<\/a> (no. 1675\/07)<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe applicants are three Russian nationals who live in Grozny. They are the mother and sisters of Mr Ramzan Guluyev, who was born in 1967.<\/span><\/p>\nRamzan Guluyev was abducted from his house at about 2 a.m. on the night of 12 to 13 July 2002 by a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms; he has not been seen since. According to the applicants, about 25 men speaking unaccented Russian and appearing to be under the influence of alcohol broke into their house saying that they had received a call from the police and were carrying out a check. Ramzan was then taken undressed out of the house and into a motor vehicle whose license plate was not visible, while the applicants were all severely beaten up by those men. They did not know who the abductors were or where they had taken Ramzan.<\/span><\/p>\nThe applicants complained to the prosecutor\u2019s office of the abduction and about having broken ribs and fingers as a result of the beatings. Ramzan\u2019s two sisters were examined medically by an expert of the Chechen forensic bureau who concluded that the injuries sustained may have been caused on the night of 12 to 13 July 2002, but that, as they did not lead to the loss of capacity to work, they were insignificant.<\/span><\/p>\nThe applicants repeatedly contacted numerous State officials both in person and in writing, complaining of the abduction and their beating and asking for help to find Ramzan. On 16 July 2002 an investigation was opened into the events. It was suspended numerous times for failure to identify the perpetrators. In March 2004 the applicants complained that the investigation was ineffective. The courts dismissed their complaint on the ground that the investigation was still pending.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Government submitted that at approximately 1.40 a.m. on the night of 12 to 13 July 2002 unidentified men in camouflage uniforms and carrying firearms abducted Ramzan Guluyev from his house in Grozny having used violence against the applicants.<\/span><\/p>\nViolation of Article 2 (right to life)<\/strong> in respect of Ramzan Guluyev
\nViolation of Article 2 (right to life)<\/strong> for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of their disappearance
\nThree violations of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)<\/strong> on account of the applicants\u2019 ill-treatment during the abduction of their relative, on account of there not having been an effective investigation into their complaints of ill-treatment and on account of their mental suffering caused by Ramzan\u2019s disappearance.
\nViolation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention)<\/strong> in respect of Ramzan Guluyev
\nViolation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy)<\/strong> in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court awarded the first applicant 10,800 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR\u00a065,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the three applicants jointly. The applicants were awarded EUR\u00a01,650 for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n2.\u00a0Dubayev and Bersnukayeva v. Russia (no. 30613\/05)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nThe applicants are two Russian nationals who live in the town of Urus-Martan in Chechnya. The first applicant is the father of Islam Dubayev, who was born in 1982. The second applicant is the mother of Roman Bersnukayev, born in 1983.<\/span><\/p>\nThe applicants were not eyewitnesses to the abduction and the following account is based on the witness statements collected by them after the disappearance of their relatives.<\/span><\/p>\nIn December 1999 Islam Dubayev and Roman Bersnukayev joined an illegal armed group (\u201cthe armed group\u201d) which was fighting the Russian federal troops in the mountains. On 14 March 2000 militia members found a group of young men up in the mountains and told them about an amnesty announced by the State Duma in respect of fighters who chose to voluntarily surrender to the authorities. Islam and Roman turned themselves in. The Federal Security Service issued two decisions in respect of the two young men certifying the authorities\u2019 intention not to institute criminal proceedings against them, in application of the Amnesty Act. Both decisions were approved by the acting district prosecutor and countersigned by the two men.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Government submitted that Islam and Roman had renounced their involvement in the armed groups and on March 2000 were released in application of the Amnesty Act. There were no grounds to suspect that they had ever been arrested or detained by State authorities.<\/span><\/p>\nSince 14 March 2000, the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies referring to their sons\u2019 detention and asking for assistance and details of the investigation. They have also conducted a joint search for their sons, to no avail.<\/span><\/p>\nInvestigations were opened into the disappearance of the two young men: in November 2000 as regards Islam, and in February 2001 in respect of Roman. Both applicants were recognised as victims and civil claimants. In June and July 2004, however, they were informed by the prosecutor\u2019s office that they were entitled to access the case-file materials only after completion of the criminal investigation. The Government submitted 181 pages from the investigation file, showing that the applicants and several local residents had been questioned. The investigations were suspended numerous times for failure to identify the perpetrator. According to the Government, given that the investigation was in progress, disclosure of the remaining documents would be in violation of domestic criminal procedural legislation since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\nViolations of Article 2 (right to life)<\/strong> in respect of Islam Dubayev and Roman Bersnukayev
\nViolations of Article 2 (right to life)<\/strong> for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of their disappearance
\nViolation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)<\/strong> in respect of the applicants
\nViolation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention)<\/strong> in respect of Islam Dubayev and Roman Bersnukayev
\nViolation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy)<\/strong> in conjunction with Article 2<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court awarded 60,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 639 for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n* * *<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nCASE OF GULUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n(Application no. 1675\/07)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nJUDGMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nSTRASBOURG<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n11 February 2010<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nThis judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article\u00a044 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/span><\/p>\nIn the case of Guluyeva and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nThe European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/span><\/p>\nChristos Rozakis, President,
\nNina Vaji\u0107,
\nAnatoly Kovler,
\nKhanlar Hajiyev,
\nDean Spielmann,
\nGiorgio Malinverni,
\nGeorge Nicolaou, judges,
\nand S\u00f8ren Nielsen, Section Registrar,<\/span><\/p>\nHaving deliberated in private on 21 January 2010,<\/span><\/p>\nDelivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/span><\/p>\nPROCEDURE<\/span><\/p>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 1675\/07) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by three Russian nationals listed below (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 30 April 2004.<\/span><\/p>\n2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants, who were granted legal aid, were represented by lawyers of the International Protection Centre, an NGO based in Moscow. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Ms\u00a0V.\u00a0Milinchuk, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n3.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 June 2007 the Court decided to apply Rule\u00a041 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application and to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.<\/span><\/p>\n4.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government\u2019s objection, the Court dismissed it.<\/span><\/p>\nTHE FACTS<\/span><\/p>\nI.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/span><\/p>\n5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are:<\/span><\/p>\n1. Ms Nuri Guluyeva, born in 1942,<\/span><\/p>\n2. Ms Raisa Guluyeva, born in 1961, and<\/span><\/p>\n3. Ms Roza Guluyeva, born in 1965.<\/span><\/p>\n6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Grozny.<\/span><\/p>\n7.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ramzan Guluyev, born in 1967, and of the second and third applicants. At the material time they lived at 1\u00a0Mariupolskaya Street, Staropromyslovskiy District, Grozny, in the Chechen Republic. Their household comprised two neighbouring houses with a common courtyard.<\/span><\/p>\nA. Abduction of Mr Ramzan Guluyev<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 account<\/span><\/p>\n8.\u00a0\u00a0Between 12 and 13 July 2002 the Guluyev family were at home: the applicants spent the night in one of the houses at 1\u00a0Mariupolskaya Street, while Mr Ramzan Guluyev and Sh., his seven-year-old cousin, were in the other. At about 11 p.m. they heard two gunshots apparently coming from the courtyard of an abandoned neighbouring house. Mr Ramzan Guluyev stepped outside to look around but noticed nothing suspicious; the family went to bed.<\/span><\/p>\n9.\u00a0\u00a0At about 2 a.m. the first applicant was awakened by some noise; she looked out of the window and saw in the courtyard a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms. Some of them rushed to the house in which Mr Ramzan Guluyev slept.<\/span><\/p>\n10.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant screamed and woke her daughters. The applicants tried to get out of the house but the door appeared to be blocked. A few minutes later the door opened and two armed men entered; they smelled of alcohol. They wore no masks, had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian; the first applicant believed that they belonged to the Russian military. Shouting and swearing, the two servicemen ordered the applicants to keep quiet.<\/span><\/p>\n11.