CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 10 mars 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s3CC4D07E { font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s9D083258 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt } .sF480646D { width:17.92pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s49962E7C { margin-left:80.5pt; padding-left:9.5pt; font-family:serif } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)95 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Rantsev against Cyprus and Russian Federation   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 March 2017 at the 1280 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 25965/04 RANTSEV 07/01/2010 10/05/2010   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violations established;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the death in ambiguous circumstances of the applicant’s daughter, who had travelled from the Russian Federation to Cyprus on an “artiste” visa (violations of Articles 2, 4 and 5 § 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of each of the respondent States to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with their obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the governments of both respondent States in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention (see, inter alia , documents DH-DD(2014)1373 , DH-DD(2014)1403 , DH-DD(2015)819 and DH-DD(2010)411 );   Having satisfied itself that the respondent States paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix);   Recalling each respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -             of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -             of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent States (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)95 Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the case of Rantsev against Cyprus and the Russian Federation     Introductory case summary   The case concerned the death in ambiguous circumstances in 2001 of the applicant’s daughter, who had travelled from the Russian Federation to Cyprus on an "artiste" visa, and the Court’s findings of the following violations in respect of Cyprus: -           the failure to conduct an effective investigation into her death (violation of Article 2, procedural aspect) due to the initial investigation’s failure: to investigate the broader context of the arrival and stay in Cyprus, in order to assess whether there was a link between the allegations of trafficking and her death; to resolve conflicting witness testimonies; to investigate the actions of the police; to ensure the applicant’s effective participation in the proceedings; to seek legal assistance from the Russian authorities; -           the failure in their positive obligation to set up an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to combat trafficking and exploitation and to take measures to protect the applicant’s daughter (violation of Article 4); and -           the arbitrary and unlawful detention of the applicant’s daughter by the Cypriot police and acquiescence in her subsequent confinement in a private apartment (violation of Article 5 § 1).   The Court also found a violation of the Convention in respect of the Russian Federation concerning the failure by the Russian authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the recruitment of the applicant’s daughter in the Russian Federation (violation of Article 4, procedural aspect).   I.   Payment of the just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   By Cyprus Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - EUR 40,000 EUR 3,150 EUR 43,150 Paid on 30/07/2010   By the Russian Federation Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - EUR 2,000 - EUR 2,000 Paid on 9/09/2010   b) Individual measures   In 2009, the Cypriot Council of Ministers appointed an independent committee of three investigators to conduct an investigation into the applicant’s daughter’s death in Cyprus, including whether there was any link between her death and allegations of human trafficking. The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation pursued an investigation into the circumstances of her alleged recruitment in Russia.   The investigation by the Cypriot authorities remedied so far as possible the procedural deficiencies criticised by the European Court by, inter alia , interviewing missing witnesses; resolving conflicting testimony and conflicting autopsy reports; clarifying questions surrounding both the immediate circumstances of the applicant’s daughter death and any links to trafficking; and investigating the actions of the police officers involved in the events at the time (see DH-DD(2014)1373 ).   On 22 November 2013 the Attorney General of Cyprus decided to prosecute two police officers for the crime of abuse of power and neglect of official duty and the applicant’s daughter’s employer for crimes of abduction and kidnapping. According to the Attorney General there was not enough evidence to support a case of sexual or other exploitation or trafficking committed against the applicant’s daughter and no evidence of any criminal act which caused her death; the evidence led to the conclusion that her death was accidental. The applicant was informed of the above developments in a detailed letter of 8 January 2014. On 29 April 2014, the Cypriot authorities also informed the Russian authorities that the investigation had been completed (see documents DH-DD(2014)1373 and DH-DD(2014)1403 ).   On 29 April 2011, following its investigation into the company which had arranged for the applicant’s daughter’s travel to Cyprus, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation decided not to initiate criminal proceedings, concluding that there were no objective elements indicating that she had been recruited for the purposes of human trafficking. The applicant was informed of this decision and his right to appeal against it. In response to a question asked by the Committee of Ministers, [1] the Russian authorities also confirmed that the investigation could be reopened should the Cypriot authorities’ investigation reveal any new information (see document DH-DD(2015)819 ).   The applicant sent a number of communications to the Committee concerning the two investigations. He mainly complained that that he was not invited to participate in the investigative activities and that the Cypriot and Russian investigators did not co-operate fully.   In this respect, it may be noted from the information submitted that both the Cypriot and Russian authorities wrote to the applicant on a number of occasions to inform him of steps taken in the investigations and their conclusions. During the course of the investigation, the Cypriot authorities invited him to come to Cyprus; pursued specific questions raised by him in their investigation; where possible obtained witness statements from persons identified by him and sent him certain forensic reports translated into Russian (see DH-DD(2014)1373 ).   In addition, the Cypriot authorities submitted information demonstrating their co-operation with the Russian authorities throughout the reopened investigations (see DH-DD(2014)1403 ). Moreover, in his communication of June 2015 the applicant also submitted information he had received from the Russian investigators confirming that they had been provided with all the necessary documents by the Cypriot authorities, including records of the witnesses’ questioning and forensic medical evidence.   II.   General measures   At its examination of the case at its 1144 th meeting (June 2012) (DH), the Committee decided to close the examination of the general measures. Key measures adopted by Cyprus were the introduction of law L.87(I)2007 in 2007 which criminalised human trafficking and the changes to the relevant visa regime to avoid abuse, including the abolition of the “artiste” visa. The Cypriot authorities’ also confirmed that they would continue to work closely with the monitoring bodies under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.   Amongst the measures adopted by the Russian authorities was the amendment of the Russian Criminal Code in December 2003 to introduce a new provision criminalising trafficking in human beings, which also covers recruitment (Article 127.1).   For more information see the Committee’s decision adopted at its 1144 th meeting; the Cypriot authorities’ action plan ( DD(2010)376 ); the analysis of that action plan in Information document ( CM/Inf/DH(2012)14 ), and information provided by the Russian authorities ( DH-DD(2010)411 ).   III.   Conclusions of the respondent States   Each government considers that the measures taken have fully erased the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new similar violations in future and that they have therefore complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] See the decision adopted at its 1150 th meeting (September 2012) (DH)