CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   595 23.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MUTSAYEVA v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mutsayeva. v. Russia (application no. 24297/05).   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 Khizir Tepsurkayev and of not having carried out an effective investigation; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), on account of the psychological suffering of the applicant, mother of Khizir Tepsurkayev, 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 Khizir Tepsurkayev; 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.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Khizir Tepsurkayev’s mother 35,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damages and EUR   2,100 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are the parents of Khizir Tepsurkayev, born in 1980. His father died in January 2006 and his mother decided to pursue the application. She is a Russian national who lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). Her son has not been seen since 27   August 2001.   According to the applicant, in the morning of 27 August 2001 her son, Khizir Tepsurkayev, left his house in Urus-Martan to go to the Town Court in the centre of the town. On his way an acquaintance of his stopped his car and offered him a ride into town which he accepted. At that time there was a sweeping operation in town and Khizir had to show his documents when he stepped out of the car in the centre. At that moment someone in a military vehicle nearby shouted that that car was on the wanted list and the driver should be arrested, following which a commander immediately ordered the soldiers to detain Khizir Tepsurkayev. The soldiers started beating him while Khizir called for help. A neighbour approached but could not get close to Khizir because the soldiers started firing over the heads of the crowd. Shortly afterwards he was forced into a car and driven away. After being informed of what happened about half an hour following the abduction, the applicant and her husband immediately started searching for Khizir. They contacted both in person and in writing various official bodies describing in detail the circumstances of their son’s abduction and asking for help in establishing his whereabouts.   The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicant.   An investigation was opened into the circumstances complained of and was suspended and resumed on several occasions; it has so far failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators. In October 2004, the applicant complained to the Town Court in Uruz-Martan of the unlawful suspension of the investigation in the case and the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the abduction of her son. The Town Court, in a decision of November 2004 upheld by the Chechnya Supreme Court in December 2004, found partially in her favour instructing the investigative authorities to examine the applicant’s requests.   Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents of the case referring to the incompatibility of such a measure with domestic legislation given that the investigation was in progress.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 June 2005 and was examined together for admissibility and merits.   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   Relying in particular on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13, the applicant alleged that her son disappeared after being unlawfully detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her allegations, which caused her psychological suffering.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 (disappearance)   The Court noted 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 in broad daylight, equipped with military vehicles, had proceeded to check identity documents and opened fire had strongly supported the applicant’s allegation that those had been State servicemen conducting a security operation. Having drawn inferences from the Government’s failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide a plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court considered that Khizir Tepsurkayev had been taken away on 27   August 2001 by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. In his absence or of any news about him for several years, and given the failure of the Government to justify his abduction, the Court concluded that he should be presumed dead and his death could be attributed to the State. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of him.   Article 2 (investigation)   The Court noted that the authorities had been made aware of Khizir Tepsurkayev’s abduction immediately. However, the investigation had been opened almost five months later and a number of essential investigative steps had been significantly delayed or not taken at all. Finally, the Court noted that the investigation had been suspended and resumed on numerous occasions and that there had been lengthy periods of inactivity when no proceedings were pending. Further, the Town Court had criticised deficiencies in the proceedings and ordered remedial measures; it appeared, however, that its instructions had not been complied with. Accordingly, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation, in violation of Article 2.   Article 3 (psychological suffering)   The Court noted that the applicant, mother of the disappeared person, had had no news of him for more than seven years. Given that there had been no plausible explanation about what had happened after Khizir Tepsurkayev’s detention, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 as a result of the applicant’s psychological suffering.   Article 5 (unlawful detention)   Given that Khizir Tepsurkayev 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 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2   The Court held that, given that the criminal investigation into Khizir Tepsurkayev’s abduction 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 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.