CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 20 October 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 60806/08 Marzhan Aydiyevna KUSHTOVA and others against Russia lodged on 15 January 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Ms Marzhan Audiyevna Kushtova, Mr Magomet Sulambekovich Kushtov, Ms Minuosi Sulambekovna Tsitskiyeva, Ms   Madina Sulambekovna Kushtova, Mr Musa Sulambekovich Kushtov, Ms   Fatima Sulambekovna Kushtova and Ms Khulimat Sulambekovna Kushtova, are Russian nationals who were born in 1925, 1950, 1954, 1960, 1961, 1966 and 1968 respectively and live in the Ingushetia Republic, Russia. The first applicant is the mother of the other six applicants and of Ibragim Kushtov. They are represented by Mr L. Roemer, Mr A. Nikolayev, Mr D. Istlayev, Mr M. Barakhoyev, Mr M. Abubarakov and Mr A. Sakalov, lawyers from Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, Moscow. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 25   January 2006 Ibragim Kushtov disappeared. The applicants considered that he had been abducted by State agents. In this respect they relied on the statement made by witness M. who submitted on 3   April 2007 as follows: “On 25   January 2006 I witnessed a capture of a young man who was about 30 to 35   years old at around 5:30 p.m. ... I saw two road police officers stop ... a white VAZ ‑ 2107. When the driver got out of the car, one of the police officers hit him in the face twice and they started fighting. Suddenly two Niva cars (a white and a blue ones) drove up. Six military persons jumped out of them. They were wearing camouflage uniforms and ski masks ... . Some of them were not wearing masks. They looked Slavic and spoke Russian without an accent. I have seen only Federal Security servicemen wear such uniform. The persons who got out of the blue Niva were wearing dark uniforms. The driver did not wear a uniform. He spoke like a local. All men assaulted the [young man] and started beating him. Somehow he managed to break free and started running down the road. I saw one of the servicemen shot at him ... . A bit later [the young man] stumbled and fell down. I cannot say whether he was wounded. [The other men] caught up with him and beat him again. They opened the back door of the white Niva and dragged him inside. Then they left ... . I have no doubt that they were with the Federal Security Service. Only those people can move around freely and without hindrance.” The applicants complained to various state authorities, including the prosecutor’s office, the Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Security Service, about Ibragim Kushtov’s abduction. On 28   January 2006 the Sunzhenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation in connection with “a death of an unidentified person” into Ibragim Kushtov’s abduction. The case file was attributed no.   06600005. On 31   January 2006 the prosecutor’s office granted the victim status to the first applicant in connection with Ibragim Kushtov’s abduction. On 14   March 2006 the prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the conducted investigation had not led to the establishment of Ibragim Kushtov’s whereabouts. On 26   July 2006 the prosecutor’s office granted the victim status to the second applicant in connection with Ibragim Kushtov’s abduction. On 28   August 2006 the prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation into Ibragim Kushtov’s abduction. According to the relevant decision, it was impossible to determine who the alleged perpetrators were. The first applicant appealed. On 22   September 2006 the prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 28   August 2006 and resumed the investigation into Ibragim Kushtov’s abduction. On the same date the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Ingushetiya Republic dismissed the first applicant’s complaint against the decision of 28   August 2006 without consideration on the merits. On 22   October 2006 the prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation again noting that it was impossible to determine who the alleged perpetrators were. On 28   December 2006 and 20   February 2007 the District Court and the Supreme Court of the Ingushetiya Republic respectively upheld the said decision on appeal. On 27   November 2006 and 29   April 2007 the prosecutor’s office refused the second applicant’s requests to study the case file concerning the investigation into Ibragim Kushtov’s abduction. On 21   December 2007 the prosecutor’s office refused a similar request filed by the first applicant. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the State failed to protect life and secure an investigation into the forced disappearance of Ibragim Kushtov. The applicants complain that, as a result of Ibragim Kushtov’s disappearance, they endured mental suffering which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment proscribed by Article   3 of the Convention. The applicants complain under Article   5 of the Convention that Ibragim Kushtov was deprived of his liberty in contravention of Article   5 of the Convention. Lastly, they allege that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of the violation of their rights set out in Article   2 and 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of Ibragim Kushtov? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   104, ECHR 2000-VII), has the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities been sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicants’ mental suffering caused by the abduction of their relative been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants?   3.     Was Ibragim Kushtov deprived of his liberty, within the meaning of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention? If such detention took place, was it in compliance with the guarantees of Article 5   §§   1   –   5 of the Convention?   4.     Have the applicants had at their disposal effective domestic remedies in relation to the alleged violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   5.     The Government are requested to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in criminal case no. 06600005 instituted in relation to Ibragim Kushtov’s abduction.