CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 avril 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; 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 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   334 22.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Three Chamber judgments against Russia concerning disappearances in Chechnya [1]     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments concerning Russia, neither of which is final. [2] The applicants in all three cases alleged that their close relatives were killed by Russian agents of the State in Chechnya, notably after detention and disappearance. They complained 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 ( www.echr.coe.int ), are only available in English.     1.     Khatuyeva v. Russia (application no. 12463/05)   The applicant is a Russian national who is a native of Chechnya and currently lives in another country. She is the wife of Sultan Khatuyev.   Sultan Khatuyev was detained by security forces during an operation on the morning of 2 August 2004 in the settlement for internally displaced persons from Chechnya in Ingushetia where he was living with the applicant and their children. According to the applicant’s submissions, which were supported by witnesses’ statements and are uncontested by the Government, he was taken to the district department of the interior and from there to the local office of the Federal Security Service (FSB). No formal charges were brought against him and he has not been seen since that day.   The applicant repeatedly applied to various public bodies, complaining of the abduction of her husband. On 20 August 2004, the district prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the events. The applicant was granted victim status a few days later. Between August 2004 and February 2008, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions and has so far failed to establish what happened to Sultan Khatuyev and to charge anyone in connection with his disappearance. Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any of the documents of the criminal investigation. The Government submitted that as the investigation was in progress, disclosure of the 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.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Sultan Khatuyev Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of his disappearance Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) in respect of the applicant Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Sultan Khatuyev Violation of Article13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2   The Court awarded the applicant 10,000   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,165 for costs and expenses.   2.     Mutayeva v. Russia (application no. 43418/06)   The applicant is a Russian national and lives in Chechnya. She is the mother of Luiza Mutayeva, who was born in 1984.   Luiza Mutayeva was abducted from her family’s house at about 2.30 a.m. on 19   January   2004 by a group of armed men; she has not been seen or heard of since. According to the applicant, fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms without insignia, most of them in masks, entered their house, announcing they would conduct a passport check. As they spoke unaccented Russian the applicant inferred they were Russian servicemen. The armed men took Luiza to their vehicles parked around the house, which had no number plates, saying she would only be questioned, but subsequently put her in handcuffs and took her away. Several witnesses confirmed Luiza Mutayeva had been taken away by armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks.   The Government submitted that on 19 January 2004 Luiza Mutayeva had been abducted by unidentified persons. They denied that the abductors were servicemen, referring to the absence of conclusions from the ensuing investigation.   The applicant repeatedly complained about her daughter’s abduction to a number of state agencies in person and in writing. On 27 April 2004 the district prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the abduction and the applicant was subsequently granted victim status. The investigation was suspended several times for failure to identify the perpetrators and is still pending.   The applicant’s representative complained to the prosecutors on a number of occasions of the lack of information about the investigation, but was given only unspecific information about its status. Despite requests by the Court for a copy of the investigation file, the Government refused to produce most of the documents from the case file, referring to domestic criminal procedural legislation, which would be violated by such a disclosure since the file contained information on personal data concerning witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Luiza Mutayeva Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of her disappearance Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) in respect of the applicant Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Luiza Mutayeva Violation of Article13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of the alleged violation of Article   2   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 (four thousand euros) for costs and expenses.   3.     Tupchiyeva v. Russia (application no. 37461/05)   The applicant is a Russian national who lives in Shali, Chechnya. She is the mother of Vakhit Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1976.   Vakhit Dzhabrailov was abducted from his family’s house on 3 January 2003 at about 5.30   a.m. by a group of fifteen to twenty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms. The applicant has not had any news of her son since that day. According to her submissions, the armed men arrived with vehicles without registration numbers and spoke unaccented Russian. The applicant and her family therefore assumed they were Russian servicemen. They did not answer the applicant’s question where they were taking her son. The abduction was witnessed by several of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours.   The applicant and her relatives contacted various state bodies, reporting in detail Vakhit   Dzhabrailov’s abduction and asking for help in establishing his whereabouts. Two   days after the events, the district administration forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the department of the interior. On 27 January 2003, the district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into the disappearance. The applicant was not informed of the investigation until July 2004, after repeated enquiries by her representative, in a letter which also stated that she had been granted victim status. After further requests for information, the district prosecutor informed the applicant that the investigation had been suspended and that it had not established the involvement of Russian military servicemen in the abduction.   Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose any of the documents of the criminal investigation. The Government referred to domestic criminal procedural legislation and stated that a copy of the investigation file could not be submitted in the absence of any guarantees of non disclosure of the secret data contained in it.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Vakhit Dzhabrailov Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of his disappearance Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) in respect of the applicant Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Vakhit Dzhabrailov Violation of Article13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article   2   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   10,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,500 for costs and expenses.   **************   Additional information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases   In all three cases the Court noted that despite its requests for a copy of the investigation file into the abduction and disappearance of the applicants’ relatives, the Government produced no documents from the case file, or only a very limited number of them in the case of Mutayeva v. Russia, referring to the incompatibility of such disclosure with domestic legislation. The Court observed that in previous cases it had already found that explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information it had requested.   The Court found that it could draw the inference from the Government’s conduct in all three cases that the applicants’ allegations were well founded. According to the uncontested evidence submitted by the parties, Sultan Khatuyev, Luiza Mutayeva and Vakhit Dzhabrailov had not been seen or heard of after their abduction. Having regard to previous cases before it concerning disappearances in Chechnya and in Ingushetia, the Court found that in the context of the situation in the region, the detention of a person by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention could be regarded as life-threatening. In the absence of the applicants’ relatives or of any news about them for several years, and given the failure of the Government to justify their disappearance, the Court found that the all three persons had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by state servicemen and that their death could be attributed to the State. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 2 in respect of all three persons.   In all three cases the Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   2 on account of the authorities failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared.   The Court also found that the applicants in all three cases had suffered 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.   The Court found that in the three 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 had been ineffective in the three cases and the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil remedies as 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 all three cases.   ***   The judgments are available only in English.   Press contacts   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. [2] 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.