CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 juin 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .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 }   460 11.06.09   Press release issued by the Registrar   Two Chamber Judgments in respect of Russia concerning disappearances in Chechnya     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments [1] concerning Russia, neither of which is final. The applicants alleged in particular that their relatives disappeared after being detained 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). The judgments, the texts of which can be consulted on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ), are available only in English.     1.   Khalitova and Others v. Russia ( application no. 33264/04 ) The applicants in this case are four Russian nationals who live in the Groznenskiy District (Chechen Republic). The first applicant’s husband, Ali Uspayev, and her son, Amir Magomedov, were seen for the last time in the early hours of 18   July 2001, when they were taken from the family home by a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms. The second and third applicants are the sister and wife of Aslan Dokayev, and the fourth applicant is the father of Rustam Achkhanov; the two men have not been seen since early in the morning of 18   July 2001 when, according to the applicants, the car in which their relatives were travelling came under fire from servicemen. Aslan and Rustam, wounded, were loaded into an armoured military vehicle; they have not been seen since. The Government, although accepting that a special military operation had been carried out in the applicants’ district on 18   July 2001, denied that Aslan and Rustam were shot; they submitted that the two men escaped and have since been missing.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life) on account of the deaths of Ali Uspayev, Amir Magomedov, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov and the absence of an effective investigation into their disappearance. Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) on account of the mental suffering endured by the applicants. Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) on account of the unacknowledged detention of the four men. Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 2.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court made awards of 40,000   euros   (EUR) to the first applicant and EUR   20,000 to each of the other three applicants. EUR   4,500 was awarded in total for pecuniary damage.   2.   Khasuyeva v. Russia ( no. 28159/03 ) The applicant in this case is a Russian national who lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). She is the mother of Abu Khasuyev, born in 1978, who has not been seen since the early afternoon of 30   August 2001 when he was abducted from the family home by a group of about ten masked, armed men in camouflage uniforms. Abu Khasuyev’s wife, present at the scene of the abduction with her baby daughter, claimed that the men who broke into the family’s flat, situated at that time near to a Russian military checkpoint, spoke unaccented Russian and drove her husband away in a vehicle with tinted windows and no registration plate. The applicant’s neighbours corroborated that version of events. The official investigation into the disappearance established that there were sufficient grounds to assume that a special operation had been carried out in respect of the applicant’s son during which armoured vehicles had been used. The Government submitted that, the investigation still in progress, Abu Khasuyev’s abductors had not yet been identified.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life) on account of the death of Abu Khasuyev and the lack of an effective investigation into his disappearance. Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) on account of the mental suffering endured by the applicant. Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) on account of the unacknowledged detention of the applicant’s son. Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 2.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   12,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR   35,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR   8,093 for costs and expenses.     ***   Further information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases   In the case of Khalitova and Others the Court noted that the Government had accepted that a special operation had been carried out by unspecified military units in the applicants’ district on 18 July 2001 and that, during that operation, servicemen had opened fire on Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov. Furthermore, the witnesses to the incident, although uncertain whether the men had died on the spot from their wounds or survived, stated that on that day the two men had been shot at and then taken away by armed men travelling in armoured vehicles. As concerned Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev, the Court considered that it would have been unlikely that, on the day of a special security operation, a group of insurgents had been able to travel unnoticed in highly visible vehicles and kidnap the first applicant’s husband and son.   Given that information in particular, the Court found it established that, during a security operation on 18 July 2001, Russian servicemen had abducted Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev and shot and then abducted Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov and that, following those events, the four men had to be presumed dead. The Court also came to that conclusion 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 use of lethal force by their agents, it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants’ four relatives.   In the case of Khasuyeva the Court considered that the applicant had presented a consistent account of her son’s abduction, corroborated by eye-witnesses. Notably, the applicant and her neighbours stated that the abductors had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation, had been wearing masks and camouflage uniforms, had been armed with automatic weapons and spoke Russian. The Court found the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform had been able to move freely with their vehicles at the relevant time in broad daylight, across the street from a military checkpoint, and to apprehend people in their homes strongly supported the applicants’ allegation that the men had been Russian servicemen. Indeed, the domestic investigation had even established that the military had been involved in the abduction.   Given that information, the Court considered it established that the applicant’s son had to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen. The Court also came to that conclusion by drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit the entire contents of the investigation file; it could in fact be seen from those documents which had been submitted that, if anything, the proceedings had been incomplete and inadequate, there having been no progress made in more than six years. Noting that the authorities had not put forward any justification for the events in question, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicant’s son.   The Court further held in both cases that Article 2 had been breached on account of the failure of the competent authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives.   Also in both cases, 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 him. 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 further found that all 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.   Finally, in both cases the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2, as the investigations into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives had not been effective, thus undermining any other remedies that might have existed.     ***   The full texts of 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 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.