes) during the stage of compensatory reaction of the organism. 4.     Answer to question no. 6: ‘What was the body’s position when the injuries were being inflicted?’ The direction of the wound tracts in the head was (on the assumption that the body is in a straight vertical position): (a) from right to left; (b) from bottom to top as regards wound tracts nos. 1-3, and from top to bottom as regards channel no. 4; (c) slightly from back to front. The direction of the wound tract in the area of the chest was (on the assumption that the body is in a straight vertical position): (a) from left to right; (b) slightly from bottom to top; (c) slightly from back to front. Hence, during the shooting the perpetrator’s weapon was situated behind, to the right and slightly below the level of the wounds to the head and the chest of A.A.   Maskhadov, his head being turned to the left. 5.     Answer to question no. 7: ‘Was the corpse’s position changed?’ The corpse’s position could have been changed as a result of its retrieval, inspection and transport. 6.     Answer to question no. 8: ‘Are there any signs indicating the possibility that the injuries were inflicted by the victim himself?’ None of the injuries found on A.A. Maskhadov could have been self-inflicted. This is confirmed by the range from which the shots were fired, the location of the entry gunshot wounds in places inaccessible to the individual himself and the direction of the wound tracts. 7.     Answer to question no. 9: ‘What is the victim’s blood group?’ Report no. 148 on the forensic biological examination shows that A.A. Maskhadov belonged to blood group Aβ (II). 8.     Answer to question no. 10: ‘Had the victim consumed alcohol or narcotic substances shortly before death and in what quantities?’ During forensic chemical examination of the biological samples taken from the corpse of A.A. Maskhadov, no ethyl alcohol or narcotic substances were detected. 9.     Answer to question no. 11: ‘Did the victim take any food shortly prior to death and, if so, what did he eat?’ A.A. Maskhadov did not consume any food prior to death, as evidenced by the lack of food in the stomach. 10.     Answer to question no. 13: ‘How long ago did death occur?’ The timing of death of A.A. Maskhadov does not contradict the timing indicated in the decision, namely 8 March 2005. 11.     Answer to question no. 14: ‘Is there a causal link between the injuries received and death?” There is a direct causal link between the injuries received by A.A. Maskhadov in the form of gunshot wounds to the head and his death.” (iii)     Forensic molecular genetic examination dated 17 March 2005 On 10 March 2005 the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of samples of the corpse’s blood, muscle tissue and nail plate and samples taken from A.A. Maskhadov’s two nephews once removed. The expert, Ko., was asked to establish whether the body in question was that of A.A. Maskhadov. On 11 March 2005 Ko. received the decision and on the same date started the examination. The expert finalised the examination on 14 March 2005. The resulting report, bearing the number 34-MT, was completed on 17 March 2005 and contained a detailed description of the scientific methods used. The expert’s conclusion was that a combination of genetic features found in the samples taken from the corpse and from the dead man’s nephews confirmed the blood relationship between them with a probability of 99.92 percent. On 29 March 2005 the investigator issued a decision recapitulating the events of 1 September 2004 and the nature of the charges against Aslan Maskhadov, and noted that the investigation had collected evidence of the latter’s involvement in masterminding the attack. The decision went on to state that on 8 March 2005 the authorities had found the body of an unidentified man who was later identified as Aslan Maskhadov. The decision then concluded that the criminal case against Aslan Maskhadov should be closed owing to his death. (iv)     Forensic ballistic examinations in respect of the bullet found in the corpse and the firearms On an unspecified date between 10 and 28 March the investigator ordered a ballistic examination of the bullet found in the corpse and of two Stechkin pistols and one PM pistol bearing the number MA 7863, found at the scene on 8 March 2005. An expert was requested to identify the gun which had fired the bullet in question. As a result of this examination, the expert concluded that the bullet had been fired from PM pistol number MA   7863. It appears, however, that the report contained contradictions concerning the methods of comparative examination, and on 28 March 2005 the investigator ordered a fresh report. Between 28 March and 4 April 2005 ballistic experts R. and Yu. carried out a fresh examination of the bullet and the guns. They too came to the conclusion that the bullet had been fired from PM pistol number MA 7863. (b)     The investigator’s actions in respect of the persons arrested at the scene of the incident The case file materials submitted by the Government contain records of interviews