CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 mars 2025

.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 } .sFF8114C { margin-top:26pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s3E9356B0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s114AEA21 { font-size:9pt } .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 } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; 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 } .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 } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; 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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADCD53C { width:135.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s879A4073 { width:104.18%; border-collapse:collapse } .s2451C809 { width:7.44%; 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 } .s9B7873DC { width:26.52%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s67E6548D { width:26.16%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC8984B4D { width:17.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBA0054F1 { width:22.06%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6E53EE73 { width:7.44%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5B1F4FB1 { width:26.52%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s48B06E0A { width:26.16%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA8931871 { width:17.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB055D536 { width:22.06%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } THIRD SECTION CASE OF MILASHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 75000/17)   JUDGMENT   Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Verbal threats by Chechen senior public officials and religious leaders against a newspaper publisher and journalists after their reporting of mass abduction, arbitrary detention, torture and murder of LGBTI people by the Chechen authorities • Threats amounted to a concerted campaign of intimidation against the applicants and resulted in further threats by unidentified persons capable of inciting people towards violent action • Applicants in fear of their lives and personal safety • Unlawful and disproportionate interference with their professional journalistic activity and work, capable of having a serious chilling effect on the exercise of their right to freedom of expression • Failure to carry out a thorough investigation to assess widely published threats, take preventive measures and criminally pursue the main instigators • Art 34 • Victim • Applicant company took part in the domestic proceedings and the threats affected its work Art 8 • Private life • Domestic authorities effectively condoned Chechen officials’ repeated statements exposing the applicants to potentially serious acts of violence or intimidation by a multitude of persons over an extended period of time • Ineffective criminal investigation   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 4 March 2025   FINAL   04/06/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Milashina and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no.   75000/17) 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”) on 3 October 2017 by three Russian nationals, Ms Yelena Valeryevna Milashina, Mr Dmitriy Andreyevich Muratov, Mr Sergey Nikolayevich Kozheurov (“the applicants”) and Redaktsionno-Izdatelskiy Dom Novaya Gazeta ANO (an editorial and publishing house), a legal entity incorporated, at the time of the application, under Russian law (“the applicant company”); the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 2, 8, 10 and 14 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the applicants’ and the applicant company’s observations; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an   ad hoc   judge, applying by analogy Rule 29 §   2 of the Rules of Court (see   Kutayev v. Russia , no.   17912/15, §§   5-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application raises the issue of the State’s substantive and procedural obligations under Article 10 of the Convention in connection with verbal threats received by the applicants, who are journalists and who published articles revealing a large-scale violent campaign that was reportedly run by the Chechen authorities against people perceived to be homosexual. The application also concerns the authorities’ alleged failure to protect, under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants from the verbal attacks received as a result of their publications and the alleged discrimination, in breach of Article 14, against the applicants and the applicant company on the grounds of “other status” in connection with their journalistic investigations into the abduction and extrajudicial killing of people perceived to be homosexual by the Chechen authorities, and their publishing of opinions on that subject. THE FACTS 2.     At the time when the present application was lodged, the applicant company was an editorial and publishing house that had been registered in Moscow since 1998, which edited and published a national newspaper – Novaya Gazeta . Ms Milashina, who was born in 1977, had been a staff journalist since 1997 and the editor in the newspaper’s special projects department. Mr   Muratov, who was born in 1961, was the chair of Novaya Gazeta ’s editorial council (and its former editor-in-chief) and is also a 2021 Nobel Peace Prize winner (jointly with a Filipino journalist Ms Maria Ressa). Mr Kozheurov, who was born in 1955, was one of the founders of Novaya Gazeta , its editor-in-chief and he had been the director of the applicant company for more than twenty years. The applicants and the applicant company were represented by Mr Tumas Arsenovich Misakyan, a lawyer practising in Moscow, and Ms Jessica Gavron, Mr Philip Leach and Ms Kate Levine, lawyers from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (“the EHRAC”) in London. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr M. Vinogradov, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 4.     The Government were given notice of the application but they made no submissions in the present case. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Publications of 1 and 4 April 2017 in Novaya Gazeta 5.     On 1 April 2017 an article entitled “Honour Killing” was published in Novaya Gazeta . It was written by Ms Milashina. It reported that there had been mass abductions, arbitrary detentions, torture and killings of Chechen men who were allegedly homosexual or who were perceived to be gay by the Chechen authorities. The article stated that the information about the detentions had been confirmed by several sources in the Interior Ministry of the Chechen Republic, in the regional administration, in the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) office in the Chechen Republic, in the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic and by local LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) activists. The article also stated that a crisis line had been created for the victims. 6.     The credibility of those allegations was subsequently confirmed by reports and statements from numerous organisations, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (under the Moscow Mechanism), and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; many reputable non ‑ governmental organisations (NGOs), including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Russian LGBT Network, and the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights; and numerous international media, including The New York Times , The Washington Post , the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Deutsche Welle. As a result of that campaign, more than 114 LGBTI people and members of their families fled Chechnya (see Lapunov v. Russia , no. 28834/19, § 5, 12 September 2023). 7.     The events described in the article of 1 April 2017 were also examined by the Court in the case of N.A. and Others v. Russia (nos. 48523/19 and 4   others, 21 November 2023). The Court examined the complaints brought by the relatives of persons discussed in the article and established that the victims who had been abducted by State agents in Chechnya and eventually disappeared were presumed dead in the absence of any plausible justification from the Government (ibid., § 77). 8.     On 4 April 2017 another article, “Massacre of Chechen Gays”, was published in Novaya Gazeta . It contained the stories of three survivors who were among those that had contacted the crisis line after the publication of the first article and described in detail the massive persecution of Chechen men who were perceived to be gay by the Chechen authorities. official reactions and public statements by chechen officials 9 .     On 2 April 2017, Mr Dzhambulat Umarov, the Minister for National Politics, External Relations, Press and Information of the Chechen Republic made the following statement, which was published on a local State-run internet news portal (Grozny-Inform) in relation to the article in Novaya Gazeta of 1   April 2017: “... Before I comment on this heinous hoax, I will tell you simply as a Chechen and a Muslim, if this filth [LGBTQI people] should appear in our region, I warn you, it will be harshly persecuted by our own people and I cannot exclude [the possibility] that the relatives themselves might take other, more radical measures ...” 10 .     On 3 April 2017 a public meeting was held in the central mosque of Grozny which was attended by the representatives of twenty-four local Chechen communities, Islamic religious and community leaders. According to official information, fifteen thousand people attended the meeting. During the meeting, Mr Adam Shakhidov, an advisor to Ramzan Kadyrov (the Head of the Chechen Republic) accused Novaya Gazeta staff of libel and called them “enemies of our faith and our homeland”. His speech and the statements made by the religious leaders were broadcast by the Chechen State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company Grozny (“the Grozny Broadcasting Company”) and were widely reposted online. As a result of the meeting, a resolution was adopted stating the following: “1.     The publication in Novaya Gazeta is absolutely a lie and slander, offending the honour and dignity of Muslims living in Chechnya, citizens of Russia. 2.     Considering that centuries-old traditions, the dignity of Chechen men and our faith have been insulted, we promise retribution to the instigators, whoever and wherever they are [and however long it may take] 3.     We, the High Assembly, call upon the people of Chechnya and all decent people not to spread information that is slanderous and provocative, this is a serious sin in Islam and other religions, it causes suffering and pain for many people. 4.     We call upon every reasonable person to fight, with all possible (legal) means, against spreading of such infamy and provocation. 5.     We call upon the federal and regional media to use verified sources and the opinions of qualified specialists. Let the Almighty give us calm, peace and justice!” On 5 April 2017 the full text of the resolution was published on Grozny ‑ Inform. 11.     On 13 April 2017 Novaya Gazeta published a statement in connection with threats received by its journalists following the publication of the article. It stated that:   “... it is evident that the resolution adopted during the meeting of 3 April 2017 will incite religious fanatics to commit atrocities. ... We insist that the reaction to journalistic work that was shown in the central mosque is unacceptable in a civilised society and that it must be assessed from the standpoint of Russian law. We call upon Russian authorities to do everything possible to prevent acts that incite hatred and animosity towards journalists who were carrying out their professional task.” 12 .     On 14 April 2017 Mr Mezhiyev, the Mufti of the Chechen Republic and the Chairman of the Muslim Spiritual Authority of Chechnya stated during a broadcast of the radio station Govorit Moskva : “... I do not wish to call these people [the journalists of Novaya Gazeta ] ‘people’. This creature [Ms Milashina] will be held responsible according to law. As for retribution, [they will undoubtedly suffer] the reprisal of the almighty Allah. They offended not only the feelings of some individuals, they insulted the Chechen people, the religious leaders, the most sacred. They should have been afraid [not now but before,] when they were spreading unsubstantiated libel [information that gay people had been abducted and executed in Chechnya] ...” 13 .     On the same day one of the applicants, Mr Muratov issued a statement in the form of a message published in Novaya Gazeta addressing Mr   Mezhiyev. It stated, inter alia , the following: “... We ( Novaya Gazeta ) did not offend the Chechen people and had no intention to do so. We deeply and sincerely respect them. We were with them during the tragic years of war: [we] helped to evacuate the wounded, delivered humanitarian aid, freed the hostages. Hundreds of Chechen families remember with gratitude the humanitarian work of our columnist Anna Stepanovna Politkovskaya. The only reason why it is not possible to find in our texts any offensive remarks about the Chechen people and their faith is that there are no such remarks in them. We were defending people who were persecuted and who sought help [from us]. Those people did not commit any crimes. One can have different opinions of them but they should be treated according to law. I consider that the resolution of the High assembly is an emotional statement. Especially where it speaks of “retribution”. I see a direct call to violence in it. And [ Novaya Gazeta ] remembers well and will never forget the assassinations of Anna Politkovskaya and Nataliya Estemirova. There is enough violence in our country. That is why we are always ready to have a dialogue with the representatives of the Chechen people and the religious leaders ...” 14 .     On 15 April 2017 Grozny-Inform published another statement of Mr   Mezhiyev, which read as follows: “... Novaya Gazeta is an agency that makes people turn against each other and spreads rumours ... These creatures [the journalists of Novaya Gazeta ], one cannot call them otherwise, who work for it, and I do not consider them people, will be held responsible according to law, with Allah’s permission. Retribution will without a doubt reach them! Because the almighty Allah is the one who punishes, and it is a different question how and through whom He will do it, only He knows the answer.” 15 .     On 15 April 2017 Mr   Dzhambulat Umarov (see paragraph 9 above) issued another statement, this time in reply to Mr Muratov’s message of 14   April 2017 to the Mufti of Chechnya (see paragraph 13 above), which was published by Grozny-Inform. It read: “Mr Muratov, as an official [in charge of] media [policy], I understand what made you address the Mufti of Chechnya. That is to say, [your] concern for your journalists. Do not worry, the Chechens do not touch unarmed people, even if they are scoundrels. This, unfortunately, confirms your ignorance of our centuries-long traditions. Yes, we can despise, but not ... I have the same concerns. We do not need scandals, fights and certainly groundless accusations of something we have no relation to. It makes no sense to write about the threats having clung to word “reprisal” in the text that was written by the appalled religious leaders who themselves very often die at the hands of the terrorists. What do your colleagues “milashina-s” want to achieve?... What reaction did you expect from the mountain warriors for whom, mentioning in their presence, even in passing, the sin of Sodom is already offensive for their ears? Will you say you did not know that?... To end our dangerous skirmish, you need to comply with three conditions. First, you should bring your apologies to the Chechen people for that filthy nonsense that you had spread in the media including on social networks. Second, if this apology is brought, we request that you oblige your colleagues at least superficially to learn more about the mentality [of people] in the region and to refer to the real (!) sources who they work with. Third, stop already [your] hysteria about non-existent ‘threats’ [or] those who are much more annoyed by your newspaper than us might ... use it against you. We have seen this ‘phenomenon’ before ...” 16.     On 22 April 2017, Ramzan Kadyrov criticised the journalists of Novaya Gazeta during a festival that was taking place in Grozny and asserted that: “... They [the journalists writing about Chechnya] want war in Russia, they want what happened in Ukraine, Ossetia, Egypt and there, in Libya. We should chase them far away from our territory so that the people of Russia could live freely ...” The situation of M s Milashina after the publication of the articles of 1 and 4 April 2017 in Novaya Gazeta 17 .     In the days following the publication of the articles, Ms Milashina received dozens of messages via her Facebook profile and messenger from anonymous authors with usernames which, according to Ms Milashina, could be characterised as belonging to residents of the Caucasus region and to Chechens in particular. Those messages contained threats, including death threats. She received a signal jamming device from Novaya Gazeta , she had to relocate from her home, limit her use of public transport and move around in a car with a driver who accompanied her between her office and the home of acquaintances who accommodated her after she had perceived statements of the Chechen political and religious leaders as threats (see paragraphs 10, 12, 14 and 15 above). 18 .     At the end of April 2017 Ms Milashina had to leave Russia until the end of that year out of concern for her safety and because no meaningful steps had been taken by the authorities to investigate the threats that she had received (see paragraphs 19-29 below). Attempts by the applicants to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with threats received 19 .     On 18 April 2017 Novaya Gazeta ’s editorial board and Ms   Milashina complained to the Investigative Committee of Russia about threats of murder received by journalists and about statements of Chechen leaders inciting hatred and animosity against journalists. 20 .     On 17 May 2017 Mr S., an investigator at the Investigative Committee office in the North-Caucasus Circuit (“the Investigative Committee Office”) issued a refusal to open a criminal case. In the text of the resolution of 3 April 2017 he found no elements of the crimes of threatening with death or severe bodily harm, or of inciting hatred or animosity and humiliating human dignity. He also noted that, in reply to his request for a video recording of the public meeting of 3 April 2017 in the central mosque, the director of the Grozny Broadcasting Company stated that the video material had been deleted after the time-limit for storing it had expired. 21 .     On 26 May 2017 the refusal to open a criminal case was quashed by the head of the investigating authority as unlawful and unsubstantiated. He pointed out, inter alia , that the religious leaders of the central mosque should have been questioned. 22 .     On 6 June 2017, Mr Mezhiyev, the Mufti of Chechnya, was questioned. He confirmed that the meeting of 3 April 2017 had indeed taken place and that the resolution had been adopted. He stated that: “... According to Islamic tenets, people entering into non-traditional relations are executed. However, since executions are banned by law, we [merely] disapprove of the acts of such persons and [expect that] they are punished by the Almighty [Allah]. According to Chechen traditions, if there is even one person of non-traditional [sexual] orientation in a family clan, that whole clan is considered dishonoured and the clan annihilates that person. ... Paragraph 2 of the resolution is addressed to any person who spreads fake information about Chechen men, none of whom belongs to [the group of] people of non-traditional [sexual] orientation. The term ‘retribution’ [used in the text of the resolution] refers to punishment by the Almighty [Allah] of the persons concerned and that only Allah knows who will be punished and how.” 23.     On 8 June 2017 the prosecutor’s office in Chechnya replied to an enquiry from the Chair of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, stating that the resolution had contained neither threats against the journalists nor statements inciting hatred or animosity on any grounds. 24.     On 29 June 2017, Mr P., an investigator at the Investigative Committee office, issued a refusal to open a criminal case into the complaints, referring to the absence of a video recording of the meeting of 3 April 2017 and to the explanation provided by Mr Mezhiyev (see paragraph 22 above). 25.     Between 10 July 2017 and 9 February 2018, twelve decisions, which contained nearly identical reasons, were issued by the Investigative Committee office, alternately refusing to open a criminal case and quashing those decisions. The last refusal to open a criminal case was issued on 9   February 2018. 26.     On 4 October 2018, the applicant company, Mr Muratov and Mr   Kozheurov lodged a complaint against the last refusal to open criminal case with the Yessentuki Town Court (“Town Court”). They pointed out, in particular, that: (i)     the pre-investigative inquiry into the threats they had complained of had been incomplete; (ii)     the investigator had requested a copy of the video recording of the meeting in the central mosque belatedly, when the time-limit for safekeeping the tape had run out and it had been destroyed; (iii)     the investigator had not established who exactly had written the resolution; (iv)     the statements made during the public meeting had not been subjected to a forensic linguistic examination; and (v)     the investigation had been ineffective, in breach of Article 10 of the Convention. 27 .     On 14 December 2018 the Town Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint, holding that since they had not asked the investigator to obtain the video recording of the meeting in the mosque, their argument about his request being submitted too late had been unsubstantiated. The Town Court did not address any of the applicants’ other arguments in its decision. 28.     On 12 March 2019 the Stavropol Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal, without addressing the applicants’ arguments. 29 .     At the time when the present application was being examined, no proceedings had been instituted and no charges had been brought in relation to the threats that the applicants received. The applicants had not received disclosure of the full case file or any other information from the investigating authorities concerning their complaint subsequent to the decision of the Stavropol Regional Court of 12 March 2019. Other relevant information submitted by the applicants Attack at the Novaya Gazeta building 30.     