CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   685 24.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Two Chamber judgments [1] in respect of Russia   Rezvanov and Rezvanova v. Russia (No. 12457/05 ) Babusheva and others v. Russia (No. 33944/05 )     DISAPPEARANCE OF CHECHEN CIVILIANS   Violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for home), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging between 1,500   euros   (EUR) and EUR   8,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, between EUR   35,000 and EUR   40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and, in the Babusheva and others case, EUR   5,500 for costs and expenses. 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.   Principal facts   The applicants in the first case are two Russian nationals who live in the town of Urus-Martan, (Chechen Republic). They are husband and wife, and the parents of Mr   Akhmed Rezvanov, born in 1984. Akhmed has not been seen since the early morning of 10 December 2002 when he was apprehended by armed men in camouflage uniforms and taken away from his home on a motor vehicle. The applicants were robbed of some of their possessions during a search in their house which preceded their son’s apprehension; they alleged that the armed men were federal servicemen.   The applicants in the second case are seven Russian nationals who live in the village of Makhkety, (Chechen Republic). They are the relatives of Ramzan Babushev, who was born in 1960 and has not been seen since 4 February 2003 when he was taken away by armed men in masks, after being handcuffed and a dark sack put over his head. The applicants were also robbed of some of their possessions during a search in their house which followed Ramzan’s capture.   Investigations into the abduction of the men in both cases was started respectively in January and February 2003 and was suspended several times for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators.   The Government submitted that unidentified persons had abducted the men in both cases from their homes and that the investigations instituted into the abductions were still pending. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose most of the documents in the investigations files referring to incompatibility of such an action with domestic legislation.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The two cases concerned the applicants’ allegations that their close relatives disappeared in Chechnya 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, 3, 5, 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Judgment in both cases was given by a Chamber of seven judges with composition listed below. All judges sat in both cases, with the exception of Judge Nina Vajić, who sat in the Babusheva and others case only, and Judge George Nicolaou, who sat in the Rezvanov and Rezvanova case only.   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), judges , and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 2 (disappearances)   The Court noted that the applicants’ allegations in both cases had been supported by witness statements collected by them and by the investigations. It further found that the fact that large groups of armed men in uniform, equipped with military vehicles, had moved around and passed through military checkpoints unimpeded had strongly supported the applicants’ allegations that those had been State servicemen conducting security operations. 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 and abductions in question, the Court considered that both men had been taken away, in December 2002 and February 2003 respectively, by State servicemen during unacknowledged security operations. In their absence, or of any news about them for several years, and given the failure of the Government to justify the abductions, the Court concluded that the two men should be presumed dead and their deaths could be attributed to the State. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 2 in both cases in respect of the disappeared men.   Article 2 (investigation)   The Court noted that the authorities had been made aware immediately that the two men had been abducted. However, the investigations had been opened about six weeks later in the Rezvanov and Rezvanova case, and eight days later in the Babusheva and others case. In addition, a number of essential investigative steps had been significantly delayed or not taken at all. Finally, the Court noted that the investigations had been suspended and resumed on numerous occasions and that there had been lengthy periods of inactivity when no proceedings were pending. Accordingly, the authorities had failed to carry out effective investigations in both cases, in violation of Article 2.   Article 3 (psychological suffering) In both cases the Court found a violation of Article 3 as a result of the applicants’ psychological suffering caused by them not knowing the fate of their close relatives for a very long time: in the Rezvanov and Rezvanova case such a violation was found in respect both parents of Akhmed; in the Babusheva and others case the violation was found as regards all applicants, with the exception of the youngest child had been born after her father had disappeared.   Article 5 (liberty and security of person) The Court further found in both cases that the applicants’ relatives had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which had constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in this Article.   Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Although the Government had denied responsibility for the searches and seizures of the properties in both cases, the Court had already found that the persons who had entered the applicants’ homes and detained their relatives had belonged to the State military or security forces. Therefore, it found that the State bore responsibility for the searches and the seizures of the applicants’ properties. In the absence of any justification by the Government as to the lawfulness and proportionality of these measures, the Court held that there had been violations of the applicants’ right to respect for home guaranteed by Article 8 and their right to protection of property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   Article 13 (effective remedy) Finally, in both cases the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 2, 8 and 1 of Protocol No 1.   ***   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or 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.