Information Note on the Court’s case-law 108
May 2008
Ibragimov and Others v. Russia - 34561/03
Judgment 29.5.2008 [Section I]
Article 2
Article 2-1
Life
Disappearance of applicants’ relatives in Chechnya during military operations: violations
Article 38
Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities
Government’s refusal to disclose documents requested by the Court in connection with Article 2 complaints: inferences drawn under Article 2
[This summary also covers the following judgments of 29 May 2008: Betayev and Betayeva v. Russia (no. 37315/03); Gekhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 1755/04); and Sangariyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 1839/04)]
Facts: These four cases concern Russian military operations in Chechnya in late 2002 and the spring of 2003. The facts of each case are similar: close relatives of the applicants went missing after being abducted in night raids by armed men using military vehicles and wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas. Although criminal investigations were started they failed to identify the abductors or to lead to a prosecution. In the proceedings before the European Court, the Government declined (as in a number of previous cases) to produce certain documents from the criminal investigation files on the grounds that their disclosure would violate Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure since they contained information of a military nature or personal data on witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings.
Law: Article 2 – The Court noted that there was prima facie evidence, such as eye witness accounts and the fact that large groups of armed men in uniform had been able to move freely through military roadblocks during curfew hours, that the missing relatives had been apprehended by State servicemen. Although it did not in this instance examine the question of the Government’s refusal to submit requested documents under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention, it nevertheless drew inferences from that refusal and the absence of any other plausible explanation from the Government for the events in question. Observing that unacknowledged detention by unidentified servicemen in the context of the conflict in Chechnya could be regarded as life-threatening and the authorities’ attitude towards the abduction had exacerbated the situation, it concluded that the applicants’ relatives had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen in circumstances in which there had been no justification for the use of lethal force.
Conclusion: violations (unanimously).
Other findings – The Court also found, in each of these cases, violations of the procedural limb of Article 2 and violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13. In Betayev and Betayeva, it also found a violation of Article 8 in respect of a search of the applicants’ home without a warrant. The applicants were awarded sums in respect of non-pecuniary and, in the case of Sangariyeva and Others, pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy