CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 23 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 48523/19 and 49533/19 N.A. and S.K. against Russia and S.Y. and Others against Russia lodged on 12 September 2019 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applications concern allegations of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial execution of the applicants’ relatives by law-enforcement agencies perpetrated in the end of 2016 - beginning of 2017 in the Chechen Republic. After the disappearance of their relatives, the applicants and their family members have allegedly been subjected to intimidation by local authorities in attempts to dissuade them from lodging complaints for criminal investigation into the incidents. No criminal case was opened into the applicants’ allegations by the domestic authorities, albeit for an inquiry which resulted in refusals to open a criminal case. On 18 December 2019 the applicants were granted anonymity pursuant to Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives were abducted and, most probably, killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain of mental suffering caused to them by their relatives’ abduction and the continuous disregard by the authorities of an obligation to account for the whereabouts and fate of the missing relatives. The applicants also allege that their relatives were subjected to unlawful detention in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. Lastly, the applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective domestic remedy at their disposal in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. QUESTIONS 1.     Have the applicants made prima facie cases that their relatives were abducted by State agents? If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in respect of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ disappearance (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, §§   181-84, ECHR 2009, and Tanış and Others v. Turkey , no. 65899/01, §   160, ECHR 2005–VIII)?   2.     Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants’ disappeared relatives?   3.     Having regard to the investigating authority’s repeated refusal to open a criminal case into the allegations of unlawful arrest and extrajudicial execution of the applicants’ relatives, have the domestic authorities carried out a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation in compliance with the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention?   In particular, did the investigating authority take into account difficulties in collecting evidence which may have arisen in that particular case? If so, did they take any measures to overcome those difficulties?   4.     Has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their relatives and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect, as well as the alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the matter, amounted to inhuman and degrading 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?   5.     Were the applicants’ disappeared relatives deprived of their liberty, within the meaning of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention? If so, was this in compliance with the guarantees of Article   5   of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2, as required by   Article 13   of the Convention?   7.     In accordance with Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide: (a) a list of special operations carried out in Chechnya in December 2016 and January 2017, accompanied by a list of individuals detained during those operations and their fate; (b) copies of all documents related to the criminal inquiry into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives, as well as copies of all documents related to   the   criminal prosecution of the applicants’ relatives deemed necessary for establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating the effectiveness of the criminal investigation into the applicants’ allegations; and (c) a chronological list of all investigative actions or inquiry steps taken in connection with the abduction complaints, indicating the dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of their findings.