with three persons arrested on 8 March 2005 and, in particular, V.U. Khadzhimuradov, V.L. Murdashev and S.S. Yusupov. In the case of V.U. Khadzhimuradov, the authorities also carried out a psychiatric examination. The relevant parts of the interview records and the psychiatric report are reproduced in chronological order. (i)     Record of interview with S.S. Yusupov dated 10 March 2005 On 10 March 2005 between 7.30 and 9.50 p.m. an investigator from the Prosecutor General’s Office conducted an interview with Skandarbek Sultanovich Yusupov, who had the status of suspect in case no. 20/849. The interview was conducted in the presence of his lawyer, L.L. Dzardanova. The suspect was given formal notice of his rights and also made a statement to the effect that no pressure had been put on him by the authorities in connection with the criminal proceedings. During the interview the suspect explained that on 8 or 9 November 2004 he had been asked by his cousin to shelter Mr Aslan Maskhadov in his house in the village of Tolstoy-Yurt. The suspect described the circumstances of the arrival of Mr Aslan Maskhadov, his stay in the house and the cellar and the latter’s subsequent meeting with Shamil Basayev on 12 or 13 November 2004. As regards the events of 8 March 2005, the suspect gave the following statement: “... On 8 March 2005 at around 9 o’clock I was sitting with my wife and daughter in the kitchen when armed men entered by the yard and started shouting: ‘Come out with raised hands one by one’. My wife and daughter and I came out and they asked me whether there were any strangers in the house. I told them that my cousin Ilyas was there, whereupon he came out. Then I was asked whether the building had any cellars, and I showed them the cellar situated under the new house, which is accessed through the new house. They then started a search and in the old house they found the entrance to the cellar in which Aslan Maskhadov, Vakhid and Viskhan were staying. The servicemen blew up the entrance to the cellar and as a result the entrance became obstructed. They then started digging underneath and one of them shouted: ‘I see a corpse!’. They started shouting through the hole they had made to see whether there was anyone alive in there and some time later I saw them taking Vakhid and Viskhan out of the old house.” (ii)     Record of interview with V.U. Khadzhimuradov dated 10 March 2005 On 18 March 2005 between 5.05 and 6.55 p.m. an investigator from the Prosecutor General’s Office, in the presence of the lawyer A. Elkanov, interviewed Viskhan Umarovich Khadzhimuradov, who had the status of accused in criminal case 20/849. The suspect was given formal notice of his rights and also made a statement to the effect that no pressure had been put on him by the authorities in connection with the criminal proceedings and that he had decided to give evidence in the case voluntarily. The suspect explained that he was A.A. Maskhadov’s nephew and had also been his personal bodyguard and assistant. He described various episodes from their work together. He also stated as follows: “On 8 March 2005 at 9 o’clock I was with my uncle Aslan and Vakhid Murdashev in the bunker under the private house situated in the village of Tolstoy-Yurt; I cannot remember the exact address. At that moment the sound of blows rang out. Then there was an explosion near the cellar’s hatch leading to the bunker. Uncle Aslan took his Stechkin pistol and fired a shot at his head. After that moment I can hardly remember what happened. I only recall that the servicemen dragged me and Vakhid out of the cellar. I would like to clarify that Uncle Aslan, Vakhid and I had lived in the house in question in the village of Tolstoy-Yurt since the beginning of December 2004. Before that, Uncle Aslan and I had been living in the forest near the mountain village of Avturi in the Kurchaloyevskiy District of the Chechen Republic.” (iii)     Record of interview with V.L. Murdashev dated 18 March 2005 On 18 March 2005 between 3.40 and 5.25 p.m. an investigator from the Prosecutor General’s Office interviewed Vakhid Lakayevich Murdashev, who had the status of suspect in criminal case 20/849, in the presence of the lawyer A.A. Pliev. V.L. Murdashev was suspected of having been a member of the armed group and of being in possession of firearms. The suspect was given formal notice of his rights and also made a statement to the effect that no pressure had been put on him by the authorities in connection with the criminal proceedings and that he had decided to give evidence in the case voluntarily. It appears that the suspect had been questioned previously on at least one occasion, as the record stated that it was an “additional interview” and that the suspect had “fully endorsed his earlier statements”. The suspect explained that he had been A.A. Maskhadov’s political assistant, and described various episodes from their work together. As regards the events of 8 March 2005, the suspect gave the following statement: “On 8 September 2005 A.A. Maskhadov and Viskhan Khadzhimuradov and I were in the bunker under the house of Mr Yusupov. At around 9.30 a.m. we heard heavy footsteps on the ground above and thought that there were many people up there. We switched the light off. After about an hour the entrance was discovered, as there was a glimmer of light coming through the cover blocking access to the bunker. In a few minutes a few shots were fired at the cover from the outside. At this point I was on the floor (at the place marked ‘C’ on the sketch map I drew earlier). A.A. Maskhadov was on the trestle bed (at the place marked ‘A’ on the map). V. Khadzhimuradov was on the trestle bed facing A.A. Maskhadov (at the place marked ‘B’ on the map). After the shots were fired I moved to the trestle bed and sat near V. Khadzhimuradov (at the place marked ‘1’ on the map). At that point I had in my right hand my APS-Stechkin pistol which was at half-cock and was not loaded, although it had a cartridge full of bullets. Maskhadov stayed where he was and held his APS-Stechkin gun. I don’t know whether it was loaded with bullets. At that moment Maskhadov said, in particular, ‘While I am alive, the enemy won’t touch me’, so I understood that he wanted to commit suicide. Also, there was an explosive device next to him, for personal self-destruction, which he did not use so as not to hurt me and V.   Khadzhimuradov. Then V. Khadzhimuradov asked A.A. Maskhadov, in particular ‘What are we to do[?]’ to which the latter responded ‘You should not do it’, meaning that we should not kill ourselves. Then there was an explosion, as a result of which I lost consciousness. When I came round I was lying on the floor (at the place marked ‘2’ on the map). There was dust in the bunker and nothing could be seen. There was no gun in my hand at that moment. I called V. Khadzhimuradov and asked him, in particular: ‘How is Aslan?’ to which he responded in Chechen: ‘He is no more’. I moved to the place where I had been sitting (at the place marked ‘1’ on the sketch). The body of A.A. Maskhadov was in the same place as before and was obstructed by a foam-rubber mattress, but I could not see it. Then ... I remember the fumes started to appear and V. Khadzhimuradov and I started choking. I shouted in the direction of the passage ‘There are people alive!’ and started climbing upwards, with V.   Khadzhimuradov following. There were people in military uniform upstairs who escorted me and V. Khadzhimuradov to the yard.” In response to the investigator’s question whether the suspect had heard any shots being fired inside the bunker, the suspect replied as follows: “I myself did not shoot and did not see or hear A.A. Maskhadov or V.   Khadzhimuradov shooting while in the bunker.” In response to the investigator’s question concerning the cause of death of A.A. Maskhadov, the suspect stated as follows: “I think that A.A. Maskhadov shot himself with his APS-Stechkin pistol. But I don’t know how this actually happened, as I lost consciousness after the explosion.” (iv)     Record of interview with V.U. Khadzhimuradov dated 18 March 2005 On 18 March 2005 between 5.05 and 6.55 p.m. an investigator from the Prosecutor General’s Office again interviewed V.U. Khadzhimuradov, this time in the presence of the lawyer E. Dzhioyeva. The suspect was given formal notice of his rights and also made a statement to the effect that no pressure had been put on him by the authorities in connection with the criminal proceedings and that he had decided to give evidence in the case voluntarily. The suspect explained that he was A.A. Maskhadov’s nephew and had also been his personal bodyguard and assistant. He described various episodes from their work together. As regards the events of 8 March 2005, the suspect made the following statement: “On 8 March 2005 at around 9 a.m., Uncle Aslan, Vakhid and I were in the cellar. At that moment, we heard some knocks and understood that someone was trying to break down the door leading to the cellar. In response, Uncle Aslan, using his right hand, put the pistol to the temple area of his head. At that moment there was an explosion. At the moment of the explosion Uncle Aslan was kneeling in front of me, facing me, and Vakhid was sitting half a metre to the left. As result of the explosion, I lost consciousness. After some time, a couple of seconds as I understood, I started gradually to come round. I saw that Uncle Aslan’s head was lying on my right leg, I felt warmth and realised that the blood was oozing out of my uncle’s wounded head down my right leg. Then Vakhid and I started shouting that we were coming out. We came out and the Spetznaz soldiers told me to go downstairs to the cellar and tie Uncle Aslan’s chest and legs so that it would be more comfortable to lift him up from the cellar. I carried out the instruction, after which Vakhid and I were arrested by the Spetznaz soldiers. I would like to explain that at the moment when the Spetznaz soldiers were breaking down the doors leading to the cellar, Uncle Aslan told me and Vakhid: ‘If I am still alive, shoot me in the heart’.” (v)     Record of interview with V.U. Khadzhimuradov dated 19 March 2005 During the interview which took place on 19 March 2005 between 3.25   and 4.05 p.m., V.U. Khadzhimuradov gave the following statement: “I wish to amend my previous statements. According to my previous statements, on 8 March 2005 at 9 o’clock, the Spetznaz servicemen started breaking down the door leading to the cellar where I was staying with my uncle, Aslan Alievich Maskhadov, and my uncle’s assistant, Murdashev Vakhid. We were in the cellar, under the one-storey private house situated in the village of Tolstoy-Yurt in the Chechen Republic. After we heard the knocks in the cellar, Uncle Aslan told me and Vakhid: ‘Be prepared! Don’t think about yourselves, think about me! If I am still alive, shoot me in the heart!’ After hearing these words I cocked my PM pistol. At that moment Uncle Alsan was sitting in front of me, at a distance of half a metre; Vakhid was sitting near me, to the left. Then the explosion happened. I felt bad, my head felt like it was being squeezed. At that moment Aslan Maskhadov fell on me so that his head was on my right leg. At that very second, without taking aim, I fired two shots in a row at Uncle Aslan. I don’t know where the bullets went. Then in a few seconds I lost consciousness. Afterwards I came round and along with Vakhid surrendered to the Spetznaz fighters. I would like to clarify that I took Uncle Aslan’s words as an order; according to Chechen custom, I cannot disobey and fail to execute an order given by Aslan Maskhadov.” (vi)     Record of interview with V.U. Khadzhimuradov dated 7 June 2005 On 7 June 2005 between 12.55 and 3.30 p.m. an investigator from the Prosecutor General’s Office interviewed V.U. Khadzhimuradov. The interview took place in the presence of the lawyer A.B. Elkanov. The record noted that the accused was giving evidence in the case voluntarily. The accused described his relationship with A.A. Maskhadov as well as various instances of collaboration between them, and the meetings between A.A. Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev. As regards the events of 8 March 2005 the accused gave the following statement: “Around one month after the departure of Shamil Basayev, on 8 March 2005, A.A.   Maskhadov, Vakhid Murdashev and I were in the cellar. Ilyas Iriskhanov was in the house. We were all asleep, and were woken up because we heard some people walking in the yard, talking and looking for an entrance to the cellar. Then they started knocking on the hatch covering the entrance to the cellar. At that moment I was sitting on the bed, with A.A. Maskhadov sitting in front of me and V. Murdashev sitting beside him on the mattress. A.A. Maskhadov told me and V. Murdashev that they were coming after him, but that he would not surrender and that if he remained alive I should shoot him in the heart. After saying these words, he put a gun to his right temple. I held my PM pistol in my right hand, it was loaded and cocked, and at that moment the explosion happened. I was thrown back by the blast, I struck my head against the wall and lost consciousness. Some time later I came round, my head was aching badly, as if it were being squeezed. I could hardly see anything, there was a mist in my eyes, I had no idea what was going on at that moment. At the moment of the explosion I could hear the shots but I cannot say who was shooting and where. I cannot exclude the possibility that at the moment of the explosion, when I was thrown back, my pistol might have gone off, but I cannot say what direction the shot went in. After the explosion when I came round I felt that someone was lying on my right leg, then it occurred to me that it was A.A. Maskhadov and that his head was bleeding. Then Vakhid Murdashev and I started shouting to the people above that we were coming out. Murdashev Vakhid was the first to come out of the cellar. I followed straight behind, then went back into the cellar again and tied up the body of A.A.   Maskhadov so that it could be taken out of the cellar.” (vii)     Psychiatric examination of V.U. Khadzhimuradov by a group of experts dated 8 June 2005 (no. 241 ) On 3 June 2005 the investigator ordered a psychiatric expert examination of V.U. Khadzhimuradov, in view of the seriousness of the charges against him and the cerebrocranial injury he had received on 8 March 2005. The investigator put the following questions to the board, consisting of four experts in psychiatry and psychology, Doctors S., T., Kh. and B.: “1.     Taking into account his particular sensory faculties (eyesight, hearing, etc.) and the circumstances of his arrest on 8 March 2005, was V.U. Khadzhimuradov capable of accurately perceiving the main circumstances of the case? 2.     Does V.U. Khadzhimuradov display any indications of increased propensity towards exaggeration of the events he describes? 3.     Does V.U. Khadzhimuradov display any indications of increased suggestibility and submissiveness? 4.     Did V.U. Khadzhimuradov, or does he, suffer from a mental illness and, if so, which one? 5.     If so, how long has he been suffering from the illness and is it temporary or permanent? 