The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has fined Russia at two judgement at around 170,000 Euros for torture, abduction and disappearance of four male Chechen civilians in the Russian occupied Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and the Russia’s Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, the court said in a statement today.

Here are the press releases:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Press Release
ECHR 319 (2012)
31.07.2012

Russia failed to account for disappearance of husband and father of five in Chechnya

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Umarova and Others v. Russia (application no. 25654/08), which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

Violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the disappearance of Khamzat Umarov;
Violation of Article 2 of the Convention concerning the inadequate investigation into Khamzat Umarov’s disappearance;
Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning the mental suffering of Khamzat Umarov’s wife and children;
Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the unacknowledged detention of Khamzat Umarov; and a
Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.

The case concerned the disappearance of a man, husband and father of five, and the inadequate investigation into the events surrounding it.

Principal facts

The applicants are six Russian nationals who were born between 1959 and 1991 respectively and live in Achkhoy-Martan, the Chechen Republic, (Russia). They are the wife and five children of Khamzat Umarov who was born in 1956.

They alleged that Khamzat Umarov was abducted from his home during the night of 30 July 2001 when a group of about 15 men in camouflage uniforms rushed into their house at around 4 a.m. All intruders were armed with automatic weapons and spoke unaccented Russian. Some of them were wearing masks, and those who did not were of Slavic appearance. They took Khamzat Umarov outside and put him into one of the two vehicles parked in the street. Immediately afterwards, both cars drove away in the direction where the District Department of the Interior and the Federal Security Service were situated at the time.

Khamzat Umarov’s wife reported the abduction to the authorities on the day it occurred and subsequently complained to a number of State bodies. An official investigation was opened in January 2002. It was subsequently suspended and reopened numerous times.

The investigating steps comprised mostly of questioning witnesses who generally confirmed that Khamzat had been abducted by armed masked men in July 2001. On a number of occasions, the supervising prosecutors criticised the investigation as incomplete and ordered its resumption. The investigation has not been completed to date. Although she was given victim’s status, Khamzat Umarov’s wife has not been informed of the investigation’s progress other than of its suspension or reopening. There has been no news of Khamzat Umarov since his abduction in 30 July 2001.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicants alleged that Russian servicemen had been responsible for their husband’s and father’s disappearances, and that the investigation into their allegations had been inadequate. They relied in particular on Article 2, Article 3, Article 5 and Article 13.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 April 2008.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Nina Vajić (Croatia), President,
Anatoly Kovler (Russia),
Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),
Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),
Julia Laffranque (Estonia),
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),
and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 2 (disappearance)
The Court stated that when an individual was detained by unidentified servicemen, without any subsequent knowledge of the detention, and was then missing for several years, the situation could be regarded as life-threatening. It concluded that Khamzat Umarov had to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State agents. In the absence of any justification by the Russian Government, his death could be attributed to the State. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Khamzat Umarov.

Article 2 (investigation)
The Court also found that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding Khamzat’s disappearance, in particular for the following reasons. The investigation had been started only about six months after the authorities were put on notice about the abduction. Furthermore, the investigators had neither examined the crime scene at the place of arrest, not had they checked the registration log of detainees held by the military unit who had allegedly taken Khamzat. In addition, the investigation had been prematurely suspended, which undermined the investigators’ ability to identify and punish the perpetrators. Also, despite that the supervising prosecutors had criticised the investigators for failure to take important actions, the omissions had not been remedied. The applicants had not been kept properly informed of the investigation’s progress and had thus not been able to challenge acts or omissions of the investigative authorities. In the absence of any explanation for the above shortcomings, the Court concluded that the authorities had failed to demonstrate diligence and promptness during the investigation, in violation of Article 2.

Article 3
The Court found a violation of Article 3 in respect of the mental suffering endured by Khamzat’s wife and children as a result of his disappearance and the authorities’ failure to investigate it properly. Khamzat’s relatives had not had any news of him for more than 10 years and, despite their attempts, they had never received any plausible explanation or information about what happened to him after his apprehension.

Article 5
The Court found that Khamzat Umarov had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which represented a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security.

Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2
The criminal investigation into Khamzat’s disappearance had been ineffective, and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed had consequently been undermined. The State had therefore failed in its obligation under Article 13. As a result, there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Russia was to pay 2,000 euros (EUR) to each of the children and wife of Khamzat Umarov, as well as EUR 60,000 jointly to them in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,260 for costs and expenses to the applicants’ representative.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Press Release
ECHR 320 (2012)
31.07.12

Three brothers brutally beaten by police in Kabardino-Balkaria

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Makhashevy v. Russia (application no. 20546/07), which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the complaints of three brothers of Chechen origin that they had been tortured because of their ethnic origin and that the investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment and discrimination had been inadequate.

The Court found that the brothers had been detained and tortured as a result of their origin, and that the authorities had not adequately investigated their related complaints.

Principal facts

The applicants, Ibragim, Adam and Islam (now deceased) Makhashev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1972, 1974 and 1979, respectively. Ibragim and Adam live in Nalchik (Russia).

Brothers, they are ethnic Chechens who moved to Nalchik from Grozny in October 1996 when their house was destroyed during the hostilities.

Ibragim and Adam alleged that, on 14 November 2004, police officers kicked and brutally beat them in a local police station where they unlawfully detained them for a few hours following a signal that the brothers had been involved in a fight in a night-club the same night. The officers continuously insulted them because of their Chechen origin, shouted racist remarks at them and told them that if they only tried to complain about the ill-treatment, they would be killed and no one would be punished for that.

Islam alleged that he was also beaten when he went to the police station that night to enquire about his brothers. Police officers hit him with their rifle butts, kicked him and dragged him by his hair. They also insulted him and told him that all Chechens were animals who had no place outside of Chechnya, and that he should not even consider complaining because he would not get any justice there.

Following their release, the three brothers immediately complained to the prosecution about the ill-treatment. They were medically examined several times and reports were drawn up attesting numerous injuries and bruises on their bodies and heads.

On 25 November 2004 the town prosecutor opened an investigation into the events. In February 2005, the brothers complained to the Prosecutor General that the investigation had been ineffective. Following questioning of the police officers who had been on duty in the police station during the night of the events, in June 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. After it was reopened and more witnesses were questioned, the authorities decided not to prosecute the officers, finding that the brothers had been beaten during the fight at the night club. The Makhashevy complained twice about the decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the police officers, to no avail. The authorities charged an individual with injuring Ibragim the night at the night-club; on the other hand, the investigation into who beat Adam and Islam has not been completed to date.

The Russian Government contested the facts as presented by the three brothers and denied that they had been beaten or otherwise ill-treated by the police.

Ibragim, Adam and Islam complained four times, without success, before the local courts that the investigation had been ineffective and that a number of investigative steps had not been taken. The second brother, Adam, was fined in separate criminal proceedings against him, as he was found to have been violent towards a police officer on the night of the fight in the club.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 3 and Article 14, the Makhashev brothers alleged that they had been severely beaten because of their ethnic origin and that the ensuing investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment and discrimination had been inadequate.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 April 2007.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Nina Vajić (Croatia), President,
Anatoly Kovler (Russia),
Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),
Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),
Erik Møse (Norway),
and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Prohibition of ill-treatment (Article 3)

Investigation into the beatings
The Court observed that, following their release from the police station, the Makhashev brothers had immediately complained to the prosecutor. While a criminal investigation had been opened shortly afterwards, for almost three months the investigators had neither questioned eye-witnesses nor made any attempt to conduct an identification parade or set up a witness confrontation between the brothers and the policemen.

Several months later, the investigation had been suspended although the necessary investigative steps had not been taken.

The brothers’ consistent allegations that they had been ill-treated by the police and the related evidence had not been examined. Quite on the contrary, the investigators appeared to have followed a selective approach to the evidence having thus disregarded the brothers’ claims and based instead their conclusions solely on the statements of the police officers implicated in the events.

In addition, despite the brothers’ repeated complaints that the police had beaten them because of their Chechen origin, the authorities had failed to examine potential racist implications of the incident and had instead effectively ignored their complaints.

The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 taken together with Article 14 as a result of the authorities’ failure to investigate effectively the brothers’ complaints about their ill-treatment.

The beatings

Upon his arrival at the police station, Islam had been in good health and had not had any visible injuries. As to Ibragim and Adam, neither of them had been medically checked when brought there. When released, however, all three brothers had had numerous injuries and bruises which had been recorded by forensic medical specialists. In the absence of a convincing and plausible explanation of the events given by the Government, and given that the brothers had presented a consistent and detailed description of the facts which had been supported by witness statements and medical reports, the Court concluded that Ibragim, Adam and Islam had been injured at the hands of the police. All three of them had suffered serious physical harm, which had been combined with the feeling of fear, anguish and inferiority. The Court concluded that they had been tortured.

In addition, their complaint about having been ill-treated because of their Chechen origin had been supported by witnesses and documents, which had not been contested by the Government. The Court observed that, following the fight at the night-club, the police officers had only taken the Makhashev brothers to the police station despite that a number of other individuals had been involved in it. No explanations had been given about that neither about why force had been used against them. Having taken into account the above, along with the evidence of verbal racial insults to which the brothers had been subjected while beaten and the absence of explanations from the Government, the Court concluded that their arrest and ill-treatment had been related to their origin.

There had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 3 taken together with Article 14.

Other articles

The Court found that the brothers’ complaint under Article 5 had been brought out of time, and that it was not necessary to examine separately their complaints under Article 13.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The court held that Russia was to pay Ibragim 180 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 52,500 to each Ibragim and Islam in respect of non-pecuniary damage.