CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 novembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   675 9.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LULUYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Luluyev and Others v. Russia (application no. 69480/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the disappearance and death of the applicants’ relative, Nura Said-Alviyevna Luluyeva, whose body was found in a mass grave in February 2001; a violation of Article 2 of the Convention concerning the failure to conduct an effective investigation into Nura Luluyeva’s disappearance; no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning Nura Luluyeva; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning the applicants; a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security); and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded 4,850 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, payable to Turko Saidalviyevich Luluyev (Nura Luluyeva’s son) on behalf of all the applicants;   EUR 12,000 to each of Nura Luluyeva’s children in respect of non-pecuniary damage;   EUR 10,000 to Nura Luluyeva’s parents in respect of non-pecuniary damage;   EUR 2,000 each to her brothers in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and, EUR 10,748 in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   All ten applicants are relatives of Nura Said-Alviyevna Luluyeva. They are her husband, Saidalvi Saidsalimovich Luliuyev (born in 1954), her three sons – Turko Saidalviyevich Luluyev (born in 1979), A.L. (born in 1983) and S.L. (born in 1995) – her daughter Z.L. (born in 1989), her parents and her three brothers. The applicants all live in Gudermes (Chechnya).   Nura Luluyeva lived with her husband and their children in Gudermes. She worked as a nurse and a kindergarten teacher; at the time of her abduction she also traded fruit at the local market. Her husband worked for law-enforcement bodies and subsequently as a judge; in 2002 he became the chairman of a district court in Chechnya. He has since ceased to work in the judiciary.   On 3 June 2000 Nura Luluyeva went with two cousins to the market place at Mozdokskaya Street in the northern part of Grozny.   Between 7 and 9 a.m. that morning an armoured personnel carrier (APC) appeared at the market. It was accompanied by two other vehicles, an Ural truck and an UAZ all-terrain vehicle. A group of servicemen, wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns, disembarked from the vehicles. The servicemen detained several people, mostly women, put sacks over their heads and loaded them into the APC. Nura Luluyeva and her two cousins were among those detained.   Someone apparently called the police from the Leninskiy temporary District Department of the Interior (Leninskiy VOVD), which was situated nearby. When the police appeared and tried to interfere, the military started shooting in the air with a machine gun, and then drove away. The deputy chief of the district administration was also present at the scene and   attempted to question the servicemen about their mission at the market, but was told only that they were “lawfully carrying out a special operation”. Having received that explanation, the officials left the site.   The applicants, particularly Nura Luluyeva’s husband, searched for her and her cousins until their bodies were found in February 2001, frequently contacting the authorities and prosecutors at various levels. They also personally visited detention centres and prisons in Chechnya and in the northern Caucasus.   On 20 June Nura Luluyeva’s husband was called in for an interview about his wife’s disappearance at the Chechnyan Republican Prosecutor’s Office and, on 23 June 2000, criminal proceedings were started concerning the kidnapping. On 4 December 2000 he was granted victim status in those proceedings.   On 5 February 2001 the Grozny Town Prosecutor’s office informed him that the investigation into the kidnapping of Nura Luluyeva had been adjourned. (Between June 2000 and the beginning of 2006 the investigation was adjourned and reopened at least eight times.)   On 24 February 2001 news came through that a mass grave had been uncovered in “ Zdorovye ”, an abandoned holiday village on the outskirts of Grozny, less then one kilometre from Khankala, the headquarters of the Russian military forces in Chechnya. 47 bodies, dumped in the village, had been collected and transferred to a temporary location in Grozny belonging to the Ministry for Emergency Situations.   On 4 March 2001 Nura Luluyeva’s relatives identified the three bodies as those of Nura Luluyeva and her two cousins. As the bodies were in an advanced stage of decomposition, they could only be identified by their earrings and clothes. A relative who saw the three women on 3 June 2000 confirmed that the clothes and the earrings were the same as those worn by the deceased on that day. The relatives who took part in the identification also noted that the individuals had been blindfolded. The discovery of the mass grave was reported in the media and became a subject of two special reports by the human rights NGOs Memorial (March 2001) and Human Rights Watch (May 2001). Both NGO reports stated that, of the identified bodies in the mass grave, 16 or 17 belonged to people previously detained by the Russian forces, and specifically mentioned the case of Nura Luluyeva. The latter report also stated that the remaining bodies – over 30 – had been buried on 10 March 2001 without any further announcements, thus preventing their further identification and examination.   