CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 mai 2007

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   293 10.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT AKHMADOVA AND SADULAYEVA v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (application no. 40464/02).   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 killing of the applicants’ relative following his unacknowledged detention; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention in respect of both applicants; a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) in respect of the applicants’ relative; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); and a failure to comply with Article 38 §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case) in that the Russian Government refused to submit documents requested by the Court.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 15,000 euros (EUR), jointly, in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   20,000, each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 7,285 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Tamusa Khamidovna Akhmadova and Larisa Abdulbekovna Sadulayeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1975 respectively. They are residents of Argun near Grozny (Chechnya) and at present live in Ingushetia (Russia).   Ms Akhmadova is the mother of Shamil Said-Khasanovich Akhmadov, born on 17 December 1975, who was killed after being taken into detention on 12 March 2001. Ms Sadulayeva is his widow, with whom he had five children, born in 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998 and 2000.   Ms Sadulayeva submitted that, on 12 March 2001, while a military “mopping-up” operation (zachistka) was underway in Argun, she saw her husband being taken away by armed servicemen in an APC and that she and Ms Akhmadova reported the incident at the military commander’s office.   According to a report issued by the NGO Memorial in March 2001, 170 people were detained in houses and on the streets of Argun as a result of the operation. Within several days most of the detainees were released without charge, with the exception of 11 men, including Shamil Akhmadov.   The Russian Government submitted that Shamil Akhmadov was a fugitive from justice, on a wanted persons list, charged with possessing illegal drugs.   Immediately after Shamil Akhmadov’s detention the applicants began to search for him, appealing to prosecutors at various levels. Ms Akhmadova also personally visited detention centres and prisons in Chechnya as well as further afield in the Northern Caucasus and went to places where unidentified bodies were discovered, seeing dozens of corpses over a period of 14 months.   Shortly after the “mopping-up” operation in Argun, four bodies with bullet wounds to their backs and the back of their heads were discovered near the Russian main military base in Khankala. Those men were later identified as four of the 11 missing persons who had been detained on 12 March 2001.     On 28 May 2001 Ms Akhmadova was informed that a criminal investigation into her son’s disappearance had been opened on 23 March 2001. The letter further stated that “in the course of the investigation the involvement of military servicemen was established in the abduction of your son and others”.   In March 2002 local residents discovered the body of another person who had been detained on 12 March 2001 in a field near Argun. The grave was excavated with the assistance of the military and in the presence of a prosecutor.   In late April 2002 a body was found in a field outside Argun which Ms Sadulayeva later identified as that of her deceased husband, recognising the clothes he had been wearing on the day of his apprehension. She said that his right leg was broken, that the upper half of his skull was missing and that there were bullet holes in his clothes around his chest.   On 8 June 2002 the Argun Prosecutor’s Office issued a certificate confirming that the body was that of Shamil Akhmadov and that he had met a violent death, which probably occurred in March 2001. On 21 August 2002 the civil registration office of Argun issued a death certificate for Shamil Akhmadov, indicating that he had died on 22 March 2001 in Argun.   According to information supplied by the Government, the investigation was adjourned and reopened at least six times. On five occasions the case file was transferred between various military and civil prosecutors. In November 2005 the investigation into Mr Akhmadov’s kidnapping was still pending at the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office.   During the course of the investigation Ms Akhmadova’s request for victim status was accepted, but Ms Sadulayeva’s request was refused. The applicants submitted that after Mr Akhmadov’s apprehension they were subjected to constant pressure and harassment by the military, including searches of their house and physical assaults. According to the Government there was no evidence from the local hospital or neighbours to support those allegations.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 31 October 2002 and declared admissible on 13 October 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 submitted that Shamil Akhmadov was detained by servicemen during a security operation and then killed. They relied on Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13. Mrs Sadulayeva also complained under Article 34 that she had been subjected to harassment in reprisal for her application to the Court.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   Death of Shamil Akhmadov In making their claims, the applicants referred to a number of factual elements, none of which were disputed by the Government.   In particular, the parties did not contest that there was a large-scale security operation in Argun on 11-14 March 2001 and the Government did not dispute that Shamil Akhmadov was detained on 12 March 2001 in Argun by armed men in camouflage uniform and military vehicles, such as APCs.   The Government did not suggest that the people who had detained the applicants’ relative were members of illegal paramilitary groups and it was further uncontested that a number of people were detained during the operation, although it appeared that no custody records had been produced. The domestic investigation also accepted those factual elements and proceeded to verify the scope of the involvement of military servicemen in the events. The Court therefore considered it established that Mr Akhmadov was apprehended as part of a special security operation carried out by State agents in Argun on 12 March 2001.   The applicants stated that Mr Akhmadov’s body was discovered in late April 2002 on the outskirts of Argun bearing signs of a violent death and that on 1 May 2002 they had identified him by the clothes he had been wearing on the day of his detention. The Court also took into consideration the note issued in June 2002 by the Argun Prosecutor’s Office and Shamil Akhmadov’s death certificate. On the basis of those documents the Court accepted that, for the purposes of domestic law, Shamil Akhmadov was killed in March 2001 and that his body was discovered in late April 2002.   Concerning whether there was a link between Shamil Akhmadov’s arrest by State servicemen and his death, it remained unclear whether he was killed immediately after his apprehension or some time later. However, for official purposes he was presumed dead as of March 2001, several days after the date of his apprehension. The link between his kidnapping and death had furthermore been assumed in the domestic proceedings, at least up to a certain point, and the Court took that into account. The fact that Mr Akhmadov was dressed in the same clothes as those he was wearing on the day of his detention provided further support for that conclusion. The Government had not given any version of events which differed from that presented by the applicants.   Most disturbingly, it had not been disputed that the discovery of Shamil Akhmadov’s body followed the finding of at least five other bodies of people who were detained in Argun on 12 March 2001, all of whom bore signs of a violent death. Four of them were discovered on the day following their apprehension within the security zone of a military unit. The Court found that those facts supported the assumption that they were victims of extra-judicial executions by State agents.   The Court therefore concluded that there existed a body of evidence that attained the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, making it possible to hold the State authorities responsible for Shamil Akhmadov’s death. In the absence of any reference to the legitimacy of that act, it followed that there had been a violation of Article 2 concerning his death.   Lack of effective investigation The Court first noted that the authorities were immediately made aware of Shamil Akhmadov’s apprehension because the applicants personally visited the military commander’s office and the prosecutor’s offices in the days following 12 March 2001.   The investigation was opened 11 days after the men were detained, a delay which was in itself liable to affect the effectiveness of the investigation of a crime such as abduction, where crucial action had to be taken in the first days after the event.     The investigation was dysfunctional and plagued by inexplicable delays in performing the most essential tasks. In a period of five-and-a-half years, it was adjourned and reopened at least six times and transferred from one prosecutor’s office to another on at least five occasions for no apparent reason. Mr Akhmadov’s wife was not granted victim status in the proceedings and his mother, notwithstanding her victim status, was not properly informed of its progress.   The Court noted with great concern that a number of cases had come before it which suggested that the phenomenon of “disappearances” was well known in Chechnya. A number of international reports pointed to the same alarming conclusion. Although the body of the “disappeared” person was eventually discovered in the applicants’ case, it was more than a year after his arrest and not in any way down to the efforts of the law-enforcement authorities.   Moreover, the stance of the prosecutor’s office after the news of the detention was communicated to it by the applicants significantly contributed to the likelihood of the deceased’s disappearance, as no necessary steps were taken either in the crucial first days or weeks after detention, or later. Their conduct in the face of the applicants’ justified complaints created a strong presumption of at least acquiescence in the situation and raised strong doubts as to the objectivity of the investigation. The Court found that the law-enforcement machinery’s failure to take the necessary steps effectively put the “disappeared” person outside the protection of the law, a situation which was totally unacceptable in a democratic society governed by the principles of respect for human rights and the rule of law.   Concluding that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance and death of Shamil Akhmadov, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 concerning the lack of an effective investigation.   Article 3   The Court observed that the news about Shamil Akhmadov’s death was preceded by a period of more than one year, during which he was deemed to have disappeared and the investigation into his kidnapping was conducted. There was thus a distinct period during which the applicants lived in a constant state of uncertainty, anguish and distress.   The applicants were the mother and wife of the person who disappeared and Ms Sadulayeva witnessed her husband’s detention. Despite their applications to various authorities, no proper investigation into the abduction and subsequent death of their close relative had taken place. The applicants had never been given any plausible explanation or information as to the fate of Shamil Akhmadov after his detention or the circumstances of his death. The Court also noted its findings concerning the failure to grant Ms Sadulayeva victim status, the lack of access to the case-file and the scant information they received during the proceedings.   The Court therefore found that the applicants suffered distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their son and husband and of their inability to find out what had happened to him or to receive up-to-date 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. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants.   Article 5   The Court had found it established that Shamil Akhmadov was detained by State servicemen on 12 March 2001 during a security operation in Argun and was not seen alive again. The Government had not provided any explanation for his detention or any documents of substance from the domestic investigation into his apprehension. The Court thus concluded that he was a victim of unacknowledged detention.   The Court further considered that the authorities should have been more alert to the need for a thorough and prompt investigation of the applicants’ complaints that their relative had been detained and taken away in life-threatening circumstances. However, the authorities failed to take prompt and effective measures to safeguard Mr Akhmadov against the risk of disappearance.   Consequently, the Court found that Shamil Akhmadov was held in unacknowledged detention without any 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 6   The Court found that no separate issues arose under Article 6.   Article 13   The Court observed that, in circumstances where, as in the applicants’ case, a criminal investigation into a disappearance and death was ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed was consequently undermined, the State had failed in its obligation under Article 13. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 13 in connection with Articles 2 and 3. The Court considered that no separate issues arose in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5.   Article 34   The Court did not have sufficient material before it to conclude that the Russian Government had violated their obligations under Article 34 by putting undue pressure on the second applicant in order to dissuade her from pursuing her application to the Court.   Article 38 § 1 (a)   The Court observed that it had, on several occasions, asked the Russian Government to submit copies of the investigation files opened into the disappearances of the applicants’ relative. The evidence contained in that file was regarded by the Court as crucial to the establishment of the facts in the case. The Court noted, further, that it had found insufficient the reasons cited by the Government for refusing to disclose the requested documents. The Court therefore found that the Russian Government fell short of their obligations under Article 38 § 1 on account of their failure to submit copies of the documents requested in respect of Shamil Akhmadov’s disappearance.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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 Convention, 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.