CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 avril 2010

.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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s7F64397A { width:26.83pt; display:inline-block } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 293 08.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Seven Chamber judgments against Russia concerning Chechnya and Dagestan   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven Chamber judgments concerning Russia, none of which are final [1] .   All seven cases concerned the applicants’ allegations that their close relatives were killed by Russian agents of the State in Chechnya, notably after detention and disappearance or during a security operation. All the applicants further complained that the domestic authorities had 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. In one case the applicant also complained that her property had been damaged during the security operation in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention. The judgments, which may be consulted on the Court’s website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ), are only available in English.     1.   Abayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 37542/05)   The applicants are four Russian nationals who live in the town of Urus-Martan in Chechnya. The first three applicants are the mother, wife and son of Magomed-Ali Abayev, who was born in 1970. The fourth applicant is the mother of Anvar Shaipov, born in 1976. Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov disappeared on 13 September 2000 when, walking to the town centre, they were stopped at a Russian military checkpoint and taken into a nearby factory building. Neighbours witnessed the two men being taken into the building and, warned of this, the applicants waited at the checkpoint. While they were waiting they saw a grey military vehicle leaving the factory yard with its windows closed; a soldier told them, however, that their relatives had been released from the other side of the building. They have had no reliable news of the two men apart from at the end of September 2000 when a young Chechen man went to see Anvar Shaipov’s mother to tell her that he had seen her son chopping firewood at the headquarters of an infantry regiment. The Court found as follows:   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov; Violation 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) on account of the applicants’ mental suffering; Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov; Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.   The Court decided to strike out of its list of cases the application in so far as it concerned Magomed-Ali Abayev’s wife as she no longer intended to pursue her complaints.   The Court awarded Magomed-Ali Abayev’s mother and son jointly 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, they were further awarded EUR   60,000, jointly, and Anvar Shaipov’s mother EUR   60,000. All the applicants were awarded EUR   2,115 for costs and expenses.     2.   Abdurashidova v. Russia (no. 32968/05)   The applicant is a Russian national who is currently an asylum seeker living abroad. The case concerned her allegation that her seven-year old daughter, Summaya Abdurashidova, was killed by police gunfire when the family home in the village of Solnechnoye in Dagestan (Russia) was stormed in the early hours of 14   March 2005. No autopsy was carried out as the applicant and her family decided against it. The authorities’ investigation, based on a forensic expert’s report which stated that the applicant’s daughter had died from splinter wounds caused by an explosive device, concluded that, during an operation to apprehend two armed suspects in hiding at the applicant’s house, there had been a skirmish in which the two criminals – also killed – had used hand grenades against police officers, resulting in Summaya’s death. The applicant further alleged that her house had been severely damaged and was uninhabitable. The Court found as follows:   No violation of Article 2 (right to life) concerning direct State responsibility for Summaya   Abdurashidova’s death; Violation of Article 2 (right to life) on account of the Russian authorities’ failure to take reasonable measures to prevent a real and immediate risk to the life of Summaya   Abdurashidova; Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Summaya Abdurashidova died; Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the damage to the applicant’s home; Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,480 for costs and expenses.     3.   Mudayevy v. Russia (no. 33105/05)   The applicants are two Russian nationals who live in Raduzhnoye (Grozny district, Chechnya). They are the father and aunt of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev, brothers, born in 1985 and 1982 respectively. The Mudayev brothers have not been seen since they were taken away from the family home in the village of Raduzhnoye (Chechnya) by Russian servicemen during a security operation on 29 January 2003. More than 20 other people detained during the security operation were released the following day. The Government acknowledged that the brothers had been detained and taken for questioning by the security services but stated that they had been released at a later date. The applicants further alleged that their relatives, according to detainees held with them, had been held in inhuman conditions of detention and been severely beaten. Furthermore, their allegations were not properly examined despite having reported them in detail to the investigating authorities. The Court found as follows:   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev; Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev’s disappearance; Violation of Article 3 (investigation) on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev; Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Aslan and Mokhmad   Mudayev; Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.   The Court awarded the first applicant EUR   20,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. In respect of non-pecuniary damage it awarded EUR   100,000 to the first applicant and EUR   20,000 to the second applicant. EUR   3,150 was awarded for costs and expenses.     4.   Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 38570/05)   The applicant is a Russian national who lives in Martan-Chu (Urus-Martan district, Chechnya). The case concerned her allegation that her son, Aslan Sadulayev, born in   1978, was detained and disappeared on 9 December 2002 when, on his way to the family home in Urus-Martan (Chechnya), he was stopped by Russian servicemen at a mobile military checkpoint for an identity check. Two acquaintances, travelling in a bus and also stopped at the checkpoint, witnessed Aslan being taken away along with two other men in the car. He has not been seen since. The Court found as follows:   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Aslan Sadulayev; Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Aslan Sadulayev’s disappearance; Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the applicant’s mental suffering; Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Aslan Sadulayev; Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   1,110 for costs and expenses.     5.   Seriyevy v. Russia (no. 20201/05)   The applicants are two Russian nationals who currently live in Shali (Chechnya). They are the father and sister of Sarali Seriyev, born in 1980, who has not been seen since 1   June   2004 when he was taken away from the then family home in Belgatoy (Chechnya) by 30   heavily ‑ armed and masked men in uniforms. The first applicant tried to prevent his son, who was disabled and blind in one eye, from being taken away by throwing himself onto one of the abductors’ cars, but was stopped when he had liquid sprayed into eyes. The Court found as follows:   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Sarali Seriyev; Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Sarali Seriyev’s disappearance; Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the applicants’ mental suffering; Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Sarali Seriyev; Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.   The Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR   60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   6,500 for costs and expenses.     6.   Tasatayevy v. Russia (no. 37541/05)   The applicants are two Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechnya). They are the mothers of Aslan Tasatayev who was born in 1975 and his cousin, Aslanbek Tasatayev, born in 1979 of whom they have had no news since the early hours of 1   June   2001 when they were taken away from the family home by 30 masked men, some armed with sniper rifles, accompanied by a sniffer dog. The Court found as follows:   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev; Violation 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) on account of the applicants’ mental suffering; Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev; Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.   The Court awarded each applicant 60,000   EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   5,000, jointly, for costs and expenses.     7.   Umalatov and Others v. Russia (no. 8345/05)   The applicants are three Russian nationals who live in the Chechen Republic. The first and second applicants are the father and wife of Usman Umalatov who was born in 1969. The third applicant is the father of Shamad Durdiyev, born in 1976. The two men have not been seen since they were taken away from the family home by Russian servicemen during a security operation in the village of Nagornoye (Chechnya) on 15 October 2002. A few days later nine men apprehended during the security operation in Nagornoye were released; the Government suggested that the applicants’ relatives had either been released or abducted and killed by paramilitaries. The Court found as follows:   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Usman Umalatov and Shamad Durdiyev; Violation 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) on account of the applicants’   mental suffering; Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Usman Umalatov and Shamad Durdiyev; Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   60,000, jointly, to the first and second applicants, and EUR   60,000 to the third applicant. The Court awarded the applicants EUR   2,750 for costs and expenses.   *********     Additional information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases [2]   In the six disappearance cases the Court considered that the applicants, mostly eyewitnesses to the incidents, had presented a coherent and convincing picture of their relatives’ detention, corroborated by other eyewitnesses including family and/or neighbours. In all but one ( Mudayevy ) of those cases it further considered it unlikely that, as suggested by the Government, the abductors of the applicants’ relatives could have been criminals or members of paramilitary groups. In particular, in the cases of Sadulayeva , Seriyevy , and Tasatayevy the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform were able to move freely in such areas, carry out identity checks and apprehend people at a checkpoint or in their homes strongly supported the applicants’ allegation that those men had been Russian servicemen conducting a security operation. In the cases of Mudayevy and Umalatov the Court further observed that the Government had either not presented evidence at all or it had been contradictory to support their claim that the applicants’ relatives had been released. Further drawing inferences from the Russian Government’s failure to submit documents in most of those cases – despite specific requests from the Court – to which it exclusively had access and the fact that it had not provided any other plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court considered that the applicants’ relatives had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the disappeared men of these six cases.   In the case of Abdurashidova the Court noted, however, that the applicant’s allegation had been based exclusively on her own statement with no corroborating statements or evidence. Indeed, the forensic report, which the Court saw no reason to doubt, indicated that the applicant’s daughter had been killed by splinters from an explosive device used by two criminal suspects whereas the police had used firearms during the security operation. Unfortunately, there was no other document such as an autopsy report to provide a complete and accurate record of the seven year old’s injuries and the cause of her death. Accordingly, the Court found that it had not been established “beyond reasonable doubt” that the security forces had been directly responsible for the death of the applicant’s daughter and therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 2. On the other hand, there was nothing in the case file to suggest that any serious consideration had been given to adequate planning, control and execution of the search and apprehension in the applicant’s home, especially bearing in mind that, not spontaneous, it had been set up in full knowledge of the danger posed by two criminal suspects and had been carried out by well-equipped and trained servicemen. Furthermore, it was entirely unclear why it had been possible to evacuate the applicant, her husband and two other children but not her daughter. The Court therefore concluded that the authorities had failed to take reasonable measures to prevent a real and immediate risk to the life of the applicant’s daughter, in violation of Article   2.   In all seven cases, the Court further held that there had been violations of Article   2 relating to the authorities’ failure to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared or been killed.   The Court also found that the applicants in five of the 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 – despite repeated enquiries, both in writing and in person, to various official bodies – 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 case Mudayevy , the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   3, given that no adequate investigation had been carried out into the applicants’ complaint concerning the ill-treatment of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev.   The Court found that in the six disappearance 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 and a violent death in these cases had been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might 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 in all seven cases there had been a violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article 2. In the case of Abdurashidova the Court further held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the fact that, the authorities having denied any involvement in the damage to the applicant’s home and the matter not having been examined at all during the domestic investigation, the applicant did not have any effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of her property rights.   ***   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 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 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.