CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 septembre 2018

.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 } .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 } .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 } .sBCBB94AC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:53.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.4pt } .s91649648 { width:32.07pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)373 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Four cases against Russian Federation   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 September 2018 at the 1324 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 32968/05 ABDURASHIDOVA 08/04/2010 04/10/2010 27365/07 ESTAMIROVA 17/04/2012 24/09/2012 50757/06 TAZIYEVA AND OTHERS 18/07/2013 20/01/2014 21539/02 TRAPEZNIKOVA 11/12/2008 11/03/2009   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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established mainly on account of illegal killings, absence of effective remedy, illegal searches, unfair trial and violation of property rights, in the context of actions of Russian security forces during anti-terrorist operations in the Northern Caucasus, mostly in the Chechen Republic, between 1999 and 2006 (violations of Articles 2, 6, 8, 13, and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1);   Recalling the 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 invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having noted the information provided confirming the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court;   Considering that the questions of individual measures related to the Article 2 or 3 violations have been resolved in the cases of Abdurashidova, Estamirova and Trapeznikova, given that, in the framework of the new investigations engaged following the Court’s judgment, the shortcomings identified by the Court were addressed as far as possible and led to the conclusion that the victims were killed by members of illegal armed units who had died, either in direct connection with the events or subsequently;   Considering also that the similar questions linked to the violation of the applicant’s property rights – violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in the case of Abdurashidova were fully settled through the Court’s just satisfaction award and that the same applies in the case of Trapeznikova as regards the consequences of the late enforcement of a judgment rendered in a civil case – violations of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – and, in the Taziyeva and Others case, concerning an unlawful search – violation of Article 8;   Recalling that the questions of the general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in the present judgments as regards the substantive and procedural violations of Article 2 and 3, including the necessity to prevent undue prescription of criminal responsibility for the gravest crimes, continue to be examined within the framework of the Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russian Federation group of cases and that the closure of these cases therefore does not in any way prejudge the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures in that group;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases as regards the individual measures and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.