CASE OF GASANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF GASANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 45900/19)

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT
 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

10 January 2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Gasanova and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Yonko Grozev, President,
 Peeter Roosma,
 Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 45900/19) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 August 2019 by 27 Russian nationals listed in Appendix I (“the applicants”), who were represented by lawyers from a non-governmental organisation (NGO), Stichting Russian Justice Initiative;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”), represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 29 November 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  Invoking Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that their eight relatives had been abducted by State agents and then executed in a staged fire exchange and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter effectively. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained of moral suffering caused by the lack of information concerning their abducted relatives’ fate until their bodies had been identified. The relevant details of the incidents and the ensuing investigations are summarised in Appendix II.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

2.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

3.  A summary of relevant principles concerning allegations of abduction and murder by State agents in the North Caucasus can be found in Estemirova v. Russia, no. 42705/11, §§ 63-64, 31 August 2021.

4.  According to the applicants, they made a prima facie case of abduction of their relatives by the police in Dagestan and their ensuing execution in a staged fire exchange in Chechnya. The Government did not dispute the facts and their explanation of allegedly justified use of lethal force against their abducted relatives was an attempt to cover-up the grouped murder. In support of their allegations, the applicants referred to witness statements and other evidence collected by them and by the investigation in four criminal cases. In the applicants’ opinion, that investigation failed to comply with the Convention standards.

5.  The Government contended that the applicants’ relatives had staged their abductions to collude for an attack on law-enforcement officers, which they had tried to carry out on the night between 8 and 9 October 2016. The use of lethal force against them during the incident had been necessary and proportionate. The findings of the official investigation, which was in compliance with the Convention standards, supported that theory. The Government furnished partial copies of four relevant criminal case files amounting to about twenty thousand pages.

6.  The Court will examine firstly, whether the investigation complied with the Convention requirements, and then whether lethal force used against the applicants’ relatives had been no more than absolutely necessary and whether the applicants’ relatives had been abducted by State agents as alleged. Upon examination of the documents submitted, it notes the following elements.

1) The investigation has been opened with a significant delay and a number of most important steps have been delayed or never taken;

2) the total number and identities of officers who had participated in the incident and had opened fire at the applicants’ relatives had not been established and they had not been questioned; their service weapons had not been matched with the casings found on the site;

3) there is no evidence showing any traces of impact of the grenade explosion mentioned by the four officers questioned on the clothing, equipment, service guns or vehicles;

4) the exact cause of the eight men’s death remains unknown, as it has not been established whether they had died as a result of use of force or of the burns. The investigation failed to clarify the origin of the fire; for how long the cars had been burning, whether any of the men had tried to get out and whether any steps had been taken by the police officers to intervene. It has not been explained how both of the alleged attackers’ cars had suffered such a strong fire that it had completely incinerated the vehicles with all of the men inside;

5) the investigation failed to clarify how in November 2016 the Chechen police had obtained information concerning the exact identities of their eight relatives, given that their remains had been identified only in January 2018 via DNA examination.

7.  In view of the foregoing, and having regard to its previous well‑established case-law in this respect (see, for instance, Abdulkhanov v. Russia, no. 35012/10, § 87, 6 July 2021), the Court finds a breach of the State’s procedural obligation under Article 2.

8.  The Court notes that the Government do not deny that the applicants’ eight relatives had been killed by State agents. In view of the above findings on the deficiencies of the investigation, the Government’s allegation of absolute necessity of the use of lethal force against the applicants’ relatives is not supported by the evidence submitted to the Court. The information available does not suggest that the use of lethal force against the applicants’ relatives was absolutely necessary, nor that the actions of the authorities in respect of the planning, control and execution of the operation were sufficient to safeguard the life of the applicants’ relatives (see Dalakov v. Russia, no. 35152/09, § 87, 16 February 2016, and Khayauri and Others v. Russia, nos. 33862/17 and 2 others, § 82, 19 October 2021).

9.  Considering its findings above and the particular circumstances of the case, there is no need to determine whether the applicants’ eight relatives had been abducted prior to the incident.

10.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive head, too.

OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  The applicants also raised other complaints which are covered by the well‑established case-law of the Court. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the judgments Turluyeva v. Russia, no. 63638/09, 20 June 2013, and Alikhanovy v. Russia, no. 17054/06, 28 August 2018.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  The applicants’ claims in respect of pecuniary damage for the loss of breadwinner and the amounts awarded are provided in Appendix I. The award for non-pecuniary damage was left to the Court’s discretion. The applicants also claimed 17,334 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses.

13.  The Government submitted that the claims were unsubstantiated and unreasonable.

14.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court awards the amounts for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as indicated in Appendix I. As for costs and expenses, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 15,000, plus any tax chargeable to them on that amount, to be paid to the representatives’ bank accounts as indicated by the applicants.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Declares the application admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well‑established case-law of the Court;Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months,

(i)  in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the amounts indicated in Appendix I. Those amounts are to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;

(ii)  in respect of costs and expenses EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid to the representatives’ bank accounts as indicated by the applicants;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Olga Chernishova  Yonko Grozev
 Deputy Registrar President

 

APPENDIX I

No

Applicant’s name and surname, year of birth, place of residence

Kinship to the abducted/killed person

Pecuniary damage claimed and the amount awarded by the Court

Amount of the award for non‑pecuniary damage awarded by the Court

1.  

Ms Umraykha Gasanova,

1961, Khasavyurt

Mother of Mr Islam Magomedov, who was born in 1988 and disappeared on 28 September 2016

Amount claimed: 1,152,808 (roubles (RUB)) (about 13,100 euros (EUR))

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

 

EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants jointly

2.  

Ms Yakhsat Magomedova,

1989, Khasavyurt

Spouse of Islam Magomedov

Amount claimed: RUB 1,729,212 (about EUR 19,600)

 

Amount awarded : EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros)

 

See award for the first applicant

3.  

Ms Nailya Magomedova,

2008, Khasavyurt

Daughter of Islam Magomedov

Amount claimed: RUB 177,834

(about EUR 2,000)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

 

See award for the first applicant

4.  

Mr Abubakr Magomedov,

2016, Khasavyurt

Son of Islam Magomedov

Amount claimed: RUB 319,391

(about EUR 3,600)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

See award for the first applicant

5.  

Mr Zalimkhan Magomedov,

2010, Khasavyurt

Son of Islam Magomedov

Amount claimed: RUB 205,455

(about EUR 2,300)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

 

See award for the first applicant

6.  

Mr Magomedgadi Uzdanov,

1971, Khasavyurt

Father of Mr Gashim (also referred to as Magomedgadi) Uzdanov, who was born in 1993 and disappeared on 28 September 2016

 

Amount claimed: RUB 1,994,580

(about EUR 22,600)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the sixth and seventh applicants jointly

7.  

Ms Aida Uzdanova,

1972, Khasavyurt

Mother of Mr Gashim Uzdanov

Amount claimed: RUB 1,994,580

(about EUR 22,600)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

 

See award for the sixth applicant

8.  

Mr Ratmir Makhayev,

1965, Khasavyurt

Father of Mr Pakhrudin Makhayev, who was born in 1993 and disappeared on 28 September 2016

Amount claimed: RUB 1,311,490

(about EUR 14,900)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the eighth, ninth and tenth applicants jointly

9.  

Ms Burliyat Makhayeva,

1965, Khasavyurt

Mother of Pakhrudin Makhayev

Amount claimed: RUB 1,329,720

(about EUR 15,100)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

 

See award for the eighth applicant

10.  

Ms Aida Isayeva,

1990, Khasavyurt

Common-law partner of Pakhrudin Makhayev

Amount claimed: RUB 1,994,580

(about EUR 22,600)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros)

 

See award for the eighth applicant

11.  

Mr Dzhamaludin Dzhamaludinov,

1967, Kaspiysk

Father of Mr Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov, who was born in 1992 and disappeared on 28 September 2016

Amount claimed: 1,294,917 RUB

(about EUR 14,700)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

 

EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth applicants jointly

12.  

Ms Ravganiyat Dzhamalutdinova,

1970, Kaspiysk

Mother of Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov

Amount claimed: RUB 1,294,917

(about EUR 14,700)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

 

See award for the eleventh applicant

13.  

Ms Madinat Islamova,

1995, Kaspiysk

Spouse of Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov

Amount claimed: RUB 1,942,376

(about EUR 22,000)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros)

 

See award for the eleventh applicant

14.  

Ms Amina Dzhamalutdinova,

2016, Kaspiysk

Daughter of Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov

Amount claimed: RUB 328,022

(about EUR 3,700)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

 

See award for the eleventh applicant

15.  

Ms Yasmina Dzhamalutdinova, 2014, Kaspiysk

Daughter of Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov

Amount claimed: RUB 286,591

(about EUR 3,200)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 1,000 euros (one thousand euros)

 

See award for the eleventh applicant

16.  

Ms Turana Shikhragimova,

1997, Khasavyurt

Spouse of Mr Klych Klychev, who was born in 1991 and disappeared on 4 October 2016

Amount claimed: RUB 1,888,930

(about EUR 21,400)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros)

 

EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth applicants jointly

17.  

Mr Ibrakhim Klychev,

2015, Khasavyurt

Son of Mr Klych Klychev

Amount claimed: RUB 309,033

(about EUR 3,500)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

 

See award for the sixteenth applicant

18.  

Ms Sumayya Klycheva,

2014, Khasavyurt

Daughter of Mr Klych Klychev

Amount claimed: RUB 281,412

(about EUR 3,200)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

 

See award for the sixteenth applicant

19.  

Mr Kazi Dzhamalutdinov,

1964, Khasavyurt

Father of Mr Kamil Dzhamalutdinov, who was born in 1991 and disappeared on 4 October 2016

Amount claimed: RUB 1,888,930

(about EUR 21,400)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

 

EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the nineteenth and twentieth applicants jointly

20.  

Ms Aminat Dzhamalutdinova,

1966, Khasavyurt

Mother of Mr Kamil Dzhamalutdinov

Amount claimed: RUB 1,888,930

(about EUR 21,400)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

 

See award for the nineteenth applicant

21.  

Ms Supiyat Sharabdinova,

1970, Khasavyurt

Mother of Mr Gosen Gosenov (also known as Sharabdinov), who was born in 1993 and disappeared on 4 October 2016

Amount claimed: RUB 1,329,720

(about EUR 15,000)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third and twenty-fourth applicants jointly

22.  

Ms Khadizhat Zabitova,

1995, Khasavyurt

Spouse of Gosen Gosenov

Amount claimed: RUB 1,994,580

(about EUR 22,600)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros)

 

See award for the twenty-first applicant

23.  

Mr Khalid Gosenov,

2013, Khasavyurt

Son of Gosen Gosenov

Amount claimed: RUB 274,507

(about EUR 3,100)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

 

See award for the twenty-first applicant

24.  

Mr Usama Gosenov,

2016, Khasavyurt

Son of Gosen Gosenov

Amount claimed: RUB 319,391

(about EUR 3,600)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

 

See award for the twenty-first applicant

25.  

Mr Magomed Dzhamalutdinov, 1958, Khasavyurt

Father of Mr Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov, who was born in 1990 and disappeared on 4 October 2016

Amount claimed: RUB 1,040,115

(about EUR 11,800)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

 

EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh applicants jointly

26.  

Ms Madina Dzhamalutdinova

1966, Khasavyurt

Mother of Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov

Amount claimed: RUB 1,224,070

(about EUR 13,900)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)

See award for the twenty-fifth applicant

27.  

Ms Zulikhan Dzhamaliyeva,

1982, Khasavyurt

Common-law partner of Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov

Amount claimed: RUB 1,836,105

(about EUR 20,800)

 

Amount awarded: EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros)

See award for the twenty-fifth applicant

 

APPENDIX II

 

 

Incident involving the applicants’ relatives

Criminal case opened into the incident

Main steps taken by the investigation and the applicants’ complaints

Results of the investigation

 

 

1.

 

 

 

At 11 p.m. on 28 September 2016 Messrs Islam Magomedov, Gashim Uzdanov, Pakhrudin Makhayev and Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov drove from Manas to Kaspiysk in Dagestan. They called their families and told them that they would be home soon but gone missing. According to the applicants, the men had been abducted by officers of the Counterterrorism Centre of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior (the CTC) and taken to the agency’s headquarters in Shamilya Street in Makhachkala, Dagestan.

 

On 8 October 2016 incinerated remains belonging to eight men had been found in two burnt-down cars in Chechnya.

 

According to the Government, the four men, who had gone missing on 28 September 2016 and their four accomplices (see below) had attacked the Chechen police officers by opening gunfire and throwing a grenade at them from one of their vehicles. In return, the officers had opened gunfire; both of the attackers’ cars had caught it and burnt down completely with all of the perpetrators inside (see below).

 

 

On 7 October 2016 the Kaspiysk department of the investigative committee opened criminal case no. 629269 into the disappearance of Messrs  Magomedov, Uzdanov, Makhayev and Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction).

 

 

In the end of September 2016 the applicants complained to the authorities that their relatives Messrs Magomedov, Uzdanov, Makhayev and Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov had been abducted by the CTC officers and taken to the agency’s headquarters in Makhachkala, where the last signals from the missing men’s mobile telephones had pinned to the nearest cell-tower.

