CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 avril 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E698226 { width:12.01pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 53322/11 Zargan ASUKHANOVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   April 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabeth Steiner, President,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Ksenija Turković, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 August 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Zargan Asukhanova, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Urus-Martan. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     Abduction of the applicant’s husband At the material time the town of Urus-Martan was under curfew; it was surrounded by military checkpoints. A number of law-enforcement agencies, including the military commander’s office, were operating in the settlement. At about 7 a.m. on 10 June 2002 a group of ten to fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the applicant’s house in a khaki-coloured UAZ minivan with a registration plate which contained the numbers ‘23-75’. The intruders, who spoke unaccented Russian, took the applicant’s husband Magomed outside and put him in the minivan, saying that they were taking him to the military commander’s office. Then the servicemen drove away in a northerly direction. The applicant has not seen her husband since the abduction on 10 June 2002. The above account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicant and her neighbours. B.     The official investigation into the incident On 11 June 2002 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan prosecutor and the Urus-Martan district military commander that her husband had been abducted by military servicemen in the UAZ minivan described above. On 13 June 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   61100 in respect of the applicant’s complaint. On 28   August 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On a number of occasions between 2002 and 2003 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities, including prosecutors’ offices and police departments at different levels, about her husband’s abduction by military servicemen, and pointed out that despite the comprehensive information pointing to the perpetrators, the crime was not being investigated effectively. On an unspecified date in 2002 or 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended because no perpetrators had been identified. On 1   August 2003 it was resumed. On 1 September 2003 it was again suspended. On 10 February 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court declared Magomed Asukhanov missing since 10 June 2002. On 4 August 2004 and 2 June 2005 the applicant complained to the Chechnya prosecutor about the abduction, stating that the perpetrators must have belonged to the federal forces as they had been able to pass through checkpoints in the area during curfew and had been driving around as a large group in a UAZ minivan of the type usually used by the military. She further stated that her complaint was not being effectively investigated and that the authorities had failed to take the most basic steps to identify the perpetrators. On 1   September 2004 and 17 June 2005 respectively, the investigators responded that the investigation was in progress and that they were taking all possible measures to have the crime resolved. On 1 September 2006 the applicant complained to the Urus ‑ Martan district prosecutor that her husband’s abduction was not being effectively investigated. On 8 September 2006 the investigators informed her that the proceedings had been suspended. On 30 August 2007 the investigation was resumed on account of the investigators’ failure to take a number of basic steps, such as examining the theory of the possible involvement of federal servicemen in the abduction. On 30 September 2007 the investigation was again suspended. On 29   October 2007 it was resumed again by the supervising prosecutor, who criticised the suspension as unlawful and premature. On 30 November 2007 the investigation was again suspended. On several occasions in 2009 and 2010 the applicant complained to the supervising prosecutor about the investigation. In reply she was informed that the investigators were taking all possible measures to have the crime resolved. On 22 June 2010 and 18 March 2011 the applicant complained to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court that the investigation was not being carried out effectively, that it had been unlawfully suspended, and that she had been refused access to the case file. On 13 July 2010 the court partially allowed the complaint of 22 June 2010 and ordered the investigators to allow the applicant to see the case file; the complaint of 18 March 2011 was rejected respectively on 28 March 2011 as the investigators had resumed the proceedings on the same date. It appears that the proceedings are currently still pending. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 2, 5 and 13 about her husband’s unlawful arrest and subsequent disappearance and the failure of the domestic authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the events. Under Article 3 of the Convention she claimed that as a result of the disappearance of her close relative she was enduring severe mental suffering. THE LAW The Court refers to Article   37 of the Convention, which, in the relevant part, reads as follows: “1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” The Court observes that, by a letter of 6 July 2012, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit her observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 7   September 2012. By a letter dated 21 September 2012 sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for the submission of her observations had expired on 7 September 2012 and that no extension had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant, who received the warning letter on 18   October 2012, has not responded to it.   In these circumstances, the Court considers that, for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article   37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   André Wampach   Elisabeth Steiner   Deputy Registrar   President