{"id":446,"date":"2009-05-11T01:00:08","date_gmt":"2009-05-11T08:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/?p=446"},"modified":"2009-05-11T01:00:08","modified_gmt":"2009-05-11T08:00:08","slug":"dzhamayevy-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/2009\/05\/dzhamayevy-v-russia\/","title":{"rendered":"Dzhamayevy v. Russia"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The ECHR case of Dzhamayevy v. Russia (application no. 43170\/04).<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #ffffff;\">..<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #ffffff;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #ffffff;\">\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #ffffff;\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Normal--Char\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"margin-top: 72pt; text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Normal--Char\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">CASE OF DZHAMAYEVA  AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Normal--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">(Application no.  43170\/04)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-top: 132pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 0pt;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">JUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-top: 36pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 0pt;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">STRASBOURG<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 0pt;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">8 January 2009<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-top: 24pt; text-indent: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">This 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<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> <br style=\"page-break-before: always;\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fCase\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In the case of Dzhamayevy v. Russia,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The  European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber  composed of:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\">Christos  Rozakis,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> President,<br \/>\n<\/span> Nina Vaji\u0107,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"><br \/>\n<\/span> Anatoly Kovler,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"><br \/>\n<\/span> Elisabeth Steiner,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"><br \/>\n<\/span> Khanlar Hajiyev,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"><br \/>\n<\/span> Giorgio Malinverni,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"><br \/>\n<\/span> George Nicolaou,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> judges,<\/span><\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\">and S\u00f8ren Nielsen, <span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Section  Registrar<\/span><\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Having  deliberated in private on 4 December 2008,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Delivers  the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fHead\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">PROCEDURE<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0The  case originated in an application (no. 43170\/04) 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 18 November 2004.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\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 Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian  Federation at the European Court of Human Rights and subsequently by  their new representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0On  1 September 2005 the Court decided to apply Rule\u00a041 of the Rules of Court  and to grant priority treatment to the application and on 21\u00a0January\u00a02008  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<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fHead\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">THE FACTS<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">4.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants are:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0Ms  Salamat Dudayevna Dzhamayeva, born in 1947;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Ms  Khedishit Issayevna Dzhamayeva, born in 1974;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0Ms  Kheda Issayevna Dzhamayeva, born in 1971;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">4.\u00a0\u00a0Mr  Magomed Ismailovich Dzhamayev, born in 2001.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">They  live in Staryye Atagi, the Chechen Republic.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0\u00a0Disappearance of Ismail Dzhamayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1. The applicants&#8217; account<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">5.\u00a0\u00a0The  first applicant is the mother, the second and third applicants are the  sisters and the fourth applicant is the son of Mr Ismail Issayevich  Dzhamayev, born in 1981. They lived together in the village of Stariye  Atagi, the Grozny District. Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was a student of mathematics.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(a)\u00a0Sweeping operation in Stariye Atagi<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">6.\u00a0\u00a0According  to the applicants, from 6 to 11 March 2002 federal military officers,  under the command of General Borisov, conducted a sweeping operation  (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0437\u0430\u0447\u0438\u0441\u0442\u043a\u0430<\/span>) in the village of Stariye Atagi involving  around 10,000 servicemen, 50 armoured personnel carriers (\u201cAPCs\u201d)  and several military helicopters.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">7.\u00a0\u00a0Throughout  the said period the military besieged Stariye Atagi and restricted freedom  of movement in the village. They organised a filtering point at the  poultry-yard and the mill on the outskirts of Stariye Atagi where they  kept the residents detained during the operation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">8.\u00a0\u00a0In  total fifteen men residing in Stariye Atagi were apprehended between  6 and 11 March 2002. Whilst some of them were subsequently released,  eleven residents disappeared. Relatives of ten of those who disappeared  applied to the Court (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Arzu<\/span><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Akhmadova and Others v. Russia<\/span>, no.\u00a013670\/03).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(b)\u00a0Detention of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">9.\u00a0\u00a0According  to the applicants, Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was apprehended in the following  circumstances. In the morning of 6 March 2002 the first applicant asked  him to go and see his uncle who lived in the same village and buy something  for him in the village shop. When Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was in the street  apparently on the way from the shop to his uncle&#8217;s house, he saw two  APCs approaching. He got frightened, turned around the corner to Bezymyannaya  Street and dropped in at Mr\u00a0B.&#8217;s, his acquaintance. Mr\u00a0B.&#8217;s mother let  him in. As soon as he entered, servicemen ran into the yard after him.  They said that there was a sweeping operation in the village and that  they would check the house. They searched the house. After the search  they took Mr B. and Mr Ismail Dzhamayev with them. Mr B.&#8217;s mother asked  them not to take the children away since they had all their documents  with them. The servicemen checked the documents and then put Mr B. and  Mr Ismail Dzhamayev in an APC. When Mr B.&#8217;s mother tried to intervene,  however, the servicemen pushed her aside, hit her against the wall and  left her lying on the ground.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">10.\u00a0\u00a0The  next day Mr B. was released. He said that after they had been apprehended,  the servicemen took them around the village in the APC for approximately  two or three hours while they checked other houses. They were thrown  on the floor of the APC and the servicemen put their feet on them. Then  they were taken to the filtration point. Mr B. said that he had heard  Mr Dzhamayev&#8217;s voice when the latter had been questioned. They had asked  him what he had been doing at B.&#8217;s house, and Mr Dzhamayev had explained  that he had gone to the shop and had just dropped by. When Mr B. heard  that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had not returned home he was surprised because  he had heard nothing during the night and thought that Mr\u00a0Dzhamayev had  been released.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">11.\u00a0\u00a0Upon  his release Mr B. was barely alive because of the beating he had received  from the servicemen. He died six months later.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(c)\u00a0\u00a0Other incidents in Stariye Atagi during  the sweeping operation of 6\u00a0&#8211;\u00a010\u00a0March 2002<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">12.\u00a0\u00a0On  7 March 2002 the residents of Stariye Atagi found several bodies in  an abandoned house in the village. The applicants heard others saying  that the people had first been blown up and then burned. It was impossible  to identify them. However, somebody said that the bodies of some of  the persons apprehended on 6 March 2002 had been seen.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">13.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants also heard that a car had been burned on 9 March 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">14.\u00a0\u00a0On  10 March 2002 Mr T. Kh., Mr R. D. and Mr V. D. were apprehended and  then held at a mill. They were put in a pit where they saw an inscription  on the wall \u201cMaka and Amir were here\u201d. Although Mr\u00a0Dzhamayev&#8217;s name  was Ismail, everybody had called him Maka since his childhood. One of  the servicemen confirmed that Mr Dzhamayev and Mr\u00a0Amir Pokayev had been  held there and said that they had been released in the afternoon the  previous day, 9\u00a0March 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">15.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants concluded that Mr Dzhamayev could not have been one of the  persons whose burnt bodies had been found in the burnt house on 7\u00a0March  2002 or in the car burnt on 9 March 2002. They alleged that on 9\u00a0March  2002, instead of being released, he had been transferred elsewhere.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2. Information submitted by the Government<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">16.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government confirmed that a sweeping operation had been conducted in  the village of Stariye Atagi from 6 to 13 March 2002. The aim of the  operation had been to find and arrest members of illegal armed groups  who had abducted and killed four servicemen of the FSB on 12\u00a0February  2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">17.\u00a0\u00a0On  7 March 2002, at around 2 p.m., a fight broke out between members of  the illegal armed groups and federal servicemen in a house at 81 Nagornaya  Street. As a result of the use of small arms and grenade dispensers,  four members of the illegal armed group were killed. Since the house  was set on fire, bodies were severely burnt; after an inspection by  law-enforcement officers they were handed over to the local administration  for burial.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">18.\u00a0\u00a0On  9 March 2002 a group of servicemen of military unit no. 3228 at a checkpoint  situated within three kilometres from Stariye Atagi was fired at from  a car that approached the checkpoint. The servicemen fired back. The  explosives contained in the car were blown up, the car was set on fire  and the three members of an illegal armed group in it were killed. Their  bodies were also severely burnt and handed over to the local administration  for burial. An AKM machine gun without its wooden parts, RGD-5 grenades  without fuses, a makeshift hand grenade launcher, and other components  of AKM machine guns and cartridge cases were found in the car and seized.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">19.\u00a0\u00a0After  the operation had been completed, village residents lodged applications  concerning the apprehension and subsequent disappearance of eleven residents  of Stariye Atagi, including Mr Ismail Dzhamayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant information disclosed in relation  to the case of Arzu\u00a0Akhmadova and Others v. Russia, no. 13670\/03<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">20.\u00a0\u00a0On  13 March 2002, after the special operation was over and the restrictions  were lifted, the villagers brought all the unidentified corpses to Grozny.  It appears that they did not manage to contact the authorities, and  later that day they returned the bodies to Stariye Atagi.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">21.\u00a0\u00a0On  14 or 15 March 2002 officers of the Grozny district office of the Interior  (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0420\u041e\u0412\u0414 \u0413\u0440\u043e\u0437\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430<\/span>) took the corpses  to the village of Tolstoy-Yurt intending to send them on to Mozdok for  a forensic examination.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">22.\u00a0\u00a0On  1 April 2002 D., an investigator from the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the  Chechen Republic, delivered the bodies back to Stariye Atagi. The corpses  were wrapped in bags and were decomposed. They remained unidentified.  D. explained to the villagers that the prosecutor&#8217;s office had insufficient  funds to conduct the forensic examination of the corpses and that the  refrigerators in the forensic examination department in which they had  been kept had been out of order.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">23.\u00a0\u00a0On  3 April 2002 the residents of Stariye Atagi buried the unidentified  bodies.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0The search for Mr Ismail Dzhamayev and the  investigation<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties&#8217; submissions in the present  case<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">24.