 

In January 2018 a DNA expert examination matched the remains of the four men found at the scene of the fire exchange on the night between 8 and 9 October 2016 to Messrs Magomedov, Uzdanov, Makhayev and Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov. Their relatives, including the applicants, were informed thereof in February and March 2018.

 

In June 2020 the investigators received information from undisclosed source that Messrs Magomedov, Uzdanov, Makhayev and Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov had allegedly staged their disappearance in September 2016 to “create an alibi” to organise an attack on the police, which they had subsequently carried out on the night between 8 and 9 October 2016.

 

From the documents submitted it transpires that the investigation in the present and the other criminal cases opened into the disappearance of the four men and the other of the applicants’ relatives (see below in section 4) took a number of identical steps, such as:

- Only in the end of April 2018, the investigators questioned four police officers from Chechnya involved in the fire exchange in October 2016. According to those officers, all of them had lost consciousness after one of the eight attackers had thrown a grenade in their direction from one of the two attackers’ cars. As the officers had been unconscious, they could not explain how the attackers’ cars had caught fire and burnt down; the officers stated in general terms that an unspecified number of their colleagues had also participated in the events but could neither indicate the latter’s’ identities nor describe their actions.

- in each of the criminal cases the circumstances under which the attackers’ vehicles had caught fire remained unelucidated. In particular, it was unclear which weapons used by the officers could have caused fire of such intensity that it led to the complete incineration of the vehicles with the eight attackers inside and whether any steps had been taken by the officers to put that fire out or assist the alleged attackers with getting out of the cars.

 

In each of the criminal cases, the applicants complained, albeit to no avail, to the investigators’ superiors and the local courts of the lack of information on the progress in the investigation and the investigators’ failure to take steps to have the crime resolved.

 

 

On 30 June 2020 the investigation of the criminal case was terminated as no crime had taken place.

 

2.

 

 

 

 

At 4 p.m. on 4 October 2016 Messrs Klych Klychev, Kamil Dzhamalutdinov and Gosen Gosenov were abducted from a car service station in Khasavyurt, Dagestan, by a group of armed men in balaclavas who drove in a Toyota Land Cruiser with the registration number H161PY05. The abductors also took Mr Klychev’s car away. According to the applicants, the three men had been abducted by the CTC officers and taken to the agency’s headquarters in Shamilya Street in Makhachkala.

 

On 8 October 2016 charred bones belonging to eight humans were found in Chechnya (see above).

 

 

On 7 October 2016 the Khasavyurt department of the investigative committee opened criminal case no. 610538 into the abduction of Messrs Klychev, Dzhamalutdinov and Gosenov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction).

 

 

Since the beginning of October 2016 the applicants and their relatives alleged to the investigation that their three relatives had been abducted by the CTC officers, who had taken them to the agency’s headquarters in Makhachkala.

 

On 5 October 2016 two officers from the Khasavyurt district police station visited the mother of Mr Klych Klychev, Ms L.K., and told her that he was detained in Makhachkala. They requested that she handed them over his personal documents, including his passport. Ms L.K. related this information to the investigation. On 7 October 2016 Ms L.K. brought the requested documents to officer A.I at the police station. The officer acknowledged their receipt from Ms L.K. in writing and in the presence of the mother of Mr Gosen Gosenov (the 21st applicant) and Ms S.Sh. None of the police officers were subsequently questioned by the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives.

 

On 20 March 2017 Ms L.K. handed to the investigators a copy of the CCTV footage of the abduction from a camera across the street. The investigators neither examined the footage nor questioned the persons who had obtained it nor tried to identify and question either persons depicted therein or any of the witnesses to the incident.

 

In January 2018 a DNA expert examination matched the remains of three of the men found at the scene of the fire exchange on 8 October 2015 to Messrs Klychev, Dzhamalutdinov and Gosenov. Their relatives, including the applicants, were informed thereof in February and March 2018.

 

 

On 30 June 2020 the investigation of the criminal case was terminated as no crime had taken place.

 

 

3.

 

 

 

At 9 p.m. on 4 October 2016 Mr Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov was abducted next to his home by a group of armed men in balaclavas who drove around in two armoured Toyota Land Cruisers and a Lada Priora car. The abductors also took his VAZ-2107 car with registration number H190XM05. According to the applicants, the abduction was perpetrated by the CTC officers, who took Mr Dzhamalutdinov to their agency’s headquarters in Shamilya Street in Makhachkala.

 

 

 

 

 

On 7 October 2016 the Khasavyurt investigative committee opened criminal case no. 610539 into the abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction).

 

 

Since the beginning of October 2016 the applicants and their relatives complained to the investigation that the abduction had been perpetrated by the CTC officers and that Mr Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov was detained at the agency’s headquarters in Makhachkala.

 

On 18 April 2017 the investigators questioned Ms D.S. who stated that she had witnessed the abduction and recognised Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov. She had thought that the police had been arresting him and stated that a salesperson from a nearby store had also witnessed the incident. That investigators did not question that salesperson.

 

In January 2018 a DNA examination of the remains of one of the eight persons from the scene of the fire exchange matched them to Mr Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov. His relatives, including the applicants, were informed thereof in February or March 2018.

 

 

On 20 December 2018 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for the failure to identify the perpetrators. It is unclear whether it is pending to date.

 

4.

 

 

 

 

According to the Government, between 8 and 11 p.m. on 8 October 2016 three mobile groups of officers of the Chechen law-enforcement agencies and the Dagestan CTC were checking cars on the road between Gersel and Engel-Yurt in Chechnya.

One of the groups of four officers was checking two VAZ - model cars, when suddenly their passengers opened automatic gunfire and then threw a grenade at the officers; as a result of the explosion, all four officers lost consciousness and received some blunt bodily injuries. Then they and/or their unidentified colleagues opened automatic gunfire at the attackers. Both attackers’ vehicles simultaneously caught fire and completely burnt down with all of the eight attackers inside.

 

According to the applicants, the bodies of their eight relatives, who had been abducted several days prior to the incident and then killed, had been placed in the two vehicles by the police. Then both cars had been set on such strong fire, that it had completely burnt them down along with the bodies inside.

 

On 9 October 2016 the Chechnya investigative committee opened criminal case no. 31428 under Articles 222 and 317 of the Criminal Code (unlawful turnover of firearms and attempt on the life of a law-enforcement officer).

 

From the documents submitted is unclear when the crime scene examination was carried out and how many pieces of evidence were collected.

 

On 31 October, 15 November and then on 23 December 2016 the Chechnya Forensics Bureau examined the charred remains of the eight men who had burnt down during the incident on the night between 8 and 9 October 2016. It concluded that the cause of the death was impossible to establish due to the “severe heat burn” of the remains.

 

On 28 November 2016 the investigators visually examined three pistols and two machine guns found in the incinerated cars. Their forensic examination commissioned in June or July 2017 found that the firearms were in working condition.

 

On 29 November 2016, an investigator from the Staropromyslovskiy district investigative committee in Grozny, wrote to the head of the Chechnya Counterterrorism Centre stating that the incinerated remains found at the scene of the incident in Chechnya belonged to the eight men (the applicants’ relatives) who had been abducted in Dagestan between the end of September and beginning of October 2016.

 

In June 2017 the forensic examination of the burnt down cars concluded that it was impossible to establish either the origin or the cause of the fire. In November 2017 another forensic examination established one of the cars’ engine identification numbers; no steps were taken to establish provenance of that vehicle.

 

Between June and August 2017 the investigators received operational information according to which the applicants’ relatives had been either members of illegal armed groups or followers of an extremist religious movement.

 

On various dates in April 2018 the four officers who had been involved in the incident were questioned by the investigators (see also above in section 1). Their almost verbatim statements contained neither information as to the identities of any other officers involved in the operation between 8 and 9 October 2016 nor explained how all four of them, considering they had lost consciousness after the grenade explosion, had been able to shoot back and set both of the attackers’ cars on such intense fire. It also remained unclear whether any steps had been taken by them or any other officers to save the men in the burning cars or put the fire out.

 

From the documents submitted it transpires that the investigation failed to establish how many officers had participated in the incident on the night between 8 and 9 October 2016 as no other officers had been questioned about the events, other the ones indicated above. Neither the officers’ statements nor any other documents in the case file contain any indication or description of the damage caused to the police vehicles or equipment, despite the grenade explosion and the automatic gunfire allegedly opened at the officers by the applicants’ relatives.

 

On 22 January 2018 the forensic examination of the remains concluded that they belonged to the applicants’ missing relatives. The applicants were informed thereof in February and March 2018. In November 2018 another forensic examination of the remains concluded that it was impossible to establish the cause of death.

 

 

On 20 March 2020 the Chechnya Supreme Court found Messrs Magomedov, Uzdanov, Makhayev, Klychev, Kamil Dzhamalutdinov, Gosenov, Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov and Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov guilty of crimes under Articles 222 and 317 of the Criminal Code and terminated the criminal case against them for the death of the accused. On 14 July 2020 the decision became final.

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy