Archive Documents

You may find here the old articles, presentations, lectures and speeches related with Chechnya.

Bookshelf

Information about the books that are related to Chechnya and the Chechens

Chechen Culture

Articles, materials and more about Chechen culture.

Lyrics

You may read the lyrics of the most famous Chechen songs, listen and also download them.

Poems

You may find here the poems that are written on Chechen people and also the poems by the very well known Chechen poets

Home » ECHR Cases

Salatkhanovy v. Russia

Submitted by on Sunday, 10 May 2009.    941 views No Comment
Salatkhanovy v. Russia

The ECHR case of Salatkhanovy v. Russia (application no. 17945/03).

..


…

.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

731

16.10.2008

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT

SALATKHANOVY v. RUSSIA

Salatkhanovy v. Russia (no. 17945/03)

The applicants, Reyzilya Nasrudinovna Salatkhanova, and her husband, Movlid Yusup-Khadzhiyevich Salatkhanov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1938 respectively and live in Dyshne-Vedeno (Chechen Republic).

On 17 April 2000 the applicants’ 16-year-old son, Ayub Salatkhanov, was walking towards the village market when a Russian serviceman, Ch., part of a military convoy, took aim at him and shot him in the heart. Ayub died on the way to hospital. A criminal investigation was launched following which Grozny Garrison Military Court found Ch. guilty of murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. That judgment was upheld on appeal.

Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained about their son’s murder and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their complaint.

The Court noted that the domestic investigation had been launched on the day of the shooting and, in the days that followed, the authorities had taken significant measures such as questioning numerous witnesses and examining the crime scene and the vehicles which had been part of the military convoy. That investigation resulted in a trial which led to Ch.’s conviction and imprisonment. The Court therefore found that the investigation had been effective and that the resulting conviction had amounted to acknowledgement by the authorities of a violation of Ayub Salatkhanov’s right to life. As regards redress, Ayub’s father had withdrawn his claim for damages in the criminal proceedings and, in any event, both applicants were still entitled to claim compensation in civil proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that the applicants could no longer claim to be “victims” of the alleged violation of Article 2. Given that finding, the Court held that no separate issues arose under Article 13. Finally, the Court noted that the Russian Government had submitted documents with detailed information on the progress and results of the investigation which had considerably facilitated its examination of the applicants’ case. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no failure to comply with Article 38 § 1 (a). (The judgment is available only in English.)

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.