The ECHR cases of Idalova and Idalov v. Russia (application no. 41515\/04), Khaydayeva and Others v. Russia (application no. 1848\/04), Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia (application no. 21519\/02).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
..<\/span><\/p>\n \n \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 85<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 5.2.2009<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Press release issued by the Registrar<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n CHAMBER JUDGMENTS<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n IDALOVA and IDALOV v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n KHAYDAYEVA and OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n KHADISOV and TSECHOYEV v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments against Russia concerning Chechnya, none of which is final<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n The applicants in the first two cases alleged that their relatives disappeared after being abducted by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They relied in particular on Article\u00a02 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n The applicants in the third case alleged that they were tortured by officers of the Ministry of the Interior and Russian servicemen in order to make them confess to being involved with paramilitary groups. They relied in particular on Article\u00a03 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n 1.<\/span> <\/span>Idalova and Idalov v. Russia (application no. 41515\/04<\/span>)<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 2.<\/span> <\/span>Khaydayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 1848\/04<\/span>)<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In both cases the Court found in particular as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of the applicants)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 (lack of an effective remedy)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The applicants in the first case are two Russian nationals who live in Akhkinchu-Borzoy (Chechen Republic). They are the parents of Marvan Idalov, born in 1985, whom they have not seen since the early hours of 22\u00a0November 2002 when he was\u00a0abducted by a group of armed\u00a0men in camouflage uniform who had arrived at the family home in military vehicles.<\/span><\/p>\n The applicants in the second case are eight Russian nationals who live in Duba-Yurt (Chechen<\/strong> Republic). They are the close relatives of Suliman Malikov, Adlan Khatuyev, Aslan Khatuyev, Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mansur Ismailov, born in 1975, 1977, 1983, 1975 and 1984, respectively. The five men have not been seen since 9\u00a0June 2002 when they were apprehended at a checkpoint by Russian servicemen who were carrying out a security operation in Duba-Yurt.<\/span><\/p>\n Additional information concerning the Court\u2019s findings<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n In the case of Idalova and Idalov <\/span>the Court considered that it had been unlikely, as suggested by the Government, that insurgents in stolen military vehicles could have moved freely at the relevant time through Russian military checkpoints and abducted the applicants\u2019 son from the family home. The fact that a large group of armed men in uniform had arrived in the early hours of the morning at the applicant\u2019s village strongly supported the allegation that their son had been abducted by Russian servicemen. The Court therefore held that the evidence available to it established beyond reasonable doubt that Marvan Idalov had to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen during a security operation.<\/span><\/p>\n In the case of Khaydayeva and Others<\/span> the Court noted that it was common ground between the parties that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been apprehended on 9 June 2002 by Russian servicemen involved in a security operation in Duba-Yurt. In the absence of any such evidence such as detention facility records to corroborate the Government\u2019s claim that the five men had been released on 10 June 2002, the Court found it established that the men had remained under the control of the authorities after that date. Furthermore, the Government had failed to provide any explanation for the men\u2019s disappearance; indeed, for two years after the men\u2019s apprehension the authorities had even consistently denied ever having detained them. The Court therefore held that the evidence available to it established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been apprehended by Russian servicemen and had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention.<\/span><\/p>\n Noting in both cases that the Government had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of all of the applicants\u2019 relatives.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court further held that there had been violations of Article\u00a02 relating to the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances in which the applicants\u2019 relatives had disappeared.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court also found that the applicants had suffered and continued to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their relatives and their inability to find out what had happened to them. The manner in which their complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment, in violation of Article\u00a03.<\/span><\/p>\n Lastly, the Court found in both cases that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article\u00a05, which constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in that article.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court awarded 35,000\u00a0euros\u00a0(EUR) to Marvan Idalov\u2019s parents, jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR\u00a03,650 for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court awarded in respect of pecuniary damage EUR\u00a06,000, jointly, to Adlan Khatuyev\u2019s parents. In respect of non-pecuniary damage it awarded, jointly: EUR\u00a035,000 to Suliman Malikov\u2019s parents; EUR\u00a070,000 to Adlan and Aslan Khatuyev\u2019s parents; EUR\u00a035,000 to Sayd-Salu Akhmatov\u2019s mother and sister; and, EUR\u00a035,000 to Mansur Ismailov\u2019s mother and sister. The applicants were awarded EUR\u00a06,000 for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n 3.<\/span> Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia (no. 21519\/02<\/span>).<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Court found in particular as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Violations<\/span> of Article 3<\/span> (prohibition of torture and lack of effective investigation)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 5<\/span> (unacknowledged detention)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 13<\/span> in conjunction with Article\u00a03 (lack of an effective remedy)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n No violation of Article 34<\/span> (right to individual petition)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 38 \u00a7 1 (a)<\/span> (refusal to submit documents requested by the Court)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The applicants, Salambek Khadisov and Islam Tsechoyev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1977 respectively and live in Ingushetia (Russia).<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n