CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 septembre 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   657 25.9.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MEZHIDOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mezhidov v. Russia (application no. 67326/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the deaths of the applicant’s parents, brother and sisters; a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of those deaths; 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 Government refused to submit documents requested by the Court.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 100,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ruslan Olegovich Mezhidov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Nadterechnoye (Chechnya). His father, Oleg Mezhidov, mother, Movlmat Mezhidova, brother, Bislan Mezhidov, and sisters, Aminat and Svetlana Mezhidova, born in 1938, 1940, 1969, 1973 and 1985, respectively, were killed in October 1999. At that time a counter terrorist operation had been launched by the Russian Government in Chechnya.   The case concerned Mr Mezhidov’s allegation that his parents, brother and sisters were killed when the village where they were living at the time, Znamenskoye, was shelled by Russian artillery.   According to Mr Mezhidov, in the early evening of 5 October 1999 Znamenskoye came under fire and his family were killed by a shell which burst in their courtyard. Not at home at the time, he claimed that his village had been shelled by Russian artillery troops stationed in the nearby Terskiy mountain range. He submitted a sketch map with the position of craters which supported his allegations that the shells could only have been fired from that mountain range. He also provided two statements by witnesses who testified that the village had been shelled from that particular area and that they had seen Russian troops stationed there. He also submitted an expert report of 9 August 2000 which confirmed that splinters he had found at the scene of the incident were pieces of large-calibre artillery shells.   The Government acknowledged that the applicant’s family had died as a result of the shelling of Znamenskoye on 5 October 1999, but denied any State involvement. An investigation into the deaths was launched on 17 November 1999. As a result the applicant as well as 18   witnesses, including the applicant’s neighbours, were questioned. It was concluded that the applicant’s family had most likely died in an attack on their village by rebel fighters who had previously threatened the residents of Znamenskoye because of their cooperation with the Russian authorities. The Government also referred to two specialists who had examined the splinters and had stated that it was impossible to determine their exact origin or confirm allegations that they had come from artillery shells. Following the investigating authorities’ enquiries to the Russian military, it was also impossible to establish which particular military units had been present in the area on 5 October 1999. The Government further submitted that the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings on 12 April 2001.   Despite specific requests by the European Court to submit a complete investigation file, the Russian Government only provided documents concerning procedural decisions, adjournments and reopenings of the proceedings and decisions to transfer the case from one investigator to another. The Government explained that disclosure of other documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.   From November 2000 to November 2007 the investigation into the incident was adjourned and reopened at least six times, the longest period of inactivity being between April 2001 and January 2005. The applicant alleged that he was only sporadically informed of the investigation’s progress.   The death certificates, issued on 24 November 1999, stated that the applicant’s family had died of “multiple shrapnel wounds”. No autopsies have ever apparently been carried out.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 November 2000 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 applicant alleged that his parents, brother and sisters were killed in an attack by Russian troops and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their deaths. He relied on Articles   2 (right to life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 34 (right of individual petition) and 38 § 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Decision of the Court   Articles 34 and 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 killing of the applicant’s family. 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.   Given that finding, the Court held that no separate issues arose under Article 34.   Article 2   Concerning the killing of the applicant’s family   The Court noted that the Government had made no attempt to contest any of the applicant’s arguments or comment on the evidence he had submitted. In particular, they had not denied that Russian troops had been stationed in the Terskiy mountain range on 5 October 1999 but had simply suggested that the Russian military could not confirm which particular military units had been present in the area at that time.   Moreover, unlike the applicant, the Government had not submitted copies of the two “specialist” statements they had relied on. Nor had they backed up their suggestion that rebel fighters had attacked Znamenskoye with any documentary evidence or given any further explanations. The Court therefore found the Government’s arguments to be unreliable.   In contrast, the applicant had convincingly argued that the large-calibre shells mentioned in the expert report of 9 August 2000 could only have been fired from heavy artillery pieces and that such guns had presumably been in the exclusive possession of the Russian armed forces.   The Court therefore concluded that the applicant’s family had died as a result of the shelling of Znamenskoye by Russian artillery. Noting that the authorities had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicant’s family.   Concerning the inadequacy of the investigation   The official investigation into the killings had not been launched until 17 November 2000, that is four months after an incident where prompt action had been vital. The Court saw no reasonable explanation for such a long delay.   Once the investigation had been launched, it had been plagued with inexplicable shortcomings in taking the most essential steps. The applicant had not, according to the Government, been granted the status of a victim until April 2001 thereby denying him the minimum of procedural guarantees. No forensic examination or autopsies had ever been made meaning that the investigating authorities could not establish the state of the bodies, the injuries sustained or the cause of death. Nor had the investigating authorities apparently ever attempted to obtain a court order for exhumation or tried to otherwise pursue the matter. Furthermore, the Government had not submitted any proof that the scene of the incident had been inspected. Lastly, despite the report of 9 August 2000 concerning the splinters, no meaningful efforts had been made to investigate the possible involvement of Russian troops in the attack of 5 October 1999. Indeed, the Court was sceptical about the existence of two specialist statements contradicting that report as no relevant documentary proof had been provided.   Moreover, in a situation where the effectiveness of the investigation had been undermined from a very early stage by the authorities’ failure to take necessary and urgent measures, where that investigation had been repeatedly stayed and reopened and where the applicant had not been duly informed of any progress, the Court considered that the applicant could not have effectively challenged the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities before a court.   Bearing in mind the inferences that could be drawn from the Government’s reticence to submit evidence, the Court concluded that the authorities had failed to carry out a thorough and effective investigation into the deaths of the applicant’s immediate family, in further violation of Article 2.   Article 13   The Court noted that, in circumstances where, as in the applicant’s case, the criminal investigation into the death of his immediate family 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 Article 2.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.