2<\/sup><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\nComplaints<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nRelying on Articles\u00a02 (right to life), 3\u00a0(prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13\u00a0(right to an effective remedy), the applicants alleged that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearance of their relative.<\/span><\/p>\nDecision of the Court<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nArticle 2 (investigation)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Court first noted that an investigation had been carried out into the kidnapping of Khasan Yusupov. No significant steps had been taken, however, following the first opening of criminal proceedings into Khasan\u2019s disappearance in December 2002. An investigation into his alleged murder had been started by the district prosecutor\u2019s office as late as one year after his disappearance, on 3\u00a0December 2003, while crucial action had to be taken in the first days after the event. Inexplicably, the investigation opened in December 2003 had never been joined with the investigation into the same event carried out since December 2002, nor had it even benefitted from any data collected or conclusions reached during the earlier set of proceedings. In addition, a number of essential steps had never been taken. The Court finally noted that, even though Khasan\u2019s mother had been granted victim status in the investigation, she had only been informed of the suspension and resumption of the proceedings but not of any other significant developments. Accordingly, the authorities had failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings. The Court held therefore that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Khasan Yusupov, in violation of Article\u00a02.<\/span><\/p>\nOther complaints<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Court dismissed the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 3 concerning their alleged psychological suffering as a result of the disappearance of their relative, and held that, having had regard to the violation found under Article 2, there was no need to examine the complaint separately under Article 13.<\/span><\/p>\n***<\/span><\/p>\nCASE OF YUSUPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n(Application no. 5428\/05)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nJUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\nSTRASBOURG<\/span><\/p>\n9 July 2009<\/span><\/p>\nThis 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><\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\nIn the case of Yusupova and Others v. Russia,<\/span><\/p>\nThe European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/span><\/p>\nChristos Rozakis, President,<\/span><\/p>\nNina Vaji\u0107,<\/span><\/p>\nAnatoly Kovler,<\/span><\/p>\nElisabeth Steiner,<\/span><\/p>\nKhanlar Hajiyev,<\/span><\/p>\nDean Spielmann,<\/span><\/p>\nGeorge Nicolaou, judges,
\nAndr\u00e9 Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar<\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\nHaving deliberated in private on 18 June 2009,<\/span><\/p>\nDelivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/span><\/p>\nPROCEDURE<\/span><\/p>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 5428\/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 three Russian nationals listed below (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 3 February 2005.<\/span><\/p>\n2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (\u201cSRJI\u201d), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that their relative had disappeared in November 2002 and that the authorities had failed to investigate it adequately. The complaint was brought under Article 2 (procedural obligation), and Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n4.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 December 2007 the Court decided to apply Rule\u00a041 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application and 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>\n5.\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>\nTHE FACTS<\/span><\/p>\nI.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/span><\/p>\n6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are:<\/span><\/p>\n1. Lyubov Musayevna Yusupova, born in 1958;<\/span><\/p>\n2. Luiza Suleymanovna Yusupova, born in 1982;<\/span><\/p>\n3. Lezina Khasanovna Yusupova, born in 2002.<\/span><\/p>\nThey live in Achkhoy-Martan, the Chechen Republic.<\/span><\/p>\nA.\u00a0\u00a0Disappearance of Khasan Yusupov on 15 November 2002<\/span><\/p>\n1. The applicants’ account<\/span><\/p>\n7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are respectively the mother, wife and daughter of Khasan Vakhidovich Yusupov, born in 1979. At the material time they lived together at 25 Budennogo Street, Achkhoy-Martan. Khasan Yusupov served as a private in the military commandant’s office of Achkhoy-Martan (the district military commander’s office).<\/span><\/p>\n8.\u00a0\u00a0In the morning of 15 November 2002 Khasan Yusupov went from Achkhoy-Martan to Khankala by car. Two other servicemen from the military commandant’s office of Achkhoy-Martan travelled with him: commander of platoon A.A. and private A.M. They had an appointment at the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.\u00a020102. The three servicemen had been summoned to the military prosecutor’s office in relation to a criminal investigation opened against A.M. They travelled in the personal Moskvich-412 car of driver Ilyas B.<\/span><\/p>\n9.\u00a0\u00a0Until about 2.30 p.m. the servicemen and Ilyas B. were in communication by radio with the military commander’s office and with Ibragim B., Ilyas B.’s brother, who was also serving in the district military commandant’s office. Then the radio connection was cut.<\/span><\/p>\n10.\u00a0\u00a0Five days later the first applicant went to the district military commander’s office and enquired about Khasan Yusupov. She was told that he and his colleagues had left for an appointment at the military prosecutor’s office of Khankala in connection with a criminal case pending against A.M.<\/span><\/p>\n11.\u00a0\u00a0On the following day the applicants went to the military prosecutor’s office in Khankala and met investigator L., who told them that Khasan Yusupov and his colleagues had left his office on 15 November 2002 at around 3 p.m.<\/span><\/p>\n12.\u00a0\u00a0A taxi driver who had been parked next to the military prosecutor’s office on the afternoon of 15 November 2002 told the applicants that Khasan Yusupov and some others had been taken by the authorities late in the afternoon to cars which had left for unknown destinations. However, he refused to make any formal statement in this respect. The applicants are not aware of his identity.<\/span><\/p>\n13.\u00a0\u00a0It appears that Ilyas B.’s Moskvich-412 car remained in front of checkpoint no.\u00a01 of the Khankala military base until 18 November 2002, when it was collected by his brother, Ibragim B.<\/span><\/p>\n14.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 or 6 December 2002 a young man told the applicants that he had been detained with Khasan Yusupov in Khankala for three days and that the latter had stayed there. He refused to give any formal testimony or to disclose his identity.<\/span><\/p>\n15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants and other relatives of the disappeared men have had no news of them since 15 November 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n2. Information submitted by the Government<\/span><\/p>\n16.\u00a0\u00a0The Government denied that the applicants’ relative and three other men had been detained by representatives of the State. They stated that on 15 November 2002 Khasan Yusupov, two other servicemen of the district military commander’s office and driver Ilyas B. had gone to Khankala, after which they disappeared. Their whereabouts have not been established so far.<\/span><\/p>\nB.\u00a0\u00a0The search for Khasan Yusupov and the investigation<\/span><\/p>\n1. The applicants’ account<\/span><\/p>\n17.\u00a0\u00a0Since 15\u00a0November 2002 the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies. They have been supported in their efforts by the SRJI NGO. In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to their relative’s disappearance and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. The applicants submitted some of the letters to the authorities and the replies to the Court, which are summarised below.<\/span><\/p>\n18.\u00a0\u00a0In December 2002 (in the Government’s submissions this date is indicated as 21 November 2002) the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.\u00a020102 (the unit’s military prosecutor’s office) opened criminal proceedings (file no.34\/33\/0645-02) concerning the disappearance of Khasan Yusupov and his colleagues. It does not appear that the applicants were made aware of this investigation or that any of the relatives of the disappeared men were questioned within this set of proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n19.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 January 2003 the applicants were informed that their request for an investigation into Khasan Yusupov’s disappearance had been transmitted to the head of Achkhoy-Martan district administration, the district prosecutor, the military prosecutor and the military commandant of the Chechen Republic, with a view to organising the necessary investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n20.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 November 2003 the unit’s military prosecutor informed the applicants that it had not been established that federal military personnel were implicated in the kidnapping of Khasan Yusupov. The case was accordingly transmitted to the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic (the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office).<\/span><\/p>\n21.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 December 2003 the investigator of the Achkhoy-Martan district police department (ROVD) opened criminal proceedings (no.\u00a044690) in accordance with Article 105\u00a0part\u00a02 (a) of the Criminal Code on account of murder committed by unknown perpetrators. On 2 December 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in these proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n22.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 December 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office ordered the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor to conduct certain specific investigations in the case.<\/span><\/p>\n23.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 December 2003 the case was sent to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office.<\/span><\/p>\n24.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 January 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alliance (UGA) informed the applicants that case no. 34\/33\/0645-02 had been remitted to the unit’s military prosecutor for further investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n25.