CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 avril 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 } .s7C2088F3 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   302 09.04.09   Press release issued by the Registrar   Four Chamber judgments against Russia concerning disappearances in Chechnya   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing four Chamber judgments concerning Russia, none of which are final [1] . The applicants in all four cases 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.   Dokayev and Others v. Russia (no. 16629/05)   The applicants in the first case are 11 Russian nationals from three families who live in Grozny (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Isa Dokayev, Ruslan Askhabov and Isa Dubayev, born in 1969, 1962 and 1981, respectively. The three men have not been seen since they were abducted from the Dokayev family home in the early hours of 10   December 2002 by a group of masked men in white camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns and pistols. Since the very day of the abduction the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various authorities searching for their relatives. An investigation was opened into the disappearances, but was discontinued on several occasions for failure to establish the whereabouts of the three men or who abducted them. The investigation is still apparently on-going. No documents related to it have been disclosed to the Court despite its specific requests.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life in respect of Isa Dokayev, Ruslan Askhabov and Isa Dubayev and lack of effective investigation into their disappearance) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment as a result of mental suffering of all applicants except Isa Dokayev’s daughter, born after his abduction) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention in respect of Isa Dokayev, Ruslan Askhabov and Isa Dubayev) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in connection with Article 2   The Court awarded the applicants sums ranging between EUR   14,000 to EUR   35,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   5,500   in respect of costs and expenses.   2.   Dzhabrailova v. Russia (no. 1586/05)   The applicant in the second case is a Russian national who lives in Goyty (Chechen Republic). She is the mother of Khanpasha Dzhabrailov, born in 1976, who has not been seen since the early hours of 10   April 2003 when he was abducted from his family home by a group of masked men in camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns. The applicant complained in writing of the incident on the day following her son’s abduction. An investigation was opened into the facts but was suspended on several occasions for failure to establish the whereabouts of Mr Dzhabrailov or the persons who abducted him. The applicant complained before the domestic courts that the investigation was ineffective and that she had not been allowed access to the files. It is unclear whether the courts examined her complaint regarding the lack of progress with the investigation.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life in respect of Khanpasha Dzhabrailov and lack of effective investigation into his disappearance) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of Khanpasha’s mother on account of her mental suffering) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention in respect of Khanpasha Dzhabrailov)   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   3,233 in respect of costs and expenses.   3.   Gaziyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 15439/05)   The applicants in the third case are three Russian nationals who live in Chechen-Aul (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and children of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev, born in 1968, who has not been seen since the afternoon of 8   February 2001, when he was abducted by men in masks and uniforms who had stopped his lorry at a military roadblock. On 9   February, the wife of Mr Shakhmurzayev spoke to two officers at the military commanders’ offices in the village of Gikalo and Urus-Martan district respectively, who confirmed that her husband had been arrested by military servicemen and was being held in the village of Tangi-Chu. An investigation into the facts was opened: the applicant submitted that it had been temporarily suspended, while the Government claimed that, although the whereabouts of Mr   Shakhmurzayev or the persons who had abducted him had still not yet been established, the investigation was on-going. Despite a specific request by the Court, the Government did not disclose any documents from the investigation file referring to the incompatibility of such an action with domestic legislation.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life in respect of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev and lack of effective investigation into his disappearance) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of Abdul-Malik’s wife and children on account of their mental suffering) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention in respect of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in connection with Article 2   The Court awarded jointly to all applicants EUR   10,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   5,500 for costs and expenses.   4.   Malsagova and Others v. Russia (no. 27244/03)   The applicants in the fourth case are seven Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, brother and sisters of Saydi Malsagov, born in 1980, who has not been seen since the early hours of 7   November 2002 when he was abducted from his family home by a group of masked men in camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns and sniper rifles. Following the abduction, the applicants repeatedly applied, both in person and in writing, to various official bodies, in an attempt to find out what happened to their relative. An investigation was opened into the case, but was suspended on several occasions for failure to identify those responsible for the abduction. Despite a specific request by the Court to provide the investigation file, the Government provided only copies of several decisions to suspend and resume the investigation, and to grant victim status, referring to the incompatibility of disclosing all documents with domestic legislation.   Violations of Article 2 (in respect of Saydi Malsagov and lack of effective investigation into his disappearance) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of Saydi’s mother and two of his six siblings on account of their mental suffering, and no violation in respect of the rest of his siblings) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention in respect of Saydi Malsagov) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in connection with Article 2 Violation of Article 38§1 (a) (refusal to submit documents requested by the Court)   The Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR   750 to EUR   27,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   6,650   in respect of costs and expenses.   *********   Additional information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases [2]   In all four cases the Court found it established that the applicants’ relatives had been apprehended by State servicemen and that they had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention. In particular, in the cases of Dokayev and Others and Gaziyeva and Others , the applicants’ allegations had been supported by witness statements produced by them and collected by the investigation and, in the cases of Dzhabrailova and Malsagova and Others , the applicants had presented a coherent and consistent picture of their relatives’ abduction. In all four cases, there had been no news of the disappeared men for several years, and their names had not been found in any official detention facilities’ records. Inferences could also be drawn in all cases from the Government’s failure to submit copies of the investigation files in their exclusive possession, or to provide a plausible explanation of the events in question. Having noted that, in all four cases, the authorities had not provided any justification for the unacknowledged detention of the missing men, or otherwise accounted for the death of the applicants’ relatives, it had followed that the Government had been responsible for their presumed deaths, and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 2 in respect of all six men.   In all four 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 certain of 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.   The Court found in particular in all four 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.   Lastly, in three of the four cases, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in connection with Article 2, as the investigations into the disappearances of the applicants’ relatives had been ineffective and had consequently undermined the effectiveness of any other remedies that might have existed.   ***   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.