CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sD3427EA2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s82016495 { margin-left:54pt; text-indent:-54pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s92B2FCC8 { width:20.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA64C57B1 { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .sE5D7F52A { font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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   150 26.2.2009   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.   Astamirova and Others v. Russia ( no. 27256/03 )   The applicants in the first case are seven Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Aslanbek Astamirov, born in 1974, who has not been seen since the early hours of 5   August 2002 when he was abducted from the family home by a group of 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 Aslanbek Astamirov’s sisters, mother, wife and daughters) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) Violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) (refusal to submit documents requested by the Court)   The Court awarded 12,000   euros   (EUR), jointly, to Aslanbek Astamirov’s mother, wife and daughters in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR   35,000 to all the applicants, jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded EUR   7,903 for costs and expenses.   2.   Sagayev and Others v. Russia ( no. 4573/04 )   The applicants in the second case are ten Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Ilias Sagayev, born in 1972, and his nephew, Yunadi Sagayev, born in 1986; neither of the two men has been seen since they were abducted from their family homes in the early hours of 30   August 2002 and 13   September 2002, respectively, by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of Ilias Sagayev’s father, brother and sister-in-law) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2   The Court awarded Ilias Sagayev’s parents and wife EUR   5,000, jointly, in respect of pecuniary damage. All the applicants were awarded EUR   70,000, jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   7,344.10 for costs and expenses.                 Vagapova and Zubirayev v. Russia ( no. 21080/05 )   The applicants in the third case are two Russian nationals who live in Chechen-Aul (Chechen Republic). They have not seen their son, Alis Zubirayev, born in 1986, since 21   December 2004 when he was abducted from the family home by a group of armed men wearing military uniforms.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of Alis Zubirayev’s parents) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2   The Court awarded EUR   35,000 to Alis Zubirayev’s parents, jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,500 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, mostly eye-witnesses to the incidents, had presented a coherent and convincing picture 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. The Court 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. The Court came to these conclusions by drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit the documents from the investigation files which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question. Noting 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.   The Court also found that Aslanbek Astamirov’s sisters, mother, wife and daughters; Ilias Sagayev’s father, brother and sister-in-law; and, Alis Zubirayev’s parents 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, in the case of Sagayev and Others, the Court observed that only Ilias Sagayev’s father, brother and sister-in-law had insistently applied to various official bodies with enquiries about their relatives. While accepting the considerable distress caused by the events of August and September 2002 to the other seven applicants, the Court was nevertheless unable to conclude that their mental suffering had been so serious as to raise an issue under Article 3. It therefore concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3 in respect of those seven applicants.   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.