CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 juillet 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 }   559 09.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING EVENTS IN THE CHECHEN REPUBLIC YUSUPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Yusupova and Others v. Russia (application no. 5428/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant’s relative disappeared.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants jointly 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,500 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are three Russian nationals who lived at the relevant time in Achkhoy-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, wife and daughter of Khasan Yusupov, born in 1979, who served as a private in Achkhoy-Martan military commandant’s office.   In the morning of 15   November 2002 Mr Yusupov left by car with two other servicemen for an appointment at the military prosecutor’s office with regard to a criminal investigation against one of the servicemen. They stayed in communication by radio with the district military commandant’s office until about 2h30   p.m. that day when the connection was cut off.   According to the applicants, while inquiring about the whereabouts of her son, the mother of Khasan was told six days after he disappeared by an investigator from the military prosecutor’s office in Khankala that he had left his office on 15 November 2002 at around 3   p.m. A taxi driver, parked next to the military prosecutor’s office at the time of the events, and a young man - both unknown to the applicants and refusing to testify formally - told them respectively that Khasan Yusupov had been taken by car by the authorities in the late afternoon of 15   November 2002 to an unknown destination and that he had been detained in Khankala for at least three days during a period when the young man had been there.   The applicants have had no news of Khasan Yusupov since 15 November 2002.   The Government denied that the applicants’ relative and three other men had been detained by representatives of the State. They stated that on 15 November 2002 Khasan Yusupov, two other servicemen of the district military commander’s office and a driver had disappeared after having gone to Khankala and that their whereabouts have not been established so far.   Since 15   November 2002 the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies. Some time between November and December 2002 criminal proceedings were first started into the disappearance of Khasan Yusupov. The file was transferred between different prosecutors’ offices and the investigation was adjourned several times for the next few years for failure to identify the persons against whom charges had to be brought. Khasan’s mother was granted victim status at the beginning of December 2003.   The Government produced ninety-two pages of documents from the criminal investigation in this case, which included witness statements and copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation, as well as notifications to the relatives of the adjournment and reopening of the proceedings. They also submitted that the criminal investigation into the disappearance of Khasan Yusupov had been opened on 1 December 2003 but had failed to establish his whereabouts. The authorities of Chechnya had never arrested or detained him on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in his respect. Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose the complete set of documents of this criminal case referring to the incompatibility of such an action with domestic legislation given that the investigation was still pending and the file contained personal data concerning other participants in the criminal proceedings.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 February 2005 and examined for admissibility and merits together.   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 (Luxrmbourg), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles   2 (right to life), 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13   (right to an effective remedy), the applicants alleged that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearance of their relative.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 (investigation)   The Court first noted that an investigation had been carried out into the kidnapping of Khasan Yusupov. No significant steps had been taken, however, following the first opening of criminal proceedings into Khasan’s disappearance in December 2002. An investigation into his alleged murder had been started by the district prosecutor’s office as late as one year after his disappearance, on 3   December 2003, while crucial action had to be taken in the first days after the event. Inexplicably, the investigation opened in December 2003 had never been joined with the investigation into the same event carried out since December 2002, nor had it even benefitted from any data collected or conclusions reached during the earlier set of proceedings. In addition, a number of essential steps had never been taken. The Court finally noted that, even though Khasan’s mother had been granted victim status in the investigation, she had only been informed of the suspension and resumption of the proceedings but not of any other significant developments. Accordingly, the authorities had failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings. The Court held therefore that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Khasan Yusupov, in violation of Article   2.   Other complaints   The Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint under Article 3 concerning their alleged psychological suffering as a result of the disappearance of their relative, and held that, having had regard to the violation found under Article 2, there was no need to examine the complaint separately under Article 13.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.