<\/a>Chechen Republic). They are the wife and son of Abdulkasin Zaurbekov who was born in 1951. On 17\u00a0October 2000, having been told that his contract at the Temporary Office of the Interior of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny (the Oktyabrskiy VOVD) as a crane operator would not be extended, he went there to collect his wages with his son, Ayndi, who waited outside for him to return; he has not been seen since. The applicants alleged that the authorities were responsible for their relative\u2019s disappearance and that the investigation into their allegation was inadequate.\u00a0They relied, in particular, on Articles\u00a02 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article\u00a038 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court found it established that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov entered, and never left, the premises of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. There has been no reliable news of the applicants\u2019 relative since 17\u00a0October 2000 and the Government\u00a0did not submit any reasonable explanation as to what had happened to him after that date. In the context of the conflict in Chechnya, in a situation where the applicants\u2019 relative entered the premises of a police station and went missing for years, it may be presumed, even in the absence of any conclusive evidence as to what exactly happened to him afterwards, that he was placed in unacknowledged detention under the control of the State. The Court further noted that these circumstances could be\u00a0described as life-threatening, given, in particular, the available information attesting several other cases of disappearance from the premises of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD of Grozny in September\u00a0\u2013\u00a0October 2000.\u00a0Abdulkasim Zaurbekov went\u00a0missing for a considerable lapse of time and\u00a0has to be presumed dead following unacknowledged detention by State agents. The Court further found that the Russian Government had not accounted for the death of the applicants\u2019 relative during his detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article\u00a02 as regards the disappearance of Abdulkasim Zaurbekov. It also\u00a0held\u00a0that there had been a\u00a0further violation of Article\u00a02 on account of the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Abdulkasim Zaurbekov.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court\u00a0noted that it\u00a0was unable to establish, to the necessary degree of proof, the exact way in which Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had died and whether he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention and therefore held that there had been no violation of Article\u00a03 as regards the alleged ill-treatment of Abdulkasim Zaurbekov.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court\u00a0considered that the applicants had suffered distress and anguish as a result of their relative\u2019s disappearance and of their inability to find out what had happened to him or to receive up-to-date and exhaustive information on the investigation. The manner in which the applicants\u2019 complaints have been dealt with by the authorities\u00a0had to\u00a0be considered as amounting to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3.<\/span><\/p>\nReferring to its finding that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been a victim of unacknowledged detention, the Court found that this constituted a particularly grave violation of his right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article\u00a013 in respect of the alleged violations of Article\u00a02, and no violation of Article\u00a013 as regards the alleged violation of Article\u00a03 in respect of Abdulkasim Zaurbekov.\u00a0No separate issues arose under Article\u00a013 in respect of the alleged violation of Article\u00a03 in respect of the applicants on account of mental suffering and in respect of the alleged violation of Article\u00a05.<\/span><\/p>\nFinally, the Court held unanimously that there had been a failure to comply with Article\u00a038 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(a) of the Convention in that the Russian Government refused to submit\u00a0the documents requested by the Court.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR\u00a08,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR\u00a025,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR\u00a07,150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\nZulpa Akhmatova and Others v. Russia <\/span>(nos. 13569\/02 and 13573\/02)<\/span><\/p>\nThe applicants are six Russian nationals: Zulpa Akhmatova, born in 1939, Abaz Debizov, born in 1932, now deceased, Taus Serbiyeva, born in 1932, Saret Yasadova, born in 1963, and Sharpudi Bargayev, born in 1956, who live in Novye Atagi (Chechen Republic); and, Islam Serbiyev, born in 1964, who lives in Grozny. Ms Akhmatova and Mr\u00a0Debizov are the parents of Said-Magomed Debizov, born in 1967; Ms Serbiyeva and Mr\u00a0Serbiyev are the mother and brother of Iznovr Serbiyev, born in 1967; and, Ms Yasadova and Mr Bargayev are the parents of Bekkhan Bargayev, born in 1981. The families have had no news of\u00a0their relatives since 14\u00a0January 2001. They alleged that the three men disappeared after being detained by Russian servicemen during a \u201csweeping operation\u201d.\u00a0They relied, in particular, on Articles\u00a02 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy).<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court held unanimously that there had been a failure to comply with Article\u00a038 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(a) of the Convention in that the Government had refused to submit documents requested by the Court.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court found that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform in broad daylight, equipped with military vehicles,\u00a0had been\u00a0able to move freely through military roadblocks, to check identity documents and to arrest several persons in an urban area, strongly supported the applicants\u2019 allegation that these were\u00a0Russian servicemen. Drawing inferences from the Government\u2019s failure, despite specific requests from the Court, to submit\u00a0documents\u00a0from the criminal investigation file which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court considered that Said-Magomed Debizov, Iznovr Serbiyev and Bekkhan Bargayev\u00a0had been\u00a0arrested on 14\u00a0January 2001 in Novye Atagi by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. There had been no reliable news of them since then and\u00a0the Government\u00a0had not submitted any explanation as to what had happened to them after their arrest. In the context of the conflict in Chechnya, when a person\u00a0had been\u00a0detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Said-Magomed Debizov, Iznovr Serbiyev and Bekkhan Bargayev or of any news of them for over seven years supported this assumption. Therefore they\u00a0had to\u00a0be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by\u00a0Russian servicemen. Noting that the authorities had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation\u00a0of\u00a0Article\u00a02 in respect of Said-Magomed Debizov, Iznovr Serbiyev and Bekkhan Bargayev.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court also\u00a0held unanimously that there had been a further\u00a0violation\u00a0of Article\u00a02\u00a0concerning the Russian authorities\u2019 failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which\u00a0the applicants\u2019 relatives\u00a0had been killed.<\/span><\/p>\nFurthermore, the Court considered that the applicants had suffered, and continued to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their family members and their inability to find out what had\u00a0happened to them. The manner in which their complaints had been dealt with by the authorities\u00a0had to be considered\u00a0as inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court further\u00a0found that Said-Magomed Debizov, Iznovr Serbiyev and Bekkhan Bargayev\u00a0had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in\u00a0that Article 5.<\/span><\/p>\nFinally, the\u00a0Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article\u00a013 in conjunction with Article\u00a02, and\u00a0that no separate issues arose under Article\u00a013 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles\u00a03 and\u00a05.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court awarded EUR\u00a08,000, each, to the mothers of Said-Magomed Debizov and Iznovr Serbiyev in respect of pecuniary damage. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR\u00a035,000 to Said-Magomed Debizov\u2019s mother, EUR\u00a035,000, jointly, to the mother and brother of Iznovr Serbiyev, and EUR\u00a035,000, jointly, to Bekkhan Bargayev\u2019s parents. For costs and expenses, the applicants were awarded EUR\u00a09,150. (The judgment is available only in English.)<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The ECHR cases of Yusupova and Zaurbekov v. Russia (application no. 22057\/02), Zulpa Akhmatova and Others v. Russia (application nos. 13569\/02 and 13573\/02).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-417","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-cases"],"views":1494,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=417"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":418,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417\/revisions\/418"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}