The ECHR cases of Amanat Ilyasova and Others v. Russia (application no. 27001\/06).<\/p>\n
..<\/span><\/p>\n \n \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 717<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 01.10.2009<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Press release issued by the Registrar<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Chamber judgment<\/span> <\/span><\/a> in respect of Russia<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Amanat Ilyasova and Others v. Russia (<\/span>application <\/span>no. 27001\/06<\/span>)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n ABDUCTION AND DISAPPEARANCE OF A CHECHEN CIVILIAN<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Violations of Articles 2 (right to life), Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging between 2,000\u00a0euros\u00a0(EUR) and EUR\u00a020,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR\u00a05,200 for costs and expenses. <\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Principal facts<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The applicants are three Russian nationals who live in the village of Mesker-Yurt, Shalinskiy District (Chechen Republic). They are the parents and the common-law wife of Mr Musa Ilyasov, born in 1980. Musa has not been seen since the early morning of 11 August 2002 when, following a search of his house and a seizure of his identity documents, he was apprehended by armed men in camouflage uniforms and taken away from his home on a motor vehicle.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Investigation into Musa\u2019s abduction was launched on an unspecified date in 2002 and Musa\u2019s father was granted victim\u2019s status on 5 September 2002. The investigation was suspended several times for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Government submitted that unidentified persons had abducted Musa Ilyasov from his home and that the investigation instituted into his abduction was still pending. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose most of the documents in the investigation file referring to incompatibility of such an action with domestic legislation.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The case concerned the applicants\u2019 allegations that their respective son and husband disappeared in Chechnya after being detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They relied in particular on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Decision of the Court<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Article 2 (disappearance)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Court first noted that the applicants had presented a coherent and convincing picture of Musa\u2019s abduction. It also noted that the Government had not disputed the main factual elements as submitted by the applicants and corroborated by their and the witnesses\u2019 statements. The Court was not persuaded by the Government\u2019s argument that the persons who arrived in Mesker-Yurt village could have been insurgents since it had been unclear how a motorcade of several military vehicles carrying armed members of illegal armed groups could have driven around a village controlled by the federal forces and through military roadblocks and remained unnoticed. Drawing inferences from the Government\u2019s failure to submit the remaining documents which were in their exclusive possession, or to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court considered that Musa had been arrested on 11\u00a0August 2002 at his house in Mesker-Yurt by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In his absence, or of any news about him for over six years, and given the failure of the Government to account for his disappearance, the Court concluded that Musa Ilyasov should be presumed dead and his death could be attributed to the State. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of him.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Article 2 (investigation)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Court noted that the authorities had been made aware of Musa\u2019s abduction immediately on the day after it had taken place. However, the first investigative steps had been taken only three weeks later. In addition, a number of essential investigative steps had been significantly delayed or not taken at all. Furthermore, given that Musa\u2019s mother had not been granted victim\u2019s status and it was not clear whether granting such a status to Musa\u2019s common-law wife had ever been considered, the Court found that the investigation had not been subjected to the required level of public scrutiny. Finally, the Court noted that the investigation had been pending for over six years and had been suspended and resumed several times resulting in lengthy periods of inactivity. As the applicants had had no access to the case file, nor had they been properly informed of the progress of the investigation, they could not have effectively challenged the investigative authorities\u2019 acts in court. Accordingly, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding Musa\u2019s disappearance, in violation of Article 2.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Article 3 (psychological suffering)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Court noted that Musa\u2019s parents and common-law wife had witnessed his abduction following which they had had no news of him for over six years. Throughout this period the applicants had applied to various bodies inquiring about Musa\u2019s fate but had received no plausible explanation. The Court found that the applicants had suffered distress and anguish as a result of their inability to find out what had happened to Musa. The manner in which the authorities had dealt with their complaints had to be considered inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Article 5 (liberty and security of person)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Court noted that Musa\u2019s detention had not been acknowledged and no custody record existed or official information about his fate and whereabouts. This fact had constituted a most serious failing since it made it possible for those responsible for a person\u2019s detention to escape accountability for the fate of a detainee. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Musa had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which had constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in this Article.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Article 13 (effective remedy)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Court recalled its finding under Article 2, namely that the criminal investigation had been ineffective. Consequently the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil as suggested by the Government, had been undermined. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n CASE OF AMANAT ILYASOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n (Application no. 27001\/06)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n JUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\n STRASBOURG<\/span><\/p>\n 1 October 2009<\/span><\/p>\n This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article\u00a044<\/span> \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In the case of Amanat Ilyasova and Others 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 10 September 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. 27001\/06) 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 in paragraph 5 below (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 16 June 2006.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by lawyers from 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 G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 June 2008 the Court decided to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and 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>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application and the application of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Having examined 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 applicants are:<\/span><\/p>\n (1)\u00a0\u00a0Ms Amanat (also spelled Aminat) Ilyasova, born in 1958;<\/span><\/p>\n (2)\u00a0\u00a0Mr Khizir Ilyasov, born in 1954, and<\/span><\/p>\n (3)\u00a0\u00a0Ms Khadizhat Dudayeva, born in 1984.<\/span><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants live in the village of Mesker-Yurt, in the Shalinskiy District of the Chechen Republic.<\/span><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Musa (also spelled Mussa) Khizirovich Ilyasov, born in 1980. The third applicant is his common-law wife.<\/span><\/p>\n A.\u00a0Apprehension and subsequent disappearance of Musa Ilyasov<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants’ account<\/span><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0At the material time Musa Ilyasov and the applicants lived at\u00a091\u00a0Lenina Street in a single household consisting of two separate buildings with a common courtyard. The property was surrounded by a fence and had a common entrance gate. The first and second applicants occupied one house, which had a grocery store attached to it belonging to the family. Musa\u00a0Ilyasov and the third applicant, who had got married around the end of June, apparently according to the local customs, lived in the second building.<\/span><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On the night of 11 August 2002 the first and second applicants were sleeping in their house while the third applicant and Musa Ilyasov were in the other house.<\/span><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Between 4 and 5 a.m. a group of armed men arrived at the Ilyasovs’ home in two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and two grey UAZ vehicles (\u201c\u0442\u0430\u0431\u043b\u0435\u0442\u043a\u0430<\/span>\u201d), and stopped at the gate. Their arrival was witnessed by Ms A., who lived at 67\u00a0Lenina Street and was woken up by the noise of the vehicles passing by her house. Having heard the noise, Ms.\u00a0A. went outside and followed the APCs and the UAZ vehicles to the applicants’ home. When she attempted to approach, she saw that about ten armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had blocked off the perimeter of the applicants’ home. She inferred that they were servicemen. They ordered her to leave immediately, threatening to kill her if she disobeyed; she therefore returned home. The majority of the group then entered the grocery store attached to the first and second applicants’ house. The men took away packages of various goods such as juice, cigarettes and chicken legs.<\/span><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Meanwhile, several intruders entered the first and second applicants’ house. One of them pointed his gun and his torch at the applicants and they saw that he was wearing a camouflage uniform and a mask. The second applicant, who had served in the army, decided that the intruders were Russian servicemen because they spoke unaccented Russian, wore camouflage uniforms, carried submachine guns and had the usual military equipment. The second applicant did not specify what that equipment had been. The man in the mask requested the second applicant to identify himself. The second applicant gave his name and showed his identity papers. Having checked them, the armed man asked the second applicant whether there were other men in the house. The second applicant replied that his son was there and immediately asked the intruders whether his son would be taken away. They reassured him that they would not take his son away and that they had just come to check whether any rebel fighters were hiding in the house. They then quickly searched the house.<\/span><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Meanwhile, several armed men entered the house where the third applicant and Musa Ilyasov were sleeping. The armed men were speaking Russian. They checked Musa Ilyasov’s identity papers and seized them. One of them said to another: \u201cThis is not the man. This is Musa Ilyasov.\u201d The other replied: \u201cSo what? We are going to sort it out later\u201d. They then handcuffed Musa\u00a0Ilyasov, put a pillow case on his head and took him outside in his underwear. When the third applicant tried to object, the intruders threatened her and ordered her to stay quiet. All the applicants were ordered to stay in their houses. In particular, the intruder who stayed with the first and the second applicants ordered them not to leave the house during the ensuing fifteen minutes and warned them that he would stay at the gate and observe them. The house door being open, the first and second applicants noticed two APCs at the gate. The third applicant saw an APC and a UAZ car outside the house. She also saw Musa\u00a0Ilyasov being led outside in his underwear by the servicemen, with a pillow case on his head.<\/span><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Once outside, Musa Ilyasov was put into one of the vehicles at the gate. The vehicles drove away on the main Gudermes road in the direction of the crossroads to Mesker-Yurt and Argun.<\/span><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0When the APCs and the UAZ vehicles left, the second applicant went outside. At about the same moment Ms A. came to the applicants’ home together with her husband. The second applicant took his car and tried to follow the tracks left by the APCs and the UAZ vehicles. He arrived at the roadblock of the federal forces located at the entrance to the village and asked the servicemen if they had seen a convoy of several APCs. Despite the presence of APC tyre tracks, the servicemen denied having seen them. On the same day Ms A. and her husband also went to the same roadblock. She described to the servicemen the APCs and the UAZ vehicles she had seen and asked them in which direction they had driven, but the servicemen refused to provide any information.