The ECHR cases of Merzhuyeva and Others v. Russia (application no. 27315\/06 and 27449\/06).<\/p>\n
.<\/span><\/p>\n \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 732<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 07.10.2010<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Press release issued by the Registrar<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Two disappearances in Chechnya<\/span><\/p>\n In today\u2019s Chamber judgment in the case Merzhuyeva and Others v. Russia (application nos. 27315\/06 and 27449\/06), which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: Two violations of Article 2 (right to life: disappearances) of the European Convention on Human Rights; Principal facts<\/strong><\/span> The applicants are seven Russian nationals who belong to two families whose two male relatives disappeared after being detained in two separate incidents, respectively in 2003 and 2002, in the village of Katyr-Yurt, Chechnya. The first six applicants are the wife, sister and children of Khamzat Merzhoyev; they were all present during his abduction. The Seventh applicant is the mother of Ali Gastamirov; as she was not an eye-witness of his abduction, her account of the events was based on testimonies she collected afterwards. Both Khamzat Merzhoyev and Ali Gastamirov were abducted at night from their homes at Lenina Street, at two different points in time separated by about 18 months. The abductions were part of two separate interventions by unknown armed men in camouflage uniforms, who, having arrived with armoured military cars, burst into the houses where Khamzat and Ali were sleeping at the time and forcefully took the two young men away. Their relatives have not had any news about what happened to them since. The applicants contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, including the Russian President, the Chechen administration, military commanders\u2019 offices, prosecution offices at different levels, describing in detail the circumstances in which the two young men were apprehended and asking for help to find them. Investigations were opened into both cases: 18 days after Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s abduction, and one day after Ali Gastamirov\u2019s abduction. Certain investigative steps were taken in both cases, however, the investigations were stayed and resumed several times for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants hardly received any susbstantive information about the progress of the investigations, and were not given access to the files despite their explicit requests. Their letters to the relevant authorities were mostly forwarded to the prosecutor\u2019s office.<\/span><\/p>\n The Russian Government did not dispute most of the complaints. Despite specific requests by the Court, however, it did not disclose most of the contents of the criminal investigation files referring to the incompatibility of such an action with national legislation.<\/span><\/p>\n Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13, the applicants complained about the abduction, unlawful detention and ultimate disappearance of their relatives, about having themselves suffered as a result, about there not having been an effective investigation into the disappearances, and about not having had an effective remedy to challenge effectively their complaints related to the disappearances.<\/span><\/p>\n The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 May and 21 May 2006. Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decided to join the two applications and examine them together. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows: Christos Rozakis (Greece), President, Decision of the Court<\/strong><\/span> Article 2<\/strong> (abduction and disappearances) Article 2<\/strong> (investigation) Article 3<\/strong> Article 5<\/strong> Article 13<\/strong> Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Russia was to pay, jointly to the wife and the children of Khamzat Merzhoyev, 8,976 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, and to all applicants – sums ranging between EUR 12,000 and EUR 60,000 in respect of non pecuniary damage, as well as EUR 4,000 and EUR 3,500 respectively to the relatives of Khamzat and Ali in respect of costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n ****<\/span><\/p>\n CASE OF MERZHUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n (Applications nos. 27315\/06 and 27449\/06)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n JUDGMENT<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n STRASBOURG<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 7 October 2010<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 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><\/em><\/p>\n In the case of Merzhuyeva and Others v. Russia<\/strong>,<\/span><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/span><\/p>\n Christos Rozakis, President, Having deliberated in private on 16 September 2010,<\/span><\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/span><\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in two applications (nos. 27315\/06 and 27449\/06) 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 seven Russian nationals listed below (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 29 May and 21 May 2006.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Ingushetia, Russia. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the 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 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants alleged that their relatives had disappeared after their detention by the security forces in Katyr-Yurt, Chechnya, in 2003 and 2002, respectively. They complained under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 July 2008 the Court decided to apply Rule\u00a041 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the applications, and to give notice of the applications to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 \u00a7 3 of the Convention). The President of the Chamber acceded to the Government\u2019s request not to make publicly accessible the documents from the criminal investigation files deposited with the Registry in connection with the applications (Rule 33 of the Rules of Court).<\/span><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the applications. Having considered the Government\u2019s objection, the Court dismissed it.<\/span><\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/span><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants in application no. 27315\/06 are:<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Aymani Merzhuyeva, born in 1955,<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Zarema Abdulkarimova, born in 1968,<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Rizvan Merzhoyev, born in 1990,<\/span><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Ruslan Merzhoyev, born in 1994,<\/span><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Usman Merzhoyev, born in 1996,<\/span><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Bekhan Merzhoyev, born in 1998.<\/span><\/p>\n The applicant in application no. 27449\/06 is:<\/span><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Zaa Gastamirova, born in 1957.<\/span><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0All applicants live in the Chechen Republic (Chechnya), Russia.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/span><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 relatives\u2019 disappearance<\/span><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants belong to two families. Their two male relatives were detained in two separate incidents in 2003 and 2002 in Lenina Street in the village of Katyr-Yurt (also spelled as Katar-Yurt), in the Achkhoy-Martan district of Chechnya, and subsequently disappeared. The first six applicants were present during the abduction of their relative. The seventh applicant was not an eyewitness to the events and her account is based on testimonies collected by her in the aftermath of the disappearance.<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Apprehension of Khamzat Merzhoyev<\/span><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant is a sister of Khamzat Merzhoyev, who was born in 1963. The second applicant is his wife. The third to sixth applicants are the children of Khamzat Merzhoyev and the second applicant.<\/span><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0At the material time the first six applicants, Khamzat Merzhoyev and other relatives lived in two houses at no. 129 Lenina Street (in the documents submitted, the address is also stated as 167 Lenina Street or 167 Kadyrova Street) in Katyr-Yurt. The settlement was under curfew.<\/span><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On the night of 23 November 2003 the first applicant, her mother and the second, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants were sleeping in the first house. The first applicant shared a room with her mother. The second applicant and her children were in another room. The third applicant, Khamzat Merzhoyev and his elderly father, Mr M.M., who subsequently died, were sleeping in the second house.<\/span><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0At about 3 a.m. a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants\u2019 gate in several armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and military UAZ cars. Four tall men wearing body armour emerged from the vehicles and burst into the first house. They entered the first applicant and her mother\u2019s room and told them to be quiet in unaccented Russian. The women thought that the intruders were Russian servicemen. The men then took the second applicant and her children to the first room. After a warning that a bomb was hidden under the porch, they ordered the women to remain seated and not to leave the house. Some two minutes later the men walked out.<\/span><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0In the meantime, at around 2 a.m. in the second house the third applicant had switched off the television before going to bed. He went to Mr\u00a0M.M.\u2019s bedroom. Some five minutes later three or four tall men in camouflage uniforms broke into the house. The third applicant thought that they were servicemen. One of them put his rifle barrel to the applicant\u2019s neck. The men then pulled Mr M.M. from his couch. While he was trying to get up, they flailed him with a rifle butt. The applicant begged the men to leave Mr M.M. alone. Instead, one of the men slapped the applicant on his neck and shoulders three or four times. Another man tied up the applicant\u2019s hands, legs and mouth with adhesive tape. The same was done to Mr M.M. The men ordered the applicant not to leave home and, after spending about ten minutes there, went away.<\/span><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0At the same time the third applicant heard a noise coming from Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s room, as if there was a fight. The applicant thought that the servicemen were trying to arrest his father. They took Khamzat Merzhoyev outside, put him in one of the vehicles and drove away in an unknown direction.<\/span><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0As soon as the men departed, the third applicant tore up the adhesive tape and rushed to the suffocating Mr M.M. to help him out. When he glimpsed inside his father\u2019s bedroom, the latter was no longer there. The third applicant looked out of the window to see one of the intruders walking through the gate and heading for the street. He was thickset.<\/span><\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The third applicant subsequently deposited his grandfather at the first house, where the other five applicants were, and rushed to see Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s brother, Mr\u00a0A.M., who lived in the neighbourhood. Once in the street, he saw an APC that had pulled over to Mr K.\u2019s family\u2019s gate, some 100 metres away from the first house. A large number of servicemen were walking towards the APC. Shortly afterwards they broke into Mr K.\u2019s house. The applicant heard the women crying inside. Suddenly the noises died away. The applicant went inside Mr A.M.\u2019s house and related the events to him.<\/span><\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0In the meantime, as soon as the first and second applicants had learnt from Mr M.M. that Khamzat Merzhoyev had been apprehended and driven away by the servicemen, they rushed down Lenina Street. They saw several military vehicles, including three APCs and some UAZ cars, about 100 metres from their first house. A number of servicemen were sitting on top of the APCs, which were driving to the east end of the village. The men were speaking Russian and Chechen. Those who were speaking Chechen were masked. As they approached the local administration office, the servicemen opened fire.<\/span><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0Thereafter the first and second applicants went to the second house. They saw blood on the floor of Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s room. They understood that the servicemen had beaten him up.<\/span><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0In the morning of 23 November 2003 the first six applicants found out that six other local men, Mr U.K., Mr S.-M.S., the brothers Mr A.Tul. and Mr K.Tul. and two brothers named Taz. had been apprehended in Katyr-Yurt on the same night by the same servicemen during a special operation. Mr U.K., Mr S.-M.S., one of the Tul. brothers and one of the Taz. brothers had been released that same morning on the outskirts of the village of Shaami-Yurt in the Achkhoy-Martan district. On 25 or 26 November 2003 the second Tul. brother and the second Taz. brother had been released from detention on the premises of the Achkhoy-Martan district department of the interior (\u201cthe ROVD\u201d). The first applicant spoke to them after their release. They confirmed that they had been detained at the ROVD.<\/span><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The first six applicants have had no news of Khamzat Merzhoyev since 23\u00a0November 2003.<\/span><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The description of the events of the night of 23 November 2003 is based on the first applicant\u2019s account submitted with the application. In addition, the applicants\u2019 representative provided the first and third applicants\u2019 accounts given on 4 July 2008 and an account by witness Mr\u00a0K.T. given on 5 July 2008.<\/span><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0In her account dated 4 July 2008, the first applicant submitted that Khamzat Merzhoyev had participated in the first Chechen war between 1994 and 1996, challenging the authority of the Russian troops. He had been wounded after three or four months of military action. Thereafter he had no longer taken part in the hostilities, including during the second war in Chechnya.<\/span><\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They submitted that during the night of 23 November 2003 \u201carmed unidentified persons wearing masks and camouflage uniforms\u201d had entered Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s house at no. 129 Lenina Street and taken him away to an unknown destination. The Government denied any involvement of State agents in Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s disappearance.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Apprehension of Ali Gastamirov<\/span><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The seventh applicant is the mother of Ali Gastamirov, also referred to as Ali Gastemirov, born in 1979.<\/span><\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On the night of 12 May 2002 the seventh applicant and her husband, Mr A.-Kh.G., were staying with their relatives in a neighbouring village. Their son Ali Gastamirov, his wife, Ms M.G., also referred to as Ms M.T., his two sisters, including Ms Kh.G., and Ms E.Z., Mr A.-Kh.G.\u2019s sister, stayed at home, at no. 8 Lenina Street (in the documents submitted, the address is also referred to as no. 2 Lenina Street) in Katyr-Yurt. The settlement was under curfew.<\/span><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0At the material time the seventh applicant\u2019s house was composed of two separate dwellings. That night Ali Gastamirov and Ms M.G. were sharing a room in the first house, whereas Ms Kh.G. was sleeping in a separate room there. Ms E.Z. and Ms Kh.G.\u2019s sister were sleeping in the second house.<\/span><\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0At around 4 a.m. a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms parked their cars, an APC and two UAZ vehicles, in the vicinity of the river Shalazhi, some 300 metres away both from a Russian military unit and from the seventh applicant\u2019s house. They then headed for Katyr-Yurt on foot.<\/span><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0Between 3 and 4 a.m. a group of ten to sixteen armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at Lenina Street. Some of them were masked, others were wearing helmets. Five or six of them burst into the house of the seventh applicant\u2019s neighbour, Mr A.D., whereas the others remained waiting outside. After five or ten minutes the men walked out of Mr A.D.\u2019s house. Then they split up into two groups: the first broke into the house of Mr\u00a0M.Sh. and the second into the seventh applicant\u2019s house.<\/span><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0Ms Kh.G. was woken up by three armed men in camouflage uniforms. They were tall and heavyset, and were speaking unaccented Russian. One of them was unmasked and had Slavic features. The men conducted a quick search of the room. They did not allow Ms Kh.G. to join her brother in the neighbouring room. At some point the men ordered Ms\u00a0M.G. to open the second house to them. She obeyed.<\/span><\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0Ms E.Z., who was sleeping in the second house, was woken up by six or seven armed men in camouflage uniforms. One of them was unmasked and had Slavic features. They started searching the house. Fear rendered Ms E.Z. powerless and she fainted.<\/span><\/p>\n 32. In the meantime the servicemen burst into Ali Gastamirov\u2019s room. They asked him questions and checked his passport. They further took him to the street on the pretext of showing them around the backyard. Ali Gastamirov asked Ms Kh.G. to follow him. The men objected. They hustled Ms Kh.G. and Ms M.G. into the house and closed the front door with an axe from the outside. Ms Kh.G. and Ms\u00a0M.G. understood that the servicemen had taken Ali Gastamirov away.<\/span><\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0At the same time the second group of servicemen walked out of Mr\u00a0M.Sh.\u2019s house.<\/span><\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0Once in the street, the two groups of servicemen got together in a tight circle, as if they were trying to hide someone in the middle. Thereafter they ran in the direction of a pasture field on the outskirts of Katyr-Yurt, where regiment no. 47 of the Russian federal forces was deployed.<\/span><\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0Some five or ten minutes later Ms Kh.G. and Ms M.G. managed to open the front door. They looked around but saw nobody in the backyard or in the street. Suddenly they heard the roar of engines starting up, coming from the river. Ms Kh.G. could distinguish the roar of an APC. The women thought that the cars belonged to the abductors. Then they heard the cars driving away.<\/span><\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0At around 5 a.m. the neighbours got together at the seventh applicant\u2019s house. They saw clear footprints left by Ali Gastamirov and the servicemen in the yard, which led to the pasture field where the servicemen had parked their cars.<\/span><\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0At around 9 a.m. the seventh applicant and her husband returned home. The neighbours related Ali Gastamirov\u2019s abduction to them.<\/span><\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The seventh applicant has had no news of Ali Gastamirov since 12\u00a0May 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The description of the events of the night of 12 May 2002 is based on the seventh applicant\u2019s account submitted with the application. In addition, the following accounts have been provided by the applicant\u2019s representative: the seventh applicant\u2019s account, given on 18 December 2008; an account by Ms Kh.G., given on 1 November 2008; an account by Ms\u00a0E.Z. given on 14 November 2008; an account by Mr Z.A., given on 29\u00a0November 2008; an account by witness Mr I.Sh., given on 14 December 2008; an account by witness Mr Kh.B., given on 18 December 2008; and an extract from the Achkhoy-Martan district newspaper Iman, dated 8 July 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The Government did not challenge most of the facts as submitted by the seventh applicant. They stated that at about 4 a.m. on 12 May 2002 \u201carmed unidentified persons wearing masks and camouflage uniforms\u201d had apprehended Ali Gastamirov in his house at no. 2 Lenina Street and then abducted him. The Government argued that there were no grounds to suspect that State agents had been involved in Ali Gastamirov\u2019s disappearance.<\/span><\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0The search for the applicants\u2019 relatives and the investigation<\/span><\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants and their relatives contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the Russian President, the Chechen administration, military commanders\u2019 offices, departments of the interior and prosecutors\u2019 offices at different levels, describing in detail the circumstances of their relatives\u2019 apprehension and asking for help in establishing their whereabouts. The applicants kept copies of a number of those letters and submitted them to the Court. An official investigation was opened by the local prosecutor\u2019s office in both cases. The applicants received hardly any substantive information from the official bodies about the investigation into the disappearances. Their letters to the relevant authorities were mostly forwarded to the district prosecutor\u2019s office and the ROVD. The relevant information is summarised below.