In 2021 a toxic chemical was sprayed at the entrance of the office of Novaya Gazeta in Moscow and the staff of the newspaper and of other organisations located in that building had to work from home because they could not remain inside. Threats and attacks against Ms Milashina 31 .     In November 2017, October 2019, April 2020, April 2021 and January 2022, Ms Milashina and Novaya Gazeta were verbally and publicly attacked by Ramzan Kadyrov and some of his subordinates on air and online for publications covering events in Chechnya (see paragraph 47 below for details). In February 2020 and July 2023 Ms Milashina was physically attacked and injured by groups of unidentified individuals during her business trips to Chechnya (see paragraph 48 below for details). Attack against Mr Muratov 32 .     On 7 April 2022 Mr Muratov was attacked while on a train between Moscow and Samara. He was doused with a mixture of oil paint and acetone. According to Mr Muratov, the attacker had shouted: “Muratov, here’s one for our boys”. Mr Muratov was diagnosed with chemical burns to his eyes and was temporarily incapacitated. The applicants considered that the attack had happened because of Mr Muratov’s statements against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year. 33 .     No criminal case was opened in connection with the attack and the attackers were not detained, despite the fact that they were allegedly filmed by surveillance cameras and their names were established almost immediately after the incident. In addition, Novaya Gazeta journalists claimed to have established that the attackers had been closely connected to each other and had been in contact with nationalist and “patriotic” structures, as well as with the Russian security services. Threat against Mr Kozheurov 34 .     On 19 April 2017 an envelope with white powder of unknown origin was delivered to the office of Novaya Gazeta . It was addressed to Mr   Kozheurov, had no return address, was signed “Grozny”, and had “666666” in the zip code field. The police and the Ministry of Emergency Situations were informed of the incident. No official action was taken in connection with it. Murders of Novaya Gazeta journalists in the past 35 .     The following five journalists of Novaya Gazeta were murdered in connection with their professional activity: Igor Domnikov (2000), Yuri Shchekochikhin (2003), Anna Politkovskaya (2006), Anastasiya Baburova (2009) and Nataliya Estemirova (2009). A lawyer working with Novaya Gazeta , Stanislav Markelov, was also killed in 2009. 36 .     At least eight other journalists were either attacked (including attempted murder and abduction) or regularly received threats by post, email and on social networks. Two of them had to leave the country out of concerns for their safety. THE LAW PRELIMINARY Issues The Court’s jurisdiction 37.     The Court first 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 this complaint (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, §   46, 6   June 2023). The Government’s failure to submit observations 38.     The Government did not comment on the admissibility or merits of the application. However, their abstention from further participation in the proceedings does not release them from their duty to cooperate with the Court, which is not prevented from continuing with the examination of applications over which it retains jurisdiction. The Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate from a party’s failure or refusal to participate effectively in the proceedings (Rule 44C of the Rules of Court; see also Georgia v. Russia (II) (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 38263/08, §§   25 ‑ 27, 28 April 2023; Svetova and Others v. Russia , no. 54714/17, §§   29 ‑ 31, 24   January 2023; and Glukhin v. Russia , no. 11519/20, §§ 42-43, 4   July 2023). Alleged violation of Article 10 and article 14 of the Convention 39.     The applicant company and the applicants complained that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of expression because the applicants, who were independent journalists reporting on and exposing human rights violations perpetrated in Chechnya, had been threatened and attacked for their journalistic work, and the authorities had failed to take measures to protect them. They relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2.     The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” 40.     In their original application to the Court the applicants did not raise a complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 10. However, the Court gave notice of such a complaint to the Government proprio motu . In their observations the applicant company and the applicants complained that they had been discriminated against in violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 10 on the grounds of “other status” as a result of their expressing an opinion which associated them with the situation of LGBTI people in Chechnya, and on the grounds of “political or other opinion” on account of their expressing opinions regarding the existence and persecution of LGBTI people in Chechnya, which ran counter to the political orthodoxy in that region. Article   14 of the Convention reads as follows: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 41.     The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos.   37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 123-24, 20 March 2018, and Guerra and Others v. Italy , 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑I), decides to examine the applicant company’s and the applicants’ complaints under this head under Article 10 of the Convention only. Admissibility 42.     Given that the Government did not raise any objections as to the admissibility of the application, the Court need not consider the matter of exhaustion of domestic remedies of its own motion (see Yefimov and Youth Human Rights Group v. Russia , nos. 12385/15 and 51619/15, § 31, 7   December 2021, and Dobrev v. Bulgaria , no. 55389/00, §§ 112-14, 10   August 2006). 43.     At the same time the Court finds it necessary in the circumstances of the case to address the question whether the applicant company can claim to be a victim of the alleged violation under Article 10. The issue of victim status is a matter which goes to the Court’s jurisdiction and the Court can examine it of its own motion (see, among many others, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 93, 27 June 2017). The Court reiterates that freedom of expression can be invoked, in principle, not only by the author or editor of a certain publication, but also by the publisher who purports to disseminate the information or ideas contained therein (see, for example, X. Company v. the United Kingdom (dec.) , no.   9615/81, 5 March 1983, and C.S.Y. v. Turkey , no. 27214/95, § 27, 4 March 2003). The Court has further held that when publishers help to provide authors with a medium for the expression of their ideas, they not only participate fully in their (authors’) exercise of the freedom of expression, but also share the latter’s “duties and responsibilities” (see Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI, and Orban and Others v. France , no. 20985/05, § 47, 15   January 2009). For similar reasons, a newspaper publisher may claim victim status for Article 10 purposes when, as in the present case, a significant interference with the exercise of journalism is alleged, which broadly affects its newsgathering and reporting functions. 44 .     In the present case, the resolution of 3 April 2017 and further statements made by officials and religious leaders directly referred to Novaya Gazeta and its management (see paragraphs 10, 14 and 15 above). In the aftermath of the threats, the management had to enhance its security protocols, arrange the relocation of Ms Milashina and make its premises inaccessible to visitors (see paragraph 73 below). The threats were perceived by the Novaya Gazeta staff as affecting the work of the newspaper as a whole and as “a means of applying direct pressure ... on the publishing house in general, with the aim of obstructing [its] journalistic work ...” (see paragraphs 72 and 73 below). Furthermore, it is of some relevance that the applicant company took part in the domestic proceedings regarding the threats received by Ms Milashina (see paragraphs 19 and 26 above; see also Micallef v.   Malta   [GC] , no. 17056/06, § 48, ECHR 2009). In the light of the above circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant company can claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 10. 45.     The Court notes that the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention 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 The applicant company’s and the applicants’ submissions 46.     The applicant company and the applicants submitted that: (i)     the threats that they had received and the attacks that had been carried out against them had been linked with their journalistic activity; (ii)     the articles of 1 and 4 April 2017 had fallen within the scope of protection of Article 10, which applied not only to information that would be favourably received but also to information that could offend or shock the authorities or any sector of the population; and (iii)     given the climate of impunity and of violence against independent journalists that had existed in Chechnya at the relevant time, and as provided for by the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists (CM/Rec(2016)4), the authorities should have taken measures that would have mitigated the risks for the applicants, including creating and enabling favourable conditions for participation in public debate, and they should have conducted an effective investigation into the threats that the applicants had received and the attacks that had been carried out against them. 47 .     The applicants also submitted that Ms Milashina was verbally attacked by Ramzan Kadyrov for publication of articles which reported on (i)     Ramzan Kadyrov’s nephew allegedly subjecting women to torture by electric shock (November 2017); (ii)     on allegedly existing conspiracy against Kadyrov in his inner circle and subsequent reprisals against members of that circle (October 2019); (iii)     stigmatisation as terrorists of persons who had become infected with coronavirus in Chechnya (April 2020); (iv)     mass execution of twenty-seven people in Chechnya on suspicion of being terrorists, gang members or homosexual (February 2021) (the events described in that article were examined by the Court in the case of N.A.   v.   Others v. Russia (nos. 48523/19 and 4 Others, 21 November 2023) and (v)   the abduction by Chechen policemen of Ms Musayeva, who was the wife of a federal judge, Mr Yangulbayev, in Nizhny Novgorod (January   2022) (the incident that was also examined by the Court in the case of Zarema Musayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 4573/22, 28 May 2024). The threats contained, inter alia , a direct call to stop journalists and human rights defenders “by killing them, putting them behind bars, intimidating them – by any means possible”; statement that journalists of Novaya Gazeta would “choke on their subversive publications”; and statement naming Ms   Milashina “[one of] terrorist accomplice[s]” who “have always [been] destroyed”. 