Today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) notified two judgements with regard to Chechnya. The cases were about the abduction of a Chechen man and inefficiently investigating the death of two Chechen children in a missile attack.
Here are the press releases:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

PRESS RELEASE
no. 995
21.12.10

No effective investigation carried out into the killing of two boys by a missile in Chechnya

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia (application no. 36542/05), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

A violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as no effective investigation was carried out into the death of the applicants’ sons; and
No violation of Article 2 (right to life), as regards the complaint that the authorities were responsible for the two boys’ deaths.

The case concerned the complaints of two Chechen mothers about the killing of their sons in an explosion in Chechnya. The mothers claimed that the Russian authorities were responsible both for their sons’ deaths and for the lack of an effective investigation into the tragic event.

Principal facts

The applicants, Zulikhan Udayeva and Zulpa Yusupova, are Russian nationals who were born in 1963 and 1960 respectively and live in the outskirts of Urus-Martan, Chechen Republic, Russia.

Their two sons were born in 1990 and 1988 and studied in the same school. In the afternoon of 17 October 2000, at around 4 p.m., while walking home from school along a road close to the town’s cemetery, the boys were hit by a missile and died on the spot. Several people living or passing at the time of the events nearby the place where the incident took place submitted that they first heard the sound of a missile, then an explosion, following which they saw clouds of black smoke coming from the road next to the cemetery. Other Urus-Martan residents told the applicants that at the time they had seen Russian military troops, who had been stationed at the town’s outskirts, and had heard a projectile being launched from a tank and then explode not far away.

The Russian prosecution service opened an investigation into the boys’ deaths on the same day. The crime scene was examined, but nothing was collected from it. Neither was a forensic analysis of the remains of the bodies and shell carried out. The applicants were granted victim status but were not kept informed of the investigation’s progress. A number of witnesses were questioned. However, despite specific requests by the Court, the Russian Government did not disclose any documents from the case referring to the incompatibility of such a step with domestic legislation. The Government submitted that they were examining a theory according to which the boys could have been killed as a result of “incorrect use” of artillery by the Russian military.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Articles 2 and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained that their sons had been killed by the Russian military and that no effective investigation had been carried out into their deaths.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 October 2005.

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),
Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg),
Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Judges,
and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 2 (investigation)
The Court observed that although the deaths of the applicants’ sons had been investigated, the Russian authorities had not presented to it any of the documents in the investigation file. On the face of the information submitted by the Government during the proceedings before the Court and that provided by the applicants, the Court found a number of defects in the investigation. In particular, no evidence had been collected by the investigators despite the existence of fragments of the explosive device. Given that that had been an obvious, basic and crucial investigative step, its ommission had demonstrated a lack of diligence on the part of the authorities. Not only had they not rectified those initial failures, but they had perpetuated the inadequacy of the investigation in its later stages. Thus, although the testimony provided by the town’s residents had suggested that the missile had been launched from the direction in which Russian military troops had been stationed at the time, members of those military forces had not been questioned. Neither had any practical steps been pursued in order to verify the theory advanced by the Russian government that the boys could have been killed following a mistake by the military.

The Court concluded that the omissions in the investigation and the absence of explanations by the authorities about the failure to establish the very basic circumstances of the events, demonstrated a failure to carry out an effective investigation, in breach of Article 2.

Article 2 (responsibility for the explosion or for preventing it)
The Court noted that, in other earlier cases, it had found the Russian military responsible for deaths of civilians in the Chechen Republic as a result of different pieces of evidence submitted before it. That included evidence showing that the authorities had been aware of military operations being conducted in the area.

However, in the applicants’ case, no persuasive evidence supporting their allegations had been presented. Likewise, there had been no indication that the authorities knew, or ought to have been aware at the time, of an immediate danger to the lives of the applicants and had failed to do everything necessary to prevent it. Consequently, the Court could not establish with the certainty required that Russian military forces had been involved in the deaths of the two boys. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 2 in connection with the applicants’ deaths.

Article 3 (psychological suffering of the applicants)
While the Court did not doubt that the tragic deaths of the applicants’ sons had caused the applicants profound suffering, given the sudden way in which the boys had died, the Court found that the applicants’ rights under Article 3 had not been breached.

Other Articles
The Court rejected the applicants’ complaints under the other Articles.

Article 41 (just satisfaction)
Under Article 41, the Court held that Russia was to pay each of the applicants 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 in total for costs and expenses to be paid directly to the applicants’ legal representatives.

***

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

PRESS RELEASE
no. 994
21.12.10

Russia responsible for abduction and presumed death of young man in Chechnya

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Malika Dzhamayeva and Others v. Russia (application no 26980/06), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a:

Violation of Article 2 (right to life: disappearance) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicants’ relative, Khamid Mukayev;
Violation of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation into disappearance);
Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) in respect of the applicants’ mental suffering;
Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security: unacknowledged detention);
Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.

The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that Khamid Mukayev was abducted and killed by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation in Katyr-Yurt (the Chechen Republic) in September 2004.

Principal facts

The applicants are four Russian nationals who live in the village of Katyr-Yurt (Achkhoy-Martan district, Chechnya). They are the mother, wife and children of Khamid Mukayev, born in 1978.

