Communicated on 17 September 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 14929/17
Marina Yusupovna BEGIYEVA
against Russia
lodged on 12 April 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Marina Yusupovna Begiyeva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Nalchik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At around 1 p.m. on 18 April 2014 the applicant’s son, Mr Kh. Yu. Begiyev, travelled by car down Shogenova Street in the town of Nalchik. The policemen apparently had prior information that he could be in possession of firearms and tried to stop him, but he ignored their signs and drove on, trying to escape. It appears that a pursuit operation ensued. The applicant’s son drove up a cul de sac in the outskirts of Nalchik. He left the car and then tried to run away on foot through a field and into a forest.
The four police officers who had pursued him shot the applicant’s son nine times in the back, killing him on the spot.
The ensuing investigation established that the applicant’s son had been in possession of a gun and, whilst trying to run away, made a few shots at the policemen, who returned fire, killing him. The police operation had not been spontaneous and that the police officers had had prior information about the applicant’s son and his profile.
According to the applicable domestic law the applicant and the family could accept an investigator’s decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the victim with reference to his death or could ask to a trial examination of the case before the criminal courts. The applicant and her family insisted on the trial examination of the case and by a first instance judgment of 3 August 2016 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya found the applicant guilty of having been in possession of a firearm and having attacked the policemen on 18 April 2014.
The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court on 28 October 2017.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention that the police operation in respect of her son which resulted in his death had been unlawful, that the use of lethal force had been disproportionate and that the way the authorities investigated the incident and examined it in court was not compatible with the requirements of Article 2.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 2 of the Convention complied with in the present case? In particular, was the killing of the applicant’s son “absolutely necessary” in pursuance of one of the aims listed in that provision? In particular, the respondent Government are requested to provide detailed information on the background of the operation of 18 April 2014. What was the exact aim of the operation? What police department did the officers involved belong to? What was the exact information available to the authorities in respect of the applicant? If the operation was pre-planned, the Government are requested to explain whether the operation had been planned in such a way as to minimise risk to the applicant’s son’s life.
2. Did the authorities comply with the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention? Did they conduct an effective and prompt investigation into the circumstances of death of the applicant’s son? Reference is made in particular to the applicant’s allegation that the authorities had failed to elucidate the relevant circumstances of the incident, including the background of the operation and the exact conduct of his son and police officers during the events.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy