CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7F64397A { width:26.83pt; display:inline-block } .s4F2785A5 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; 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 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   113 11.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Two Chamber judgments against Russia concerning disappearances in Chechnya     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two Chamber judgments concerning Russia, neither of which is final [1] . The applicants in both cases alleged that their relatives disappeared after being abducted 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 (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. The judgments, which may be consulted on the Court’s website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ), are only available in English.     1.   Guluyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 1675/07)   The applicants are three Russian nationals who live in Grozny. They are the mother and sisters of Mr Ramzan Guluyev, who was born in 1967.   Ramzan Guluyev was abducted from his house at about 2 a.m. on the night of 12 to 13 July 2002 by a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms; he has not been seen since. According to the applicants, about 25 men speaking unaccented Russian and appearing to be under the influence of alcohol broke into their house saying that they had received a call from the police and were carrying out a check. Ramzan was then taken undressed out of the house and into a motor vehicle whose license plate was not visible, while the applicants were all severely beaten up by those men. They did not know who the abductors were or where they had taken Ramzan.   The applicants complained to the prosecutor’s office of the abduction and about having broken ribs and fingers as a result of the beatings. Ramzan’s two sisters were examined medically by an expert of the Chechen forensic bureau who concluded that the injuries sustained may have been caused on the night of 12 to 13 July 2002, but that, as they did not lead to the loss of capacity to work, they were insignificant.   The applicants repeatedly contacted numerous State officials both in person and in writing, complaining of the abduction and their beating and asking for help to find Ramzan. On 16 July 2002 an investigation was opened into the events. It was suspended numerous times for failure to identify the perpetrators. In March 2004 the applicants complained that the investigation was ineffective. The courts dismissed their complaint on the ground that the investigation was still pending.   The Government submitted that at approximately 1.40 a.m. on the night of 12 to 13 July 2002 unidentified men in camouflage uniforms and carrying firearms abducted Ramzan Guluyev from his house in Grozny having used violence against the applicants.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Ramzan Guluyev Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of their disappearance Three violations of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the applicants’ ill-treatment during the abduction of their relative, on account of there not having been an effective investigation into their complaints of ill-treatment and on account of their mental suffering caused by Ramzan’s disappearance. Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Ramzan Guluyev Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3   The Court awarded the first applicant 10,800 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR   65,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the three applicants jointly. The applicants were awarded EUR   1,650 for costs and expenses.   2.   Dubayev and Bersnukayeva v. Russia (no. 30613/05)   The applicants are two Russian nationals who live in the town of Urus-Martan in Chechnya. The first applicant is the father of Islam Dubayev, who was born in 1982. The second applicant is the mother of Roman Bersnukayev, born in 1983.   The applicants were not eyewitnesses to the abduction and the following account is based on the witness statements collected by them after the disappearance of their relatives.   In December 1999 Islam Dubayev and Roman Bersnukayev joined an illegal armed group (“the armed group”) which was fighting the Russian federal troops in the mountains. On 14 March 2000 militia members found a group of young men up in the mountains and told them about an amnesty announced by the State Duma in respect of fighters who chose to voluntarily surrender to the authorities. Islam and Roman turned themselves in. The Federal Security Service issued two decisions in respect of the two young men certifying the authorities’ intention not to institute criminal proceedings against them, in application of the Amnesty Act. Both decisions were approved by the acting district prosecutor and countersigned by the two men.   The Government submitted that Islam and Roman had renounced their involvement in the armed groups and on March 2000 were released in application of the Amnesty Act. There were no grounds to suspect that they had ever been arrested or detained by State authorities.   Since 14 March 2000, the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies referring to their sons’ detention and asking for assistance and details of the investigation. They have also conducted a joint search for their sons, to no avail.   Investigations were opened into the disappearance of the two young men: in November 2000 as regards Islam, and in February 2001 in respect of Roman. Both applicants were recognised as victims and civil claimants. In June and July 2004, however, they were informed by the prosecutor’s office that they were entitled to access the case-file materials only after completion of the criminal investigation. The Government submitted 181 pages from the investigation file, showing that the applicants and several local residents had been questioned. The investigations were suspended numerous times for failure to identify the perpetrator. According to the Government, given that the investigation was in progress, disclosure of the remaining documents would be in violation of domestic criminal procedural legislation since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Islam Dubayev and Roman Bersnukayev Violations of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of their disappearance Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) in respect of the applicants Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Islam Dubayev and Roman Bersnukayev Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2   The Court awarded 60,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 639 for costs and expenses.       *********   Additional information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases [2]   In both cases the Court noted that despite its request for a copy of the entire investigation files into the abduction and disappearance of the three young men, the Government, referring to the incompatibility of such disclosure with domestic legislation, produced only part of the documents in the second case and nothing in the first case. The Court observed that in previous cases it had already found that explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by it. Having also drawn interferences 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 found that Razman Guluyev had been abducted from his home on 13 July 2002 by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. In addition, the Court noted that Islam Dubayev and Roman Bersnukayev had been detained by State agents between 14 and 17 March 2000 and no proper records had been drawn up in connection with their detention or release; they had not been seen since and the investigation had failed to establish their whereabouts or what had happened to them. In the absence of Ramzan, Islam or Roman, or of any news about them for several years, and given the failure of the Government to justify their disappearance after being detained by State agents, the Court concluded that the three men should be presumed dead and that 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.   In both cases, the Court further held that there had been violations of Article 2 relating to the authorities’ failure to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared.   The Court also found that the applicants in both cases had suffered and continued to suffer distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their relatives and their inability to find out what had happened to them. The manner in which their complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment in violation of Article 3.   As regards the first case, the Court found that the ill-treatment to which the applicants had been subjected breached Article 3, as it not only caused them physical suffering, but must have made them feel humiliated and caused fear and anguish as to what might happen to them and their family member. Furthermore, the Court held that there had been a separate violation of Article 3, given that the applicants had properly complained before the investigating authorities of having been ill-treated, but no adequate investigation had been carried out into their complaints.   The Court found that in both cases the applicants’ relatives had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in that Article.   The Court finally held that as the criminal investigations into the disappearances, in both cases, and into the ill-treatment of the applicants in the first case, had been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil remedies suggested by the Government, had consequently been undermined, the State had failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the first case, and a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 in the second case.   ***   These judgments are available only in English. The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)     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 European Convention on Human Rights, 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.