They have had no news of their relative since the early hours of the morning of 16 September 2004 when he was abducted by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms who arrived in a convoy of military vehicles and burst into the family home in Katyr-Yurt. According to Khamid Mukayev’s mother, the intruders, who spoke unaccented Russian, tied her hands behind her back with adhesive tape and attached her – with her other son – to a post outside while they searched the house. Her 84-year-old disabled mother-in-law, in a state of stress, started shouting and was hit several times by the men with their rifle butts. She died the same day. Khamid was led into the yard in his underwear; his wife tried to follow but was forced back into the house at gunpoint. On asking the men to not take her son away, Khamid’s mother was ordered to remain silent and was left tied up. The men left taking Khamid with them.

The abduction was witnessed by a good number of neighbours who had been woken up by the convoy, which included an APC and Gazel and UAZ vehicles. The witnesses further confirmed that the convoy was seen leaving in the direction of Achkhoy-Martan and travelled unhindered through the military checkpoints.

The applicants immediately notified the authorities of the abduction. An investigation was launched into the disappearance and from September to December 2004 a number of investigative steps were taken: the scene of the crime was inspected and some 30 witnesses were interviewed. In November 2006 a further three witnesses – close neighbours – were interviewed and in September 2008 requests for information on Khamid’s whereabouts and possible detention were sent to various State authorities.

The investigation, pending for over six years, has so far produced no tangible results. During that time, the applicants have contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, requesting information about the investigation’s progress and Khamid’s whereabouts. They complain that the investigation has been suspended and reopened on numerous occasions and that they have barely been informed of its developments or even given access to the case file. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose the full contents of the criminal investigation file, claiming that such a step was incompatible with domestic legislation.

The Russian Government denied the applicants’ allegations, claiming that there was no proof that Russian servicemen had been involved in the abduction or that military vehicles had been used.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicants complained about the abduction, unlawful detention and presumed death of their relative and that they themselves had suffered as a result. They further complained that the investigation into the disappearance of their relative had been ineffective and that they had not had an effective remedy to challenge effectively their complaints related to the disappearance. They relied on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 May 2006 and 31 July 2008.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:
Christos Rozakis (Greece), President,
Anatoly Kovler (Russia),
Elisabeth Steiner (Austria),
Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg),
Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway),
Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland),
George Nicolaou (Cyprus), Judges,
and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 2
The Court considered that the relatives of Khamid Mukayev had provided a coherent and consistent account of the abduction, which had been corroborated by eye-witness statements made both to this Court and during the domestic investigation. The Court could not accept the Government’s submission that the abductors had not used military vehicles; that was in complete contradiction to the witness statements that the Government themselves had disclosed to the Court. Indeed, according to the domestic investigation’s inspection of the crime scene, tracks presumably belonging to an APC had been found in the applicants’ courtyard.

The fact that such a a convoy of military vehicles, carrying a group of armed men in uniforms and masks, had been able to move freely through checkpoints during curfew hours and had apprehended the applicants’ relative in his own home, had strongly supported their allegations that those men had been Russian servicemen conducting a special operation in Katyr-Yurt.

Further drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit documents related to the investigation to which it exclusively had access or to provide any other plausible explanation for the disappearance in question, the Court considered that Khamid Mukayev had been arrested during a security operation carried out by Russian servicemen and had to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention. In the absence of any justification for the use of lethal force by its State agents, the Court concluded that Russia was liable for the presumed death of Khamid, in violation of Article 2.

Concerning the investigation, although it had been launched immediately after the abduction, there were inexplicable delays in taking basic investigative steps. In particular, it was not clear why the investigating authority had to wait for four years before making enquiries to various State authorities about Khamid’s whereabouts. Nor was it apparent why it had taken more than two years to interview some of the applicants’ close neighbours for relevant information. Furthermore, the investigating authorities, immediately aware of the direction in which the abductors had left and the checkpoint through which their vehicles had passed without having been stopped, had taken no steps to verify that information by interviewing the officers who had been on duty at the checkpoint on the night of the abduction or by examining the relevant logs. Plagued by delays and omissions, the investigation was still pending with the applicants not being kept informed of its progress or even given access to the case file. The Court therefore found that there had been a further violation of Article 2 on account of the Russian authorities’ failure to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relative had disappeared.

Article 3
The applicants, the mother, wife and children of Khamid Mukayev, who witnessed his abduction, had suffered distress and anguish as a result of his disappearance and their inability – despite their repeated enquiries – to find out what had happened to him. The manner in which the applicants’ complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3.

Article 5
The Court held that Khamid Mukayev 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.

Article 13
The criminal investigation into the disappearance of Khamid Mukayev had been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed had consequently been undermined. Consequently there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.

Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court held that Russia was to pay Khamid Mukayev’s wife and children 6,000 euros (EUR) jointly in respect of pecuniary damage. In respect of non pecuniary damage the Court further held that Khamid Mukayev’s mother was to be paid EUR 20,000 and his wife and children EUR 40,000, jointly. EUR 7,500 was awarded for costs and expenses.