CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 décembre 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 48 December 2002 Isayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.) - 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00 Decision 19.12.2002 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-2 Use of force Bombing of convoy by Russian military jets during Chechen war, with loss of civilian life: admissible Facts : The three applicants were part of a large convoy of vehicles that was trying to travel from Grozny to Ingushetia in October 1999, at a time of intense military operations in Chechnya. The road was blocked by the Russian military at the border between Chechnya and Ingushetia. After several hours it was announced that no passage would be permitted that day. The large convoy began to turn around. Shortly afterwards, two Russian military aircraft flew over the column and dropped bombs. The vehicle carrying the first applicant and her relatives stopped. Her two children and her daughter-in-law were the first to get out and were killed by a bomb blast. The first applicant was injured and lost consciousness. She was treated at a local hospital, which sent her home for lack of space. The second applicant was wounded in the same attack and witnessed the death of the first applicant’s relatives. The third applicant was travelling in another vehicle. After the attack, she saw many dead and seriously injured persons at the scene. Along with her husband and a friend, she helped transport some of the wounded to hospital. The applicants have submitted videotaped testimony from others who were at the scene. They maintain that they saw only civilians in the convoy. The Government indicate that the two aircraft were flying reconnaissance when they were attacked by large calibre infantry firearms that were fired from a KAMAZ truck in the convoy. The pilots were granted authorisation to attack. They fired rockets, destroying the truck and several other vehicles. One of these was a Red Cross car that, according to the Government, was not properly marked. The Government state that in addition to two Red Cross representatives, eight other civilians were killed, including the first applicant’s three relatives. The International Committee of the Red Cross issued a statement next day indicating that its vehicles had been clearly marked and that the attack had cost 25 civilian lives and injured over 70 persons. A criminal investigation into the attack was commenced in May 2000 by the military prosecutor of the Northern Caucasus military circuit. The investigation included examination of the scene, interviewing witnesses and review of medical documents. According to the Government, forensic examination of the remains of the victims is hampered by the objections of their next of kin. In September 2001, the investigation into the pilots’ actions was closed, since it was found that they had been authorised to attack and could not have foreseen civilian casualties. The applicants state that they are unaware of any adequate steps taken by the authorities to investigate. Admissible under Articles 2, 3 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes