The ECHR case of Pukhigova v. Russia (application no. 15440\/05).<\/p>\n
..<\/span><\/p>\n \n \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 538<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 02.07.2009<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Press release issued by the Registrar<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING EVENTS IN THE CHECHEN REPUBLIC<\/span> The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment <\/span><\/a> in the case of Pukhigova v. Russia <\/span>(application no. 15440\/05).<\/span><\/p>\n The Court held unanimously that there had been:<\/span><\/p>\n \u00b7 <\/span>two violations of Article 2 (right to life)<\/span> of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the Government not having provided a plausible explanation for the disappearance of the applicant\u2019s husband and of not having carried out an effective investigation;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00b7 <\/span>a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), <\/span> on account of the psychological suffering of the applicant as a result of the disappearance of her husband;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00b7 <\/span>a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security),<\/span> on account of the unacknowledged detention of the applicant\u2019s husband;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00b7 <\/span>a violation of Article 13<\/span> (right of an effective remedy<\/span>) in conjunction with Article\u00a02, on account of the impossibility for the applicant to obtain the identification and punishment of those responsible, nor redress for her suffering.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 35,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,757 for costs and expenses. 1.\u00a0\u00a0Principal facts<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The applicant, Ms Zina Pukhigova, is a Russian national who was born in 1944 and lives in the village of Goyty, the Chechen Republic. She was married to Mr Salman Abdulazizov, a category I disabled person, with whom she had six children.<\/span><\/p>\n Ms Pukhigova alleged that on the night of 12 February 2001, around twenty heavily armed men, whom she believed to be Russian military, burst into her house and took her husband away. She has not seen him since. During that same night, five other persons from the same village were abducted under similar circumstances; upon their release they told the applicant that they had been kept together with her husband at the military commander\u2019s office of the Urus-Martan District. Ms Pukhigova submitted their and several other persons\u2019 witness statements in writing to the Court.<\/span><\/p>\n On the morning after her husband\u2019s abduction, Ms Pukhigova went to the district military commander\u2019s office and heard her husband singing a prayer. On the same day she informed several state agencies that he was being kept in that building. An investigation was opened into the Salman Abdulazizov\u2019s kidnapping on 3 June 2001, only to be temporarily suspended and ultimately, about six and a half years later, forwarded to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor\u2019s Office for the Chechen Republic.<\/span><\/p>\n The Government submitted that the inquiry they carried out into the disappearance of Salman Abdulaziziov did not establish any involvement of law enforcement agencies in it, and that the investigation was ongoing. Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents of the investigation file and referred to incompatibility of such disclosure with domestic law.<\/span><\/p>\n In April 2003, Ms Pukhigova complained before the courts of the inactivity of the district prosecutor\u2019s office. In August 2004, her complaint was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic which found that the prosecutor had taken numerous actions to solve the crime and that military servicemen had not been involved in the kidnapping.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Procedure and composition of the Court<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 February 2005 and was examined for merits and admissibility at the same time.<\/span><\/p>\n Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Christos Rozakis<\/span> (Greece), President<\/span>, Anatoly Kovler<\/span> (Russia),<\/span><\/p>\n Elisabeth Steiner<\/span> (Austria),<\/span><\/p>\n Khanlar Hajiyev<\/span> (Azerbaijan),<\/span><\/p>\n Dean Spielmann<\/span> (Luxembourg),<\/span><\/p>\n Sverre Erik Jebens<\/span> (Norway), judges<\/span>,<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n and Andr\u00e9 Wampach<\/span>, Deputy Section Registrar<\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Summary of the judgment<\/span> <\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Complaints<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The applicant alleged that her husband disappeared after having been unlawfully detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her allegations. She relied in particular on Articles\u00a02, 3, 5 and\u00a013.<\/span><\/p>\n Decision of the Court<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Article 2 (right to life)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Court found that the applicant had presented a coherent and convincing picture of her husband\u2019s abduction, which had been supported by witness statements. It further found that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniforms had been able to move freely about the village controlled by the federal forces late at night past curfew, to abduct six men and then to pass two federal checkpoints had strongly supported the applicant\u2019s allegation that those had been State servicemen. Having drawn inferences from the Government\u2019s failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide a plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court considered that Salman Abdulazizov had been abducted on 12\u00a0February 2001 at his house in Goyty by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. In his absence or of any news about him for eight years, and given the failure of the Government to justify his abduction, the Court concluded that the Government had been responsible for his death. There had been therefore a violation of Article 2 in respect of him.