CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s9E924E36 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#339966 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE22B0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } 717 01.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] in respect of Russia   Amanat Ilyasova and Others v. Russia ( application no. 27001/06 )   ABDUCTION AND DISAPPEARANCE OF A CHECHEN CIVILIAN   Violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging between 2,000   euros   (EUR) and EUR   20,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,200 for costs and expenses. The judgment, the text of which can be consulted on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ), is available only in English.   Principal facts   The applicants are three Russian nationals who live in the village of Mesker-Yurt, Shalinskiy District (Chechen Republic). They are the parents and the common-law wife of Mr Musa Ilyasov, born in 1980. Musa has not been seen since the early morning of 11 August 2002 when, following a search of his house and a seizure of his identity documents, he was apprehended by armed men in camouflage uniforms and taken away from his home on a motor vehicle.   Investigation into Musa’s abduction was launched on an unspecified date in 2002 and Musa’s father was granted victim’s status on 5 September 2002. The investigation was suspended several times for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators.   The Government submitted that unidentified persons had abducted Musa Ilyasov from his home and that the investigation instituted into his abduction was still pending. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose most of the documents in the investigation file referring to incompatibility of such an action with domestic legislation.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The case concerned the applicants’ allegations that their respective son and husband 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 and 13.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges with the following composition:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Article 2 (disappearance)   The Court first noted that the applicants had presented a coherent and convincing picture of Musa’s abduction. It also noted that the Government had not disputed the main factual elements as submitted by the applicants and corroborated by their and the witnesses’ statements. The Court was not persuaded by the Government’s argument that the persons who arrived in Mesker-Yurt village could have been insurgents since it had been unclear how a motorcade of several military vehicles carrying armed members of illegal armed groups could have driven around a village controlled by the federal forces and through military roadblocks and remained unnoticed. Drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit the remaining documents which were in their exclusive possession, or to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court considered that Musa had been arrested on 11   August 2002 at his house in Mesker-Yurt by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation.   In his absence, or of any news about him for over six years, and given the failure of the Government to account for his disappearance, the Court concluded unanimously that Musa Ilyasov 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 Musa’s abduction immediately on the day after it had taken place. However, the first investigative steps had been taken only three weeks later. In addition, a number of essential investigative steps had been significantly delayed or not taken at all. Furthermore, given that Musa’s mother had not been granted victim’s status and it was not clear whether granting such a status to Musa’s common-law wife had ever been considered, the Court found that the investigation had not been subjected to the required level of public scrutiny. Finally, the Court noted that the investigation had been pending for over six years and had been suspended and resumed several times resulting in lengthy periods of inactivity. As the applicants had had no access to the case file, nor had they been properly informed of the progress of the investigation, they could not have effectively challenged the investigative authorities’ acts in court. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding Musa’s disappearance, in violation of Article 2.   Article 3 (psychological suffering)   The Court noted that Musa’s parents and common-law wife had witnessed his abduction following which they had had no news of him for over six years. Throughout this period the applicants had applied to various bodies inquiring about Musa’s fate but had received no plausible explanation. The Court found unanimously that the applicants had suffered distress and anguish as a result of their inability to find out what had happened to Musa. The manner in which the authorities had dealt with their complaints had to be considered inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3.   Article 5 (liberty and security of person)   The Court noted that Musa’s detention had not been acknowledged and no custody record existed or official information about his fate and whereabouts. This fact had constituted a most serious failing since it made it possible for those responsible for a person’s detention to escape accountability for the fate of a detainee. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that Musa 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 13 (effective remedy)   The Court recalled its finding under Article 2, namely that the criminal investigation had been ineffective. Consequently the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil as suggested by the Government, had been undermined. The Court concluded unanimously that there had therefore been a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2.     ***   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.