Published on 25 October 2021
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 34358/16 and 58535/16
Mutaelum Akhmednabiyevich AKHMEDNABIYEV against Russia
and Ali Akhmedovich KAMALOV against Russia
lodged on 6 June 2016 and 3 October 2016 respectively
communicated on 8 October 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern murders of two journalists (A. and K.), who had been continuously criticising local authorities and law-enforcement agents of the Dagestan Republic, and the State’s alleged failure to comply with the obligations to safeguard the lives of A. an K. and to carry out an effective investigation into their deaths. Namely, both of the journalists had been among human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists placed on an “execution list”, compiled by anonymous sources, which had been circulating in Makhachkala, the Dagestan Republic, and threatening to “kill and mutilate” those people. An investigation related to that “execution list” brought no results. K. was shot in December 2011. A. received further death threats, survived a murder attempt in January 2013 and was shot in July 2013. Criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of A.’s murder were pending. An investigation into the murder of K. is also still pending.
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the authorities comply with their positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to protect the right to life of the applicants’ relatives (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports 1998‑VIII; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 164-71, ECHR 2005‑XI; and Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, §§ 64-75, 14 September 2010)?
2. Did the authorities comply with their procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015 and Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, §§ 105-07, 13 April 2017)?
3. Is the applicants’ complaint under Article 10 of the Convention compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione personae, in so far as that complaint concerns persons other than the applicants (see, among recent authorities, Huseynova, cited above, §§ 117-24, with further references, and Akbay and Others v. Germany, nos. 40495/15 and 2 others, §§ 67-77, 15 October 2020, with further references)?
4. If the answer to the previous question is positive, has there been an interference with the applicants’ relatives’ freedom of expression, in particular their right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants’ relatives’ murders related to their journalistic activity or was this possibility properly investigated (as, for instance, an aggravated murder in view of the special status of the victims)? Did the Government comply with their positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention as defined by the Court (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, §§ 42-46, ECHR 2000‑III, and Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, §§ 137-39, 14 September 2010)?
APPENDIX
Application no. 34358/16
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
Mutaelum Akhmednabiyevich AKHMEDNABIYEV
1992
Russian
Semender, Republic of Dagestan
Application no. 58535/16
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
Ali Akhmedovich KAMALOV
1948
Russian
Makhachkala, Republic of Dagestan