<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\nComplaints<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nRelying on Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, Article 1 of Protocol No 1, and 13, the applicants alleged that, after being detained unlawfully, their relative was killed and the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his killing; that his disappearance caused them psychological suffering; of the search carried out at their house and the seizure of their property; and, finally, that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of the above violations of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\nDecision of the Court<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nArticle 2 (disappearance)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Court noted that the applicants\u2019 allegations had been supported by witness statements and by the investigation. It further found that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform, equipped with military vehicles, had been able to move freely through military roadblocks during curfew hours had strongly supported the applicants\u2019 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 Arbi Karimov had been abducted on 11\u00a0January 2003 at his house in Grozni district by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. In his absence or of any news about him for several years, and given the failure of the Government to justify his abduction, the Court concluded that the Government had been responsible for his death, in violation of Article 2 in respect of him.<\/span><\/p>\nArticle 2 (investigation)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Court noted that the abduction of Arbi Karimov had been investigated. However, despite the investigation having been opened relatively promptly, three days after the events, a number of essential investigative steps had not been taken. Further, the authorities had failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny and there had been lengthy periods of inactivity. Accordingly, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation, in violation of Article 2.<\/span><\/p>\nArticle 3 (psychological suffering)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Court noted that the applicants, close relatives of the disappeared person, had witnessed Arbi\u2019s abduction following which they had had no news of him for more than five years. Given that there had been no plausible explanation about what had happened after his detention, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 as a result of the applicants\u2019 psychological suffering.<\/span><\/p>\nArticle 5 (unlawful detention)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nGiven that Arbi Karimov 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>\nArticle 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (respect for home and property)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Court noted that although information about the search and seizure of the applicants\u2019 property had been brought to the attention of the authorities promptly, no steps had been taken to examine it. Given that the Court had already found that the persons who entered the applicants\u2019 home had belonged to the State military or security forces, the Court concluded that the property had been also seized by representatives of the State. In addition, the search having been carried out without proper authorisation or safeguards, and the Government having failed to demonstrate its lawfulness or proportionality, there had been a violation of Article 8 and of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.<\/span><\/p>\nArticle 13 in conjunction with Article 2<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Court held that, given that the criminal investigation into Arbi Karimov\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>\nArticle 13 in conjunction with Article 8 and with Article 1 of Protocol No 1<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Court considered that in a situation where the authorities had denied involvement in the alleged intrusion into the applicants\u2019 house and the taking of the family belongings, and where the domestic investigation had failed to examine the matter, the applicants had not had any effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of their rights, in violation of Article 8 and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1.<\/span><\/p>\n***<\/strong> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nCASE OF KARIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n(Application no. 29851\/05)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nJUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\nSTRASBOURG<\/span><\/p>\n16 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><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\nIn the case of Karimov 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,
\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 S\u00f8ren Nielsen, Section Registrar<\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\nHaving deliberated in private on 25 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. 29851\/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 four Russian nationals listed below (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 12 August 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 Mr A. Savenkov, First Deputy Minister of Justice, and Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n3.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 March 2008 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>\n4.\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>\n5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are:<\/span><\/p>\n1) Mr Usman Karimov, born in 1949,<\/span><\/p>\n2) Ms Rikhant Karimova, born in 1957,<\/span><\/p>\n3) Ms Luiza Karimova, born in 1978 and<\/span><\/p>\n4) Ms Seda Amayeva, born in 1985.<\/span><\/p>\n6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are Russian nationals. The first applicant lives in Grozny, Chechnya, and the other three applicants live in the village of Proletarskoye (also known as Proletarskiy), in Grozny district, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (\u201cthe SRJI\u201d), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia.<\/span><\/p>\n7.\u00a0\u00a0The first and the second applicants are the parents of Arbi Karimov, who was born in 1981. The third applicant is his sister and the fourth applicant is his wife.<\/span><\/p>\n8.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/span><\/p>\nA.\u00a0\u00a0Disappearance of Arbi Karimov and the subsequent events<\/span><\/p>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants’ account<\/span><\/p>\n9.\u00a0\u00a0At the material time the applicants lived in Proletarskoye, in Grozny district, Chechnya. The settlement was under the full control of Russian federal forces and the area was under a curfew. Russian military checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement.<\/span><\/p>\n10.\u00a0\u00a0On the night of 11 January 2003 (in the submitted documents the date is also referred to as 12 January 2003) the applicants and Arbi Karimov were sleeping in their house at 32 Belostotskaya Street. At about 2 a.m. a group of military vehicles arrived at the street. A Ural military lorry and two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) parked next to the house of the applicants’ neighbours I. Two other APCs and another Ural military vehicle with Russian military servicemen in it drove up to the applicants’ yard. One APC drove through the gates and a group of about twenty armed masked men in helmets broke down the entrance door and rushed into the applicants’ house.<\/span><\/p>\n11.\u00a0\u00a0The noise woke the first applicant and he approached the servicemen. They hit him and took him into the kitchen. There they forced the first applicant down on to the floor and two of the servicemen put their feet on him to keep him on the floor. The intruders dispersed the family members into different rooms, pointed their guns at them, and ordered them to lie face down. When the second applicant asked the servicemen what was going on she was ordered to be quiet.<\/span><\/p>\n12.\u00a0\u00a0The intruders neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants heard them using the code name \u201cVityaz\u201d among themselves. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n13.\u00a0\u00a0The servicemen put handcuffs on the first applicant and on his son Arbi Karimov. The fourth applicant and her husband Arbi Karimov were placed together in the living room. Every time Arbi Karimov tried to move the serviceman on guard kicked him in the torso. After that the servicemen took Arbi Karimov outside; they did not allow him to put on warm clothing.<\/span><\/p>\n14.\u00a0\u00a0A few minutes later the servicemen took the first applicant outside where he saw his son in the Ural military vehicle. The first applicant heard Arbi Karimov saying to the servicemen: \u201cWhy are you taking my father? He is an elderly man\u201d. After that the officers talked among themselves and released the first applicant. Having spent about twenty minutes outside, the first applicant was taken back into the house. On his way into the house the first applicant saw that his son had been taken out of the Ural vehicle and put into one of the APCs. In the house the servicemen took off the first applicant’s handcuffs. They ordered the applicants to stay inside, threatening to shoot them and blow up the house if the applicants attempted to go outside.<\/span><\/p>\n15.\u00a0\u00a0Having taken away Arbi Karimov the servicemen started searching the applicants’ house. There was no electricity and the servicemen used torches. The servicemen took a number of items of the applicants’ property, including a couch, pillows, bed linen and fabrics. They also took a number of personal documents, including the first applicant’s passport and his pensioner’s identity card, and the passports of the fourth applicant, Arbi Karimov and the first applicant’s other son Umar Karimov (brother of Arbi Karimov). The applicants’ belongings were loaded into the military vehicles, which was witnessed by a number of the applicants’ neighbours.<\/span><\/p>\n