CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s3561545 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#333333 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; 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 } 471 10.06.2010   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] . Both cases concerned the applicants’ allegations that their close relatives were abducted and killed by Russian servicemen following unacknowledged security operations in their respective villages 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), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). The judgments are only available in English.     1.     Ilyasova v. Russia (application no. 26966/06)   The applicant is the mother of Magomed-Salekh and Magomed-Ali Ilyasov, born in 1979 and 1981, from the village of Katyr-Yurt (Chechnya). She has had no news of her two sons since they were abducted in the early hours of the morning of 12 November 2002 when a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into the family home and took them away in armoured personnel carriers. During the Russian authorities’ ensuing investigation, the applicant, her daughter-in-law – both in the kitchen cooking for Ramadan at the time of the raid – as well as neighbours woken up by the noise of vehicles in the street gave witness statements confirming the abduction. After more than seven years, that investigation has produced no tangible results.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Magomed-Salekh and Magomed-Ali Ilyasov 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 applicant’s moral suffering Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Magomed-Salekh and Magomed-Ali Ilyasov Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2   The Court awarded the applicant 120,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   1,061 for costs and expenses. 2.     Vakayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 2220/05)   The four applicants are the parents and wives of six men from the village of Duba-Yurt (Chechnya): Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev, Shamkhan Vakayev and Shamsudi Vakayev, born in 1976, 1969, 1979, 1976, 1975 and 1949, respectively. The first five men disappeared on 15   March 2001 when a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms travelling in armoured personnel carriers and all-terrain vehicles broke into the Vakayev’s home in Duba-Yurt and, after opening fire and wounding Shamil Vakayev, took the men away. The incident received media coverage, including a statement made on local television by the Federal Security Service concerning the arrest of the applicants’ relatives in a special operation, and a video recording of the abduction in which the first applicant, Shumist Vakayeva, recognised one of her sons. On 2 April 2005 the Vakayev’s home was raided again by a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms; this time taking away Ms Vakayeva’s husband, Shamsudi Vakayev, in a UAZ vehicle. She subsequently found out that two other men from the village had been abducted the same night, one of whom was discovered murdered five weeks’ later. The applicants have had no news of their six relatives since their abduction.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev, Shamkhan Vakayev and Shamsudi Vakayev Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the six men’s disappearance Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the applicants’ moral suffering Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev, Shamkhan Vakayev and Shamsudi Vakayev Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2   The Court awarded: EUR   800   to Shamsudi Vakayev’s wife and EUR   3,000 to Ramzan Dudayev’s wife in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR   150,000 to Shamsudi Vakayev’s wife and EUR   50,000, each, to the other three applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and, EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses.     **************   Additional information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases     The Court considered that the applicants in both cases had presented a clear, coherent and consistent account of their relatives’ abduction. In the case of Ilyasova the circumstances of the abduction were corroborated by an important number of concordant witness statements provided by both the applicant and the Government; and, in the case of Vakayeva and Others Shumist Vakayeva had even recognised one of her sons in a video recording of the special operation in her village.   In both cases the fact that a group of armed men in uniform in military or paramilitary vehicles, had been able to move freely through the applicants’ villages, under curfew with manned checkpoints at the time, to apprehended people in their homes strongly supported the allegation that the men had been Russian servicemen conducting a security operation. Indeed, in the case of Vakayeva and Others the domestic investigative authorities had themselves suggested on several occasions that the applicants’ relatives had been detained in the course of a special operation.   Given those elements in particular, the Court considered that the applicants’ relatives had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen. It further drew inferences from the Russian Government’s failure to submit documents in either of the 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. Indeed, the assumption that Shamsudi Vakayev had been in a life-threatening situation following his unacknowledged detention was unfortunately all the more credible given that another man abducted on the same night had been found dead five weeks after the kidnapping. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of all eight abducted men.   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 effective criminal investigations into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared.   The Court also found that the applicants in both 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.   Furthermore their 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 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.   ***   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 ( www.echr.coe.int ). To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected]   or 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)     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.