<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Search for Khamzat Merzhoyev<\/span><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 November 2003 the first and second applicants, accompanied by their relatives, went to the ROVD to enquire about Khamzat Merzhoyev. Police officers told them that he was not being held there. The applicants asked the police officers to pass warm clothes and shoes on to Khamzat, as he had been detained without any. The officers took the clothes and shoes from them.<\/span><\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0Later on the same day the first and second applicants went to the prosecutor\u2019s office of the Achkhoy-Martan district (\u201cthe district prosecutor\u2019s office\u201d) where they met Mr A.E., the head of the Katyr-Yurt administration. Mr A.E. told the applicants that six persons out of the seven detained would be released. He was unaware who would be retained by the police.<\/span><\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0Thereafter the first and second applicants returned to the ROVD. On the evening of 23 November 2003 the police officers gave them back the clothing that the applicants had handed over in the morning. The police officers told them that Khamzat had been provided with the necessary clothing and that he did not need anything.<\/span><\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0Over the next few days Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s relatives regularly went to the ROVD and the district prosecutor\u2019s office. None of the officials whom they met there was able to tell the applicants why Khamzat had been detained and where he was being held.<\/span><\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0A week after Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s abduction Mr A.E. told Mr\u00a0S.-M.M., Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s brother, that the head of the Achkhoy-Martan district administration had informed him that Khamzat would not be released, for an unknown reason.<\/span><\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0Two or three months after Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s disappearance Mr\u00a0Sh.K., the head of the ROVD, informed the applicants and their relatives that he had almost established Khamzat\u2019s whereabouts. Mr Sh.K. refused to provide any further assistance to the applicants.<\/span><\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 November 2003 Mr M.M. requested the district prosecutor\u2019s office to open an investigation into Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s kidnapping.<\/span><\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 December 2003 the district prosecutor\u2019s office launched a criminal investigation (file no. 44090) into the abduction of Khamzat Merzhoyev under Article 126 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping).<\/span><\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 December 2003 the district prosecutor\u2019s office granted victim status to Mr S.-M.M.<\/span><\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0Between January 2004 and May 2005 the first applicant complained about her brother\u2019s abduction to a number of law-enforcement authorities, including the Prosecutor General\u2019s office. However, she did not submit copies of those letters to the Court.<\/span><\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 April 2004 the district prosecutor\u2019s office stayed the investigation in case no. 44090 on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators.<\/span><\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 April 2004 the prosecutor\u2019s office of the Chechen Republic (\u201cthe Chechnya prosecutor\u2019s office\u201d) resumed the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 June 2004 the district prosecutor\u2019s office stayed the investigation in case no. 44090 because the term of the preliminary investigation had expired and the perpetrators had not been identified.<\/span><\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged an action with the Achkhoy-Martan District Court (\u201cthe district court\u201d), seeking to have Khamzat Merzhoyev declared a missing person, in order to receive a pension for the loss of the family breadwinner. On 14 February 2005 the district court allowed her action and declared Khamzat Merzhoyev a missing person. The court noted that the criminal investigation in case no.\u00a044090 had been pending since 28 December 2004.<\/span><\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 June 2005 the first applicant wrote to the military prosecutor\u2019s office of the United Group Alignment (\u201cthe military prosecutor\u2019s office of the UGA\u201d), requesting assistance in the search for Khamzat Merzhoyev.<\/span><\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 June 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor\u2019s office informed the first applicant that it had examined her complaint about Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s abduction. According to the letter, the authorities had been conducting operational-search measures aimed at solving the crime.