CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 février 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 } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   102 12.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Three Chamber judgments against Russia concerning disappearances in Chechnya   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments concerning Russia, none of which are final [1] . The applicants alleged that their relatives disappeared after being abducted by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They relied in particular 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) 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.   Ayubov v. Russia (application no. 7654/02 )   The applicant in the first case was a Russian national who lived in Grozny (Chechen Republic). He is now deceased and his widow, Ashat Ayubova, continued the application on her husband’s behalf. Their son, Adam Ayubov, born in 1959, has not been seen since 19   January 2000 when he was apprehended at the family home by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and driven away in a military truck.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation). Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of Russian servicemen having set on fire the applicant’s family home and cars. Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   The Court awarded Ms Ayubova 35,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   485 for costs and expenses.   2.   Bantayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 20727/04 )   The applicants in the second case are 11 Russian nationals who live in Komsomolskoye (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Abubakar Bantayev, born in 1957, and Salman Bantayev, born in 1962. The two brothers have not been seen since 2   January 2003 when they were abducted from their family homes by masked armed men in camouflage uniform.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation). Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of all the applicants except for Salman Bantayev’s youngest daughter). Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention). Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.   In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   3,000 to the mother of Abubakar and Salman Bantayev, EUR   7,500, jointly, to Abubakar Bantayev’s wife and their four children and EUR   7,500, jointly, to Salman Bantayev’s wife and their four children. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   20,000 to the mother of Abubakar and Salman Bantayev, EUR   25,000, jointly, to Abubakar Bantayev’s wife and their four children and EUR   25,000, jointly, to Salman Bantayev’s wife and their four children. The Court awarded the applicants EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses.   3.   Meshayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 27248/03 )   The applicants in the third case are 16 Russian nationals who live in Martan-Chu (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Leoma Meshayev, born in 1952, and Bislan Saydayev, born in 1977, who have not been seen since they were abducted from their family homes in the early hours of 17   December 2002 by masked armed men in camouflage uniforms.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation). Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of Leoma Meshayev’s wife, brother and children and of Bislan Saydayev’s mothers and brothers). Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention). Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2. Violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) (refusal to submit documents requested by the Court).   In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   5,500, jointly, to Leoma Meshayev’s wife and four children and EUR   3,000 to Bislan Saydayev’s mother. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   25,000, jointly, to Leoma Meshayev’s wife and four children, EUR   10,000 to his brother and EUR   35,000, jointly, to Bislan Saydayev’s mother and four brothers. The applicants were awarded EUR   5,150 for costs and expenses.     *********   Additional information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases [2]   In all three cases the Court considered that the applicants had presented a coherent and convincing picture, corroborated by witness statements, of their relatives’ abduction. All stated that the abductors had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation; they had mostly spoken Russian without an accent and had, on the whole, used military vehicles which could not have been available to paramilitary groups. In the first two cases, the Court further found the fact that large groups of armed men in uniform were able to move freely at the relevant time and apprehend people at their homes strongly supported the applicants’ allegation that the men had been Russian servicemen. The Court therefore held in all three cases that the evidence available to it established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants’ relatives had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen during a security operation. Noting in the first and second cases that the Government had not provided any plausible explanation at all, and in the third case that the authorities had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of all of the applicants’ relatives.   In all three cases, the Court further held that there had been violations of Article   2 relating to the authorities’ failure to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared.   In the last two cases, the Court also found that the Bantayev brothers’ mother, wives and children, Leoma Meshayev’s wife, brother and children and Bislan Saydayev’s mother and brothers 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. However, as concerned Salman Bantayev’s youngest daughter, it noted that she was born in August 2003, more than seven months after her father’s disappearance. The Court did not therefore find that she had suffered distress and anguish that would amount to a breach of Article 3 and concluded that there had been no violation of that Article. As concerned the remaining five applicants in the case of Meshayeva and Others , the Court noted that their relationship with the disappeared men had been more distant; they were the disappeared men’s nieces and nephews and Bislan Saydayev’s sister-in-law. The Court was therefore also unable to find that their mental suffering and emotional distress had been serious enough to amount to a breach of Article 3 and concluded that there had been no violation of that Article.   Lastly, the Court found in particular in all three 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’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.