Communicated on 5 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 69031/14
Roza ASTAMIROVA and Movdy ISRAILOV
against Russia
lodged on 11 October 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are Ms Roza Astamirova (“the first applicant”) and Mr Movdy Israilov (“the second applicant”) who were born in 1960 and 1957 respectively and live in Grozny. They are represented before the Court by Materi Chechni, an NGO based in Chechnya.
The applicants are the aunt and the father of Mr Lom Israilov, who was born in 1981.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Abduction of Mr Lom Israilov
At about 3 a.m. on 1 March 2003 a group of ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house at 36 Chkalova Street in Katyr-Yurt, Chechnya, in two UAZ cars without registration numbers. The servicemen wore balaclavas and spoke unaccented Russian. They searched the premises, checked the identities of all those present in the house, then forced Mr Lom Israilov outside and took him away to an unknown destination.
The whereabouts of Mr Israilov have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of the applicants, other family members and neighbours.
2. Official investigation into the abduction
On 1 March 2003 the first applicant complained about the abduction to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office (Ачхой-Мартановская районная прокуратура Чеченской Республики). The investigators immediately inspected the crime scene and discovered that on the night of the abduction the perpetrators had shot dead a dog belonging to the applicants’ neighbour, Mr U.Kh. The expended casing and bullet, which were found in the courtyard of Mr U.Kh.’s house, were seized as evidence.
On the same date another neighbour, Mr I.Kh., was interviewed. He submitted, in particular, that at about 2.30 a.m. on 1 March 2003 he had been disturbed by a noise outside and had gone outside to check up. He had seen an UAZ car and an UAZ minivan (tabletka) passing by his house in the direction of the motorway.
On 2 and 5 March 2003 the second applicant was questioned. His statement to the investigators was similar to that which he gave to the Court.
On 3 March 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44022 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 5 March 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the case.
On the same date the investigators ordered a ballistics examination of the casing and bullet which had previously been found at the crime scene. The casing and bullet were checked against the list of items seized from various unsolved crimes scenes. No pertinent information was received.
On 6 March 2003 the investigators questioned an eyewitness to the abduction, Ms B.I. Her statement to the investigators was similar to the account that the applicants submitted to the Court.
On 7 March 2003 the investigators questioned the neighbour, Mr U.Kh., who submitted that at about 3 a.m. on 1 March 2003 he had seen a group of about ten armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas in the courtyard of his house. The men had shot dead his dog which had been attacking them, then they had threatened him with firearms and ordered to show them the way to the Israilovs’ family house. He had taken them through his garden to the Israilovs’ house and then returned home. Several minutes later he had seen two UAZ cars driving away.
Between 27 April and 2 May 2003, and again in July 2007 and in June 2008, the investigators questioned several residents of Katyr-Yurt. Their statements regarding the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account that the applicants submitted to the Court.
On 3 May 2003 the investigation in respect of the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. This decision was quashed on 17 June 2008 by the supervisors and the investigation was resumed. It was again suspended on 17 July 2008 and again resumed on 18 May 2014.
On 29 July 2007 the investigators again questioned the second applicant. He reiterated his previous statement about the circumstances of the abduction; however, he also submitted that the perpetrators had been in armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and a VAZ car.
On 5 March 2012 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her victim status in the case. The request was rejected.
It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
3. Proceedings against the investigators
On 5 May 2014 the first applicant lodged a complaint before the Achkhoy-Martan District Court challenging the decision of 17 July 2008 to suspend the proceedings and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps.
On 19 May 2014 the court rejected the complaint, having found that on 18 May 2014 the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 25 June 2014 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of the right to life of Mr Israilov and submit that the circumstances of his abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted.
The applicants complain, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that they are suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relative and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident.
The applicants submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relative violates all the guarantees under Article 5 of the Convention.
The applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on the part of the applicants “excessive or unexplained delays” in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relative, have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity, which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009 and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, ECHR 31 May 2016)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their application with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction of their relative.
2. Having regard to:
- the Court’s numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 of the Convention were found in respect of both the disappearances of the applicants’ relatives as a result of detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014); and;
- the similarity of the present application to the cases cited above, as can be seen from the applicants’ submissions and the interim results of the investigation,
(a) Have the applicants made out a prima facie case that their relative was arrested by State servicemen in the course of a security operation?
(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in respect of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants’ relative’s abduction and ensuing disappearance (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others, cited above, §§ 181-84; Tanış and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005–VIII)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abduction by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the event?
(c) Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants’ missing relative?
(d) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearance of the applicants’ missing relative sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relative and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into their disappearance been sufficiently serious as to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants?
4. Was the applicants’ missing relative deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees under Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 5 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
6. In accordance with the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information:
(a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants’ allegations that their missing relative was abducted by State servicemen;
and, in any event,
(b) a complete list (in chronological order) of all investigative steps taken in connection with the applicants’ complaints about the disappearance of their missing relative, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings;
as well as:
(c) copies of those documents in the investigation file that are necessary for establishing the factual circumstances of the allegations and evaluating the effectiveness of the criminal investigation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy