CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 30 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s3A97705A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s1B7C2278 { width:122.41pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } THIRD SECTION CASE OF AKHMEDNABIYEV AND KAMALOV v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 34358/16 and 58535/16)     JUDGMENT   Art 2 (procedural) • Ineffective investigation into the murder of the applicants’ relatives Art 2 (substantive) • Life • State’s failure to comply with positive obligation to take preventative operational measures to safeguard the life of the first applicant’s father • Existence of a “real and immediate” risk to his life • First applicant’s father’s status as a journalist created additional obligation to take all measures necessary to guarantee his protection in line with relevant international standards and recommendations • Absence of real and immediate risk to life of second applicant’s nephew   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 30 January 2024   FINAL   30/04/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Akhmednabiyev and Kamalov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Yonko Grozev,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   34358/16 and 58535/16) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Mr Mutaelum Akhmednabiyevich Akhmednabiyev and Mr Ali Akhmedovich Kamalov (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”); the observations submitted by the applicants; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the sitting judges of the Court to act as ad hoc judge, applying by analogy Rule 29   §   2 of the Rules of Court (for a similar situation and an explanation of the background see Kutayev v. Russia , no. 17912/15, §§ 5-8, 24 January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 9 January 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications concern the murders of the applicants’ relatives and the effectiveness of the ensuing investigations. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant in application no. 34358/16 (“the first applicant”) is the son of Mr Akhmednabi Akhmednabiyev (“Mr   Akhmednabiyev”), who was murdered on 9 July 2013. The applicant in application no. 58535/16 (“the second applicant”) is the uncle of Mr Khadzhimurad Kamalov (“Mr   Kamalov”), who was murdered on 15   December 2011. The applicants were represented by Mr T. Misakyan, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr M.   Vinogradov, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. The threats of 3 September 2009 and THE ensuing investigation 4 .     On 3 September 2009 unknown persons distributed printed leaflets in various places in Makhachkala in the Republic of Dagestan, in which they accused several journalists, human rights defenders and lawyers of colluding with Dagestan’s armed Islamists and threatened the persons mentioned in the leaflet with death to avenge the murders of police officers (the “execution list”). Mr   Kamalov’s and Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s names were mentioned among those targeted by the threats. 5 .     At the material time Mr   Akhmednabiyev was a deputy editor of the daily newspaper Novoye Delo in Dagestan and a correspondent of the Kavkazskiy Uzel news website. Mr   Kamalov was founder and editor of the Dagestan newspaper Chernovik . 6 .     On 23 October 2009 a criminal case was opened in relation to offences of public calls to engage in extremist activities (Article 280   §   1 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”)) and inciting hatred and enmity through the mass media (Article 282   §   1) on account of the leaflets distributed on 3 September 2009. The file was given the number 96892. The decision to open the case shows that the investigating authorities had information about the places where the leaflets had been distributed and the model, colour and registration number of the car from which they had been dropped. 7.     On 5 February 2010 Mr   Akhmednabiyev was granted victim status in criminal case no.   96892. When questioned by the investigator in charge of the case, Mr   Akhmednabiyev stated that he was afraid for his life because of certain threats which he perceived to be real. He said that he did not know who had made the threats but suspected that they might have come from the law-enforcement authorities, probably from serving or former officials of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Dagestan. 8.     There is no information in the case file as to whether Mr Kamalov was granted victim status or questioned in the framework of the investigation of criminal case no.   96892. Nor has the Court been provided with any information about the steps taken by the investigating authorities in criminal case no.   96892. According to the first applicant, the criminal investigation in that case was eventually discontinued. Attack on Mr Akhmednabiyev, his subsequent murder and THE ensuing investigations Attack on Mr Akhmednabiyev of 12 January 2013 and the ensuing investigation Attack of 12 January 2013 and opening of the criminal case 9 .     On 12 January 2013 Mr Akhmednabiyev was shot at four times near his house in the village of Semender. He was not wounded but his car was damaged. A bullet was found in the boot of his car. 10 .     