<\/span><\/p>\n Article 2 (investigation)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Court noted that the investigators had been aware of Salman Abdulazizov\u2019s kidnapping for at the very least one month before they started taking measures to solve it. This important delay, for which no explanation had been provided, had been in itself liable to affect the investigation of a crime such as abduction in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action had to be taken expeditiously. In addition, the investigating authorities had failed to take a number of elementary investigative steps, such as for example inspection of the crime scene, questioning of the servicemen in the military commander\u2019s office or attempting to find the vehicles allegedly used during the abduction. Finally, the Court noted there had been lengthy periods of inexplicable inactivity during the investigation which had been suspended and resumed several times and had not produced any tangible results even though it had been pending for nearly eight years. The authorities had therefore failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Salman Abdulazizov, in violation of Article 2.<\/span><\/p>\n Article 3 (psychological suffering)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The applicant had suffered distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of her husband and her inability to find out what had happened to him. The manner in which her complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had constituted inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3.<\/span><\/p>\n Article 5 (unlawful detention)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Given that Salman Abdulazizov had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, this had constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security as enshrined in Article 5.<\/span><\/p>\n Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Finally, the Court held that, given that the criminal investigation into Salman Abdulazizov\u2019s disappearance had been ineffective, the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil remedies suggested by the Government, had been undermined, in violation of Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n CASE OF PUKHIGOVA v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n (Application no. 15440\/05)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n JUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\n STRASBOURG<\/span><\/p>\n 2 July 2009<\/span><\/p>\n This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article\u00a044 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In the case of Pukhigova v. Russia,<\/span><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/span><\/p>\n Christos Rozakis, President, Having deliberated in private on 11 June 2009,<\/span><\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/span><\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 15440\/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Russian national, Ms Zina Pukhigova (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 10 February 2005.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr\u00a0D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Nazran. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 November 2007 the Court decided to apply Rule\u00a041 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application, as well as to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.<\/span><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court dismissed it.<\/span><\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/span><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/span><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the village of Goyty, the Urus-Martan District, in the Chechen Republic.<\/span><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was married to Mr Salman Abdulazizov, born in 1950. Salman Abdulazizov was a Category 1 disabled person. The couple are the parents of six children.<\/span><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Disappearance of Salman Abdulazizov<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant’s account<\/span><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0At about 2 a.m. on 12 February 2001 an armoured personnel carrier (\u201cAPC\u201d) and several UAZ vehicles with illegible registration numbers arrived at the applicant’s house. Around twenty men armed with machine guns and sniper rifles got out of the vehicles and burst in. They did not identify themselves but the applicant believed that they belonged to the Russian military.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The servicemen searched the house without producing any warrant. Then they took Salman Abdulazizov away and put him into a Ural vehicle. There were also a red Niva car with no rear window, a Volga car and several UAZ vehicles parked nearby; the servicemen got into those vehicles and drove away. The applicant has not seen her husband since then.<\/span><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On the night of 12 February 2001 five other inhabitants of the village of Goyty \u2013 Mr E., Mr I., Mr V. and two brothers, Mr D.M. and Mr V.M. \u2013 were abducted under similar circumstances. Later they were released and told the applicant that they had been kept together with her husband at the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Witnesses’ statements submitted by the applicant<\/span><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant provided the Court with written statements by several Goyty villagers, including Mr I. and Mr V.M., who had been arrested on the night of 11-12 February 2001.<\/span><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Mr I.’s statement<\/span><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0At about 1 a.m. on 12 February 2001 Mr I. was sleeping at his home. Around twenty-five masked men in camouflage uniforms armed with sniper rifles entered his courtyard; seven of them proceeded to his house. The armed men spoke Russian without accent. They ordered Mr I. to get dressed and took him outside. The armed men searched and handcuffed Mr I. Some ten minutes later a Ural vehicle and two UAZ vehicles arrived. The armed men covered Mr I.’s eyes with a cap and then fastened it with adhesive tape. However, Mr I. could see a little through holes. The armed men were putting Mr I. inside the Ural vehicle when he saw Salman Abdulazizov standing next to it. The servicemen told Salman Abdulazizov to climb into the Ural; he replied that he could not do it because he had only one leg. Then the men put him into the vehicle. Mr I. said hello to Salman Abdulazizov; a serviceman hit him, ordering him to keep silent. The Ural travelled for some fifteen minutes and then stopped. Mr I. was taken out of the vehicle and brought inside a building with stairs. He was left sitting in a corridor on a concrete floor for forty-eight hours. He was not given any food or drinks. Salman Abdulazizov spent a night in the same corridor and was questioned by servicemen on several occasions. Twenty-four hours later Salman Abdulazizov was taken away. Later someone approached Mr I. and asked him about Salman Abdulazizov. Two or three days later Mr I. was taken out of the building and put into a car. The servicemen brought him to the military commander’s office of Goyty and left there. Mr I. spent an hour in the premises of the military commander’s office of Goyty. Then his fellow villager Mr G. took him home.<\/span><\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Mr V.M.’s statement<\/span><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0In 2001 the inhabitants of Goyty obtained the federal military’s permission to organise a civilian night watch to protect their village from marauders.<\/span><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0At about 1 a.m. on 12 February 2001 Mr V.M. was on his way home after serving his shift on the night watch. At some point he noticed twelve or fifteen heavily armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms. The servicemen asked him where he was going and then forced him on to the ground. Ten minutes later the men entered Mr V.M.’s house and took his brother, Mr D.M., outside. The servicemen handcuffed the two men and took Mr V.M. to the Ural vehicle parked near the applicant’s house. There were also three or four APCs and Urals on the street. Mr V.M. saw Salman Abdulazizov and greeted him in Chechen; both of them were put into the Ural. The servicemen put a cap over Mr V.M.’s eyes and fastened it with adhesive tape. The vehicle drove off in the direction of Urus-Martan; there were two federal checkpoints on the road between Goyty and Urus-Martan. After a twenty-minute ride Mr V.M. was taken out of the vehicle and led to the first or second floor of a building. He and his brother were kept in a big room. During the first two nights Mr V.M. did not see Salman Abdulazizov, but on the third night he saw a bearded one-legged man sitting on a chair and recognised him as Salman Abdulazizov. Mr V.M. could not see clearly because of the cap over his eyes. Later Mr V.M. was taken to another room and spent three days there. He was kept in the building for six days in total. On the fifth day the servicemen brought Mr D.M. into the same room; on the sixth day they took the caps off their eyes. An officer with colonel’s rank with visible insignia on his uniform told them that they had been arrested by mistake, apologised and let the brothers go. When he left the building Mr V.M. realised that it was the military commander’s office of Urus-Martan District.<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Information submitted by the Government<\/span><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On the night of 12 February 2001 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms abducted Salman Abdulazizov from his house at 1\u00a0Vygonnaya Street, Goyty village, and took him away.<\/span><\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Investigation into Salman Abdulazizov’s disapprearance<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant’s account<\/span><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Immediately after her husband’s abduction, despite the curfew, the applicant, with several other women, went to the military commander’s office in Goyty. The applicant saw in the courtyard of the Goyty military commander’s office the same red Niva with no rear window that she had seen earlier near her house.<\/span><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0In the morning of 12 February 2001 the applicant went to the Urus-Martan District military commander’s office. During the lunch hour she heard her husband singing a prayer. The voice was coming from the second floor of the building of the Urus-Martan District military commander’s office. On the same day the applicant informed several State agencies that her husband was being kept in that building.<\/span><\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0At some point the Urus-Martan District military commander told the applicant in a private conversation that her husband had been arrested by servicemen under his command but refused to confirm it officially. According to the applicant, the head of the Chechen Department of the Federal Security Service also said that Salman Abdulazizov had been kept at the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District. Later the applicant was told that her husband had been sent to the town of Mozdok.<\/span><\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 and 21 February 2001 the applicant complained in writing to the Urus-Martan District military commander, the head of the local administration and the Urus-Martan District prosecutor’s office (\u201cthe district prosecutor’s office\u201d) about her husband’s abduction and requested assistance in establishing his whereabouts.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a>19.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 March 2001 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that her letter of 21 February 2001 had been forwarded to the Urus-Martan District military commander’s office for examination on the merits.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nPUKHIGOVA v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Nina Vaji\u0107<\/span> (Croatia),<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span> Nina Vaji\u0107,
\n<\/span> Anatoly Kovler,
\n<\/span> Elisabeth Steiner,
\n<\/span> Khanlar Hajiyev,
\n<\/span> Dean Spielmann,
\n<\/span> Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
\n<\/span>and Andr\u00e9 Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar<\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n