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicant eventually slipped into the courtyard and went towards Mr Ramzan Guluyev\u2019s house; she heard screams coming from it. Then she was seized by several servicemen. She asked them what was happening; they replied that they had received a call from the police and were carrying out a check; they promised to release Mr\u00a0Ramzan Guluyev once the check was over. Then they hit the second applicant with gun butts. The first and third applicants rushed into the courtyard and tried to protect the second applicant, but the servicemen started beating them as well. The first applicant, who had been suffering from breast cancer, received a particularly severe blow and lost consciousness. Coming to her senses a few minutes later she saw the servicemen taking Mr Ramzan Guluyev out of the courtyard.<\/span><\/p>\n12.\u00a0\u00a0There were around twenty-five servicemen; two or three of them wore masks. The servicemen appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. They took Mr Ramzan Guluyev to the street where several khaki UAZ vehicles and a grey all-terrain UAZ vehicle (\u00ab\u0442\u0430\u0431\u043b\u0435\u0442\u043a\u0430\u00bb) were parked. Some vehicles had no registration numbers while those of the others were covered with mud. The servicemen put Mr Ramzan Guluyev in one of the vehicles and drove away.<\/span><\/p>\n13.\u00a0\u00a0Later Sh. told the applicants that the servicemen had demanded money and gold from Mr Ramzan Guluyev.<\/span><\/p>\n14.\u00a0\u00a0Apart from their own statements the applicants submitted to the Court a statement by their neighbour, Mr V. Ya. According to Mr V. Ya., at approximately 2\u00a0a.m. on 13 July 2002 he heard screaming and went outside his house. He saw several UAZ vehicles and about thirty armed men in the street. They were taking Mr Ramzan Guluyev, who was not dressed, from his house. Mr V. Ya. tried to intervene, but the armed men ordered him to get back inside, threatening him with their weapons. He obeyed. When the cars left, he went to see the applicants. The three women had been severely beaten. They did not know who the abductors were or where Mr Ramzan Guluyev had been taken.<\/span><\/p>\n15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants also enclosed a copy of a complaint from over 100\u00a0residents of the village of Katayama, Staropromyslovskiy District, to the administration of the Chechen Republic, submitted on an unspecified date in 2002. The residents complained that their fellow villagers had been disappearing and referred in particular to the abduction of Mr Ramzan Guluyev. It was stated, inter alia, that the applicants had been beaten by the abductors.<\/span><\/p>\n2.\u00a0\u00a0The Government\u2019s account<\/span><\/p>\n16.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 July 2002 at approximately 1.40 a.m. unidentified men in camouflage uniforms with firearms abducted Mr Ramzan Guluyev from the house at no. 1\u00a0Mariupolskaya Street, Katayama village, Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny, having used violence against the applicants.<\/span><\/p>\nB. Injuries inflicted on the applicants<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n17.\u00a0\u00a0Following their relative\u2019s abduction, the three applicants discovered that each of them had numerous bruises. According to them, the first applicant had three fingers on the left hand broken while the third applicant had broken ribs. The applicants complained about their injuries to the prosecutor\u2019s office.<\/span><\/p>\n18.\u00a0\u00a0Shortly after the events of 13 July 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor\u2019s Office ordered a medical examination of the applicants to be carried out.<\/span><\/p>\n19.\u00a0\u00a0Between 15 and 18 July 2002 an expert of the forensics bureau of the Chechen Republic examined the third applicant. According to the expert examination report, the third applicant had bruises on her face, left shoulder and right shin, inflicted by a solid blunt object. The expert confirmed that those injuries might have been caused on 13 July 2002 and noted that they did not lead to the loss of capacity to work and thus could not be considered significant injuries.<\/span><\/p>\n20.\u00a0\u00a0Between 18 and 22 July 2002 the same expert carried out an examination of the second applicant and established that she had a bruise and a graze on the elbows and a bruise on the back inflicted by a solid blunt object, probably on 13 July 2002. The expert found that those injuries were not to be regarded as significant.<\/span><\/p>\n21.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Government, on 17 July 2002 the investigator ordered a medical examination of the first applicant, However, she did not turn up and the examination was not conducted. The Government did not enclose any documents to corroborate their submissions.<\/span><\/p>\nC. Official investigation into Mr Ramzan Guluyev\u2019s disappearance<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n22.\u00a0\u00a0In attempts to find their missing relative the applicants repeatedly contacted both in person and in writing numerous State officials, such as the prosecutors\u2019 offices at different levels, the Russian State Duma, the Chechen Administration, the Ministry of Finance of the Chechen Republic and the Russian President. In a number of written complaints they mentioned that they had been beaten by the perpetrators.