\u00a0\u00a0Immediately  after Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been apprehended, the applicants started  searching for him. They lodged numerous applications with prosecutors  of various levels, public bodies and regional administrative authorities.  They also visited a number of State bodies. The applicants mainly received  formal responses informing them that their requests had been forwarded  to various prosecutor&#8217;s offices for examination.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">25.\u00a0\u00a0On  13 March 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Grozny District (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430 \u0413\u0440\u043e\u0437\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430<\/span>)  instituted a criminal investigation under Article\u00a0105\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02\u00a0(a) of the Criminal  Code of Russia (murder of two or more persons) in respect of the disappearance  of 13 residents of Stariye Atagi, including Mr Ismail Dzhamayev, between  6 and 11 March 2002. The file was assigned no.\u00a056031.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">26.\u00a0\u00a0According  to the applicants, on an unspecified date Mr B. and his mother were  questioned. The second applicant went for questioning together with  them and the relevant records should be in the criminal file.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">27.\u00a0\u00a0According  to the Government, on unspecified dates two of the applicants were granted  victim status in the proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">28.\u00a0\u00a0On  5 April 2002 the local administration of Stariye Atagi (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u043c\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f \u0441\u0435\u043b\u0430 \u0421\u0442\u0430\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0410\u0442\u0430\u0433\u0438<\/span>)  issued the applicants with a certificate confirming that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev  and nine other residents of Stariye Atagi had been apprehended and taken  away by federal military officers between 6 and 11 March 2002 and had  then disappeared. The certificate was signed by the acting head of administration  of Stariye Atagi and bore an official stamp of the administration. It  read, in so far as relevant, as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c[The present] certificate is issued by the  local administration of the village Stariye Atagi in respect of written  applications by the village&#8217;s residents, whose children were apprehended  and taken for passport check in the period between 6 and 10\u00a0March\u00a02002  during the special operation conducted by the federal troops.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The local administration thereby confirms that:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 21pt; text-indent: 7pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0The  following residents of Stariye Atagi were apprehended by the federal  troops and taken to an unknown destination: on 6 March 2002 &#8230; Dzhamayev  Ismail Issayevich, born in 1981 &#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 21pt; text-indent: 7pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0On  13 March 2002 the Grozny Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office instituted criminal  proceedings no. 56031 in respect of the disappearance of the above-named  persons following their relatives&#8217; applications; the investigation is  under way.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0A governmental commission headed by the deputy  chairman of the Government of the Chechen Republic, Magomadov Nasrudin  Nozhayevich, was created (by governmental decree no. 188-rp of 13 March  2002) [to investigate] the events.\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">29.\u00a0\u00a0On  11 March 2004 the Ministry of the Interior informed the first applicant  that, since so far the investigation had failed to establish her son&#8217;s  fate, the Southern Federal District Office of the Interior was engaged  in the search for him.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">30.\u00a0\u00a0On  17 June 2004 a report of a forensic molecular-genetic expert examination  was drawn up according to which Mr Ismail Dzhamayev&#8217;s body was among  the remains of six bodies found at the cemetery.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">31.\u00a0\u00a0On  26 March 2007 the investigation was discontinued on account of the absence  of any indication of a crime allegedly committed by servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant information disclosed in relation  to the case of Arzu\u00a0Akhmadova and Others v. Russia, no. 13670\/03<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">32.\u00a0\u00a0In  their submissions the parties referred to the information provided in  relation to the above case. The Court shall set out below the facts  relevant to the present case.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">33.\u00a0\u00a0On  7 April 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen Republic answered  a request received from Memorial, stating that on 13 March 2002 a criminal  investigation had been instituted under Article 105\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 (a) of the Russian  Criminal Code into the disappearance of 13 residents of Stariye Atagi,  including Mr Ismail Dzhamayev, between 6 and 11 March 2002. The letter  also stated that:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cOn 9 March 2002, at around 3 p.m., a VAZ 21099  vehicle approached a checkpoint of military unit 3179 situated about  4 km away from the outskirts of Stariye Atagi on the road between Chechen-Aul  and Stariye Atagi. In response to [the servicemen&#8217;s] order to stop the  car and produce identity papers, shots were fired from the car. During  the shoot-out four passengers were killed and the car was burnt. During  the examination of the vehicle the remains of a AKM machine gun, a hand  grenade launcher and RGD-5 grenades without fuses were found and seized.  In this connection, on 12 March 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the  Grozny District initiated criminal proceedings in case no. 56030 under  Article 317 of the Russian Criminal Code. The identities of the persons  killed in the car have not yet been established.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">34.\u00a0\u00a0On  21 August 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no.\u00a020102 informed  the applicants that their allegations that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev and other  residents of Stariye Atagi had disappeared during the sweeping operation  had been investigated and that criminal proceedings in criminal cases  nos.\u00a014\/33\/0184-02 and 14\/33\/0185-02 had been instituted in connection  with the combats between the servicemen and the members of the illegal  armed groups and as regards the discovery of four bodies bearing signs  of a violent death in a burnt car on the road from Chechen-Aul to Stariye  Atagi. The letter continued as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cThe preliminary investigation established  that on 9 March 2002, during the special operation in the village of  Stariye Atagi, the servicemen of military unit no. 3228 under the command  of Senior Lieutenant Z. were checking vehicles going out of the village  of Stariye Atagi, since, in accordance with intelligence received, members  of illegal armed groups stationed in Stariye Atagi were planning an  attack on this road.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">At around 3 p.m. a VAZ 21099 car approached the  servicemen of military unit no.\u00a03228 under the command of Z. In reply  to the servicemen&#8217;s order to stop, machine-gun fire was opened from  the car. The servicemen opened return fire with the result that the  car started burning. Subsequently three burnt corpses of unidentified  persons were found in it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 18 May 2002 the criminal proceedings brought  in connection with the servicemen&#8217;s use of firearms were discontinued&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Accordingly, no involvement on the part of the  servicemen in the abduction of [the applicants&#8217; relatives] has ever  been established &#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">35.\u00a0\u00a0On  9 October 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Grozny District sent the  case file to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 for  investigation. The case file was given the number 34\/33\/0657-02.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">36.\u00a0\u00a0On  26 October 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no.\u00a020102 suspended  the investigation on account of the failure to establish the identity  of the culprits. The decision read, in particular:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cDuring the period from 6 to 10 March 2002,  in the course of a special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi,  unidentified servicemen abducted thirteen residents of the village:  A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, I. Kuntayev, I. A. Chagayev,  A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev, I. S. Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov, T.\u00a0S.\u00a0Khadzhayev,  [V. D.], [R. D.], N. Zakayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Upon the completion of the operation on 13 March  2002 [V. D.] and [R. D.] were released. The whereabouts of the other  residents of Stariye Atagi who were apprehended has not been established&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In the course of the investigative actions &#8230;  person(s) who had committed the offence were not identified&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">37.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants and relatives of other disappeared persons were notified  of the decision to suspend the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">38.\u00a0\u00a0On  14 December 2002 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the United Group  Alignment (UGA) quashed the decision to suspend the investigation for  the following reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cThe decision was unfounded since in the course  of the preliminary investigation not all the investigative measures  aimed at identifying persons involved in the disappearance of the named  residents of Stariye Atagi were taken. [In particular,] the military  units that had conducted the special operation in the village were not  identified, the commanders of these units were not questioned, the persons  who had conducted a check and apprehended the [disappeared residents]  were not identified. Therefore, the preliminary investigation should  be reopened.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">39.\u00a0\u00a0On  23 December 2002 the case was taken up again by the military prosecutor  of military unit no. 20102. Relatives of the disappeared persons were  notified of the reopening of the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">40.\u00a0\u00a0On  23 January 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no.\u00a020102 suspended  the investigation on account of the failure to identify persons to be  charged with the offence. Relatives of the disappeared persons were  notified of the decision to suspend the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">41.\u00a0\u00a0By  letter of 18 March 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no.\u00a020102  replied to a query lodged by the SRJI on the applicants&#8217; behalf and  stated that in the file of criminal case no. 56031 opened in relation  to the abduction of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev and other persons there was  no indication that the federal servicemen had been involved in the alleged  offence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">42.\u00a0\u00a0On  2 April 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 notified  the SRJI that the case file of the investigation instituted in connection  with the disappearance of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev and other persons had  been returned to the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen Republic, as  the military prosecutor had no competence over the case in the absence  of evidence of the military personnel&#8217;s involvement in the alleged offence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">43.\u00a0\u00a0On  26 June 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 quashed  the decision of 23 January 2003 and reopened the investigation. Relatives  of the disappeared persons were notified of the reopening.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">44.\u00a0\u00a0On  27 July 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 suspended  the investigation on account of the failure to identify persons to be  charged with the offence. Relatives of the disappeared persons were  notified of the decision.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">45.\u00a0\u00a0On  7 August 2003 the SRJI applied to the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of  the UGA requesting, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">inter alia<\/span>, exhumation of the remains of the unidentified bodies  buried by the residents of Stariye Atagi in a common grave and a forensic  examination with a view to their identification.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">46.\u00a0\u00a0On  29 October 2003 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA quashed  the decision of 27 July 2003 to suspend the investigation on the ground  that the whereabouts of unspecified witnesses had been established which  required further investigative actions. Relatives of the disappeared  persons were notified of the reopening.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">47.\u00a0\u00a0On  19 March 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA suspended  the investigation. The decision read, in particular:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cDuring the period from 6 to 13 March 2002  servicemen from the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior  and the Ministry of the Defence, officials of the Ministry of the Interior  and the FSB conducted a special operation in the village of Stariye  Atagi&#8230; aimed at the identification, arrest and extermination of members  of an illegal armed group and the search for four servicemen of the  FSB who had gone missing.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">During the period when the special operation  was being conducted unidentified persons in camouflage uniform accompanied  by cars and armoured vehicles abducted [the following] residents of  Stariye Atagi: A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I.\u00a0Dzhamayev, I. Kuntayev,  I. A. Chagayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev, I. S. Magomadov, M.\u00a0Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov,  T.\u00a0S.\u00a0Khadzhayev, A. N. Zakayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Taking into account that the term of the preliminary  investigation has expired and that the investigative measures that could  be taken in the absence of a suspect have been completed, [the investigation  should be suspended].\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">48.\u00a0\u00a0Relatives  of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision to suspend  the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">49.\u00a0\u00a0On  22 May 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA quashed the  decision and reopened the investigation. Relatives of the disappeared  persons were informed accordingly.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">50.\u00a0\u00a0On  22 June 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA again suspended  the investigation. The decision read, in so far as relevant:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cDuring the period from 6 to 13 March 2002  servicemen from the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior  and the Ministry of the Defence, officials of the Ministry of the Interior  and the FSB conducted a special operation in the village of Stariye  Atagi&#8230; aimed at the identification, arrest and extermination of members  of an illegal armed group and the search for four servicemen of the  FSB who had gone missing.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">At around 4 p.m. on 9 March 2002 in Stariye Atagi  servicemen of military unit 3179 killed three members of the illegal  armed group who were in a car. [Their] bodies were severely damaged  and burnt. No measures were taken to identify them.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">At the same time, according to applications and  statements by residents of Stariye Atagi, during the period when the  special operation was being conducted unidentified persons in camouflage  uniform accompanied by cars and armoured vehicles abducted A. P. Akhmadov,  S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, I. Kuntayev, I. A. Chagayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev,  I.\u00a0S.\u00a0Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov, T.\u00a0S.\u00a0Khadzhayev, A.\u00a0N.\u00a0Zakayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In the course of the investigation the bodies  of the members of the illegal armed groups buried in the cemetery of  Stariye Atagi were exhumed and body tissue taken from them; blood samples  were taken from relatives of the abducted persons. According to the  medical opinion no. 52\/2004, the forensic (molecular-genetic) expert  examination showed that the remains found at the cemetery were those  of I.\u00a0A.\u00a0Chagayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, A. P. Akhmadov  and I.\u00a0S.\u00a0Magomadov&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Taking into account that the term of the preliminary  investigation has expired and that the investigative measures that could  be taken in the absence of a suspect have been completed, [the investigation  should be suspended].\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">51.\u00a0\u00a0On  6 November 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA quashed  the decision and reopened the investigation. Relatives of the disappeared  persons were informed accordingly.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">52.\u00a0\u00a0On  6 December 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA suspended  the investigation again.\u00a0Relatives of the disappeared persons were notified  of the decision.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">53.\u00a0\u00a0On  10 January 2006 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA quashed  the decision of 6 December 2004 and reopened the investigation on the  following grounds:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cIn the course of the investigation significant  discrepancies between statements by residents of Stariye Atagi and servicemen  concerning the detention of the [disappeared] persons and their possible  death as a result of the fighting on 7 and 9\u00a0March 2002 &#8230; were not  resolved. Witness statements in this regard were not duly verified and  recorded.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The investigating authorities did not take comprehensive  measures in order to establish the specific places where the bodies  of A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I.\u00a0Dzhamayev, I.\u00a0A.\u00a0Chagayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev,  and I. S. Magomadov, who, according to their relatives, had been apprehended  together with the other residents of the village, had been found.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Up until now the whereabouts and the fate of  other residents of Stariye Atagi who have been missing since the operation  was conducted in March 2002 have not been established.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In such circumstances the decision to suspend  the preliminary investigation should be quashed and the investigation  resumed.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">54.\u00a0\u00a0On  9 September 2006 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA ordered  another forensic molecular-genetic expert examination aimed at establishing  the fate of several other disappeared persons. The order contained the  following passage:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c&#8230;In the course of the operation a house  situated in Nagornaya Street was shelled and blown up, a red VAZ 21099  car with members of an illegal armed group in it was burned and crushed  by an APC. &#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">C.\u00a0The Court&#8217;s request for the case file<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Despite  specific requests made by the Court to submit a copy of the file in  criminal case no.\u00a056031 (at present no. 34\/00\/0014-03), the Government  did not provide any documents from the case file. They stated that the  investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would  be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure,  since the file contained information of a military nature and personal  data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal  proceedings. At the same time the Government suggested that a Court  delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary  investigation was being conducted, with the exception of documents of  a confidential nature and without the right to make copies.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0The Code of Criminal Procedure<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">55.\u00a0\u00a0Until  1 July 2002 criminal-law matters were governed by the 1960 Code of Criminal  Procedure of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic).  On 1 July 2002 the old Code was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure  of the Russian Federation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">56.\u00a0\u00a0Article  125 of the new CCP lays down a judicial procedure for the consideration  of complaints. Orders of an investigator or prosecutor refusing to institute  criminal proceedings or to terminate a case, and other orders and acts  or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights  and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede a citizen&#8217;s  access to justice may be appealed against to a local district court,  which is empowered to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned  decisions.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">57.\u00a0\u00a0Article  161 of the new CCP prohibits the disclosure of information from the  preliminary investigation file. Under part 3 of the Article, information  from the investigation file may be divulged only with the permission  of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe  the rights and lawful interests of the parties to the criminal proceedings  or prejudice the investigation. Divulging information about the private  lives of parties to criminal proceedings without their permission is  prohibited.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Legislation applicable to counter-terrorist  operations<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">58.\u00a0\u00a0Federal  Law no. 130-FZ of 25 July 1998 on the Suppression of Terrorism (<span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439  \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d \u043e\u0442 25\u00a0\u0438\u044e\u043b\u044f 1998 \u0433. \u2116 130-\u0424\u0417 \u00ab\u041e \u0431\u043e\u0440\u044c\u0431\u0435 \u0441  \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0440\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0437\u043c\u043e\u043c\u00bb<\/span><\/span>) provides as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Section 3. Basic Concepts<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cFor the purposes of the present Federal Law  the following basic concepts shall be applied:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8230; &#8216;suppression of terrorism&#8217; shall refer to  activities aimed at the prevention, detection, suppression and minimisation  of the consequences of terrorist activities;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8216;counter-terrorist operation&#8217; shall refer to  special activities aimed at the prevention of terrorist acts, ensuring  the security of individuals, neutralising terrorists and minimising  the consequences of terrorist acts;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8216;zone of a counter-terrorist operation&#8217; shall  refer to an individual terrain or water surface, means of transport,  building, structure or premises with adjacent territory where a counter-terrorist  operation is conducted;\u00a0&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Section 13. Legal regime in the zone of an  anti-terrorist operation<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c1. In the zone of an anti-terrorist operation,  the persons conducting the operation shall be entitled:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8230; (2) to check the identity documents of private  persons and officials and, where they have no identity documents, to  detain them for identification;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(3) to detain persons who have committed or are  committing offences or other acts in defiance of the lawful demands  of persons engaged in an anti-terrorist operation, including acts of  unauthorised entry or attempted entry to the zone of the anti-terrorist  operation, and to convey such persons to the local bodies of the Ministry  of the Interior of the Russian Federation;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(4) to enter private residential or other premises  &#8230; and means of transport while suppressing a terrorist act or pursuing  persons suspected of committing such an act, when a delay may jeopardise  human life or health;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(5) to search persons, their belongings and vehicles  entering or exiting the zone of an anti-terrorist operation, including  with the use of technical means;\u00a0&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Section 15. Informing the public about terrorist  acts<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c&#8230;2. Information that cannot be released  to the public includes:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(1) information disclosing the special methods,  techniques and tactics of an anti-terrorist operation; &#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(4) information on members of special units,  officers of the operational centre managing an anti-terrorist operation  and persons assisting in carrying out such operation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Section 21. Exemption from liability for damage<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In accordance with the legislation and within  the limits established by it, damage may be caused to the life, health  and property of terrorists, as well as to other legally-protected interests,  in the course of conducting an anti-terrorist operation. However, servicemen,  experts and other persons engaged in the suppression of terrorism shall  be exempted from liability for such damage, in accordance with the legislation  of the Russian Federation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">59.\u00a0\u00a0Federal  Law no. 1026-1 of 18 April 1991 on the Police governs various aspects  of the police service.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">60.\u00a0\u00a0Presidential  Decree no. 1255c of 23 September 1999 on Measures Enhancing the Efficiency  of Counter-Terrorist Operations in the Territory of the North Caucasia  Region provides for the creation of the UGA and contains general provisions  concerning its structure and operation. It also provides for additional  measures to be taken by local authorities and the FSB to maintain public  order and security in the region.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fHead\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">THE LAW<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">I.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman--Char\" style=\"font-family: 'Times New (W1)','Arial'; text-transform: uppercase;\">The government&#8217;s objection CONCERNING non-exhaustion  of domestic remedies<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties&#8217; submissions<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">61.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible  for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the applicants had failed  to challenge either before a higher prosecutor or a court any actions  or omissions of the investigating authorities during the investigation,  as provided by Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and to  appeal against the decision of 26 March 2007 to discontinue the investigation.  They also pointed out that the applicants had not lodged a claim for  compensation of non-pecuniary damage under Articles 1067-69 of the Civil  Code.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">62.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants disputed that objection. They maintained that they had exhausted  all domestic remedies which could be adequate and effective. The applicants  submitted that the criminal-law remedies invoked by the Government were  not effective in the Chechen Republic. They pointed out that applicants  in other cases raising similar issues had lodged complaints under Article  125 of the Code on Criminal procedure, but that these had been to no  avail. The applicants submitted, furthermore, that they were not provided  with a copy of the decision of 26 March 2007 to discontinue the investigation,  which was not furnished to the Court either, and, therefore, could not  have appealed against it. The applicants further argued that the civil-law  remedies relied on by the Government could not be considered effective  since their outcome would depend on the results of the criminal investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">63.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court will examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the  provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant  summary, see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Estamirov and Others v. Russia<\/span>, no. 60272\/00, \u00a7\u00a073-74, 12\u00a0October  2006).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">64.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two  avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable  to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">65.\u00a0\u00a0As  regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through  the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court  has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone  cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought  under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue  any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit  of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful  findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults  or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Khashiyev and Akayeva v.\u00a0Russia<\/span>, nos.\u00a057942\/00 and 57945\/00,  \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0119-21, 24 February 2005, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Estamirov and Others<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a077). In the light of the  above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue  civil remedies.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">66.\u00a0\u00a0As  regards criminal-law remedies, the Court observes that the applicants  complained to the law-enforcement authorities immediately after the  abduction of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev and that an investigation has been  pending since 13 March 2002. The applicants and the Government dispute  the effectiveness of this investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">67.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court considers that this limb of the Government&#8217;s preliminary objection  raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation  which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants&#8217; complaints.  Thus, it considers that this objection should be joined to the merits  and falls to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the  Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  2 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">68.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative  had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and  that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation  of the matter. Article 2 reads:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone&#8217;s right to life shall be protected  by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the  execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime  for which this penalty is provided by law.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as  inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the  use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0in defence of any person from unlawful violence;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(b)\u00a0\u00a0in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent  the escape of a person lawfully detained;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(c)\u00a0\u00a0in action lawfully taken for the purpose of  quelling a riot or insurrection.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties&#8217; submissions<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">69.\u00a0\u00a0The Government referred  to the results of the forensic examination according to which the remains  of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been found at the cemetery where bodies of  the illegal armed groups&#8217; members killed on 7\u00a0and 9 March 2002 had been  buried. They submitted that he had been involved in the fight on 9 March  2002. The Government stated that the special operation conducted in  Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002 had been properly planned  and carried out by competent State bodies in compliance with the applicable  legislation, in particular with Federal Law no. 130-FZ of 25 July 1998  on Suppression of Terrorism, Federal Law no. 1026-1 of 18 April 1991  on the Police and Presidential Decree no.\u00a01255c of 23 September 1999  on Measures Enhancing the Efficiency of Counter-Terrorist Operations  in the Territory of the North Caucasia Region of the Russian Federation.  They further submitted that the force applied had been \u201cabsolutely  necessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention and,  therefore, there had been no breach of the above provision.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">70.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants reiterated  their allegations that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been unlawfully apprehended  by representatives of the State and then killed. Having been under the  control of the authorities, he could not have been involved in the fight  on 9 March 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1. Admissibility<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">71.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court considers, in the light of the parties&#8217; submissions, that the  complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention,  the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. Further,  the Court has already found that the Government&#8217;s objection concerning  the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic criminal remedies should be joined  to the merits of the complaint (see paragraph 66 above). The complaint  under Article\u00a02 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2. Merits<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0The alleged violation of the right to life  of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fi\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">i.\u00a0\u00a0General principles<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">72.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection  afforded by Article\u00a02, it must subject deprivations of life to the most  careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of  State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances. Detained persons  are in a vulnerable position and the obligation on the authorities to  account for the treatment of a detained individual is particularly stringent  where that individual dies or disappears thereafter (see, among other  authorities, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Orhan v. Turkey<\/span>, no. 25656\/94, \u00a7\u00a0326, 18 June 2002, and the  authorities cited therein). Where the events in issue lie wholly, or  in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as  in the case of persons within their control in detention, strong presumptions  of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during  that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting  on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation  (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Salman v. Turkey<\/span> [GC], no. 21986\/93, \u00a7\u00a0100, ECHR 2000-VII,  and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u00c7ak\u0131c\u0131 v. Turkey<\/span> [GC], no. 23657\/94, \u00a7 85, ECHR 1999-IV).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">73.\u00a0\u00a0The  situations where deprivation of life may be justified are exhaustive  and must be narrowly interpreted. The use of force which may result  in the deprivation of life must be no more than \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d  for the achievement of one of the purposes set out in Article 2 \u00a7 2  (a), (b) and (c). This term indicates that a stricter and more compelling  test of necessity must be employed than that normally applicable when  determining whether State action is \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d  under paragraphs 2 of Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention. In assessing  the proportionality of the force used the Court must take into consideration  not only the actions of State agents who actually administer the force  but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as  the planning and control of the actions under examination (see <a name=\"01000001\"><\/a><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom<\/span>, 27 September 1995,  \u00a7\u00a7 146-50, Series\u00a0A no.\u00a0324; <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Andronicou  and Constantinou v. Cyprus<\/span><\/span>, 9\u00a0October 1997, \u00a7 171, <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Reports  of Judgments and Decisions<\/span><\/span><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> O\u011fur\u00a0v.  Turkey<\/span><\/span> [GC], no.\u00a021594\/93, \u00a7\u00a078, ECHR 1999-III).<\/span> 1997-VI; and<\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fi\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">ii.\u00a0\u00a0Establishment of the facts<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">74.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles  relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when  faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention  (for a summary of these, see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Bazorkina v. Russia<\/span>, no. 69481\/01, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0103-09, 27 July 2006).  The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is  being obtained has to be taken into account (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Ireland v. the United Kingdom<\/span>, 18 January 1978, \u00a7 161, Series\u00a0A  no.\u00a025).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">75.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants alleged that on 6 March 2002 Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been  apprehended by Russian servicemen and then disappeared. In this regard  the applicants referred to a statement of Mr B., who had been apprehended  together with him.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">76.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government confirmed that a special operation had been conducted in  Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002. However, they submitted that  servicemen had not apprehended Mr Ismail Dzhamayev. At the same time  the Government stated that he had been killed by servicemen in a fight  that had broken out when fire was opened at servicemen near the road  between Grozny and Shatoi from a car in which Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was  travelling. They referred to the conclusions of the forensic report  according to which Mr Ismail Dzhamayev&#8217;s body was among the remains  of persons allegedly killed in the fight on 7 and 9 March 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">77.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that despite its repeated requests for a copy of the investigation  file in respect of the abduction of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev, the Government  refused to submit the materials requested having produced copies of  decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim  status and of the records of interviews held in March 2002. They relied  on Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes  that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient  to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court  (see<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> Imakayeva\u00a0v. Russia<\/span>, no.\u00a07615\/02, \u00a7\u00a0123, ECHR 2006-&#8230; (extracts)).\u00a0\u00a0In  view of this and bearing in mind the principles cited above, the Court  finds that it can draw inferences from the Government&#8217;s conduct in this  respect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">78.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes, firstly, that it is common ground between the parties that  a special operation was conducted in Stariye Atagi between 6\u00a0and 13 March  2002. It further notes that, according to the applicants, Mr\u00a0Ismail Dzhamayev  had been apprehended by servicemen during the operation and taken to  an unknown destination. They referred in this regard to a statement  of Mr B., who had been apprehended together with Mr\u00a0Ismail Dzhamayev.  The Court observes that the applicants did not provide a statement by  Mr B. to the Court. However, it notes that, according to the applicants,  Mr B. died at the end of 2002, that is, two years before the applicants  lodged the present application. This fact is not disputed by the Government.  The Court further notes that, according to the applicants, Mr\u00a0B. reiterated  his statement to the investigating authorities and relevant records  should be contained in the criminal file. The Government, although having  failed to produce any relevant materials, did not contest these submissions  either. Accordingly, the Court accepts that Mr B. made a statement confirming  that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been apprehended by servicemen in the circumstances  described by the applicants. Moreover, less than a month after the completion  of the operation the administration of Stariye Atagi issued the applicants  with a certificate, confirming that Mr\u00a0Ismail Dzhamayev had been apprehended  by servicemen during the special operation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">79.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that the Government, in their observations, stated that  Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been killed by servicemen in a fight. However,  they barely addressed the applicants&#8217; allegations that their relative  had been apprehended by servicemen in the first place. In this respect  the Government merely noted that the applicants&#8217; version of the events  was not confirmed by the findings of the investigation. The Court observes,  however, that at the early stages of the investigation the applicants&#8217;  allegation that their relative had been apprehended by servicemen was  accepted by the investigating authorities. It refers, in particular,  to the decision to suspend the investigation of 26\u00a0October 2002 (see  paragraph 36 above). At the later stages, in particular in the decision  to suspend the investigation of 19 March 2004 and the order to conduct  a forensic examination of 9 September 2006 (see paragraphs 47 and 54  above), the investigating authorities did not state expressly that the  applicants&#8217; family members had been apprehended by servicemen, but referred  to \u201cunidentified persons in camouflage uniform accompanied by cars  and armoured vehicles\u201d. However, the investigation failed to identify  those persons.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">80.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that the Government thus did not deny that the applicants&#8217;  relative had been abducted by armed men and, at the same time, confirmed  that a special operation had been conducted in the village on the date  of his abduction. The fact that a large group of armed men in uniform,  equipped with military vehicles which could not have been available  to paramilitary groups, proceeded during a large-scale special operation  conducted in the village by the State&#8217;s forces in broad daylight to  apprehend several persons with a view to checking their identity documents,  strongly supports the applicants&#8217; allegation that these were State servicemen.  It further notes that after six years the domestic investigation has  produced no tangible results.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">81.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that where the applicant makes out a prima facie<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> <\/span>case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions  owing to the lack of the necessary documents, it is for the Government  to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to  corroborate the allegations made by the applicant, or to provide a satisfactory  and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The  burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in  their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and\/or Article 3  (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">To\u011fcu v. Turkey<\/span>, no.\u00a027601\/95, \u00a7\u00a095, 31 May 2005, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Akkum and Others v. Turkey<\/span>, no.\u00a021894\/93, \u00a7\u00a0211, ECHR 2005-II).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">82.\u00a0\u00a0Taking  into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants  have made out a prima facie case that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was apprehended  by State servicemen. The Government&#8217;s statement that the investigation  did not find any evidence to support the allegation of involvement of  the special forces in the abduction is insufficient to discharge them  from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the  Government&#8217;s failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive  possession or to provide a plausible explanation of the events in question,  the Court finds it established that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was apprehended  on 6 March 2002 by State servicemen during a security operation in Stariye  Atagi.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">83.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court further notes that his burnt body, which was identified more than  two years later, was found at one of the two locations of the fights  which took place on 7 and 9 March 2002. According to the Government,  he was killed by servicemen during the fight on 9\u00a0March\u00a02002. The Government  have submitted no documents, however, such as military reports, which  could enable the Court to establish the exact circumstances of the fight  the events that took place between Mr\u00a0Ismail Dzhamayev&#8217;s apprehension  and his death. However, the Court finds it more appropriate to address  this issue below when assessing the State&#8217;s compliance with Article  2 of the Convention. For the purpose of establishing the facts the Court  accepts that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was killed by servicemen on 9 March  2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">84.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly,  the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish  to the requisite standard of proof that on 6 March 2002 Mr Ismail Dzhamayev  was apprehended by State servicemen and that he was killed by them on  9\u00a0March\u00a02002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fi\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">iii.\u00a0\u00a0The State&#8217;s compliance with the substantive  obligation under Article 2<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">85.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that in addition to setting out the circumstances when  deprivation of life may be justified, Article 2 implies a primary duty  on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place an appropriate  legal and administrative framework defining the limited circumstances  in which law-enforcement officials may use force and firearms, in the  light of the relevant international standards (see<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> Makaratzis v. Greece <\/span>[GC], no.\u00a050385\/99, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a057-59, ECHR 2004-XI,<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> <\/span>and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Nachova and Others v.\u00a0Bulgaria <\/span>[GC], nos.\u00a043577\/98 and 43579\/98,  \u00a7\u00a096, ECHR\u00a02005-VII). Furthermore, the national law regulating policing  operations must secure a system of adequate and effective safeguards  against arbitrariness and abuse of force and even against avoidable  accident (see<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> Makaratzis<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a058). In particular, law-enforcement  agents must be trained to assess whether or not there is an absolute  necessity to use firearms, not only on the basis of the letter of the  relevant regulations, but also with due regard to the pre-eminence of  respect for human life as a fundamental value (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Nachova and Others<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7 97).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">86.\u00a0\u00a0In  the present case, it has been acknowledged by the Government that Mr  Ismail Dzhamayev was killed by State agents as a result of the intentional  use of lethal force against him. The State&#8217;s responsibility is therefore  engaged, and it is for the State to account for the deaths of the applicants&#8217;  relative. It is notably for the State to demonstrate that the force  used against him by the federal servicemen could be said to have been  absolutely necessary and therefore strictly proportionate to the achievement  of one of the aims set out in paragraph 2 of Article 2.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">87.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that it is faced with conflicting accounts of the events  which led to the killing of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev. According to the applicants,  after he had been apprehended by the State servicemen on 6\u00a0March 2002,  the latter had unlawfully killed him and staged the fight on 9\u00a0March  2002 so as to justify the killing. According to the Government, the  fight on 9 March 2002 had indeed taken place and the applicants&#8217; relative  had been killed as a result of the use of force which was no more than  \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d. The Court will address these conflicting  accounts below.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">88.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes firstly that it is aware of the difficult situation in the  Chechen Republic at the material time, which called for exceptional  measures on the part of the State to suppress the illegal armed insurgency  (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Isayeva and Others v. Russia<\/span>, nos. 57947\/00, 57948\/00 and 57949\/00,  \u00a7\u00a0178, 24 February 2005, or <a name=\"01000002\"><\/a><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Khatsiyeva and Others v. Russia<\/span>, no. 5108\/02, \u00a7\u00a0134, 17\u00a0January  2008). It also does not overlook the fact that an armed conflict, such  as that in Chechnya, may entail developments to which State agents are  called upon to react without prior preparation. Bearing in mind the  difficulties in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human  conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities  and resources, the obligation to protect the right to life must be interpreted  in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden  on the authorities (see, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">mutatis mutandis<\/span>, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Makaratzis<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7 69, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey<\/span>, no. 22535\/93, \u00a7\u00a086, ECHR 2000-III).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">89.\u00a0\u00a0Turning  to the facts of the present case, the Court notes the Government&#8217;s contention  that the special operation conducted in Stariye Atagi between 6 and  13 March 2002 had been properly planned and carried out in compliance  with the applicable legislation, in particular with Federal Law no.  130-FZ of 25 July 1998 on Suppression of Terrorism, Federal Law no.  1026-1 of 18 April 1991 on Police and Presidential Decree no. 1255c  of 23 September 1999 on Measures Enhancing the Efficiency of Counter-Terrorist  Operations in the Territory of the North Caucasia Region of the Russian  Federation. The Court leaves open the question whether the legal acts  in question constituted an appropriate legal framework for the use of  force and contained clear and sufficient safeguards to prevent arbitrary  deprivation of life since, in any event, the Government have failed  to demonstrate that the circumstances in which the applicants&#8217; relative  was killed rendered the use of lethal force against him inevitable.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">90.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that in their observations on the admissibility and merits  of the present application the Government provided a concise description  of the fight of 9 March 2002, reproduced in paragraph 18 above. The  circumstances of the fight were also outlined in certain decisions and  letters by the prosecuting authorities, made available to the Court  in relation to the case of <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Arzu\u00a0Akhmadova and Others v. Russia<\/span>, no. 13670\/03, but not in  much more detail. However, no documents pertaining to the conduct of  the special operation as a whole and of this fight in particular have  been submitted to the Court. No military reports on the conduct of the  fight with a detailed description of the circumstances which warranted  the use of lethal force, orders made in this respect and actions of  the servicemen have been made available to the Court. No records of  questioning of servicemen who took part in the fight, if such questioning  ever took place, have been presented either. Such scarce information  on the circumstances in which, according to the Government, Mr Ismail  Dzhamayev was killed clearly could not constitute sufficient justification  for the use of lethal force.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">91.\u00a0\u00a0In  particular, the Government submitted that\u00a0on 9 March 2002 a group of  servicemen was fired at from a car that was approaching a checkpoint  within three kilometres of Stariye Atagi. As the servicemen fired back,  the car was set on fire and the three members of illegal armed groups  in it were killed. The letter of the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen  Republic of 7 April 2002 stated in this respect that on 9 March 2002  a VAZ\u00a021099 car had approached a checkpoint of military unit no. 3179  situated about 4 km away from the outskirts of Stariye Atagi on the  road between Chechen-Aul and Stariye Atagi. In response to the order  to stop the car and produce identity papers, shots had been fired from  the car. During the shoot-out four passengers had been killed and the  car had been burnt. In the course of the subsequent examination of the  car the remains of an AKM machine gun, a hand grenade launcher and RGD-5  grenades without fuses had been found and seized. According to the letter  of the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 of 21 August 2002,  at around 3 p.m. on the date in question a VAZ 21099 car had approached  the servicemen of military unit no. 3228. In reply to their order to  stop, machine-gun fire had been opened from the car. The servicemen  had opened return fire which had set the car on fire. Subsequently three  burnt corpses of unidentified persons had been found in it. The decision  of the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA to suspend the investigation  of 19 March 2004 stated, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">inter alia<\/span>, that at around 4 p.m. on 9 March 2002 in Stariye  Atagi servicemen of the unit 1\u00a0pSpN had killed three members of the illegal  armed group who had been in a car and resisted with arms. In the decision  of the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA of 9 September 2006 to  conduct a forensic examination it was noted that in the course of the  special operation conducted in Stariye Atagi a red VAZ 21099 car with  members of an illegal armed group in it had been burnt and crushed by  an APC.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">92.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes the discrepancies contained in the Government&#8217;s submissions  and the letters and decisions of the prosecuting authorities concerning  the number of persons killed in the car on 9 March 2002. It further  observes that, as can be seen from the information submitted, the fire  was opened from the car which disregarded the servicemen&#8217;s order to  stop and present identity papers. The Court accepts that the opened  fire must have posed a danger to the lives of the servicemen at the  checkpoint and might have warranted the use of arms in response. However,  the information available does not permit it to establish conclusively  which weapons were used by the servicemen and which particular actions  led to the death of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev, thus precluding the Court from  finding that the use of lethal force was in compliance with Article  2 of the Convention. It notes, in particular, that it follows from the  decision of the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA of 9 September  2006 that the car with several persons in it, which had already been  shot at and set on fire, was crushed by an APC, which is further supported  by photographs of the car submitted by the applicants. No explanation  has been provided to the Court as to why an action as drastic as this  was necessary in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Court considers  that even assuming that Mr\u00a0Ismail Dzhamayev was killed in the circumstances  described by the Government, the latter have not justified their submission  that the use of force was no more than \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">93.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that the applicants contended that, having been under  the control of the authorities, Mr Ismail Dzhamayev could not have been  involved in the fight on 9 March 2002. The Court does not find it necessary  to make specific findings in this respect since it has established above  that even assuming the Government&#8217;s version of the events to be correct,  they have failed to justify that the lethal force was used in compliance  with Article 2 of the Convention. Nevertheless, it cannot but be perplexed,  in view of its finding in paragraph 82 above that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev  was apprehended by State servicemen and in the absence of any information  provided by the Government on his subsequent release or escape, by the  submission that \u2013 despite being in detention \u2013 he somehow managed  to procure firearms and a car and engage in a fight with federal forces.  No explanation has been provided by the Government in this respect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">94.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court finds that in the absence of information on the crucial elements  mentioned in paragraphs 90-93 above, the Government cannot be regarded  as having accounted for the use of lethal force in the circumstances  of the present case. It is therefore not persuaded that the killing  of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev constituted a use of force which was no more  than absolutely necessary in pursuit of the aims provided for in paragraph  2 of Article 2 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">95.\u00a0\u00a0There  has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in this  respect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> (b)\u00a0\u00a0The alleged inadequacy of the investigation  of the kidnapping<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">96.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes at the outset that no documents from the investigation file  were disclosed by the Government. It therefore has to assess the effectiveness  of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by  the applicants and the information about its progress submitted by the  Government. The Court will also take into account the relevant information  disclosed in relation to the case of <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Arzu\u00a0Akhmadova and Others v. Russia<\/span>, no. 13670\/03.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">97.\u00a0\u00a0Turning  to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that Mr\u00a0Ismail Dzhamayev  was apprehended on 6 March 2002 during a special operation conducted  in Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002. The investigation was  opened on 13 March 2002. The Court is therefore satisfied that the authorities&#8217;  reaction was sufficiently prompt.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">98.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court further notes that on an unspecified date within six months of  the events Mr B., who had witnessed Mr Ismail Dzhamayev&#8217;s apprehension,  and his mother were questioned. However, it appears that after that  a number of crucial steps were either delayed or not taken at all.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">99.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes, firstly, that the body of the applicants&#8217; relative which  was severely burnt was not identified until over two years after the  events which led to his death. Not only did the authorities not take  any steps to identify the body of their own motion, but no forensic  examination was conducted even after one had been requested by the applicants  (see paragraphs 21-24 and 45 above) and the body remained unidentified  until 17\u00a0June\u00a02004. Such a delay, for which no explanation has been provided,  could only have significantly impeded the establishment of the exact  circumstances of his death.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">100.\u00a0\u00a0From  the materials available to the Court it appears that a number of essential  steps were never taken. Most notably, it appears that no witnesses other  than Mr B. and his mother were ever questioned. No information, let  alone any documents, have been provided to the Court as to which servicemen,  if any, were questioned in relation to the incident at the checkpoint  on\u00a09\u00a0March\u00a02002. Apart from this incident, it appears that no servicemen  were questioned with regard to the applicants&#8217; allegations that their  relative had been abducted in the course of the special operation in  Stariye Atagi. Likewise, there is no evidence that the place where Mr  Ismail Dzhamayev was apprehended was ever examined. It appears that  the filtering point at the poultry yard and the mill on the outskirts  of the village were not examined either. Furthermore, it appears that  the officials of the local administration which provided the applicants  with a certificate confirming that their relative had been apprehended  by servicemen during the special operation were never questioned either.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">101.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that in the present case the investigating authorities  not only did not comply with the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence  and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom<\/span>, no. 46477\/99,  \u00a7 86, ECHR 2002-II), but failed to take the most elementary investigative  measures.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">102.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court further notes that, according to the information available, two  of the applicants were granted victim status, although it is not clear  who exactly. In any event, the applicants were not informed of any significant  developments in the investigation, apart from several decisions to suspend  and resume it. It appears that they were not even provided with a copy  of the decision of 26 March 2007 to discontinue the investigation. Accordingly,  the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the  required level of public scrutiny and to safeguard the interests of  the next of kin in the proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">103.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly,  the Court notes that the investigation was adjourned and resumed several  times. Such a manner of proceeding was not conducive to ensuring the  accountability of the servicemen responsible for the abduction of the  applicants&#8217; relative and involved in the incident of 9\u00a0March\u00a02002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">104.\u00a0\u00a0Having  regard to the Government&#8217;s preliminary objection that was joined to  the merits of the complaint, the Court observes that the applicants,  having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of  the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged  the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities before a court.  Furthermore, the investigation was resumed by the prosecuting authorities  themselves a number of times due to the need to take additional investigative  measures (see, in particular, paragraphs 38 and 53). However, they still  failed to investigate the applicants&#8217; allegations properly. Moreover,  owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain  investigative steps that ought to have been carried out much earlier  could no longer usefully be conducted. Therefore, it is highly doubtful  that the remedy relied on would have had any prospects of success. This  applies even more so to the decision of 26 March 2007 to discontinue  the investigation, which was not provided either to the applicants or  to the Court. Therefore, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by  the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their  preliminary objection in this respect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">105.\u00a0\u00a0In  the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed  to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances  surrounding the abduction and subsequent death of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev  in breach of Article\u00a02 under its procedural head. Accordingly, there  has been a violation of Article\u00a02 on this account also.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">106.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that as  a result of their relative&#8217;s disappearance and the State&#8217;s failure to  investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach  of Article 3 of the Convention. They also stated that it was highly  probable that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been subjected to treatment contrary  to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to  inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A. The parties&#8217; submissions<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">107.\u00a0\u00a0The Government disagreed  with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established  that either the applicants or Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been subjected  to treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">108.\u00a0\u00a0In  their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application  the applicants submitted that they no longer wished to have the complaint  regarding the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev examined.  They further reiterated the complaint concerning the mental suffering  endured.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B. The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1. Admissibility<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa-0020Char--Char\"><span class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0The  complaint concerning the ill-treatment of Mr <\/span><\/span>Ismail Dzhamayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">109.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court, having regard to Article 37 of the Convention, finds that the  applicants do not intend to pursue this part of the application, within  the meaning of Article 37 \u00a7 1 (a). The Court also finds no reasons  of a general character, affecting respect for human rights, as defined  in the Convention, which require further examination of the present  complaints by virtue of Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the Convention <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">in fine<\/span> (see, for example, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Chojak v.<\/span><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> Poland<\/span>, no. 32220\/96, Commission decision of 23 April 1998,  unpublished; <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Singh and Others v. the United Kingdom<\/span> (dec.), no. 30024\/96,  26\u00a0September 2000; and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece<\/span>, no.\u00a027806\/02, \u00a7\u00a028, 10\u00a0February  2005<span class=\"Comment-0020Reference--Char\">)<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">110.\u00a0\u00a0It  follows that this part of the application must be struck out in accordance  with Article 37 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa-0020Char--Char\"><span class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-size: 10pt;\">(b)<\/span><\/span> The  complaint concerning the applicants&#8217; mental suffering<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">111.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention  is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035 \u00a7 3 of  the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any  other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">112.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that the question whether a member of the family of a  \u201cdisappeared person\u201d is a victim of treatment contrary to Article\u00a03  will depend on the existence of special factors which give the suffering  of the applicants a dimension and character distinct from the emotional  distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of  a victim of a serious human rights violation. Relevant elements will  include the proximity of the family tie, the particular circumstances  of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed  the events in question, the involvement of the family member in the  attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person and the  way in which the authorities responded to those enquiries. The Court  would further emphasise that the essence of such a violation does not  mainly lie in the fact of the \u201cdisappearance\u201d of the family member  but rather concerns the authorities&#8217; reactions and attitudes to the  situation when it is brought to their attention. It is especially in  respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim  of the authorities&#8217; conduct (<a name=\"01000003\"><\/a>see <a name=\"01000004\"><\/a><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Orhan<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0358, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Imakayeva<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0164).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">113.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that the applicants are close relatives of Mr<span class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa-0020Char--Char\"><span class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-size: 10pt;\"> <\/span><\/span> Ismail Dzhamayev. After unidentified bodies had been found in Stariye  Atagi following the incidents on 7 and 9 March 2002, the applicants  themselves tried to secure their identification. However, despite their  efforts not only did the authorities refuse to conduct a forensic examination,  but on 1\u00a0April\u00a02002 returned the severely decomposed bodies wrapped in  bags to the applicants on the ground that the refrigerators in the forensic  examination department had been out of order. The applicants had to  bury the bodies themselves. Over two years later, after the forensic  examination had eventually been conducted, they learned that among those  bodies were the disfigured remains of their family member. In the Court&#8217;s  view, such conduct of the authorities demonstrated an astonishing lack  of care and respect for both the person killed and his relatives and  amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">114.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article  3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">IV.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  5 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">115.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants further stated that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been detained  in violation of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention, which  reads, in so far as relevant:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> \u201c1.\u00a0Everyone has the right to liberty and security  of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following  cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(c)\u00a0\u00a0the lawful arrest or detention of a person  effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal  authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or  when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing  an offence or fleeing after having done so;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone who is arrested shall be informed  promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his  arrest and of any charge against him.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone arrested or detained in accordance  with the provisions of paragraph\u00a01\u00a0(c) of this Article shall be brought  promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise  judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time  or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees  to appear for trial.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">4.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by  arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the  lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and  his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">5.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone who has been the victim of arrest  or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall  have an enforceable right to compensation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties&#8217; submissions<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">116.\u00a0\u00a0In the Government&#8217;s opinion,  no evidence was obtained by the investigators to confirm that Mr Ismail  Dzhamayev had been deprived of his liberty in breach of the guarantees  set out in Article 5 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">117.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants reiterated  the complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">118.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within  the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further notes that  the complaint is not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore  be declared admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">119.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court has previously noted the fundamental importance of the guarantees  contained in Article 5 to secure the right of individuals in a democracy  to be free from arbitrary detention. It has also stated that unacknowledged  detention is a complete negation of these guarantees and discloses a  very grave violation of Article 5 (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u00c7i\u00e7ek v. Turkey<\/span>, no.\u00a025704\/94, \u00a7\u00a0164, 27 February 2001, and <a name=\"01000005\"><\/a><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Luluyev and Others v. Russia<\/span>, no.\u00a069480\/01, \u00a7\u00a0122, ECHR 2006-&#8230;  (extracts)).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">120.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court has found it established that State servicemen apprehended Mr  Ismail Dzhamayev on 6 March 2002. He was killed by servicemen on 9 March  2002, and no information has been provided by the State concerning his  possible release and escape between the dates of his apprehension and  the date of his death. His detention was not acknowledged, was not logged  in any custody records and there exists no official trace of his whereabouts  between his apprehension and killing. In accordance with the Court&#8217;s  practice, this fact in itself must be considered a most serious failing,  since it enables those responsible for an act of deprivation of liberty  to conceal their involvement in a crime, to cover their tracks and to  escape accountability for the fate of a detainee. Furthermore, the absence  of detention records, noting such matters as the date, time and location  of detention and the name of the detainee and the reasons for the detention  and the name of the person effecting it, must be seen as incompatible  with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see <a name=\"01000006\"><\/a><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Orhan<\/span><\/span>,  cited above, \u00a7\u00a0371).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">121.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the foregoing,  the Court finds that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was held in unacknowledged  detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5. This  constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and  security enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">V.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6  OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">122.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained  that under national law they were barred from filing a civil claim to  obtain compensation for their relative&#8217;s unlawful detention or death  pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. They relied on Article  6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and  obligations &#8230;, everyone is entitled to a fair &#8230; hearing &#8230; by [a]  &#8230; tribunal&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties&#8217; submissions<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">123.\u00a0\u00a0The Government disputed  this allegation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">124.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants made no  further submissions.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">125.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within  the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further notes that  the complaint is not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore  be declared admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">126.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court finds that the applicants&#8217; complaint under Article 6 concerns  essentially the same issues as those discussed under the procedural  aspect of Article 2 and under Article 13. In these circumstances, the  Court finds that no separate issues arise under Article 6 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">VI.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">127.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants complained that they had been deprived of effective remedies  in respect of the violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention,  contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set  forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy  before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been  committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties&#8217; submissions<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">128.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted  that the applicants could actively participate in the investigation  and appeal against actions or omissions of the investigating authorities  in court, which they had failed to do. Furthermore, they could have  filed claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage, which they had not  done either. The Government argued that the applicants thus had effective  domestic remedies in respect of their complaints. They referred, in  particular, to several decisions by courts of the Chechen Republic delivered  in other cases upholding complaints concerning certain actions of investigating  authorities or awarding non-pecuniary damages.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">129.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants argued that  in their case the State had failed to conduct an adequate investigation  into the abduction and killing of their family member, which undermined  the effectiveness of other possible remedies.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">130.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within  the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further notes that  it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared  admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">131.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability  at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention  rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured  in the domestic legal order. According to the Court&#8217;s settled case-law,  the effect of Article 13 of the Convention is to require the provision  of a remedy at national level allowing the competent domestic authority  both to deal with the substance of a relevant Convention complaint and  to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded  some discretion as to the manner in which they comply with their obligations  under this provision. However, such a remedy is only required in respect  of grievances which can be regarded as \u201carguable\u201d in terms of the  Convention (see, among many other authorities, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Halford v. the United Kingdom<\/span>, 25 June 1997, \u00a7\u00a064, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Reports of Judgments and Decisions<\/span> 1997-III).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">132.\u00a0\u00a0As  regards the complaint of lack of effective remedies in respect of the  applicants&#8217; complaint under Article 2, the Court emphasises that, given  the fundamental importance of the right to protection of life, Article  13 requires, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate,  a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification  and punishment of those responsible for the deprivation of life and  infliction of treatment contrary to Article\u00a03, including effective access  for the complainant to the investigation procedure leading to the identification  and punishment of those responsible (see <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Anguelova  v. Bulgaria<\/span><\/span>, no. 38361\/97, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0161-162, ECHR 2002-IV,  and <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">S\u00fcheyla Ayd\u0131n v. Turkey<\/span><\/span>, no. 25660\/94, \u00a7\u00a0208, 24 May  2005). The Court further reiterates that the requirements of Article\u00a013  are broader than a Contracting State&#8217;s obligation under Article 2 to  conduct an effective investigation (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Khashiyev and Akayeva<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0183).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">133.\u00a0\u00a0In  view of the Court&#8217;s above findings with regard to Article\u00a02, this complaint  is clearly \u201carguable\u201d for the purposes of Article\u00a013 (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom<\/span>, 27\u00a0April 1988, \u00a7\u00a052, Series  A no.\u00a0131). The applicants should accordingly have been able to avail  themselves of effective and practical remedies capable of leading to  the identification and punishment of those responsible and to an award  of compensation for the purposes of Article\u00a013.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">134.\u00a0\u00a0It  follows that in circumstances where, as here, the criminal investigation  into the violent death has been ineffective and the effectiveness of  any other remedy that may have existed, including civil remedies suggested  by the Government, has consequently been undermined, the State has failed  in its obligation under Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">135.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently,  there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article  2 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">136.\u00a0\u00a0As  regards the applicants&#8217; reference to Article 3 of the Convention, the  Court notes that it has found a violation of the above provision on  account of the applicants&#8217; mental suffering in the period during which  the authorities failed to identify the body of their family member and  their conduct in this respect. However, the Court has already found  a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article  2 of the Convention on account of the authorities&#8217; conduct that led  to the suffering endured by the applicants. The Court considers that,  in the circumstances, no separate issue arises in respect of Article  13 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">VII.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  14 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">137.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants alleged that they had been discriminated against in the enjoyment  of their Convention rights, since the violations of which they complained  had taken place on account of their being resident in Chechnya and their  ethnic background as Chechens. This was contrary to Article 14 of the  Convention, which reads as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cThe enjoyment of the right and freedoms set  forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on  any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political  or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national  minority, property, birth or other status.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties&#8217; submissions<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">138.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government argued that the allegations were unsubstantiated.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">139.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants maintained the complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">140.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that no evidence has been submitted to it that suggests  that the applicants were treated differently from persons in an analogous  situation without objective and reasonable justification, or that they  have ever raised this complaint before the domestic authorities. It  thus finds that this complaint has not been substantiated.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">141.\u00a0\u00a0It  follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being  manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a03 and 4 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">VIII.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman-0020Char--Char\">APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">142.\u00a0\u00a0Article  41 of the Convention provides:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation  of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law  of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation  to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction  to the injured party.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A. Pecuniary damage<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">143.\u00a0\u00a0The  fourth applicant claimed that he had sustained damage in respect of  the loss of his father&#8217;s earnings following his apprehension and subsequent  killing. The fourth applicant claimed a total of 231,520.11 roubles  (RUR) under this head (approximately 6,502 euros (EUR)).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">144.\u00a0\u00a0The  fourth applicant claimed that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been temporarily  unemployed due to the situation in Chechnya. Having regard to the provisions  of the Civil Code on the calculation of lost earnings, he claimed that  the amount of an unemployed person&#8217;s earnings should be equal to the  average remuneration of a person with similar qualifications and could  not be based on an amount lower than the subsistence level determined  by federal laws. He submitted that he was dependent on his father and  would have benefited from the latter&#8217;s financial support in the amount  indicated above, that is, 30% of his earnings. The fourth applicant&#8217;s  calculations were based on provisions of the Civil Code and the actuarial  tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases published  by the United Kingdom Government Actuary&#8217;s Department in 2007 (\u201cthe  Ogden tables\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">145.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government argued that no compensation for pecuniary damage should be  awarded to the fourth applicant since lethal force had been used against  his father in compliance with Article 2 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">146.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between  the damage claimed by the applicants and the violation of the Convention.  Furthermore, under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just  satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with  the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, \u201cfailing which the  Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part\u201d.\u00a0The Court finds  that there is indeed a direct causal link between the violation of Article\u00a02  in respect of the fourth applicant&#8217;s father and the loss by the fourth  applicant of the financial support which he could have provided for  him.\u00a0It further notes that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was unemployed. Nevertheless,  the Court finds it reasonable to assume that he would eventually have  had some earnings and that the fourth applicant would have benefited  from them. Having regard to the fourth applicant&#8217;s submissions, the  Court awards him EUR 5,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any  tax that may be chargeable on that amount.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0\u00a0Non-pecuniary damage<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">147.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants claimed EUR\u00a080,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage  for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their  family member, the indifference shown by the authorities towards him  and the failure to provide any information about his fate for a long  time.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">148.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government found the amount claimed exaggerated.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">149.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention  on account of the unacknowledged detention and killing of the applicants&#8217;  relative. The applicants themselves have been found to have been victims  of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts  that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated  for solely by the findings of violations. It awards the applicants jointly  EUR\u00a035,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">C.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">150.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised  schedule of costs and expenses that included research and interviews  in Ingushetia and Moscow, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour, and the drafting  of legal documents submitted to the Court and the domestic authorities,  at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for SRJI lawyers and EUR 150 per hour for  SRJI senior staff. They also claimed postal expenses in the amount of  EUR 26.22, translation expenses in the amount of EUR 76,95, as certified  by invoices, and administrative expenses in the amount of EUR\u00a0407.75.  The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the  applicants&#8217; legal representation amounted to EUR 6,335.92.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">151. The Government did not  dispute the details of the calculations submitted by the applicants,  but pointed out that they should be entitled to the reimbursement of  their costs and expenses only in so far as it had been shown that they  had been actually incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Skorobogatova v. Russia<\/span>, no.\u00a033914\/02, \u00a7\u00a061, 1\u00a0December\u00a02005).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">152.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated  by the applicants were actually incurred and, second, whether they were  necessary and reasonable (see <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Iatridis\u00a0v.\u00a0Greece <\/span><\/span> (just satisfaction) [GC], no.\u00a031107\/96, \u00a7\u00a054, ECHR\u00a02000-XI).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">153.\u00a0\u00a0Having  regard to the details of the information available, the Court is satisfied  that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred  by the applicants&#8217; representatives.\u00a0\u00a0Further, it has to be established  whether the costs and expenses incurred for legal representation were  necessary. The Court notes that this case was rather complex and required  a certain amount of research and preparation. Accordingly, it accepts  that the expenses incurred were necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">154.\u00a0\u00a0Having  regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the  Court awards them the amount as claimed, together with any value-added  tax that may be chargeable, the net award to be paid into the representatives&#8217;  bank <a name=\"01000007\"><\/a>account in the Netherlands, as identified by the  applicants.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">D.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">155.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based  on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which  should be added three percentage points.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fHead\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Decides<\/span> to join to the merits<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> <\/span>the Government&#8217;s objection as to non-exhaustion of criminal  domestic remedies and <span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">rejects<\/span> it;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Declares<\/span> the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13 of  the Convention admissible,<span class=\"ju--005flist----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005flist----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> decides<\/span><\/span> to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with  Article 37 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention in so far as it concerns the applicants&#8217;  complaint under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr\u00a0Ismail Dzhamayev  and <span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">declares<\/span> the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that there has been a violation of Article\u00a02 of the Convention  in respect of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">4.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that there has been a violation of Article\u00a02 of the Convention  in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into  the killing of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">5<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/span> that there has been a violation of Article\u00a03 of the Convention  in respect of the applicants;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">6.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that there has been a violation of Article\u00a05 of the Convention  in respect of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">7.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that no separate issues arise under Article\u00a06 of the Convention;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">8<span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\">.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that there has been a violation of Article\u00a013 of the Convention in conjunction  with Article 2 of the Convention;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">9<span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\">.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention in  respect of the alleged violation of Article 3;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">10.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay,  within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final  in accordance with Article\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention, the following amounts:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList-005fi\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a05,000 (five thousand euros), plus  any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles  at the rate applicable date of settlement, in respect of pecuniary damage  to the fourth applicant;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList-005fi\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a035,000 (thirty-five thousand euros),  plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles  at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of non-pecuniary  damage to the applicants jointly;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList-005fi\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(iii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a06,335.92 (six thousand three hundred  and thirty-five euros and ninety-two cents), plus any tax that may be  chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be  paid into the representatives&#8217; bank account in the Netherlands;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned  three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the  above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European  Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">11.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Dismisses<\/span> the remainder of the applicants&#8217; claim for just satisfaction.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-005fLast\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Done in English, and notified in writing  on 8 January 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 of the Rules of  Court.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fSigned\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">S\u00f8ren Nielsen\u00a0Christos  Rozakis<br \/>\nRegistrar\u00a0President<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fHeader\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">DZHAMAYEVA AND  OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The ECHR case of Dzhamayevy v. Russia (application no. 43170\/04).<\/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-446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-cases"],"views":910,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446","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=446"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":447,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446\/revisions\/447"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}