On 13 January 2013 an investigator from the Kirovskiy District Department of the Interior of Makhachkala instituted an investigation into the events of 12 January 2013 under Article 167 (damage to property) and Article   222 (illegal use of firearms) of the CC). The case file was given the number   35819. When he was questioned the same day with the status of victim, Mr   Akhmednabiyev stated that he perceived the attack as an attempted murder in so far as he had already been targeted by death threats in leaflets distributed previously in Makhachkala and had also received a death threat via SMS in 2011. He linked those threats to his professional activity as a journalist. In particular, he stated that he was in conflict with Mr I.M., the head of one the municipalities of Dagestan, because of various critical articles that he had published about him. Mr Akhmednabiyev’s complaints about the legal classification of the attack and the choice of the investigating body 11 .     On 29 January 2013 Mr Akhmednabiyev lodged a complaint with the prosecutor about the investigator’s decision of 13 January 2013. He stated that the criminal case concerning the attack of 12 January 2013 should have been initiated on the basis of Article 30   §   3 and Article 105 (attempted murder for reasons connected with the victim’s professional activity) and Article 144 (obstructing the lawful professional activities of journalists) of the CC. 12.     On 1 February 2013 Mr Akhmednabiyev lodged another complaint with the prosecutor, asserting that the criminal file should be transferred to the Investigative Committee, which had jurisdiction to investigate offences under Article 105 of the CC. 13.     On 8 February 2013 the deputy prosecutor of the Kirovskiy District in Makhachkala dismissed the above-mentioned complaints. 14.     On 11 February 2013 Mr Akhmednabiyev lodged a complaint under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) against the decision of 8   February 2013. 15 .     On 15 February 2013 the Kirovskiy District Court of Makhachkala upheld the complaint “on the grounds raised by the complainant”, declared the disputed decision unlawful and ordered the prosecutor to correct the shortcomings it had identified. 16 .     On 2 April 2013 the Supreme Court of Dagestan upheld the decision of 15 February 2013 on appeal. It stated, inter alia , that, for the purposes of opening a criminal file, the acts committed by unknown perpetrators during the attack of 12 January 2013 should have been classified as breaches of Articles 105 and 144 of the CC. Resumption of the investigation in criminal case no. 35819, its transfer and further complaints about the investigators’ decisions 17.     Notwithstanding the domestic courts’ findings, the investigation of case no.   35819 initially remained with the Kirovskiy District Department of the Interior of Makhachkala. Certain investigative steps were taken (compiling of a plan of investigative measures; questioning of members of Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s family and neighbours; and analysis of the bullet found in Mr Akhmednabiyev’s car). The investigator tried to question Mr   I.M. (see paragraph 10 above) but he refused to testify on the ground that “he was not obliged to answer questions as [the accusations] tarnished his reputation as the head of the municipality and a good citizen”. 18.     By a decision of 3 June 2013, the investigator finally transferred case file no.   35819 to the prosecutor, stating that the Investigative Committee of Dagestan had the procedural jurisdiction to investigate offences under Articles 105, 144 and 222 of the CC. 19.     On 10 June 2013 the prosecutor’s office transferred case file no.   35819 to the Oktyabrskiy District Investigative Department in Makhachkala. It was received on 13   June 2013. 20.     By a decision of 25 June 2013, an investigator of the Oktyabrskiy District Investigative Department refused to investigate the events of 12   January 2013 under Articles 105 and 144 of the CC. On the basis of Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s testimony about the events and, in particular, about the sequence of shots, the investigator considered that “the prosecutor’s arguments about the presence of the elements of the offences under Article   30   §   3, Article 105   §   3 (g) and Article 144 of the CC” were “erroneous”. The refusal was based on Article 24   §   1   (1) of the CCrP (see paragraph 72 below). 21.     On 4 July 2013 Mr   Akhmednabiyev appealed against the decision of 25 June 2013 to the Kirovskiy District Court of Makhachkala under Article   125 of the CCrP. He stated in particular that the investigator had distorted his testimony about the circumstances of the attack. The proceedings were discontinued on 9 July 2013 because of Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s death (see paragraph 26 below). 22.     On 8 July 2013 the deputy prosecutor of the Kirovskiy District in Makhachkala quashed the decision of 25 June 2013 as unlawful, finding that it contradicted the courts’ decisions of 15 February 2013 and 2 April 2013 (see paragraphs 15 ‑ 16 above) and that, moreover, it was procedurally irregular as the CCrP did not allow for a refusal to investigate a criminal case where the file had already been opened. 23 .     On 15 July 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor of Dagestan issued a document entitled “Request to rectify the breaches of the federal legislation committed in the course of the preliminary investigation” ( Требование об устранении нарушений федерального законодательства, допущенных в ходе предварительного расследования ) and addressed to the head of the Kirovskiy District Investigative Department. Referring to the courts’ decisions of 15 February 2013 and 2 April 2013 (see paragraphs 15 ‑ 16 above), the Deputy Prosecutor asked for “the immediate opening of a criminal investigation” into the events of 12 January 2013 under Articles 105 and 144 of the Criminal Code and for all necessary investigative steps to be taken. 24.     On 24 July 2013 the Kirovskiy District Investigative Department instituted an investigation into the events of 12 January 2013 under Article   105 of the Criminal Code. It was merged with case file no. 35819. 25.     By a decision of 24 August 2013, the deputy head of the Kirovskiy District Investigative Department suspended the preliminary investigation in case no. 35819 because of the impossibility of identifying the perpetrators of the attack of 12 January 2013. Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s murder and the ensuing investigation 26 .     Meanwhile, on 9 July 2013 at around 7 a.m. Mr   Akhmednabiyev was shot dead in his car in the village of Semeder. According to the statements of several eyewitnesses, Mr   Akhmednabiyev was killed by a masked man who fired several shots at him and left the crime scene in a car. 27.     On the same date a criminal investigation was instituted into the murder under Articles 105, 167 (intentional destruction of or damage to another person’s property) and 222 of the CC. The case file was given the number   358499 and assigned to a group of investigators of the Kirovskiy District Investigative Department. 28.     On 15 July 2013 the first applicant was granted victim status in case no.   358499. 29.     By a decision of 2 December 2013, the head of the Kirovskiy District Investigative Department extended the preliminary investigation in case no.   358499 by one month. He identified several steps that needed to be taken, such as the questioning of additional witnesses and an analysis of cell phone connections around the crime scene. It appears that the Kirovskiy District Department of the Interior was instructed to take some of these steps. 30 .     On 9 January 2014 the Kirovskiy District Investigative Department issued a reminder, and on 24 January of the same year a warning, to the Kirovskiy District Department of the Interior that the tasks entrusted to it had still not been carried out. On 12 February 2014 several officers of that department received disciplinary sanctions for failing to take action. 31 .     By a decision of 25 February 2014, the head of the Kirovskiy District Investigative Department merged case file no. 35819 with criminal case no.   358499. He stated, inter alia , that the preliminary investigation in both cases showed that the attack of 12 January 2013 and the murder of 9   July 2013 had been perpetrated by the same persons given that they had been carried out in the same place and that the perpetrators had used a car of the same model and colour, as well as a firearm with similar characteristics. 32.     The investigating authorities carried out several investigative measures, such as an analysis of the cell phone connections near the crime scene, which enabled them to establish that Mr N.Ch., Mr I.M.’s chauffeur, could have been present in the vicinity of the crime scene at the moment of Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s murder. On 24   March 2014 Mr N.Ch. was questioned as a witness and on 10   April 2014 he underwent a polygraph test. 33.     On 9 April 2014 the investigation was suspended pursuant to Article   208   §   1   (1) of the CCrP (see paragraph 74 below). It was then resumed on 10   June 2014, after the decision to suspend it was quashed by a prosecutor. 34.     On 11 July 2014 Mr I.M. was questioned as a witness. 35.     On 30 July 2014 the investigation was again suspended pursuant to Article 208   §   1 (1) of the CCrP. 36 .     On 16 September 2014 a prosecutor quashed the decision of 30 July 2014 to suspend the investigation and identified the following investigative steps to be taken: questioning of Mr   G.K. and Mr S.U. (Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s colleague and friend respectively); inspection of items seized at the crime scene and their registration as physical evidence; and obtaining expert reports about the CCTV recordings which had been submitted for expert examination in January and April 2014. 37.     On 18 October 2014 case file no. 358499 was transferred to the Investigative Committee of Dagestan because of the difficulty of pursuing the investigation and the absence of tangible results. It was assigned to a unit that dealt with the investigation of particularly serious crimes. 38 .     On 12 December 2014 the investigation authorities obtained an expert ballistics report on the bullets found in Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s car after the attack of 11   January 2013 and those found in Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s body and car on 9   July 2013. 39.     On 14 December 2014 the investigation was suspended pursuant to Article 208   §   1 (1) of the CCrP. 40.     On 10 March 2015 the investigation resumed. 41 .     On 27 March 2015 Mr Sh.T. was questioned as a witness. He stated, inter alia , that in 2012 Mr I.M. had asked him to kill Mr   Akhmednabiyev or find a person who would agree to do so but he had refused. After Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s murder, Mr Sh.T. had told Mr A.G., a friend of the deceased, about Mr I.M.’s request. In 2015 the relationship between Mr I.M. and Mr Sh.T. had deteriorated. According to Mr Sh.T., on the morning of 27   March 2015, he had been shot at several times and had been wounded. 42.     On 1 April 2015 Mr A.G. was questioned as a witness. He confirmed that in 2013 Mr Sh.T. had told him that Mr I.M. had asked him to kill Mr   Akhmednabiyev. 43 .     On 1 April 2015 Mr. K.N.   was questioned as a witness. He stated that the conflict between Mr   Akhmednabiyev and Mr I.M. had arisen from the fact that they belonged to two clans that had been in dispute for many years over the use of land in Mr   Akhmednabiyev’s native village. Mr I.M., as the head of the municipal administration, had sold municipally owned land in order to raise his status with members of his clan. Mr   Akhmednabiyev had published articles criticising Mr I.M.’s decisions. 44 .     On 17 July 2015 the investigation was suspended again, and on 28   September 2016 it was again resumed. The following steps were identified as necessary: the examination of Mr Sh.T. by a forensic expert in relation to the injuries he had sustained during the assault of 27 March 2015 and the analysis of any relevant medical documents in that regard; face ‑ to ‑ face confrontations between Mr Sh.T. and Mr A.G., as well as between Mr   Sh.T. and Mr I.M.; additional questioning of Mr   I.M.; and the setting-up of “technical operational-search measures” with regard to Mr Sh.T. and Mr   I.M. 45.     In October 2015 the first applicant’s lawyer complained of the ineffectiveness of the investigation and the lack of communication as to its results. 46.     On 27 November 2015 the investigation was again suspended. 47.     The first applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision of 27   November 2015 under Article 125 of the CCrP. He complained that the investigation was ineffective and had not been pursued with diligence. 48.     On 10   March 2016 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala rejected the complaint. It held that “the investigator examined and took into account all the circumstances that could influence his decision whether to suspend the investigation”. On 27 April 2016 the Supreme Court of Dagestan upheld that decision on appeal. 49 .     On 15 June 2017 the first applicant asked the Investigative Committee of Dagestan to provide information about the conduct of the investigation in criminal case no.   358449. There was no response. 50.     On 4 April 2018 the first applicant’s representative wrote to the head of the Investigative Committee of Russia complaining of the ineffective investigation in criminal case no. 358449 and asking for it be transferred to that Committee. 51 .     On 8 June 2018 the Investigative Committee of Dagestan informed the first applicant’s lawyer that the investigation in criminal case no. 358449 had resumed and that he would be informed about its results. According to the applicant, no such information was received. 52.     No further information on those proceedings has been submitted to the Court. Mr Kamalov’s murder and the ensuing investigation 53.     On 15 December 2011 at around 11.45 p.m. Mr   Kamalov was shot dead in Makhachkala near the entrance of the building in which he worked. 54.     On 16 December 2011 a criminal investigation was instituted into the murder under Articles 105 and 222 of the Criminal Code. The case file was given the number 158780 and assigned to an investigator of the Kirovskiy District Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee in Makhachkala. 55.     Mr   Kamalov’s brother was given victim status in criminal case no.   158780. According to the second applicant, who was Mr Kamalov’s uncle and thus not a close relative within the meaning of Article 44   §   8 of the CCrP (see paragraph 72 above), he was not eligible for recognition as a victim. 56.     Nevertheless, during the investigation, the second applicant made several requests to the investigating authorities about the investigation into his nephew’s murder and he also obtained, from unknown sources, several documents from the investigation file. 57.     On 22 May 2012 criminal file no.   158780 was transmitted to the Main Investigative Department in the North Caucasus Federal District. According to the second applicant, several investigative steps were taken after the file was transferred. 58.     On 6 June 2012 the second applicant was questioned as a witness. 59.     In December 2012 the second applicant obtained two notes from case file no.   158780 which analysed the state of the investigation. According to the note, on unspecified dates several investigative steps had been taken (for example, questioning of witnesses, phone tapping, and obtaining CCTV recordings from near the crime scene), leading to the hypothesis that the murder had been carried out by members of a criminal gang, in particular Mr   Mu.Sh., and commissioned by Mr Sh.I., a member of the Dagestan Parliament. 60 .     In March 2013 the second applicant obtained a report from criminal file no.   158780 which was addressed to the head of the Investigative Committee of Russia. The report stated, inter alia , that on 29 January 2013 Mr   Mu.Sh. had been arrested in the framework of criminal case no.   901615, which had been opened for the investigation into the murder of another local journalist in Dagestan in 2009. When questioned as a suspect, Mr   Mu.Sh. also confessed to Mr   Kamalov’s murder and stated that he and two other members of the gang, Mr M.A. and Mr M.Kh., had killed him. Mr   Mu.Sh. confirmed his statement during a reconstruction of the events. The report indicated that criminal case no.   158780 had been merged with file no. 901615. Mr M.A. and Mr M.Kh. were placed on a wanted persons list and arrest warrants for them were issued. According to the second applicant, he also obtained a video recording of Mr Mu.Sh. being questioned as a suspect, in which he stated that the assassination had been commissioned by Mr Sh.I. 61 .     By a letter of 15 November 2013, the Investigative Committee in the North Caucasus Federal Circuit informed the second applicant that the investigating authorities were taking measures to find Mr M.A. and Mr M.Kh. 62 .     On 20 November 2013 the investigator in charge of criminal case no.   901615 decided to discontinue the investigation in respect of Mr Mu.Sh. as regards Mr Kamalov’s murder. The investigator took into account the fact that on 17   February 2013 Mr Mu.Sh. had retracted his previous statements and asserted his innocence. Given the contradictory character of Mr Mu.Sh.’s statements, the lack of direct evidence and the impossibility of establishing the whereabouts of Mr M.A. and Mr M.Kh., the investigator considered that Mr   Mu.Sh.’s implication in Mr Kamalov’s murder could not be proved. It appears that the material from the criminal file relating to Mr Kamalov’s murder was severed from case file no. 901615 and given the number 368247. 63 .     On 6 June 2014 Mr M.Kh. was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on charges of murder and illegal possession of firearms. 64 .     On 9 December 2014 the Investigative Committee in the North Caucasus Federal Circuit informed the second applicant that, being a witness, he was not allowed to have access to the material from criminal case no.   368247 which related to Mr. Kamalov’s murder. 65 .     In June 2016 the second applicant requested information from the Investigative Committee in the North Caucasus Federal Circuit about the state of the investigation in criminal case no. 368247. By a reply of 13   July 2016, he was denied access to the information. 66.     In July 2017 the second applicant made another request for information about the investigation and claimed to have information about the murder. By a reply of 24 July 2017, he was informed that the investigation was pending and that he might be questioned as witness if need be. 67 .     It appears from several newspaper articles submitted by the second applicant that in 2018 criminal case no. 368247 was transmitted to the Investigative Committee of Russia and that the investigation was completed in September 2020. Four individuals were charged with Mr Kamalov’s murder: Mr   Sh.I., who commissioned the murder, and Mr Mu.Sh, Mr M.A. and Mr   M.Kh., who carried it out. The charges were brought under Articles 277 (organising an attempt on the life of a public person), 209 (establishing and participating in an armed gang), 205.1 (complicity in terrorist activity) and 222 (illegal possession of firearms) of the CC. 68 .     In October 2020, the four accused were committed to stand trial before the South Circuit Military Court. 69 .     On 1 July 2022, the South Circuit Military Court delivered a judgment by which all the accused were convicted. According to a press release of 1   July 2022, Mr Sh.I., Mr   Mu.Sh, Mr M.A. and Mr   M.Kh. received prison sentences ranging from sixteen to twenty-four years. 70.     On 26 May 2023 the Appellate Military Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 71.     By a letter of 26 July 2023, the South Circuit Military Court refused to deliver a copy of the judgment or of the appeal decision to the second applicant because he was not a party to the proceedings. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK Domestic law 72 .     Under Article 24   §   1 of the CCrP, a criminal case may be closed on the following grounds, inter alia : (1) “the absence of an offence”; or (2) “the act did not contain the elements of the offence”. 73 .     Under Article 42   §   8 of the CCrP as in force between 10   December 2011 and 28 December 2013, in criminal cases involving offences resulting in the death of a person, the victim’s rights under Article   42 pass to one of the victim’s close relatives. On 28 December 2013 this provision was amended to provide that in such cases, the victim’s rights would pass to one of his or her close relatives and/or close associates, or, where those persons were absent or unable to participate in proceedings, to one of the victim’s (other) relatives. Article 5 of the CCrP defines close relatives as the spouse and the parents, children, adoptive parents, adopted children, siblings, grandparents and grandchildren; relatives as all other persons, other than close relatives, who are related by blood; and close associates as persons other than close relatives and relatives who have links to the victim or witness, as well as persons whose life, health or well-being is of concern to the victim or witness because of their personal relationship. 74 .     A preliminary investigation may be suspended pursuant to Article   208   §   1   (1) of the CCrP for failure to identify the person to be charged. 75 .     Federal Law no. 119-FZ of 20 August 2004 on State protection of victims, witnesses and other parties to criminal proceedings, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Section 2: Persons subject to State protection “1.     The following participants in criminal proceedings may be given State protection under this Federal Law: (1)     a victim; (2)     a witness; ... 2.     State protection measures may also be applied prior to the initiation of criminal proceedings to a complainant, an eyewitness or a victim of the crime or other persons contributing to the prevention or detection of the crime. ...” Section 6: Security measures “1.   One or more of the following security measures may be implemented together with respect to the protected person: (1)     personal protection, protection of the person’s home and property; (2)     issuing of special means of personal protection, communication and alert; (3)     ensuring the confidentiality of information about the protected person; (4)     relocation to another place of residence; (5)     replacement of identity documents; (6)     change of appearance; (7)     change of the place of work (or service) or study; (8)     temporary relocation to a safe place; (9)     additional security measures in respect of a protected person who is in detention or is serving a sentence, including transfer from one place of detention to another. 2.     On the grounds referred to in section 16 of this Federal Law, other security measures provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation may also be implemented in respect of the protected person. 3.     The security measures provided for in points (4)-(7) of subsection 1 of this section shall be applied only in criminal cases involving serious and particularly serious crimes. ...” Section 16. Grounds for implementing security measures “1.     Security measures may be implemented on the grounds of the existence of a real threat to kill the protected person, to commit violence against him or her, or to engage in destruction of or damage to his or her property in connection with participation in criminal proceedings, where such grounds are established by the authority deciding on the implementation of State protection. 2.     Security measures shall be applied on the basis of a written application by the protected person or with his or her consent in writing ...” International law Council of Europe 76 .     The relevant parts of the Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member States on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors, adopted on 13 April 2016, read as follows: “ I.     Guidelines ... 8.     Legislation criminalising violence against journalists should be backed up by law enforcement machinery and redress mechanisms for victims (and their families) that are effective in practice. Clear and adequate provision should be made for effective injunctive and precautionary forms of interim protection for those who face threats of violence. ... 17.     It is imperative that everyone involved in killings of, attacks on and ill-treatment of journalists and other media actors be brought to justice. Investigations into such crimes and the prosecution of those responsible for them must therefore meet a number of general requirements. When those responsible for such crimes are not brought to justice, a culture of impunity can arise, which calls for particular courses of action. ... II.     Principles ... 23.     The procedural dimension involves a positive obligation on the State to carry out effective, independent and prompt investigations into alleged unlawful killings or ill ‑ treatment, either by State or non-State actors, with a view to prosecuting the perpetrators of such crimes and bringing them to justice. Article 13 of the Convention also requires States to ensure that an effective remedy is available whenever any of the substantive rights in the Convention are violated. 24.     The absence of such effective measures gives rise to the existence of a culture of impunity, which leads to the tolerance of abuses and crimes against journalists and other media actors. When there is little or no prospect of prosecution, perpetrators of such abuses and crimes do not fear punishment. This inflicts additional suffering on victims and can lead to the repetition of abuses and crimes. ... 28.     Ensuring the safety and security of journalists and other media actors is a precondition for ensuring their ability to participate effectively in public debate. The persistence of intimidation, threats and violence against journalists and other media actors, coupled with the failure to bring to justice the perpetrators of such offences, engender fear and have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and on public debate. States are under a positive obligation to protect journalists and other media actors against intimidation, threats and violence irrespective of their source, whether governmental, judicial, religious, economic or criminal. ... 39.     Attacks on and intimidation of journalists and other media actors inevitably have a grave chilling effect on freedom of expression and this effect is all the more piercing when the prevalence of attacks and intimidation is compounded by a culture of legal impunity for their perpetrators. Such a culture of legal impunity is an indicator of endemic abuse of human rights.” United Nations (UN) 77 .     The issue of the safety of journalists has constantly been on the UN agenda. The UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council have adopted numerous resolutions in which they have urged the member States to provide for various measures to protect journalists. For instance, in its Resolution on the safety of journalists adopted on 25 September 2014 (A/HRC/RES/27/5), the Human Rights Council strongly condemned “the prevailing impunity for attacks and violence against journalists, and expresses grave concern that the vast majority of these crimes go unpunished, which in turn contributes to the recurrence of these crimes ...” and urged States “to promote a safe and enabling environment for journalists to perform their work independently and without undue interference, to prevent attacks and violence against journalists and media workers, to ensure accountability through the conduct of impartial, speedy, thorough, independent and effective investigations into all alleged violence against journalists and media workers falling within their jurisdiction, to bring perpetrators including, inter alia , those who command, conspire to commit, aid and abet or cover up such crimes, to justice, and to ensure that victims and their families have access to appropriate remedies.” The Council called upon States “to develop and implement strategies for combating impunity for attacks and violence against journalists, including by using, where appropriate, good practices such as ... inter alia : (a)     The creation of special investigative units or independent commissions; (b)     The appointment of a specialized prosecutor; (c)     The adoption of specific protocols and methods of investigation and prosecution; (d)     The training of prosecutors and the judiciary regarding the safety of journalists; (e)     The establishment of information-gathering mechanisms, such as databases, to permit the gathering of verified information about threats and attacks against journalists; (f)     The establishment of an early warning and rapid response mechanism to give journalists, when threatened, immediate access to the authorities and protective measures; ...” 78.     In its Resolution on the safety of journalists and the issue of impunity (2014) of 18 December 2014 (A/RES/69/185) the United Nations General Assembly noted that “impunity for attacks against journalists remains one of the greatest challenges to the safety of journalists and that ensuring accountability for crimes committed against journalists is a key element in preventing future attacks ...”. It expressed “deep concern also at the growing threat to the safety of journalists posed by non ‑ State actors, including terrorist groups and criminal organizations ...”, and called upon States “to create and maintain, in law and in practice, a safe and enabling environment for journalists to perform their work independently and without undue interference, including by means of: (a)     legislative measures; (b)     awareness-raising in the judiciary and among law enforcement officers and military personnel, as well as among journalists and in civil society, regarding international human rights and humanitarian law obligations and commitments relating to the safety of journalists; (c)     the monitoring and reporting of attacks against journalists; (d)     publicly and systematically condemning violence and attacks; and (e)     dedicating the resources necessary to investigate and prosecute such attacks and to develop and implement strategies for combating impunity for attacks and violence against journalists, including by using, where appropriate, good practices such as those identified in Human Rights Council resolution 27/5 of 25   September 2014 ...” THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 79.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.   JURISDICTION 80.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023, and Pivkina and Others v. Russia   (dec.), nos.   2134/23   and 6 others, §§ 56-57, 6 June 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 81.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the authorities had failed to protect their respective relatives’ lives and that the investigation into the circumstances of their deaths had been ineffective. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” Admissibility 82.     The Court notes at the outset that the applicants have the requisite standing of indirect victims under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of their relatives’ deaths as they are personally affected by the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention (see, for examples of various acceptable degrees of kinship, Fabris and Parziale v. Italy , no. 41603/13, §§   37-41, 19   March 2020, for an uncle, and Khojoyan and Vardazaryan v. Azerbaijan , no. 62161/14, §§   30 ‑ 32, 4 November 2021, for the children of the deceased person). 83.     The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits Submissions of the parties 84.     The Government did not submit any observations. 85.     As regards the positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants submitted that the domestic authorities had failed to protect their relatives’ lives by failing to properly investigate the threats to Mr   Akhmednabiyev and Mr Kamalov respectively as set out in the “execution list” circulated in Makhachkala in 2009 (see paragraph 4 above). The first applicant further submitted that, despite the obviously life ‑ threatening character of the attack of 13 January 2013 on his father, the domestic authorities had failed to take any measures to protect him. Moreover, they had obstinately refused to investigate the attack of 13   January 2013 as attempted murder. 86.     As to the conduct of the investigations into their respective relatives’ murders, the applicants maintained that the investigations had been ineffective and tainted with numerous shortcomings and delays. The Court’s assessment (a)    Preliminary remarks 87.     The respondent Government chose not to participat