CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 juin 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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 }     484 18.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment against Russia   concerning a disappearance in chECHnya   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Magomadova v. Russia (2393/05).     The Court held unanimously that there had been:   two violations of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the Government not having provided a plausible explanation for the disappearance of the applicant’s son and of not having carried our an effective investigation;   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture), on account of the psychological suffering of the applicant as a result of the disappearance of her son; a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), on account of the unacknowledged detention of the applicant’s son; a violation of Article 13 ( right of an effective remedy ) in conjunction with Article     2, on account of the impossibility for the applicant to obtain the identification and punishment of those responsible, nor redress for her suffering.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR   35,000 for non-pecuniary damages and EUR     2,600 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English. The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ms Sabigat Magomadova, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. She is the mother of Ibragim Uruskhanov who was born in 1973. She alleged that her son disappeared after being abducted by Russian servicemen during the night of 12 April 2002. In particular, she submitted that he was taken by servicemen, some of whom wearing masks and others not, in order to question him. She has had no news of Ibragim since the night of his abduction. The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicant, but submitted that it had been unidentified persons armed with automatic weapons who had kidnapped Ibragim Uruskhanov and had left in an unknown direction on that night.   An investigation was opened into the abduction and was subsequently suspended and resumed several times over a period of almost six years, because the perpetrators could not be identified. Ms Magomadova complained about it before the domestic courts. While her complaint was initially rejected, in August 2005 the court instructed the prosecutor’s office to resume investigation and ordered concrete investigative measures to be carried out. It also granted Ms Magomadova’s request and declared Ibragim Uruskhanov dead as of 1     April     2008. The Government submitted that the description of the abductors as provided by the applicant had not demonstrated that they had been Russian servicemen; neither had the body of Ibragim been found. In response to the Court’s request, the Government disclosed some documents from the investigation file, but stated that as the investigation was still in progress, they could not disclose all the documents related to it.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 November 2004 and was examined for admissibility and merits at the same time.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), judges ,   and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Ms Magomadova 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.     Decision of the Court   Article 2 (disappearance)     The Court considered that the applicant’s allegations had been supported by witness statements collected by her and by the investigation. It further found that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform had been able to move freely late at night in controlled areas and to abduct someone from their home strongly supported the applicant’s allegation that these were State servicemen. Having drawn inferences from the Government’s failure to submit the investigation documents which were in their exclusive possession or to give any plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court held that the applicant’s son had to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen during security operations. Noting the absence of any justification put forward by the Government, the Court concluded that Ibragim’s death could be attributable to the State and that there had been therefore a violation of Article 2 in respect of him.   Article 2 (investigation)   The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article 2 given the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Ibragim had disappeared.   Article 3     The applicant had suffered and continued to suffer distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of Ibragim and her inability to find out what had happened to him. The manner in which her complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3.   Article 5   Further, as Ibragim had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, this had constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security as enshrined in Article 5.     Article 13 together with Article 2   Finally, the Court held that, given that the criminal investigation into Ibragim’s disappearance had been ineffective, the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil remedies suggested by the Government, had been undermined, in violation of Article   13 of the Convention.       ****   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. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.