Communicated on 24 April 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 46992/15
Satsita BURAYEVA
against Russia
lodged on 12 August 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant is Ms Satsita Burayeva, who was born in 1955 and lives in Grozny. She is represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov, a lawyer practising in Grozny.
The applicant is the mother of Mr Rizvan (also spelled Rezvan) Burayev, who was born in 1976.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Abduction of Mr Burayev
At about 12 noon on 1 May 2002 Mr Burayev and his acquaintance I.L. (in the documents submitted I.L. was also referred to as B.E.) were at the Novaya bus stop in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny when a group of about eleven armed servicemen in military camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a UAZ car. Having opened fire, the servicemen arrested Mr Burayev and I.L., forced them into the car, and drove off in the direction of the centre of Grozny, passing through military checkpoints on the way unhindered.
Several minutes later the local police arrived at the site and conducted an inquiry into the incident.
On 3 May 2002 I.L. was found on a rubbish dump in Katayama, Grozny. He had been severely beaten, but was alive.
The whereabouts of Mr Burayev have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of numerous witnesses – mainly passers-by, staff and customers at nearby cafés.
2. Official investigation into the abduction
On 3 May 2002 the father of Mr Burayev, K.B., informed the authorities of the abduction and asked for assistance in the search for his son.
On 29 May 2002 and on an unspecified date in June 2002 (the date is illegible) the police questioned the applicant and K.B., who gave statements similar to those indicated above.
On 18 June 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office (Прокуратура г. Грозный Чеченской Республики) opened criminal case no. 54035 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 54036) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 21 June 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant again. She reiterated her previous statements concerning the circumstances of her son’s abduction.
On 25 June 2002 the investigators questioned K.A. as a witness. She stated that she had spoken to I.L. following the abduction. He had told her that, after the servicemen had arrested him and Mr Burayev at the bus stop in Grozny, they had forced them into a UAZ car and had taken them to a basement which resembled a bomb shelter or prison. He and Mr Burayev had been separated and put in different cells not far away from each other. Servicemen who had spoken Chechen and Russian had tortured them, forcing them to confess to a terrorist attack. He had heard Mr Burayev screaming in his cell. One day somebody had taken Mr Burayev away from the cell and he had not seen or heard him anymore.
On 24 July 2002 the investigators requested that several law-enforcement agencies inform them whether they had arrested or detained Mr Burayev and I.L. No information confirming this was received.
On 18 September 2002 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about that decision on the same date. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on 20 April 2011, 24 May 2011 and 5 June 2013, and suspended on 25 April 2011, 24 June 2011 and 10 June 2013.
On 23 April 2011 the applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She was questioned again on 5 May 2013. In her statements to the investigators she reiterated her previous statements.
On 28 November 2013 the applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings in the case and question I.L. The outcome of the request is unknown.
It appears that the investigation is still pending.
3. Proceedings against the investigators
On 4 May 2011, before the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny (Ленинский районный суд г. Грозный), the applicant challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown.
On 31 May 2013 and 26 June 2015, before a court, the applicant challenged the decisions of 24 June 2011 and 10 June 2013 to suspend the criminal proceedings.
On 21 June 2013 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny (Старопромысловский районный суд г. Грозный) refused to accept the first complaint on procedural grounds. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
The outcome of the second set of proceedings is unknown.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains of a violation of Mr Burayev’s right to life, and submits that the circumstances of his abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicant also complains that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted.
Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that she is suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of her close relative, and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident.
The applicant submits that the unacknowledged detention of her relative violates all the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.
The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there “excessive or unexplained delays” on the applicant’s part in submitting her complaints to the Court after the abduction of her relative, and 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 time-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)? The applicant is invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging her application with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting her correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction of her 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 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 applicant’s submissions and the interim results of the investigation:
(a) Has the applicant made out a prima facie case that her 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 to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicant’s relative’s abduction and ensuing disappearance (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others, cited above)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s missing relative sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicant’s mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of her close relative and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance been sufficiently serious 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 applicant?
4. Was the applicant’s missing relative deprived of his liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, 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 applicant’s allegations that her missing relative was abducted by State servicemen;
and, in any event,
(b) a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicant’s complaints regarding the disappearance of her missing relative, in chronological order, 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