48 .     Furthermore, on 6 February 2020 Ms Milashina was beaten by a group of men and women at the entrance to a hotel in Grozny where she came to defend a local resident who had been detained for posting a video on social media concerning corruption among the relatives and entourage of Ramzan Kadyrov. The applicants submitted that the investigation in the case had not progressed despite the fact that both Ms Milashina and Ms   M.D. had sustained various bodily injuries during the attack. On 4 July 2023 Ms   Milashina and Mr N., a lawyer who was travelling with her, were attacked in Grozny while they were going from the airport to a court hearing in a criminal case against Ms Musayeva. Ms Milashina was admitted to hospital after the attack. Her fingers had been broken in fourteen places, she had received a head injury and her body, including her head, back, arms, legs and buttocks, was covered with bruises and haematomas. She submitted a medical certificate to the Court confirming that she had suffered a closed craniocerebral injury; concussion; contusions to the soft tissue of her head and face; blunt trauma to her chest; chest contusion; multiple bruises of soft tissues of her head and face; contusions and abrasions on her torso, limbs, and hands; and a stab wound to the left hand. 49.     The attack received media coverage world-wide and was condemned by international human rights bodies and non-governmental organisations, including UN special rapporteurs, who issued a joint statement on the attack, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Reporters Without Borders, the International Federation for Human Rights and the World Organisation Against Torture. 50.     As a result of the latest threats against her, Ms Milashina was forced to leave Russia once again and had not as yet returned. That was the third time that Ms Milashina had been forced to leave Russia out of fear for her life. The Court’s assessment (a)    Scope of examination 51 .     As regards the applicants’ submissions about verbal and physical attacks between November 2017 and July 2023 on Ms Milashina and Mr   Muratov (see paragraphs 32, 33 and 47-48 above), the Court notes that they were not raised as separate complaints but only provided by the applicants as part of their additional observations on the main complaint directly relating only to verbal attacks following the publication of articles of 1 and 4 April 2017 in Novaya Gazeta and as such, they do not form part of the complaint in the present application. Therefore, the Court will focus on the applicants’ and the applicant company’s grievances about the verbal threats received by them immediately after the articles written by Ms   Milashina had been published in Novaya Gazeta on 1 and 4 April 2017. (b)    Statements related to articles of 1 and 4 April 2017 by Ms Milashina in Novaya Gazeta 52 .     The Court reiterates that “interference” by the authorities with the exercise of freedom of expression may take various forms, such as “formalities, conditions, restrictions [and] penalties” under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia , no. 44561/11, § 58, 11 May 2021). Furthermore, the positive obligations under Article 10 require States to create, while establishing an effective system for the protection of authors or journalists, an environment conducive to the participation in public debates of all persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if they run counter to those defended by the official authorities or by a significant section of public opinion, or are irritating or shocking to those authorities or public opinion (see Dink v. Turkey , nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 137, 14 September 2010). 53.     The material submitted by the applicants shows that after the first article on the mass arrests, torture and killings of Chechen men was published in Novaya Gazeta , officials and religious authorities in Chechnya, including the region’s minister for the media, the advisor for the President of the Republic, religious leaders and the Mufti of Chechnya publicly made threats of “retribution” and “punishment” by the divine force (see paragraphs 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 above). These statements, including in particular the resolution of 3 April 2017 adopted at a meeting attended by fifteen thousand persons in a mosque, could be understood by the general public, and large numbers of religious believers in particular, as inciting or justifying animosity and violence against the journalists of Novaya Gazeta (see paragraphs 17 above and 67 and 72 below). More specifically, a statement made at the same meeting by a presidential adviser referred to Novaya Gazeta journalists as “enemies of our faith and our homeland”. The resolution adopted by the large gathering noted that “our faith has been insulted” by the publication and “promise[d] retribution to the instigators, whoever and wherever they are”. Further statements made in the following days by the Mufti of Chechnya, the region’s highest religious authority, referred to the journalists, and Ms   Milashina specifically, in dehumanising language (“I do not consider them people” and references to them as “creatures”) and repeated the threats of divine retribution in ways that could have incited violence by individual believers. 54.     The Court notes that in their outrage over the publication and its authors, the official and religious figures did not contest any specific allegations m