CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2016

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt }   Communicated on 10 November 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 52325/15 Zalikhan Saydrakhmanovna TSECHOYEVA and Others against Russia lodged on 16 October 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants’ details are as follows: Zalikhan Tsechoyeva (born on 26/04/1976), Zhanna Dudurgova (born on 08/08/1980), Sharifa Tsechoyeva (born on 02/07/1945) and Zukhra Tsechoyeva (born on 07/03/2001) are all Russian nationals who live in Ordzhonikidzevskaya. They are represented before the Court by V.   Kogan of Astreya Legal Assistance and E. Wesselink of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative. The applicants are a sister, wife, mother and an adolescent daughter to the late Gilani Tsechoyev. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Allegedly, in early April 2010 Gilani Tsechoyev was stopped by unspecified law-enforcement officers, who spoke Chechen and Russian without an accent. As these officers were attempting to force him into a car, Officer Kha. ordered them to let him go. On 24 June 2010 two people fired gun shots at the victim causing his death. Two of the applicant’s friends, Ch. and B., were eye-witnesses to the events. On the same day, an investigator carried out a crime-scene inspection. On 25 June 2010 a criminal case was opened. The investigator commissioned a ballistics report, asking the expert, inter alia , to determine the type of rifle used to kill the victim and to determine whether the cartridges had any striations which would allow the determination of the specific rifle. On 26 June 2010 the investigator interviewed B. According to B., the perpetrators arrived in a black Lada Priora car with no number plates. They wore worn, “forest-camouflage” clothes and black balaclavas. According to Ch. and B., they shouted, “Don’t move, identity check, show your identity documents. We will shoot to kill!” On 30 June 2010 the investigator granted victim status to the deceased’s next of kin (who is not among the applicants listed above). On 5 July and 25 October 2010 the investigator granted victim status to the second and first applicants respectively. By decision of 25 November 2010 the investigator suspended the investigation for lack of a suspect. On 6 December 2010 the chief officer of the investigations unit ordered the resumption of the investigation. On 5 January 2011 the investigator suspended the investigation, again for lack of a suspect. The first applicant sought judicial review of the decision of 25   November 2010. Referring to the abduction attempt of early April 2010, she argued, inter alia , that the investigating authority did not have enough evidence to determine whether officers of any military unit stationed in the region could be implicated in the killing and could have worn “forest camouflage” clothes; and that it remained necessary to interview officers who had been manning nearby checkpoints. By a judgment of 14 November 2011 the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetiya considered that all necessary investigative measures had been taken; the court also granted the applicant’s complaint concerning her access to information about the investigation. On 28 February 2012 the district prosecutor ordered the investigating authority to resume the investigation. On 5 March and 5 April 2012 the investigator resumed and then suspended the investigation. On 21 May 2012 the district prosecutor ordered the investigator to continue the investigation. On 22 May 2012 the chief officer of the investigations unit ordered the resumption of the investigation. Complying with the chief officer’s directions, on 22 May 2012 the investigator interviewed B. and asked the district police authority to identify (i) the military or other State security officers “who had attempted to apprehend” the victim on 24 June 2010; and (ii) the people who, according to B., had been present at or near the crime scene. On 29 May 2012 the district police authority replied that they had carried out their enquiries but could not identify the relevant officers or any people who had been present near the crime scene. The investigator also examined the logbook that contained information about vehicles that had crossed the Kerch-57 checkpoint on 24 June   2010. No Lada Priora car was mentioned there. On 22 June 2012 the investigator suspended the investigation. The relevant decision was received by the first applicant in November   2012. On 27 November 2012 the chief officer of the investigations unit ordered the resumption of the investigation. In 2013 and 2014 the first applicant sought access to the case file. On 1   November 2013 the District Court dismissed her related application, noting that she had had access to the case file in December 2011. In April 2014 and November 2014 the first applicant had access to the case file, including documents relating to the year 2012. It appears that on an unspecified date the investigation was suspended again. In March 2015 the first applicant brought court proceedings, complaining about the suspended investigation and the absence of certain investigative measures and certain documents from the file. For unspecified reasons, on 18 March 2015 the investigator issued a decision ordering the resumption of the investigation. The applicants were informed accordingly on unspecified dates. On the same date, the District Court discontinued as devoid of purpose the first applicant’s judicial complaint about the suspension; the remainder was rejected as premature. The first applicant was informed accordingly on an unspecified date. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that Gilani Tsechoyev was killed by an agent of the State; that the investigation suffered from a number of defects such as prejudicial delays in carrying out measures mentioned in the order of 22 May 2012; that no or limited access to the case file and the relevant information during the investigation was granted; that there were not adequate measures aimed at identifying the rifle used for killing the victim, in particular the lack of a cross-reference between the cartridges and available database information concerning firearms used in other offences; that the investigators failed to interview Ch.; and that the investigators failed to properly investigate whether the death had been inflicted by an agent of the State.   QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has Gilani Tsechoyev’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case by the respondent State (see, by way of comparison, Tsechoyev v. Russia , no. 39358/05, §§   128-34, 15   March 2011; Umarovy v. Russia , no. 2546/08, §§ 111-19 and   128-34, 12   June 2012; Alpatu Israilova v. Russia , no. 15438/05, §§ 50-55, 14   March 2013; and Abdurakhmanova and Abdulgamidova v. Russia , no.   41437/10, §§ 65-69, 22 September 2015)? In particular, did the domestic authorities properly investigate and refute the allegation that the death had been inflicted by an agent of the State?   2.     Depending on the answers to the above questions and having regard to the applicants’ specific allegations relating to deficiencies in the investigation of the premeditated murder, did the investigation in the present case comply with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to Article 38 of the Convention, the respondent State is requested to submit a copy of the investigation case file(s) concerning the death of Gilani Tsechoyev and documents of any ancillary enquiries relating to the possible involvement of agents of the State in the fatal shooting.