<\/span><\/p>\n23.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 July 2002 an investigation into Mr Ramzan Guluyev\u2019s disappearance was opened under Article 126 \u00a7 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 54043. On the same date the Grozny Prosecutor\u2019s Office granted the three applicants victim status in the proceedings in case no. 53043, stating that each of them had suffered both physical and emotional damage.<\/span><\/p>\n24.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 August 2002 the Prosecutor\u2019s Office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicants\u2019 complaint to the Grozny Prosecutor\u2019s Office.<\/span><\/p>\n25.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 August 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor\u2019s Office informed the second applicant that her complaint had been included in the investigation file in case no. 54043.<\/span><\/p>\n26.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 August 2002 the Prosecutor\u2019s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the second applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the Grozny Prosecutor\u2019s Office.<\/span><\/p>\n27.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 August 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor\u2019s Office informed the second applicant that her complaint had been included in the investigation file in case no. 54043.<\/span><\/p>\n28.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 September 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor\u2019s Office informed the second applicant that the investigation into Mr Ramzan Guluyev\u2019s kidnapping in case no. 54043 had been stayed for failure to identify those responsible.<\/span><\/p>\n29.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 January 2003 the Grozny Prosecutor\u2019s Office informed the second applicant that that they had resumed the investigation in case no.\u00a054043. On 24 January 2003 they informed her that the investigation had been suspended for failure to identify those responsible.<\/span><\/p>\n30.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 April 2003 the special task force unit of the department of the interior of the Astrakhan Region informed the first applicant that they had not participated in any special operations in Grozny on 13 July 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n31.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 June 2003 the prosecutor\u2019s office of the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny (\u201cthe district prosecutor\u2019s office\u201d) informed the applicants that they had suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators.<\/span><\/p>\n32.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 November 2003 the first applicant requested the deputy prosecutor of the Chechen Republic to assist her in the search for her son.<\/span><\/p>\n33.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 November 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor\u2019s office to allow her access to the investigation file in case no.\u00a054043.<\/span><\/p>\n34.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 November 2003 the department of the interior of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the search for her kidnapped son was under way and investigative measures were being taken to find the perpetrators.<\/span><\/p>\n35.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 February 2004 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor\u2019s office to update her on the progress in the investigation into her son\u2019s kidnapping.<\/span><\/p>\n36.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 March 2004 the district prosecutor\u2019s office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 54043 had been stayed for failure to identify those responsible.<\/span><\/p>\n37.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 April 2004 the district prosecutor\u2019s office summoned the first applicant to participate in certain investigative measures on 19 April 2004. On the same date they informed her that the investigation in case no. 54043 had been stayed.<\/span><\/p>\n38.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 April 2004 the district prosecutor\u2019s office informed the first applicant that they had resumed the investigation into her son\u2019s kidnapping.<\/span><\/p>\n39.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 April 2004 Prosecutor\u2019s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son\u2019s kidnapping was under way.<\/span><\/p>\n40.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 July 2004 the district prosecutor\u2019s office informed the second applicant that the investigation into Mr Ramzan Guluyev\u2019s kidnapping had been resumed.<\/span><\/p>\n41.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 March 2007 the district prosecutor\u2019s office informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son\u2019s kidnapping had been stayed and that investigative measures were being taken to find him and establish the perpetrators.<\/span><\/p>\n42.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Government, in the course of the investigation the crime scene was inspected and the applicants were questioned on unspecified dates. The second applicant allegedly submitted, inter alia, that the abductors of Mr Ramzan Guluyev had arrived in new UAZ cars and, since the local police department had no new vehicles she had concluded that they were from the Federal Security Service (FSB). The third applicant allegedly stated that some of them understood Chechen and the second applicant stated that one of the abductors had an accent. The first applicant allegedly submitted in the course of questioning that the abductors were armed and that they were wearing camouflage uniforms and sport shoes. Also, according to the Government, on unspecified dates the investigating authorities questioned Sh., Mr V. Ya. and five other neighbours of the applicants. The neighbours allegedly stated that they had not witnessed the abduction and had learned about it the next morning from other residents. The Government did not provide copies either of transcripts of the interviews or of other procedural documents in this respect.<\/span><\/p>\n43.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, according to the Government, requests for information had been sent to the operational search bureau of the Ministry of the Interior, United Alignment of the Interior Troops, Organised Crime Unit of the ministry of the interior and the FBS. According to the responses received, officers of the Ministry of the Interior had not detained Mr Ramzan Guluyev and had no information about his whereabouts. The FSB had no information about him either. Furthermore, Mr Ramzan Guluyev was not detained in a remand prison in the territory of the Chechen Republic. According to the information received in the course of the investigation, no special operations had been conducted on 13 July 2002. The Government provided neither copies of the requests and responses nor information on their dates.<\/span><\/p>\nD. Judicial proceedings against the investigators<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n44.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 March 2004 the first applicant complained to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny (\u201cthe district court\u201d) that the investigators had taken no action in the case concerning her son\u2019s kidnapping. As she received no reply to that complaint, she lodged with the district court an identical application on 21 June 2004.<\/span><\/p>\n45.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 July 2004 the district court dismissed the first applicant\u2019s complaint for the reason that the investigation was under way and investigative measures were being taken to resolve the crime.<\/span><\/p>\n46.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 July 2004 the first applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. On 31 August 2004 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic found no flaws in the investigation and dismissed the appeal.<\/span><\/p>\nII.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS<\/span><\/p>\n47.\u00a0\u00a0For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 40464\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a067-69, 10\u00a0May 2007).<\/span><\/p>\n48.\u00a0\u00a0According to the report on Chechnya of July 2002 by Medecins du Monde, an NGO based in Paris, France, at the relevant time there was a curfew in Chechnya between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.<\/span><\/p>\nTHE LAW<\/span><\/p>\nI.\u00a0\u00a0THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S OBJECTION REGARDING NON- EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES<\/span><\/p>\n49.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the investigation into the disappearance of Mr Ramzan Guluyev had not yet been completed. The applicants stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that their complaints to that effect, including their application to the district court, had been futile.<\/span><\/p>\n50.\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 Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272\/00, \u00a7\u00a7 73-74, 12\u00a0October 2006). The Court observes that the applicants complained to the law enforcement authorities shortly after the kidnapping of Mr Ramzan Guluyev and that an investigation has been pending since 16 July 2002. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation of the kidnapping.<\/span><\/p>\n51.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the Government\u2019s objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants\u2019 complaints. Thus, it decides to join this objection to the merits of the case and considers that the issue falls to be examined below.<\/span><\/p>\nII.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n52.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative had been deprived of his life 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\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone\u2019s 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>\n2.\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(a)\u00a0\u00a0in defence of any person from unlawful violence;<\/span><\/p>\n(b)\u00a0\u00a0in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;<\/span><\/p>\n(c)\u00a0\u00a0in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n