CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7F64397A { width:26.83pt; display:inline-block } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 135 18.02.2010   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 alleged that their relatives, elder son in the first case and husband in the second case, 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.   Iriskhanova and Iriskhanov v. Russia (no. 35869/05) The applicants are two Russian nationals who live in Samashki, Chechnya. They are the parents of Mr Zurab Iriskhanov, who was born in 1980 and has not been seen since the evening of 19 June 2002 when he was abducted from his home, together with his younger brother, Gilani Iriskhanov, by a group of men with machine guns. The men did not produce any documents to identify themselves; they beat and handcuffed both brothers, put sacks over their heads and took them away in two different vehicles.   The abduction was witnessed by a number of the applicants’ relatives and neighbours who provided accounts which were submitted to the Court by the applicants. According to the applicants, the district prosecutor of the Achkhoy-Martan told them on 21 June 2002 that their two sons had been taken by helicopter to the military base in Khankala. Once there, they were told that the young men were transferred to ORB-2 (operational search bureau of the Ministry of the Interior in Grozny). The applicants found a note in their yard indicating the whereabouts of their younger son, whom they collected form ORB-2 on 27 June 2002.   Since 19 June 2002, the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies requesting assistance in finding their son, Zurab. On 24 June 2002 an investigation was opened into the events. The Government submitted that a number of investigative measures were undertaken including a crime scene inspection and questioning of many neighbours and relatives of the applicants. According to the Government, the investigation had found no evidence to support the involvement of the federal forces in the crime. The investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions; it has so far failed to establish Zurab’s whereabouts or the identity of the perpetrators of his kidnapping.   Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose the entire contents of criminal case opened into Zurab’s disappearance. They stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of other documents would be in violation of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in criminal proceedings.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Zurab Iriskhanov Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Zurab’s disappearance Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the applicants’ mental suffering caused by Zurab’s disappearance Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Zurab Iriskhanov Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2   The Court awarded the applicants jointly 60,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   5,500 for costs and expenses.     2.   Aliyeva v. Russia (no. 1901/05) The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Grozny in Chechnya. She was the wife of Mr Abu Aliyev, who was born in 1962 and was disabled one of his leg having been amputated.   At about 2.00 a.m. on 29 October 2002 several armoured personnel vehicles arrived at the applicant’s apartment where she lived with her husband and five children. Around thirty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks got out of the vehicles, broke down the door of the Aliyevs’ flat and entered. The men did not identify themselves. They bound the applicant with adhesive tape and threw her on the kitchen floor; then they dragged Abu Aliyev out in his underwear and left with him.   An investigation into the kidnapping of the applicant’s husband was opened on 11 November 2002 and the applicant was granted victim status in December 2002. Some witnesses were questioned and requests for information were sent to departments of the Interior and prosecutors of different levels in Chechnya and Dagestan. The Government submitted that as a result of those measures it was established that Mr Abu Aliyev had not been detained by State authorities and had not been placed in either remand or administrative detention facilities. He was not found in hospitals, nor was his body to be found in any morgue either. No special operations were being conducted by the federal forces in Grozny on the date in question. The investigation did not establish that servicemen were involved in the crime. Operational search measures were being taken in the criminal case. The Government provided documents related to the investigation on ten pages, however, they did not enclosed transcripts of questioning or other documents concerning the investigative measures allegedly taken.   In December 2003 the applicant complained before the district court of the ineffective investigation. Her complained was dismissed the courts having found that the investigators had taken all requisite measures to resolve the crime.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Abu Aliyev Violations of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Abu’s disappearance Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the ill-treatment to which Abu Aliyev had been subjected, on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the complaints regarding that ill-treatment, and on account of the mental suffering of Abu’s wife as a result of his disappearance Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Abu Aliyev Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Articles 2 and3   The Court awarded 60,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,650 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 men, the Government, referring to the incompatibility of such disclosure with domestic legislation, produced only part of the documents in the first case and no documents in the second case apart from several copies of procedural decisions. 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 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 was satisfied that the applicants had made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by State servicemen during unacknowledged security operations and held that they had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detentions. 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.   In addition, as regards the second case, the Court found that the ill-treatment to which the applicant’s husband had been subjected during his apprehension breached Article 3, since it not only made Abu Aliyev suffer from cold, but must have made him feel humiliated , defenceless and caused fear and anguish as to what might happen to him. Furthermore, the Court held that there had been a separate violation of Article 3, given that no adequate investigation had been carried out into the applicant’s complaint concerning her husband’s abduction.   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 applicant’s husband in the second 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 Article 2 in both cases, and a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention 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.