6.     Is he suffering from any temporary mental disorder or the presence of a particular mental condition which could have influenced his proper perception of the events which took place on 8 March 2005? 7.     If so, what is the nature of this temporary disorder and would V.U.   Khadzhimuradov have been aware of his actions and able to control them? 8.     Would he have been aware of his actions and able to control them before 8   March 2005? 9.     What is the mental state of V.U. Khadzhimuradov at present and is he aware of his actions and capable of controlling them? 10.     Is V.U. Khadzhimuradov in need of medical treatment?” The board of experts was given access to the evidence in criminal case no. 20/849 and also examined the accused in person. The examination apparently took place on 8 June 2005. The resulting report recounted the circumstances of the case in the following manner: “... On 8 March 2005, during the investigation of the present criminal case, in the course of carrying out measures aimed at detaining persons suspected of having organised and carried out illegal acts in school no. 1, V.U. Khadzhimuradov was arrested. Immediately before his arrest there was an explosion at the entrance to the cellar during which, as made clear by the interview records, he lost consciousness for an indefinite period of time. During the interview he gave evidence to the effect that he was the grandson of the sister of A.A. Maskhadov, and that since 2003 he had been constantly in his company. He was in charge of protecting A.A. Maskhadov, supervised the cooking and kept an eye on the state of his wardrobe and firearms. Since October 2003 they had been living in the village of Tolstoy-Yurt. For the last two weeks they had been hiding in the cellar of the house. On 8 March 2005 at around 9 o’clock they were in the cellar with A.A. Maskhadov and his advisor V.L.   Murdashev. Having heard the talk and commotion in the yard they realised that they had been located. A.A. Maskhadov told them that he would not give in alive and that if he should remain alive, V.U. Khadzhimuradov would have to shoot him in the heart. After these words, he put a cocked pistol to his temple. At that moment the explosion occurred and V.U. Khadzhimuradov struck his head against the wall and lost consciousness. He had difficulty remembering what happened next. ...” The report then summarised various statements that the accused had given earlier in connection with the events following the explosion: “At one of the interviews he stated that A.A. Maskhadov had shot himself in the head. He did not remember clearly the events which took place after that moment; the servicemen had dragged him and Murdashev out of the cellar (10.03.05). Subsequently he gave contradictory statements. Hence, during the interview dated 18.03.05 he stated that ‘having gradually come round’, he had seen Maskhadov’s head on his leg, felt the warmth and realised that blood was spilling out of the injured head of his uncle. During the interview of 19.03.05 he stated that when the explosion occurred his head felt as if it were being squeezed. A.A. Maskhadov had fallen on him and ‘at that moment, without taking aim’, he had fired two consecutive shots, after which he lost consciousness. At the interview on 07.06.05 he confirmed his previous statements to the effect that A.A. Maskhadov, before the explosion in the cellar, had told him to shoot him in the heart if he should remain alive. At the same time Maskhadov himself had put a pistol to his temple. The accused had held his cocked gun in his hand. When the explosion occurred, he was thrown back by the blast, struck his head against the wall and lost consciousness. When he came round some time later, his head was aching badly as if it were being squeezed and he could hardly see anything. His mind was in a ‘fog’, and at that moment he could not perceive the events around him. At the moment of the explosion he heard the shots but could not say who was shooting and where. He could not rule out that his gun might have gone off when the blast threw him back, but could not say what direction the shots went in. When he came round, he felt that someone was lying on his leg. Later he realised that it was A.A. Maskhadov, whose head was bleeding. After that he and Murdashev started shouting upstairs that they were coming out. Murdashev was the first to come out, followed by him. On the orders of the Spetznaz soldiers he returned to the cellar, where he tied up the body of A.A.   Maskhadov so that it could be taken out (data from the interview record of 07.06.05).” The board of experts examined the physical and mental condition of the accused and talked to him about his memories of the events of 8 March 2005. The report described the perception of events by the accused immediately after the explosion in the following manner: “As regards his condition immediately following the explosion in the cellar [the accused] speaks vaguely and inconsistently, saying that he has trouble remembering that period of time. He r