<\/span><\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 July 2005 the ROVD informed the first applicant that the ROVD had opened operational-search file no.\u00a091615 and had been taking measures to establish Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s whereabouts.<\/span><\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 July 2005 the ROVD informed the family that the operational-search measures aimed at establishing Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s whereabouts had failed to produce any results.<\/span><\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 November 2005 a group of dwellers of the Achkhoy-Martan district submitted to the Russian President a request for help in establishing the whereabouts of their 140 relatives, including Khamzat Merzhoyev. They submitted that their relatives had been abducted during counter-terrorist operations, conducted by Russian federal servicemen from 2000 to 2004 in that district.<\/span><\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 December 2005 the petitions department of the Office of the Russian President (\u0423\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u041f\u0440\u0435\u0437\u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430 \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u043f\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u0435 \u0441 \u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0449\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\u043c\u0438 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0434\u0430\u043d \u2013 \u201cthe petitions department\u201d) forwarded their request to the Prosecutor\u2019s General Office for examination.<\/span><\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 January 2006 the military prosecutor\u2019s office of the UGA forwarded the first applicant\u2019s request for assistance in the search for Khamzat Merzhoyev to the military prosecutor\u2019s office of military unit no.\u00a020102 for examination.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nTwo violations of Article 2 (right to life: lack of effective investigation)
\nA violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment)
\nTwo violations of Article 5 (right to liberty and security)
\nA violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nNina Vaji\u0107 (Croatia),
\nAnatoly Kovler (Russia),
\nElisabeth Steiner (Austria),
\nKhanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),
\nGiorgio Malinverni (Switzerland),
\nGeorge Nicolaou (Cyprus), Judges,
\nand also S\u00f8ren Nielsen, Section Registrar.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe Court considered that the relatives of the two disappeared men had provided a consistent account of the abductions. The fact that, in both cases, a group of armed men in uniform and with military vehicles had been able to move freely through military roadblocks during curfew hours and had apprehended several people in their own homes, had strongly supported the applicants allegations that those men had been Russian servicemen conducting security operations. The Court further drew inferences from the Russian Government\u2019s failure to submit all documents related to the investigations to which it exclusively had access, despite specific requests from the Court. As it had not provided any other plausible explanation for the disappearances in question, the Court considered that Khamzat Merzhoyev and Ali Gastamirov had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Khamzat Merzhoyev and Ali Gastamirov.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nIn both cases the Court found that there had been further violations of Article 2 on account of the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances in which Khamzat Merzhoyev and Ali Gastamirov had disappeared. In particular, there had been both significant delays in carrying out urgent investigative steps, as well as serious omissions concerning other steps. The applicants had been hardly informed of the progress of the investigations and had not been allowed to exercise due scrutiny over it. There had also been lengthy periods of inactivity, and a numer of crucial witnesses had never been questioned.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe Court found that the sister, the wife and the children of Khamzat Merzhoyev had suffered distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their close relative and their inability to find out what had happened to him. The manner in which those applicants\u2019 complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment in violation of Article 3.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe Court held that Khamzat Merzhoyev and Ali Gastamirov had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe Court finally held that, as the criminal investigations into the disappearance of the Khamzat Merzhoyev had been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed had consequently been undermined, Russia had failed in its obligation under Article 13. Consequently there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 in respect of Khamzat Merzhoyev\u2019s relatives.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nNina Vaji\u0107,
\nAnatoly Kovler,
\nElisabeth Steiner,
\nKhanlar Hajiyev,
\nGiorgio Malinverni,
\nGeorge Nicolaou, judges,
\nand S\u00f8ren Nielsen, Section Registrar,<\/span><\/p>\n