CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 juin 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s6AE8D4B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s25D4CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 450 03.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber Judgment Not Final [1]   Alapayevy v. Russia (Application n o   39676/06)     KILLING, UNLAWFUL DETENTION AND INEFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS IN CHECHNYA   Unanimously   Two violations of Article 2 (right to life), Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants, Ms Lidiya Alapayeva and Ms   Tamila Alapayeva, are two Russian nationals who were born in 1961 and 1984, respectively. They live in the village of Sernovodsk, in the Sunzhenskiy District, the Chechen Republic. The first applicant is the mother and the second applicant is the wife of Mr Salambek Alapayev, born in 1982, who has not been seen since the night of 27 December 2004 when he was abducted from his home.   At the time of the events, the applicants and Salambek Alapayev lived together in a house in Sernovodsk village. At about 3 a.m. on 27 December 2004, Salambek and his wife were woken up by a noise coming from the front door. A group of eight to twelve armed men in camouflage uniforms burst into the house. They were not wearing masks and were speaking Russian. They neither introduced themselves nor presented any documents. Several of them grabbed Salambek and started beating him with rifle-butts and their boots. They took his passport and driving license, wrapped his hands with adhesive tape and dragged him outside, bound and barefoot. Then they put him in one of their vehicles and drove away with him without having given any explanation for their actions.   A number of neighbours witnessed the abduction, after hearing noises and screams. Two of them immediately went to the local department of the interior (ROVD) and alerted the police officers about Salambek’s abduction. Since 27   December 2004 the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies asking for assistance and details of the investigation. These enquiries mostly remained unanswered or purely formal replies were given stating that the applicants’ requests had been forwarded to various prosecutors’ offices.   The Government submitted that an investigation into the abduction of Salambek was opened and on 27 December the crime scene was examined by an investigator of the ROVD. Many witnesses were interviewed subsequently. On unspecified dates checkpoints were inspected and requests were sent to law enforcement officials inquiring whether Salambek was arrested by any of them. After being suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators, the investigation was resumed in January 2007 and was still pending.   Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose the contents of the criminal case file and provided only few documents which were either partly or fully illegible.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13, the applicants complained about their relative having been killed, about there not having been an effective investigation into it, about them having suffered not knowing his fate for many years, about him having been detained unlawfully and about not having available an effective remedy in respect of those complaints.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12   September   2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Georgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Right to life: Salambek’s disappearance (Article 2)   The Court noted that the applicants’ version of the events had been supported by the witness statements. In view of the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform, moving in a convoy of military vehicles, had been able to pass freely through checkpoints, had proceeded to check documents in a manner similar to that of State agents and had spoken unaccented Russian, the Court was satisfied that the applicants had made a prima facie case that the persons who had abducted Salambek had been State servicemen. There had been no reliable news of him since the date of the kidnapping. His name had not been found in any official detention facility records. Finally, the Government had not submitted any explanation as to what had happened to him after his arrest. Drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit the remaining documents, which were in their exclusive possession, or to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court found that Salambek Alapayev was arrested on 27   December 2004 by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. In the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person had been detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this could be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Slambek or of any news of him for more than five years supported this assumption; therefore, he had to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen. Noting that the authorities had not in any way provided justification for the events, it followed that liability for his presumed death was attributable to the Russian Government.   Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Salambek Alapayev.   Right to life: investigation (Article 2)   The investigation into the events had been opened sufficiently promptly, and a number of investigative steps had been taken. However, no documents had been produced about it, and many crucial steps, which should have been carried out in the immediate aftermath of the abduction, had never been taken.   It also transpired from the applicants’ repeated and mostly unanswered requests for information addressed to the investigating authorities that they had been hardly informed of any developments in the investigation. Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings.   The investigation, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed, and plagued by inexplicable delays, had been pending for many years with no tangible results.   Accordingly, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the abduction and the death of Salambek, in breach of Article   2.   Mental suffering resulting from authorities’ reaction after the abduction (Article 3)   The applicants were the mother and the wife of Salambek and his wife had witnessed his abduction. For more than five years they had not had any news of the missing man despite numerous enquiries to various official bodies. No plausible explanation or information about what had happened to him following his abduction had been furnished, other than denials of State responsibility for his arrest.   Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.   Unlawful detention (Article 5)   The Court had already found that Salambek Alapayev had been apprehended by State servicemen on 27   December 2004 and had not been seen since. His detention had not been acknowledged, neither logged in any custody records, and there existed no official trace of his subsequent whereabouts or fate. This fact in itself had to be considered a most serious failing, since it enabled those responsible for an act of deprivation of liberty to conceal their involvement in a crime, to cover their tracks and to escape accountability for the fate of a detainee. Furthermore, the absence of detention records, noting such matters as the date, time and location of detention and the name of the detainee as well as the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it, had to be seen as incompatible with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention.   The Court held that Salambek Alapayev had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which had constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5.   Right to an effective remedy (Article 13) in conjunction with Article 2   The Court reiterated that in circumstances where, as here, a criminal investigation into the disappearance 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, there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held   that   Russia is to pay to 4,000 euros (EUR) to the mother of Salambek Alapayev and EUR 7,000 to his wife in respect of pecuniary damage, as well as EUR   15,000 to his mother and EUR 45,000 to his wife for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. The press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 9021 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .