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 Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia (dec.) - 57942/00 and 57945/00 Decision 19.12.2002 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-2 Use of force Killing of civilians in Chechen war: admissible Article 3 Torture Alleged torture of civilians during Chechen war: admissible Each applicant was a resident of Grozny up to the time of the military operations there towards the end of 1999. With the outbreak of hostilities, the applicants took the decision to leave their home and move to Ingushetia. In each case, they entrusted their homes to relatives (the first applicant’s brother and sister as well as the latter’s two adult sons, the second applicant’s brother), who remained in the city. At the end of January 2000, the applicants learned of the deaths of their relatives. They returned to Grozny and found the bodies lying in the yard of a house and in a nearby garage. All bodies bore multiple gunshot and stab wounds. There was also bruising and, in some cases, broken bones and mutiliation. The applicants brought the bodies back to Ingushetia for burial. On a subsequent trip to Grozny, the second applicant visited the scene of the killings and found spent machine gun cartridges and her brother’s hat. In a nearby house she saw five bodies, all of which bore gunshot wounds. Having learned that a sixth victim had survived, the second applicant managed to trace her in Ingushetia and was told that the victims had been shot at by Russian troops. Forensic examinations were carried out in Ingushetia on the bodies of the first applicant’s brother and nephew. Death certificates were issued by the Malgobek Town Court in respect of all the deceased. Certain facts are in dispute between the parties. The applicants maintain that their relatives were killed by Russian troops. The Government acknowledge that there are implications of unlawful actions on the part of federal forces, but contend that the circumstances of the killings are unclear. In the absence of witnesses, the Government suggest that the killings could have been perpetrated by Chechen fighters, possibly masquerading as Russian soldiers, or by robbers, or that the deceased could have actively resisted the Russian advance into the city. The Government also maintain that the scene of the killings was not within Russian control at the time of the shootings. The applicants refute all of these suggestions. In particular, they submit that Russian forces were in control of the area when their relatives died. The applicants had contacts with various civil and military authorities during 2000 regarding the possibility of criminal proceedings being taken against their relatives’ killers. The first applicant was informed by the military prosecutor that no action would be taken in view of the lack of corpus delicti on the part of the federal servicemen. The Chief Military Prosecutor subsequently informed Human Rights Watch that military investigators were only pursuing one case, which had no connection to the applicants. Criminal proceedings were initiated by civilian prosecutors in Ingushetia and Grozny. The latter proceedings, of which the applicants say they were unaware, have been suspended and resumed on several occasions and has, to date, made little progress in identifying the killers. The applicants indicate that they have in their possession certain items that could serve as evidence but these have never been collected by investigators. Nor have they been asked for permission to exhume the remains of the three victims that were not subject to forensic testing. Admissible under Articles 2, 3, and 13.   © 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