CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 juillet 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 } .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   532 26.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MUSAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Musayev and Others v. Russia (application nos. 57941/00, 58699/00 and 60403/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the deaths of the applicants’ eleven relatives on 5 February 2000; a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives died; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in respect of the first applicant; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants jointly 143,000   euros   (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and EUR   14,050 and 4,580   pounds sterling   (GBP) (equivalent to 6,814.15   EUR) for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are five Russian nationals who live in Grozny (Chechnya). They are Yusup Said-Aliyevich Musayev, born in 1940; Suleyman Anarbekovich Magomadov, born in 1957; Tamara Saidovna Magomadova, born in 1953; Malika Alviyevna Labazanova, born in 1955, and Khasan Magomedovich Abdulmazhidov, born in 1940.   The case concerns events which occurred in a settlement known as Novye Aldy, in the Oktyabrskiy and Zavodskoy districts of Grozny, which is where the applicants lived. On 5 February 2000 Russian forces conducted an operation in Novye Aldy and Chernorechye in the southern suburbs of Grozny, as a result of which numerous houses were burnt down and civilians killed.   According to the applicants, at least 60 civilians were killed in the course of this operation. A Human Rights Watch report of June 2000 entitled “February 5: A Day of Slaughter in Novye Aldy” referred to extrajudicial executions carried out by the Russian special police forces (OMON) and the military. A Memorial Human Rights Centre report entitled “‘Mopping-Up’. Settlement of Novye Aldy, 5   February 2000 – Deliberate Crimes against Civilians”, listed the applicants’ relatives and neighbours among 56 civilians murdered.   Yusup Said-Aliyevich Musayev, who had been present in Novye Aldy on the day of the operation, reported the killing of nine persons, seven of whom were members of his family. He was himself threatened and forced at gunpoint to lie on the ground in the snow.   Suleyman Anarbekovich Magomadov and Tamara Saidovna Magomadova had spent the winter of 1999 to 2000 in Ingushetia because of the fighting in Grozny. Salman Magomadov (born in 1940) – Tamara Saidovna Magomadova’s husband and Suleyman Anarbekovich Magomadov’s brother – and Abdula Magomadov (born in 1947) – Suleyman Anarbekovich Magomadov’s other brother – had remained in Grozny to look after the family property.   On 10 February 2000 neighbours discovered the remains of Salman and Abdula Magomadov in the cellar of their burnt-out house. They dug them out from the debris and buried them in the courtyard. The applicants learnt of this while in Ingushetia.   Malika Alviyevna Labazanova and Khasan Magomedovich Abdulmazhidov are married and were present during the events of 5 February. Within the same courtyard in a separate house lived Khasan Magomedovich Abdulmazhidov’s sister and brother – Zina Abdulmezhidova (born in 1940) and Khuseyn Abdulmezhidov (born in 1953) – who were both killed during the events of 5 February. Malika Alviyevna Labazanova was threatened herself and was forced to plead for her life.   Soon after the events Yusup Said-Aliyevich Musayev and other relatives of the victims set up a group called the Aldy Civic Committee, in order to coordinate their efforts in the aftermath of the massacre.   On 5 March 2000 the Grozny Town Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the murder of several inhabitants of the Novye Aldy settlement in Grozny by “unidentified men armed with guns”, and into the looting of property.   Between December 2000 and September 2004 various efforts were made by the Aldy Committee or on its behalf to draw the authorities’ attention to the lack of progress in the investigation.   In September 2004 the applicants’ case before the European Court of Human Rights was communicated to the Russian Government and in December 2005 the Court declared it admissible.   Despite the different steps taken in the investigation, the detachments which had been involved in the security operation in Novye Aldy were not identified and no one was charged with any crime. The investigation had been adjourned on several occasions and then resumed. The most recent decision to resume the investigation was issued by the Chechnya Deputy Prosecutor on 7 February 2006.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 May 2000, 20 June 2000 and 29 June 2000 and the Chamber decided to join the proceedings in the applications . By a decision of 13 December 2005, the Court declared the applications admissible.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The five applicants complained about the unlawful killings of their 11 relatives by State agents in Grozny in February 2000. They relied on Articles 2, 3, 13 and 34 (right to individual petition) of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   On the basis of the material in its possession, the Court found it established that the applicants’ relatives had been killed by servicemen and that their deaths could thus be attributed to the State. No explanation had been forthcoming from the Russian Government as to the circumstances of the deaths, nor had any ground of justification been relied on by them in respect of the use of lethal force by their agents. It was thus irrelevant whether the killings had occurred “with the knowledge or on the orders” of the federal authorities. Liability for the applicants’ relatives’ deaths was therefore attributable to the Russian State and there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants’ 11 relatives killed on 5 February 2000.   As to the alleged inadequacy of the investigation, the Court first observed that the investigation had not been opened until one month after the killings, which in itself was an unacceptable delay when dealing with dozens of civilians’ deaths. The Court was moreover struck by a series of serious and unexplained delays and failures to act once the investigation had commenced.   The investigation body had been faced with a task that could by no means be considered impossible. The killings had been committed in broad daylight and a large number of witnesses, including some of the applicants, had seen the perpetrators face to face. Their detailed accounts of the events had been made public by various sources. The relatives of the victims had demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with the authorities by allowing the exhumation and forensic analysis of the bodies and by forming an action group to coordinate their efforts. The injuries and the circumstances of the victims’ deaths had been established with a sufficient degree of certainty. Numerous bullets and cartridges had been collected, some of them being suitable for identifying individual guns and even bearing serial numbers that allowed the origin of their production to be traced. Information about the alleged involvement of particular military units had been available to the prosecuting authorities no later than one month after the incident. Despite all that, and notwithstanding the domestic and international public outcry caused by the cold-blooded execution of more than 50 civilians, almost six years after the tragic events in Novye Aldy no meaningful result whatsoever had been achieved in the task of identifying and prosecuting the individuals who had committed the crimes. In the Court’s view, the astonishing ineffectiveness of the prosecuting authorities in this case could only be qualified as acquiescence in the events.   The Court accordingly found that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the murders of the applicants’ 11 relatives. There had therefore been a further violation of Article 2.   Article 3   According to the Court’s practice the application of Article 3 was usually not extended to the relatives of those who had been killed by the authorities in violation of Article 2 as opposed to the relatives of the victims of enforced disappearances. However, the situation of Yusup Said-Aliyevich Musayev went beyond that of a relative of victims of a violation of Article 2. On 5   February 2000 he had been a witness to the extrajudicial execution of several of his relatives and neighbours. He had been subjected to threats from the perpetrators and forced at gunpoint to lie on the ground, fearing for his own life. The Court had no doubt that the shock he had experienced on that day, coupled with the authorities’ wholly inadequate and inefficient response in the aftermath of the events, had caused the first applicant suffering attaining the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment proscribed by Article   3. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of Yusup Said-Aliyevich Musayev.   Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 2   In circumstances where the criminal investigation into deaths had been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed, including the civil remedies suggested by the Russian Government, had consequently been undermined, the State had failed in its obligation under Article   13. There had therefore been a violation of that provision.   Articles 34 and 38 § 1 (a)   In view of the inferences drawn by the Court from the missing documents and the circumstances of the present case, the Court did not find it necessary to draw separate conclusions under Article 38 §   1   (a). As to Article 34, there was no indication in the applicants’ case that there had been any hindrance of their right of individual petition, either through interference with their communications with the Court or representation before the Court or through the exertion of undue pressure on them. The Court was of the opinion that no separate issues arose under Article 34.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.