The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has fined Russia 1.309.450 Euro over kidnapping of 18 Chechen civilians between 2001 and 2009.

Here are the press releases:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Press Release
ECHR 262 (2014)
18.09.2014

On Septembre 18, the European Court of Human Rights has notified in writing these two following judgements.

Makayeva v. Russia (no. 37287/09)

The applicant, Ayma Makayeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. The case concerned the disappearance of her son, Apti Zaynalov, in July 2009, aged 29 at the time. Mr Zaynalov had previously been convicted of belonging to an illegal armed group, but had later been released from detention.

In early July 2009, Ms Makayeva learned that an anonymous wounded young man, likely her son, had been placed under guard in the Achkhoy-Martan hospital. On 7 July 2009, she applied to the prosecutor’s office in Achkhoy-Martan. However, several hours later she witnessed, from a distance, her son being taken away from the hospital by car, accompanied by servicemen. She has not seen him since. Ms Makayeva subsequently applied to the prosecutor’s office and other authorities, requesting that an investigation be instituted into her son’s disappearance. After having initially refused to open an investigation, the district department of the interior instituted a criminal investigation on 28 July 2009, which remains pending. The investigating authorities refused Ms Makayeva’s request that criminal proceedings be opened against the hospital staff for failure to inform the relevant authorities that a patient with gunshot wounds had been admitted and treated there for several days.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Makayeva complained that her son’s right to life had been violated and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation. She argued that he must have been unlawfully detained and then killed by State officials. She further complained of violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), on account of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her son, and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), on account of the unlawfulness of his detention. Finally, she complained of a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2, since she had not had any effective remedies in respect of her complaints.

Violation of Article 2 (right to life) on account of Mr Zaynalov’s presumed death
Violation of Article 2 (positive obligation to protect life)
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Violation of Article 3 – in respect of Ms Makayeva
Violation of Article 5
Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2

Just satisfaction: EUR 60,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,450 (costs and expenses)

Petimat Ismailova and Others v. Russia (nos. 25088/11, 44277/11, 44284/11, 44313/11, 48134/11, 49486/11, 52076/11, 52182/11, 55055/11, 56574/11, 64266/11, and 66831/11)

The applicants are 43 Russian nationals who were born between 1921 and 2003 and live in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are the close relatives of people who disappeared between 2001 and 2006 after allegedly being arrested at their homes in Chechnya by State servicemen. In each case the alleged abductions took place in areas under full control of the Russian federal forces and were carried out during curfew hours, at night or early in the morning. The applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. While not challenging the applicants’ accounts, the Russian Government submitted that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State officials were involved in the alleged abductions.

Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complained that their relatives had disappeared after having been detained by State officials and that the authorities had failed to carry out effective investigations into the events. They further complained of a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives, and of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3, they complained that they had not had any remedies available at national level in respect of their complaints.

Violation of Article 2 (right to life) – in respect of the applicants’ 17 relatives
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Violation of Article 3 – in respect of the applicants
Violation of Article 5
Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3

Just satisfaction: In applications nos. 44277/11, 44284/11, 44313/11, 52076/11, 52182/11, 55055/11, 56574/11 and 66831/11, the Court awarded each applicant between EUR 500 and EUR 22,000 in respect of pecuniary damage (total: EUR 191,000); in all 12 applications, it awarded between EUR 60,000 and EUR 120,000 per application in respect of non-pecuniary damage (total: EUR 1,080,000); and, in all applications, it awarded between EUR 1,000 and EUR 3,000 per application in respect of costs and expenses (total: EUR 36,000).