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 March 2004 the unit military prosecutor informed the applicants that the case had been transmitted once more to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office.<\/span><\/p>\n26.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 July 2004 the investigation of the criminal case no.\u00a014\/33\/0645-02D was reopened by the unit’s military prosecutor’s office. On 20 August 2004 that office informed the applicants that no positive result had been achieved in the investigation, but did not specify if the investigation had been pending or adjourned.<\/span><\/p>\n27.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 August 2004 the SRJI, acting on the applicants’ behalf, asked the district prosecutor’s office to provide them with an update on the investigation. In particular, they asked the prosecutor to inform them and the applicants whether criminal case no.\u00a044690 was still with that office, whether the proceedings were pending or adjourned and whether the previous set of instructions of the supervising prosecutor of 20\u00a0December 2003 had been carried out.<\/span><\/p>\n28.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 October 2004 the district prosecutor’s office responded to the applicants and the SRJI that the investigation had been transferred to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office on 24 December 2003.<\/span><\/p>\n29.\u00a0\u00a0Following another letter from the SRJI, on 11 December 2004 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office submitted that the investigation in the criminal case no.\u00a044690 had been pending with their office since 1 February 2004. It had failed to establish that Khasan Yusupov and three other men had been killed.<\/span><\/p>\n30.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant submitted that at the end of 2004 Ibragim B., deputy military commander of the district, had brought them 10,500 roubles (RUB) and explained that this was Khasan Yusupov’s salary for three months. In spring 2005 the second applicant received RUB 43,000 at the district military commander’s office, for which she had signed a pay cheque. The servicemen of the military commander’s office told her that it was Khasan Yusupov’s salary for one year.<\/span><\/p>\n31.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 March 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant, without indicating the date of the decision, that the investigation had been adjourned for failure to identify the persons against whom charges must be brought (Article 208, part 1, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).<\/span><\/p>\n32.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 November 2005 the SRJI again requested information about the progress of the investigation from the Grozny district prosecutor’s office.<\/span><\/p>\n33.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 March 2008 an investigator of the Grozny department of the Investigative Committee of the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that on the same day proceedings in case no.\u00a044690, in which she had been granted victim status, had been reopened and that their office was carrying out the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n34.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 April 2008 the same office informed the first applicant that on 2 April 2008 the proceedings had been adjourned for failure to identify the perpetrators of the crime. On 8 April 2008 the proceedings were again reopened, of which the first applicant was informed on the following day.<\/span><\/p>\n35.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant submitted that as late as March 2004 the weapons belonging to the three servicemen of the military commander’s office which they had been carrying on the day of their disappearance had not been recorded as missing or searched for.<\/span><\/p>\n2. Information and documents submitted by the Government<\/span><\/p>\n36.\u00a0\u00a0Further to a request by the Court, the Government produced ninety-two pages of documents from criminal case no.\u00a044690, including witness statements and copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status, as well as notifications to the relatives of the adjournment and reopening of the proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n37.\u00a0\u00a0According to these documents and the Government submissions, the criminal investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s relative and three other men was opened on 1 December 2003. It was triggered by the complaints of the relatives of the disappeared persons to the Achkhoy-Martan and Grozny ROVD and the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office of 20-24 November 2003. The investigation file was opened under Article 105 part 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated murder) and assigned no.\u00a044690. On 9 December 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD transferred the investigation to the district prosecutor’s office.<\/span><\/p>\n38.\u00a0\u00a0Prior to and immediately after the formal opening of the investigation, between 20 November and 15 December 2003, officers of the Grozny district and Achkhoy-Martan ROVD questioned and collected explanations from eight relatives of the missing men. Four of them, including the first applicant, were granted victim status in the proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n