CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 28 May 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 60210/16 Boris Zhangeriyevich ZHEMUKHOV against Russia lodged on 30 September 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Boris Zhangeriyevich Zhemukhov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1938 and lives in Nartkala, the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s son, Mr Zalimgeri Zhemukhov, was a practicing Muslim who resided in Nartkala. The applicant submits that prior to the events of 2   August 2011 there were rumours that his son had been unofficially blacklisted as an “extremist”. The events of 2 August 2011 The applicant submits that on 2 August 2011 the authorities staged a fire incident next to their family’s property at the outskirts of Nartkala in order to lure his son to arrive on the spot. At around 12.30 p.m. the applicant’s son arrived on the spot and the officials of the Centre charged with countering terrorism and extremist of the Ministry of the Interior stopped his car and shot him to death. Subsequent investigation Subsequently the authorities did not investigate the death of the applicant’s son, but rather brought criminal proceedings against him for having attacked the policemen. During the investigation the authorities accused him of having resisted the arrest and attacked the policemen as well as of illegal arms possession. The investigation concluded that during the routine traffic check of the applicant’s son’s car the policemen were attacked by him with pistol fire, had to return fire and, as a result, killed him. Pursuant to the applicant and his family’s wishes who insisted on clearing the applicant’s son’s good name, this criminal case was put to trial. On 27 November 2015 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kabardino ‑ Balkariya found the applicant’s son guilty as charged and discontinued the proceedings with reference to his death. The court did not address in detail the particular circumstances of the operation or proportionality of the use of lethal force. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russian on 18 February 2016. Despite the applicant’s objections, the courts refused to look into the background of the operation as well as assess the proportionality of the use of lethal force. The applicant also argued that there were serious inconsistencies in the official version of the events, as the ballistic data contradicted the narrative of the policemen, which had been taken by the investigation for granted and never critically re-assessed. COMPLAINTS Relying on Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the authorities had murdered his son intentionally and then had covered this up as a shootout. He deplored the bad quality of investigation, which allegedly failed to elucidate the relevant circumstances of the incident, including the background of the operation and the exact conduct of his son and police officers during the events. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 2 of the Convention complied with in the present case? In particular, was the killing of the applicant’s son “absolutely necessary” in pursuance of one of the aims listed in that provision? In particular, the respondent Government are requested to provide detailed information on the background of the operation of 2 August 2011. What was the exact aim of the operation? What police department did the officers involved belong to? What was the exact information available to the authorities in respect of the applicant? In case the operation was pre-planned, the Government are requested to explain whether the operation had been planned in such a way as to minimise risk to the applicant’s son’s life.   2.     Did the authorities comply with the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention? Did they conduct an effective and prompt investigation into the circumstances of death of the applicant’s son? The reference is being made in particular to the applicant’s allegation that the authorities had failed to elucidate the relevant circumstances of the incident, including the background of the operation and the exact conduct of his son and police officers during the events.