On 12 April 2001 an official medical death certificate was issued indicating that Nura Luluyeva was murdered on 3 June 2000, in Grozny. On 28 April 2001 a forensic report established that Nura Luluyeva’s death had been caused by a multiple skull fracture, inflicted by a blunt solid object applied with strong impact. It stated that the death had occurred between three and ten months before the discovery of the corpse.   The investigation continues. It has not yet identified the people or the military detachment responsible for the abduction and murder of Nura Luluyeva and others, and no one has been charged with the crimes.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 November 2000 and declared admissible on 30 June 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that Nura Luluyeva had been unlawfully arrested, tortured and killed by the domestic authorities and that there had been no effective investigation. They relied, in particular, on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   Failure to protect right to life The Court noted that, although the Russian Government denied that State servicemen were involved in killing Nura Luluyeva, they did not dispute as such any of the specific facts underlying the applicants’ version of her disappearance and death. In particular, it was common ground that Nura Luluyeva was abducted from the market place at Mozdokskaya Street by armed men dressed in camouflage and wearing masks. The Government also accepted that a military vehicle – an APC – was present at the scene at the time of her apprehension and that she was driven away in that vehicle on the last occasion she was seen alive. It was also acknowledged by the Government, and it was unequivocally established in the domestic proceedings, that Nura Luluyeva died as a result of murder, and that her body was found at the same place as the bodies of the other people with whom she was detained.   It also appeared uncontested that Nura Luluyeva’s apprehension took place at the same time as a security raid was being conducted in the same street. The Court therefore considered it established that Nura Luluyeva’s apprehension coincided with a special security operation carried out by military or security servicemen in the immediate vicinity.   The Court further noted that neither the Government nor the evidence made available to the Court suggested that any armed individuals other than the State servicemen conducting the above security operation were present at the scene of Nura Luluyeva’s apprehension. In particular, there was nothing in the witnesses’ statements to imply the involvement of illegal paramilitaries. In those circumstances, the Court could not but conclude that Nura Luluyeva was apprehended and detained by State servicemen in the course of conducting a special security operation.   The Court noted that the link between her kidnapping and death had been assumed in all the domestic proceedings. The discovery of her body together with the bodies of the other people with whom she was detained also strongly suggested that her death belonged to the same sequence of events as her arrest. The fact that the bodies were wearing the same clothes as those worn by the individuals in question on the day of their detention provided further support for that conclusion.   Having regard to the above, the Court considered that there existed a body of evidence that attained the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, which made it possible to hold the State authorities responsible for Nura Luluyeva’s death. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 2.   Inadequacy of the investigation The Court first noted that the authorities were instantly aware of Nura Luluyeva’s arrest because the police and a representative of the local administration happened to be present at the scene. According to their statements as witnesses, they did not interfere because they believed at the time that they were witnessing a lawful arrest by a competent law-enforcement body. However, they could not have been completely reassured, because the servicemen refused to identify themselves or tell them on behalf of which agency they were acting.   Accordingly, when that afternoon Nura Luluyeva’s husband came to the Leninskiy VOVD and complained about the incident, the very least the police could have been expected to do was to verify as rapidly as possible which authority, if any, had taken the women into custody. If within a few hours or, at the most, within the next few days, the action could not be attributed to any authority, that should have provided grounds to suspect kidnapping and to open an investigation without further delay.   However, the materials presented to the Court disclosed that, despite the applicants’ numerous frantic requests, the first official enquiries concerning Nura Luluyeva’s supposed arrest were made no earlier than on 20   June 2000, that is, a fortnight after her apprehension. No criminal proceedings were opened until 23 June 2000, that is, 20 days after her disappearance. The Court saw no reasonable explanation for such long delays in a situation where prompt action was vital.   The Court further noted that the manner in which the criminal investigation was conducted could not be described as thorough and efficient, since it was plagued with delays in taking even the most trivial steps.   The Court further noted that the discovery of Nura Luluyeva’s body in 2001 provided the authorities with new important facts. In particular, it was then established that her death was a result of a series of murders. Such a major event should have prompted the investigative authorities to intensify their efforts. However, no information had been submitted by the Government as to whether any investigative actions were taken following the discovery of the mass grave, apart from the identification and forensic examination of the bodies.   The Court also noted that, between June 2000 and the beginning of 2006, the investigation was adjourned and reopened at least eight times. The prosecutors ordered certain steps to be taken on several occasions. However, those instructions were either not followed or were followed with an unacceptable delay. Some orders had still to be complied with, despite having been made more than once. The Court found a repeated failure to comply with the supervising prosecutor’s instruction particularly inexplicable and frustrating where all that was needed was to obtain official information from a State agency.   Finally, there had been a substantial delay in granting victim status to the applicants. It was not until December 2000 that the decision to grant victim status to Nura Luluyeva’s husband   was taken, thus affording him minimum guarantees in the criminal proceedings. Moreover, even after victim status had been granted, information concerning the progress of the investigation was provided to him only occasionally and in part.   The Court therefore found that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance and death of Nura Luluyeva. The Court accordingly held that there had been a further violation of Article 2.   Article 3   Concering Nura Lululyeva While it was undisputed that Nura Lululyeva died as a result of the use of force, the description of the injuries found on her body by the forensic experts did not permit the Court to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that she had been tortured or otherwise ill-treated prior to her death. It therefore saw no basis for finding a violation of Article 3. Concerning the applicants The Court noted that Nura Luluyeva’s death had been preceded by a 10-month period when she was deemed disappeared and during which the investigation into her kidnapping was being conducted. There was therefore a distinct period during which the applicants sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic to the specific phenomenon of disappearances.   The applicants’ distress during that period was attested by their numerous efforts to prompt the authorities to act, as well as by their own attempts to search for her and her cousins.   As an additional element contributing to the applicant’s sufferings, the Court noted the authorities’ unjustified delay in granting victim status to the applicants, lack of access to the case file and the sparse information they received about the investigation throughout the proceedings. It followed that the applicants’ uncertainty about the fate of Nura Luluyeva was aggravated by their exclusion from monitoring the progress of the investigation.   The Court therefore found that the applicants suffered distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of Nura Luluyeva and of their inability to find out what had happened to her or to receive up-to-date and exhaustive information on the investigation. The manner in which their complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3. The Court concluded that there has been a violation of that Article in respect of the applicants.   Article 5 It had been established that Nura Luluyeva was detained on 3 June 2000 by State authorities and had not been seen alive since. The Government submitted no explanation for her detention and provided no documents of substance from the domestic investigation into her arrest. The Court thus concluded that she was a victim of unacknowledged detention, in violation of Article 5.   The Court further considered that the authorities should have been alert to the need to investigate more thoroughly and promptly the applicants’ complaints that their relatives had been detained and taken away in life-threatening circumstances. Yet, the Court’s findings left no doubt that the authorities failed to take prompt and effective measures to safeguard Nura Luluyeva against the risk of disappearance.   Consequently, the Court found that Nura Luluyeva was held in unacknowledged detention in complete absence of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5   Article 13 The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 13 in connection with Article 2.   Other findings The Court also held unanimously that no separate issues arose concerning the applicants other complaints.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.