<\/span><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0In her statement to her representatives the first applicant also submitted that her neighbours had seen a Niva vehicle.<\/span><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants have had no news of Musa Ilyasov since 11 August 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0According to the first applicant, the third applicant had a miscarriage three days after the abduction of Musa Ilyasov. The applicants did not furnish any evidence to that effect.<\/span><\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0In support of their account of the events the applicants submitted a written statement made by the first applicant to her representatives on 16\u00a0August 2005; a written statement made by the second applicant to his representatives on 15 June 2006; a written statement made by the third applicant to her representatives on 16 August 2005; a written statement by Ms A. made on 15 June 2006; and a hand-drawn map of the applicants’ home in Mesker-Yurt.<\/span><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0In her statement of 16 August 2005 the first applicant referred to the third applicant as her \u201cson’s wife Khadizhat Ismailovna Dudayeva\u201d and her \u201cdaughter-in-law Khadizhat\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Government’s account<\/span><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that on the night of 11 August 2002 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms had abducted Musa\u00a0Ilyasov from his house at 91 Lenina Street, Mesker-Yurt, and had taken him away.<\/span><\/p>\n B.\u00a0The search for Musa Ilyasov and the investigation into his kidnapping<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants’ account<\/span><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0As 11 August 2002 was a Sunday, on 12 August 2002 the first and second applicants went to the town of Shali. There they complained about the abduction of Musa Ilyasov to the Shalinskiy district office of the Interior (ROVD) and the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office (\u201cthe district prosecutor’s office\u201d). According to the second applicant, the district prosecutor’s office formally registered their complaint. The applicants did not furnish copies of those applications.<\/span><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date the district prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Musa Ilyasov under Article\u00a0126\u00a0\u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned the number 59232.<\/span><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 September 2002 the district prosecutor’s office granted the second applicant the status of victim in criminal case no.\u00a059232 and notified him accordingly on the same day.<\/span><\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 September 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic (\u201cthe republican prosecutor’s office\u201d) forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about the abduction of his son to the district prosecutor’s office for examination.<\/span><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0By letters of 23 September 2002 the republican prosecutor’s office replied to the first and second applicants that it had examined their complaints of 27 August 2002 about the abduction of Musa Ilyasov. The applicants were informed that the district prosecutor’s office was investigating the abduction of their son and that it would verify the applicants’ submissions in that regard.<\/span><\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 October 2002 the first applicant wrote to the Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and the republican prosecutor’s office, describing in detail the circumstances of the abduction of Musa Ilyasov on 11 February 2002. She stated, among other things, that he had been abducted by servicemen of the Russian federal forces who had been wearing camouflage uniforms and had been carrying weapons. She pointed out that she herself had seen an APC and a UAZ vehicle at the gate and that her neighbours had seen a further APC, another UAZ vehicle and, possibly, an ARV (armoured reconnaissance vehicle). She requested that the abduction of her son be investigated and that the neighbours be questioned about the circumstances of the incident.<\/span><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 November 2002 the republican prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaint about the abduction of her son to the district prosecutor’s office and instructed it \u201cto consider whether an investigation should be opened into the abduction of Musa Ilyasov by unidentified armed men\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 November 2002 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic (\u201cthe MVD\u201d) forwarded the first applicant’s request for assistance in the search for her son to the ROVD for the purposes of organising a search.<\/span><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 November 2002 the republican prosecutor’s office informed the Envoy of the President of the Russian Federation for human rights and freedoms in the Chechen Republic that the district prosecutor’s office was conducting an investigation into the abduction of Musa Ilyasov.<\/span><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 November 2002 the republican prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation in criminal case no.\u00a059232 had been suspended, but that operational and search measures aimed at identifying the culprits were under way.<\/span><\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 28 November 2002 the republican prosecutor’s office replied to the first applicant that the district prosecutor’s office was investigating criminal case no.\u00a059232 and that unspecified operational and search measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Musa Ilyasov were under way.<\/span><\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 November and 10 December 2002 the first applicant again complained to various State bodies, including the Minister of the Interior, about the abduction of Musa Ilyasov. She described in detail the circumstances of his abduction by servicemen of the Russian federal forces who had arrived in several APCs and had worn camouflage uniforms.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),
\n5 (right to liberty and security),
\n13 (right to an effective remedy)
\n<\/span>of the European Convention on Human Rights<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span> Anatoly Kovler,
\n<\/span> Elisabeth Steiner,
\n<\/span> Dean Spielmann,
\n<\/span> Sverre Erik Jebens,
\n<\/span> Giorgio Malinverni,
\n<\/span> George Nicolaou, judges,
\n<\/span>and Andr\u00e9 Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar<\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n