CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 mai 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s21338552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt } .s34B51DD { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .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 } 384 12.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Two Chamber judgments against Russia concerning Chechnya     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two Chamber judgments concerning Russia, neither of which is final. [1] Both cases concerned the applicants’ allegations that their close relatives had been killed by Russian servicemen in Chechnya. They 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) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). The judgments are only available in English.     1.     Shakhabova v. Russia (application no. 39685/06)   The applicant, Rayshat Shakhabova, is a Russian national who lives in the town of Urus ‑ Martan (Chechnya). She alleged that her 24-year old son, Adam Khurayev, staying at his aunt’s house in Urus-Martan, was abducted on 23 November 2002 by a group of over 15   armed masked men in camouflage uniforms equipped with portable radios. The men conducted a search of the house and then left. After the men left, the applicant’s relatives realised that Adam, who had been in the courtyard, had disappeared. Both the aunt and a neighbour attested to the fact that they had heard and/or seen heavy military vehicles at the time of the abduction. There has been no news of Adam since, despite the applicant’s repeated enquiries, both in writing and in person, to various official bodies. The criminal investigation into the disappearance, so far having lasted more than five years, has produced no tangible results.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Adam Khurayev 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) on account of the applicant’s mental suffering Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Adam Khurayev Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of the alleged violations of Article 2   The Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses.   2.     Suleymanova v. Russia (application no. 9191/06)   The applicant, Zura Suleymanova, is a Russian national and lives in Gekhi, Chechnya. She alleged that Russian servicemen opened fire on the lorry in which her son, Ramzan   Suleymanov, his pregnant wife, Petimat Aydamirova, child, Ibragim Suleymanov, and brother-in-law, Aslanbek Aydamirov, were travelling from Gekhi to Roshni-Chu in the early evening of 16 May 2000. Residents of Gekhi stated that, immediately after the incident, they had heard Petimat and Ibragim screaming for help, which then stopped following gunshots. About half an hour later the servicemen launched a grenade at the lorry – setting it on fire –and then drove away. The following day, along with local residents, the applicant went to the scene of the incident and found brain tissue as well as her grandson’s cap around bullet holes in the ground, indicating that four people had been made to lie down and shot in the head. She also saw that the left side of the lorry cab was riddled with bullet holes. The bodies of her relatives, however, had gone. On 19 May the bodies of Ramzan and Aslanbek were discovered, as well as the remains of Petimat and Ibragim, within the 100m radius of a shell hole; the applicant submitted that the servicemen had attempted to eliminate the evidence by blowing up the corpses. She further complained that the ensuing investigation into the deaths of her relatives had been pending for almost ten years, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed, and had produced no tangible results. The Government, on the other hand, claimed that the applicants’ relatives had been killed in the course of a counter-terrorist operation to eliminate illegal armed groups who, according to information obtained by the military forces, had been using the road between Gekhi and Roshni-Chu as a supply route. The applicants’ relatives had been driving in the dark during curfew hours with their lights out and, having disobeyed an order to stop, the servicemen had taken them for members of an illegal armed group and opened fire. The use of lethal force against them had therefore been no more than what had been absolutely necessary.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Ramzan Suleymanov, Petimat Aydamirova, Ibragim Suleymanov and Aslanbek Aydamirov Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which they had been killed Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article   2   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   2,900 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,500 for costs and expenses.   **************   Additional information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases   Both during the domestic and Strasbourg proceedings, the Court considered that Adam Khurayev’s mother, as well as his aunt – an eye-witness – had presented a consistent account of the abduction. The fact that a group of armed men in uniform in military vehicles and equipped with portable radios had been able to move freely through Urus-Martan, under curfew with manned checkpoints at the time, and had carried out identity checks and apprehended people in their home strongly supported the allegation that the men had been Russian servicemen conducting a security operation. Further drawing inferences from the Russian Government’s failure to submit documents – 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 applicant’s son had to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Adam Khurayev.   In the case of Suleymanova the Court considered that the Government had not properly accounted for the use of lethal force against the applicants’ relatives. Firstly, it had not provided the Court with any legal act or regulation for securing the safety of the civilian population, including those concerning the use of lethal force. There was therefore no way of assessing whether an appropriate legal framework on the use of force and firearms by the military had been in place and, if so, whether it had contained clear safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of life. Furthermore, the Government had not explained whether the servicemen involved had, or could be seen to have been, at risk due to the conduct of the applicant’s relatives. Nor indeed had there been any explanation for the applicant’s allegation that Petimat and Ibragim had survived the attack on the lorry but had been shot afterwards or that the servicemen had then tried to get rid of the corpses by blowing them up. Lastly, it was not clear why the authorities had not finished the investigation into the killings, the proceedings having already been pending for almost ten years. The Court was therefore not persuaded that the killing of the applicant’s relatives had been no more than absolutely necessary, in violation of Article 2.   In both cases the Court further held that there had been further violations 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 or been killed.   The Court also found that the applicant in the case of Shakhabova had suffered distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of her son and her inability to find out what had happened him. The manner in which her complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment in violation of Article   3. Furthermore her son 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 disappearance and killings of the applicants’ relatives had been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed 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.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Further information about the Court can be found on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int )   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or   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.