CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 mars 2008

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   203 20.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT AZIYEVY v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Aziyevy v. Russia (application no. 77626/01).   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 applicants’ sons; a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ sons; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in respect of both applicants; a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) in respect of the applicants’ sons; 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).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded 300   euros   (EUR) to Lech   Aziyev in respect of pecuniary damage and to both applicants, jointly, EUR   75,000 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, Lech and Zulay Aziyevy, are Russian nationals who were born in 1947 and 1949, respectively, and live in Russia. They are married. At the relevant time, they lived in a flat in Grozny, Chechnya.   The case concerned, in particular, the applicants’ allegation that their sons Lom-Ali and Umar-Ali, born in 1973 and 1974, disappeared in September 2000 after being taken from the family flat in Grozny by Russian servicemen.   According to the applicants, at 1.20 a.m. on 24 September 2000 a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks broke into the Aziyevy’s flat. They did not identify themselves. The applicants claimed that they were Russian servicemen as they spoke Russian and could move freely in Grozny during curfew. They kicked Lech Aziyev and beat him with their machine guns. They then took away the Aziyevys’ sons, half-naked and barefoot, promising that they would be released as soon as their identities had been checked.   The applicants submitted eyewitness statements by their neighbours who claimed that, in the early hours of 24 September 2000, armed guards with torches were posted on each landing of their block of flats while an identity check was carried out. They were asked questions in Russian about the Aziyevy brothers and confirmed that the doors of two of the flats were broken down by armed men, who were then seen walking to a nearby military checkpoint.   The applicants have had no news of their sons since.   Lech Aziyev was taken to hospital the same day. The ensuing medical report recorded that he had a head wound, concussion, temporary blindness, fractured ribs and bruising around the liver, kidneys and bladder. Two expert reports, relying on that record, subsequently confirmed that the applicant’s injuries were likely to have been sustained in the circumstances he described.   In the years that followed, the applicants have repeatedly applied to the authorities, both in person and in writing. Lech Aziyev has also visited a number of detention centres and prisons in Chechnya and the Northern Caucasus. In June 2001 Zulay Aziyeva saw Lom-Ali’s name on a list of detainees at the Khankala military base and asked the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office to investigate. The applicants alleged, however, that their enquiries received only a purely formal response or no reply at all.   The Government denied that Russian servicemen were responsible for the disappearance of the applicants’ sons. It claimed that the brothers were abducted by unidentified armed men, who were possibly members of paramilitary groups.   According to information provided by the Government, an investigation into the abduction of the brothers and into the injuries sustained by their father was opened on 29 September 2000. In the days following the incident, the applicants and some of their neighbours were questioned and the crime scene was inspected. In November 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Leninskiy District of Grozny criticised the investigation and requested full descriptions of the Aziyevy brothers and their identity papers and information concerning the language their abductors had used. He also asked for witness statements to be taken from the neighbours who had seen the armed men walking towards the military roadblock. Lech Aziyev was granted victim status on 17 December 2003 and his wife on 11   October 2000.   Despite specific requests from the European Court to submit a complete investigation file, the Russian Government only provided documents concerning adjournments and reopenings of the proceedings and the applicants’ victim status. The Government explained that disclosure of other documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.   Between September 2000 and November 2006 the investigation was adjourned and resumed eight times but, to date, has failed to identify those responsible for the disappearance of the applicants’ sons.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 July 2001 and declared partly admissible on 21 September 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly 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 their sons disappeared after being detained by Russian servicemen and that the Russian authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into their allegations. They also claimed that they had both personally endured mental suffering as a result of their sons’ disappearance and the authorities’ failure to investigate, that Lech Aziyev was beaten during the abduction and that they had reason to believe their sons were subsequently tortured.   They relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 38 § 1 (a)   The Court recalled that it had, on several occasions, asked the Russian Government to submit a complete copy of the investigation file opened into the alleged abduction of the applicants’ sons. The evidence contained in the file was regarded by the Court as crucial for the establishment of the facts in the case. It found the reasons given by the Government for their refusal to disclose the documents requested to be inadequate.   In failing to submit the documents requested, the Russian Government had therefore failed to meet their obligations under Article 38 § 1.   Article 2   Concerning the disappearance of the applicants’ sons   The Court considered that the applicants had presented a consistent and convincing picture of their sons’ detention by unknown servicemen and had asked the authorities to investigate. Zulay Aziyeva had even mentioned her sons’ possible detention at the Khankala military base. The applicants’ version of events was also supported by witness statements. In particular, those statements indicated that the abductors had acted as if taking part in a security operation and had been seen going towards a military checkpoint. Indeed, the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform had carried out an identity check during curfew hours and had made arrests in people’s homes in an urban area strongly supported the applicants’ allegation that the abductors were State servicemen.   Drawing inferences from the Russian Government’s failure to submit documents to which it had exclusive access and the fact that it did not provide any other plausible explanation for the incident, the Court concluded that the applicants’ sons had been arrested on 24   September 2000 at their house in Grozny by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation.   There had been no reliable news of the applicants’ sons since 24 September 2000. Their names had not been found in any detention facility records and the Government had not submitted any explanation as to what had happened to them after their arrest.   In the context of the conflict in Chechnya, where a person was detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of their detention, the situation could be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of the applicants’ sons or of any news of them for over seven years corroborated that assumption. The Court therefore considered that they had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by State servicemen. Furthermore, the Court found it established that the investigation into the abduction, dragging on for more than seven years without any tangible results, had been inadequate and had contributed to the disappearance of the two men. Consequently, the responsibility for their presumed death was attributable to the Russian Government. Noting that the authorities had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants’ sons.   Concerning the inadequacy of the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ sons   Despite not having access to a complete investigation file, it was clear to the Court that, even though an investigation had almost immediately been opened, the most basic steps had not been taken in a situation where prompt action had been vital. It was only in November 2006, more than six years after the crime had occurred, that the authorities had made requests to have the applicants’ sons formally identified and to have witnesses questioned concerning the language of the abductors and the armed men who had been seen walking towards the military checkpoint. Nor did it appear that the authorities had tried to identify and question the servicemen who had manned that checkpoint. No enquiries had ever been made to ascertain whether a special operation had been carried out at the applicants’ home on 24 April 2000.   The Court lastly noted that, even though the applicants had eventually been granted victim status, they had only been informed of the adjournment and reopening of the proceedings, and not of any other significant developments. Accordingly, the investigators had failed to ensure the required level of public scrutiny and to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings.   The authorities’ reaction to the applicants’ well-substantiated complaints led the Court to believe that it was highly probable that the former had given at least their tacit support to the servicemen’s conduct, which left the Court with strong doubts as to the objectivity of the investigation.   The Court therefore concluded that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ sons, in violation of Article   2.   Article 3   Concerning the applicants’ sons   The Court found that it had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt whether the applicants’ sons had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention and how exactly they had died. It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 3 with regard to the applicants’ sons.   Concerning the applicants   The Court noted that the applicants were the parents of individuals who had disappeared. For more than seven years they had had no news of their sons. During that period the applicants had applied to various official bodies to enquire about their children, both in writing and in person. Despite their attempts, the applicants had never received any plausible explanation or information as to what had become of their sons. The responses they had received mostly denied the State’s responsibility for their sons’ arrest or simply informed them that an investigation was ongoing.   The Court concluded that the applicants had suffered, and continued to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their sons and their inability to find out what had happened to them. The manner in which their complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3.   The Court further took note of, in particular, Lech Aziyev’s medical records drawn up the day after his sons’ abduction and the subsequent expert reports. As the Government had not disputed the facts in those documents, the Court found that Mr Aziyev had been beaten and injured by the same Russian servicemen who had taken away his sons. Those responsible for his injuries had never been identified and no one had ever been charged.   The Court therefore concluded that there had been a further violation of Article 3 in respect of both applicants.   Article 5   The Court reiterated that the applicants’ sons had been detained by Russian servicemen and had not been seen since. Their detention was not logged in any custody records and there existed no official trace of their subsequent whereabouts or fate. That fact in itself had to be considered a most serious failing, since it enabled those responsible for an act of deprivation of liberty to conceal their involvement in a crime, to cover their tracks and to escape accountability for the fate of a detainee.   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 sons had been detained and taken away in life-threatening circumstances. However, there was no doubt that the authorities had failed to take prompt and effective measures to safeguard the applicants’ sons against the risk of disappearance.   The Court concluded that the applicants’ sons had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which constituted a particularly grave violation of Article 5.   Article 13   The Court noted that, in circumstances where, as in the applicants’ case, the criminal investigation into a violent death had been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed, had consequently been undermined, the State had failed in its obligations, in violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3.   No other separate issue arose under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 5.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.