The ECHR case of Atabayeva and Others v. Russia (application no. 26064\/02).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
..<\/span><\/p>\n \n \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 428<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 12.6.2008<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Press release issued by the Registrar<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n CHAMBER JUDGMENT<\/span> The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment<\/span><\/a> in the case of Atabayeva and Others v. Russia <\/span>(application no. 26064\/02).<\/span><\/p>\n The Court held unanimously that there had been:<\/span><\/p>\n \u00b7 <\/span>a failure to comply with Article 38 \u00a7 1 (a)<\/span> (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that the Government refused to submit documents requested by the Court;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00b7 <\/span>a violation of Article 2<\/span> (right to life) of the Convention in respect of Ramzan Kukuyev;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00b7 <\/span>a violation of Article 2<\/span> in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Ramzan Kukuyev disappeared;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00b7 <\/span>a violation of Article 5<\/span> (right to liberty and security) in respect of Ramzan Kukuyev;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00b7 <\/span>a violation of Article 13<\/span> (right to an effective remedy) in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants, jointly, 10,000\u00a0euros\u00a0(EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR\u00a035,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,650 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Principal facts<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The applicants, Maryam Khasanovna Atabayeva, Radima Ramzanovna Kukuyeva, Makka Ramzanovna Kukuyeva and Markha Ramzanovna Kukuyeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1973, 1993, 1996 and 1998, respectively, and live in Tsa-Vedeno (Chechnya). They are the spouse and children of Mr Ramzan Kukuyev, who was born in 1966.<\/span><\/p>\n According to their account, in the morning of 3 May 2001 the Russian federal security forces commenced a \u201csweeping\u201d operation in the village of Tsa-Vedeno.<\/span><\/p>\n Between 5 and 6 a.m. on that day a group of about forty servicemen entered the house in which the Kukuyevs lived with other family members. Two or three of the military personnel were wearing masks. Ramzan Kukuyev was ordered to show his identity papers which he produced together with a medical certificate stating that he was not fit for work. The male members of the family were taken into the courtyard where they were ordered to take off their shirts and were body searched. The military also searched the household.<\/span><\/p>\n The servicemen then forced Ramzan Kukuyev, his brother and two cousins into armoured personnel carriers (\u201cAPCs\u201d) which drove away. His wife attempted to follow them but the servicemen threatened her with firearms. His four-year-old daughter ran after her father, but one of the soldiers threw her aside with the result that she fell and broke her collar bone.<\/span><\/p>\n Ramzan Kukuyev, along with other residents of Tsa-Vedeno arrested during the \u201csweeping\u201d operation, was taken to a federal military base on the outskirts of the village.<\/span><\/p>\n According to a resident of Tsa-Vedeno detained at the same time, in the evening the military ordered the villagers to stand in a row. Some of them, including Ramzan Kukuyev, were ordered out of the line. They were blindfolded and taken to a military helicopter. The helicopter and the servicemen then left in the direction of the town of Shali. Ramzan Kukuyev has not been seen since.<\/span><\/p>\n The events of 3 May 2001, including the detention and disappearance of Ramzan Kukuyev, were reported by a number of human rights NGOs, and in particular by Human Rights Watch in its report \u201cLast seen…: continued \u2018disappearances\u2019 in Chechnya<\/span>\u201d (April 2002) and by the Memorial Human Rights Centre in June 2003.<\/span><\/p>\n According to the Government\u2019s version of events, at about 11 a.m. on 3 May 2001 unidentified persons in masks and camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns arrived in armoured vehicles in the village of Tsa-Vedeno. They detained 14 residents of the village and took them away to an unknown destination. Subsequently, all the villagers except for the Ramzan Kukuyev and two others were released.<\/span><\/p>\n From 4 May 2001 the first applicant applied repeatedly to various public bodies, including the military commander\u2019s office, the prosecutor\u2019s office of the Vedeno District (\u201cthe district prosecutor\u2019s office\u201d), other prosecutors\u2019 offices at different levels, the Office of the President of Russia and the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen<\/strong> Republic. She informed them how her husband had been detained and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. In most cases the enquiries remained unanswered or only formal replies were given indicating that her requests had been forwarded to various prosecutors\u2019 offices.<\/span><\/p>\n The first applicant was not informed promptly of the decision taken in November 2001 to institute a criminal investigation into her husband\u2019s abduction. Subsequently the criminal proceedings were suspended on several occasions, but she never received the relevant decisions. The investigating authorities questioned the first applicant on several occasions, but no other members of the Kukuyev family or neighbours were ever questioned.<\/span><\/p>\n The investigation failed to establish involvement of the Russian military. Nor did it identify the alleged perpetrators or establish Ramzan Kukuyev\u2019s whereabouts.<\/span><\/p>\n Despite specific requests made by the Court on two occasions, the Government refused to submit a copy of the entire investigation file, stating that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses.<\/span><\/p>\n The Government only submitted a list of documents in the file, from which it could be ascertained that there were at least 186 pages in the file, and several procedural documents.<\/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 28\u00a0June 2002 and declared partly admissible on 7\u00a0June 2007.<\/span><\/p>\n Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Christos Rozakis<\/span> (Greek), President<\/span>,
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nATABAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nNina Vaji\u0107<\/span> (Croatian),
\nAnatoly Kovler<\/span> (Russian),
\nElisabeth Steiner<\/span> (Austrian),
\nKhanlar Hajiyev<\/span> (Azerbaijani),
\nDean Spielmann<\/span> (Luxemburger),
\nSverre Erik Jebens<\/span> (Norwegian), judges<\/span>,<\/p>\n