CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 janvier 2009

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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   009 8.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar     Six Chamber judgments against Russia concerning Chechnya     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing six Chamber judgments concerning Russia, none of which are final. [1] All the applicants in these cases alleged that, during security operations carried out in Chechnya in 2002, their relatives had been detained by Russian servicemen and had subsequently disappeared or had been killed. They also claimed that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They all relied, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgments which may be consulted on the Court’s website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ) are only available in English.   1.   Abdulkadyrova and Others v. Russia (no. 27180/03)   The applicants are four Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and children of Ayndi Aliyevich Dzhabayev, born in 1967, who has not been seen since September 2002. He was declared dead by the national courts in May 2006. The Court found as follows:   Violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life and lack of effective investigation) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in relation to the applicants) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) Violation of Article 8 (respect for home) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (breach of property rights) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) Violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) (refusal to submit documents requested by the Court) The Court awarded the applicants, jointly,   1,509 euros EUR in respect of pecuniary damage caused to the applicants’ property and EUR   10,000 in respect of damage resulting from the loss of earnings. For non-pecuniary damage, the applicants were awarded EUR   35,000, jointly, and 1,837   pounds sterling (approximately EUR   1,921) for costs and expenses.   2.   Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (no. 13670/03)   The applicants are eleven Russian nationals who live in Staryye Atagi (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of nine men who have not been seen since March 2002. Five of the men’s burnt bodies were found and identified two years later. The Court found as follows:   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of the applicants) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) Violation of Article 38 §   1 (a) (refusal to submit documents requested by the Court)   In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   5,000, each, to Adlan Baysarov’s wife and the mothers of Timur Khadzhayer and Abdul-Naser Zakayev. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, it awarded EUR   35,000, each, to the mothers of Aslan Akhmadov, Islam Chagayev, Timur Khadzhayev and Abdul-Naser Zakayev, Said-Selim Kanayev’ aunt, the fathers of Amir Polayev, Ibragim Magomadov and Magomad Isambayev, and Adlan Baysarov’s wife. For costs and expenses, the applicants were awarded EUR   16,993.16.   3.   Dangayeva and Taramova v. Russia (no. 1896/04)   The applicants are two Russian nationals who live in Grozny (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and sister of Saidkhasan Khasmagamedovich Dangayev, born in 1948, who was shot and killed in the courtyard of his home in October 2002. The Court found as follows:   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy)   In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   7,491 to Saidkhasan Dangayev’s widow. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, it awarded EUR   30,000, each, to his widow and sister. For costs and expenses, the applicants were awarded EUR   4,150.   4.   Dzhamayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 43170/04)   The applicants are four Russian nationals who live in Staryye Atagi (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, sisters and son of Ismail Issayevich Dzhamayev, born in 1981, who has not been seen since March 2002. The Court found as follows:   Violations of Article 2 (right life and lack of investigation) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of the applicants) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy)   The Court awarded EUR   5,000 in respect of pecuniary damage to Ismail Dzhamayev’s son. It awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   6,335.92 for costs and expenses.   5.   Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 27251/03)   The applicants are seven Russian nationals; all but one live in Chechen-Aul (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of six men who disappeared from their village in October and November 2002; the bodies of all six men were subsequently found with signs of a violent death. The Court found as follows:   Violations of Article 2 (right life and lack of investigation) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) Violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) (refusal to submit documents requested by the Court)   In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   12,000 to Magomed Shakhgiriyev’s mother, EUR   1,400 to Ali Magomadov’s mother, and EUR   10,000 to Umalat Abayev’s widow. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, it awarded EUR   35,000, each, to Magomed Shakhgiriyev’s mother, Ismail Umarov’s sister and Umalat Abayev’s widow; EUR   35,000, jointly, to Ali Magomadov’s widow and mother; and, EUR   10,000, each, to the sisters of Umalat Abayev and Khasin Yunusov. The applicants were awarded EUR   8,107 for costs and expenses.   6.   Zakriyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 20583/04)   The applicants are eight Russian nationals who live in Achkhoy-Martan and Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, wife, children and brothers of Aslanbek Esikovich Khamzayev, born in 1974, who has allegedly not been seen since June 2002 when he was stopped at a Russian military checkpoint. The Court found as follows:   No violation of Article 2 (right to life) Violation of Article 2 (lack of investigation)   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   2,000, each, to Aslanbek Khamzayev’s mother and two youngest children, and EUR   850, each, to his three brothers. For costs and expenses the applicants were awarded EUR   3,650.     *************     Additional information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases   The Court held in particular that in the first five cases the applicants had presented a coherent and convincing picture, corroborated by witness statements, of their relatives’ abduction by Russian servicemen and that the evidence available established beyond reasonable doubt that their relatives had either died, been killed or could be presumed dead following their detention by Russian servicemen during security operations. In all of those cases, the Court, noting that the Government had not provided any plausible explanation at all or that the authorities had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the all of the applicants’ relatives.   However, in respect of two of the applicants’ relatives in the case of Shakhgiriyeva and the applicants’ relative in the case of Zakriyeva and Others , the Court noted that the evidence available, either disjointed or based on rumour, did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Russian servicemen had been implicated in the disappearance or death of the applicants’ relatives. In such circumstances, the Court found no State responsibility and held that there had been no violation of Article   2 concerning the right to life of the applicants’ relatives.   In all six cases, the Court further held that there had been violations of Article   2 relating to the authorities’ failure to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared.   Furthermore, in the cases of Abdulkadyrova and Others and Arzu Akhmadova and Others the Court found that the applicants had suffered and continued to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their relatives 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. In the case of Dzhamayeva and Others in April 2002 the authorities, refusing to carry out a forensic examination, had returned to the applicants severely decomposed bodies wrapped in bags; the applicants had only learned two years later when a forensic examination had been carried out that those disfigured remains belonged to their relative. The Court considered that such conduct demonstrated an astonishing lack of care and respect both for the person killed and his relatives and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   The Court found in four of the cases that the applicants’ relatives had been 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 that article.   The Court also found in the first five cases that there had been a violation of Article   13 as regards the alleged violation of Article   2. In the case of Abdulkadyrova and Others it found a further violation of Article 13 as regards the alleged violation of Article   8 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   The Court held that in the cases of Abdulkadyrova and Others, Arzu Akhmadova and Others and Shakhgiriyeva and Others there had been a failure to comply with Article   38   §   1   (a) in that the Government had refused to submit documents requested by the Court.   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.