DOKUYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 6704/03
by Vakhit Abdurashidovich DOKUYEV and Others
against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

MrL. Loucaides, President,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 February 2003,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are:

1) Mr Vakhit Abdurashidovich Dokuyev, born in 1947;

2) Mrs Zina Abdulayevna Dokuyeva, born in 1952;

3) Mrs Imani Ramzanovna Makayeva, born in 1983;

4) Mrs Rukiyat Vakhitovna Dokuyeva, born in 1972;

5) Mrs Makka Vakhitovna Dokuyeva, born in 1983;

6) Mr Khavazh Abdurashidovich Dokuyev, born in 1951;

7) Mrs Kheda Khavazhovna Dokuyeva, born in 1978.

The applicants are Russian nationals and live in the village of Novye Atagi, Shali district, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Magomed Dokuyev, born in 1977. The third applicant is the wife of Mr Magomed Dokuyev, with whom she had a son born in 2000. The fourth and the fifth applicants are sisters of Mr Magomed Dokuyev, and the sixth and the seventh applicants are his uncle and cousin.

The Dokuyev family live in the village of Novye Atagi at 4 Podgornaya Street in a household composed of two houses and a common courtyard. The first five applicants and Mr Magomed Dokuyev lived in one house. The other house belongs to the sixth applicant and his family.

Mr Magomed Dokuyev finished school in 1994 and studied to become a translator from English and Arabic. His higher education was interrupted by the first and the second periods of hostilities in Chechnya. He never had a full-time job.

1. Arrest and detention of Mr Magomed Dokuyev and Mr Vakhit Dokuyev

(a) The applicants’ account

On 14 February 2001 at about 6 a.m. two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and a Ural truck with obscured number plates drove up to the Dokuyevs’ family home. Mr Magomed Dokuyev, his father, wife and two sisters (the first, third, fourth and fifth applicants) were at home at that time. The second applicant, Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s mother, was away that day. A large group of more than twenty uniformed armed soldiers, most of whom were wearing masks, broke into the house. They asked the first applicant for his passport. They also asked Mr Magomed Dokuyev to confirm his identity. However, they did not ask for his documents. The soldiers then allowed the first applicant to dress, whereas his son had to remain barefoot. Both men were taken into the courtyard of the house, while the women and children were ordered to stay inside the house. In the courtyard the soldiers started to kick and beat Mr Magomed Dokuyev with their rifle butts. When the first applicant tried to intervene, the soldiers beat him too and ordered him to stand against the wall.

The sixth and the seventh applicants were in their house at that time and witnessed the detention of Mr Magomed Dokuyev and Mr Vakhit Dokuyev. The sixth applicant, woken by the noise, went out into the courtyard and was forced by the soldiers to lie face down while his brother and nephew were apprehended.

The first applicant and his son were subsequently taken to an APC parked at the back of the house. The first applicant heard the sound of a second APC driving behind them and guessed that they were being taken in the direction of the Grozny-Shali road. While in the APC the detainees were not allowed to talk or look around. About one hour later the vehicles stopped and the men were taken outside. They were handcuffed and blindfolded, but the first applicant managed to take a glance at the military tents around. Later he heard helicopters landing and taking off and the sounds of morning exercise, which convinced him that he was in a large military base, probably in Khankala.

The first applicant was thrown on the ground inside a tent, and he could hear his son and another man screaming in a tent near by. He understood that they were being beaten and tortured. While he was lying on the floor, the soldiers who came into the tent kicked him several times, called him a “Wahhabi” and a “bandit”. The first applicant said that he was just a construction worker. A while later the soldiers permitted the first applicant to move into a less uncomfortable position and handcuffed his hands in front of him. They told him that he would be permitted to exchange last words with his son, who was a “bandit” and would be shot. The two men were allowed to speak briefly in Russian, in the presence of the soldiers, who threatened to shoot them both if they spoke in Chechen. The first applicant remained blindfolded during the meeting and could only hear his son’s voice; he said he had done nothing wrong and said farewell. Then Mr Magomed Dokuyev was taken away. At about 1 a.m. a soldier told the first applicant that he was innocent and would be released. Later his hands were untied, but his feet remained bound.

On 15 February 2001 at about 9 a.m. the first applicant, blindfolded, was taken inside an APC and driven somewhere shortly. Then he was transferred into another vehicle, probably a UAZ, in which were two other persons. The applicant was forced under the seat. After approximately one hour’s driving, during which they stopped twice at checkpoints and his captors said that there were “only Russians inside”, the vehicle stopped and the men took the first applicant outside and helped him to climb into a building through a broken window. They then told him not to move for ten minutes and the car left.

When the first applicant removed his blindfold he realised he was in an old brewery building between Shali and Novye Atagi. He climbed out of the building, hitched a lift and returned home the same day. There he found out that he and his son were the only two men detained in the village on that day and that his son had not returned home. The family has had no news from Mr Magomed Dokuyev since that date.

(b) The Government’s account

The Government submitted that the Prosecutor General’s Office had established that on 14 February 2001 at approximately 6 a.m. unidentified armed persons wearing camouflage and masks and accompanied by armoured vehicles had taken the first applicant and his son, Mr Magomed Dokuyev, from their house at 4 Podgornaya Street to an unknown destination. On the next day the first applicant had been released. Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s whereabouts had not been established.

2. Search for Mr Magomed Dokuyev and the investigation into his “disappearance”

(a) Applications to State authorities

According to the applicants, on 16 February 2001 the first applicant and other family members started looking for Mr Magomed Dokuyev. They applied to various official bodies both in person and in writing, trying to find out the whereabouts and the fate of Mr Magomed Dokuyev. The applicants kept copies of some of these complaints and submitted them to the Court. In particular, they applied in writing to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic on 5 and 7 July and 24 December 2001, to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 on 7 July 2001, to the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms on 7 July and 5 September 2001 and to the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office on 13 April 2002.

On 16 February 2001 the first applicant travelled to Gudermes and handed over a complaint about his son’s detention, addressed to the head of the Chechen Administration, Mr Akhmad Kadyrov. Among other authorities the applicants applied to immediately following Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s detention were the departments of the Interior, military commanders, the Federal Security Service (FSB), civil and military prosecutors of various levels and administrative authorities.

The applicants received hardly any substantive information about the fate of their close relative and about the investigation. On several occasions they were sent copies of letters by means of which their requests had been forwarded to the different prosecutors’ services. In particular, on 28 May 2001 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office. On 5 August 2001 the first applicant’s letter of complaint was forwarded to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116. On 23 August 2001 the Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded the first applicant’s letter concerning his son’s detention to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic. On 31 August 2001 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic forwarded it to the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office. On 4 February and 20 May 2002 the Directorate of the Prosecutor General’s Office for the Southern Federal Circuit forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office.

In early April 2001 the applicants were contacted by a person who said that a young man had been detained together with Mr Magomed Dokuyev. The first and the second applicants met this young man, whose name they did not know. He was able to give them Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s handkerchief and a cord from his leather jacket and said that they had been detained together for several weeks, first at the military base in Khankala and then in the vicinity of Novogrozny in the mountains. The man told him that they had been detained in awful conditions in a deep and narrow pit in the ground, regularly beaten and tortured with electric shocks and had been given hardly any food. When they were brought to the district of Novogrozny, they were told that they would be exchanged for a Russian officer captured by the fighters. Then the soldiers told them that they were in too bad a shape for exchange and gave them some medicine, allegedly to restore their strength. After taking the pills or liquid both became very sick, started vomiting and lost consciousness. When the young man regained consciousness, he found Mr Magomed Dokuyev without signs of life. He called the soldiers, and after a while they took his body away. The young man heard an APC going away and returning and heard the soldiers talking about burying Mr Dokuyev. He also heard them talking about finishing the mission and going back to Stavropol. The applicants were convinced of the truth of his statements because he was aware of their names and address, while they did not know him and supposed that these had been given to him by their son.

The first applicant identified a military base in Novogrozny which had at some point been manned by servicemen from Stavropol. However, he did not manage to find out anything else about his son’s fate or his alleged place of burial.

On 22 October 2001 an investigator of the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office informed the first and the second applicants that following their complaints criminal investigation file no. 23177 had been opened by that office on 12 August 2001 under Article 126 part 2 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). They would be informed of the results of the investigation.

On 10 December 2001 the first applicant sent the Duma Deputy for the Chechen Republic a detailed letter containing information about his son’s arrest, disappearance and alleged death in custody. The letter stated that the area where Mr Magomed Dokuyev had allegedly been buried remained under military control and access there was limited, and requested help to find his remains and take them away for a proper burial. On 15 February 2002 this letter was forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s Office and on 14 June 2002 to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic.

On 31 December 2001 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 forwarded the first applicant’s letter to the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office and stated that the military prosecutor’s office had no competence in the matter, since the involvement of servicemen was only alleged by the applicants, but not supported by any material evidence.

On 26 March 2002 the Directorate of the Prosecutor General’s Office for the Southern Federal Circuit replied to the first applicant that on 12 August 2001 the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office had opened a criminal investigation file under Article 126 part 2 of the Criminal Code. On 12 October 2001 the investigation was suspended due to failure to identify the culprits. The letter concluded by stating that actions aimed at establishing the whereabouts of the missing person and finding the culprits were continuing.

Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s arrest and ensuing disappearance were reported by Human Rights Watch in their report ‘Last Seen: Continuing Disappearances in Chechnya’ in April 2002 and by the Memorial Human Rights Centre in their report ‘Counter-Terrorist Operation’ in October 2002.

(b) Progress of the investigation

The Government submitted the following information on the progress of the investigation.

On 12 August 2001 the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal investigation no. 23177 into the kidnapping of Mr Magomed Dokuyev on 14 February 2001.

On 20 August 2001 the first applicant was questioned and granted victim status in the proceedings.

On 6 September 2001 the sixth applicant was questioned.

On 12 October 2001 the investigation was suspended on the ground of failure to identify persons to be charged with the offence.

On 24 April 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision to suspend the investigation. The first applicant was notified accordingly.

On 24 May 2002 the investigation was again suspended on the ground of the failure to identify persons to be charged with the offence. The first applicant was notified accordingly.

On 5 November 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision to suspend the investigation.

On 17 November 2002 the first applicant was notified of the resumption of the investigation.

On 16 December 2002 the investigation was once more suspended on the ground of failure to identify persons to be charged with the offence. The first applicant was notified accordingly.

On 20 January 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision to suspend the investigation.

On 3 February 2004 the first applicant was notified of the resumption of the investigation.

On 18 February 2004 the first applicant was again questioned.

On 19 February 2004 the sixth applicant was again questioned.

On 20 February 2004 the fourth applicant was questioned

On 3 March 2004 the investigation was suspended again on the ground of failure to identify persons to be charged with the offence. The first applicant was notified accordingly.

On 21 October 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision to suspend the investigation. On the same date the first applicant was notified of the resumption of the investigation and questioned. The second applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings and questioned. Also questioned were the applicants’ neighbours, I. D., Z., Kh., Kh. and K., who confirmed the applicants’ account of the events of 14 February 2001.

On 25 October 2005 the first applicant was again questioned. According to the record of the interview, he stated in particular that he had not applied to the Court.

On 26 October 2005 the fifth applicant was again questioned. According to the record of the interview, she confirmed the account given earlier of the events of 14 February 2001 and also stated that she had not applied to the Court.

On 21 November 2005 the investigation was again suspended on the ground of failure to identify persons to be charged with the offence. The first applicant was notified accordingly on the same date.

On 16 January 2006 the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision to suspend the investigation.

The investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of Mr Magomed Dokuyev. The investigating authorities sent requests for information to competent State agencies on 30 August 2001, 17 November 2002, 18 February 2004 and 25 October 2005. However, it was not established that servicemen had been involved in the offence. Mr Magomed Dokuyev had not been held in either criminal detention or administrative detention facilities. According to information from the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB, they had not detained the first applicant or Mr Magomed Dokuyev.

Despite a specific request by the Court the Government did not submit a copy of the file in criminal case no. 23177, providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status, and of the records of the interviews with the first and fifth applicants. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants submitted that the known circumstances of Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s detention, absence of any news from him since February 2001 and the account of the person who had been detained with him gave rise to a strong presumption that he had died at the hands of servicemen, in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. They also submitted that the authorities had failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation into the disappearance of Mr Magomed Dokuyev, in violation of their procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.

2. Referring to the statements by the first applicant about the events of 14 February 2001 and the information obtained later, the applicants alleged that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 during and after his arrest.

3. The first, second and third applicants submitted that the anguish and distress suffered by them as a result of the disappearance of their son and husband and the lack of an adequate response on the part of the authorities amounted to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

4. The applicants complained that the provisions of Article 5 as a whole, relating to the lawfulness of detention and guarantees against arbitrary detention, had been violated in respect of Mr Magomed Dokuyev.

5. The applicants submitted that they had been deprived of access to a court, contrary to the provisions of Article 6, because a civil claim for damages would depend entirely on the outcome of the criminal investigation into the disappearance. In the absence of any findings, they could not effectively apply to a court.

6. The first, second and third applicants submitted that the actions of the Russian security forces and Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s disappearance had disrupted their family and private life and thus violated Article 8 of the Convention.

7. The applicants complained that they had had no effective remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention, as guaranteed by Article 13.

THE LAW

A. The Government’s objection as to the authenticity of the application

The Government noted that during questioning on 25 and 26 October 2005 respectively the first and fifth applicants had stated that they had not applied to the Court. The Government argued that the present application had been falsified and should be struck out of the list of cases.

The applicants confirmed their counsel’s power of authority to represent them in the proceedings before the Court as well as their wish to pursue the proceedings. They further submitted that the statements of the first and fifth applicants dated 25 and 26 October 2005 respectively had been written by the investigator himself. At his request the applicants had signed the statements without having read them first.

The Court notes that together with the application form the applicants had submitted duly signed authority forms for their representatives. In such circumstances the Court finds no grounds to doubt the validity of the application form. Furthermore, at no point in the proceedings did the applicants express a wish to withdraw the application. Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be dismissed.

B. The Government’s objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies

The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the investigation into the abduction of Mr Magomed Dokuyev had not yet been completed. They also argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions by the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities during the investigation as well as to apply to the courts to have Mr Magomed Dokuyev declared a missing person; however, they had not availed themselves of any such remedy.

The applicants disputed that objection. In their view, the fact that the investigation had been pending for six years with no tangible results proved that it was an ineffective remedy in this case. They further argued that in the Chechen Republic a court appeal against a decision of an investigator would be futile and the remedy referred to was illusory and ineffective.

The Court considers that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies is so closely linked to the merits of the case that it is inappropriate to determine it at the present stage of the proceedings. The Court therefore decides to join this objection to the merits.

C. Merits of the application

1. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention of a violation of the right to life in respect of Mr Magomed Dokuyev and of the authorities’ failure to conduct a proper investigation. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:

“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

The Government submitted that the circumstances of Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s disappearance were under investigation. The information about his death had not been confirmed. Nor had it been established that any State agents had been involved in his abduction. The investigation had been in compliance with Article 2 of the Convention.

The applicants argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been killed by representatives of federal forces. He had been apprehended by armed men in military uniform with APCs that had only been used by federal forces. In the applicants’ view, such circumstances could be regarded as life-endangering. They further argued, relying on Article 2 of the Convention, that the fact that he had remained missing since 14 February 2001 proved that he had been killed. The applicants also claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s disappearance. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been opened six months after Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s disappearance and had been pending for over six years without any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. They further argued that the military prosecuting authorities were not sufficiently independent, which had led to an inadequate investigation, since they had refused to take up the case and had transferred it to the civil prosecuting authorities.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. It concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

2. Having regard to the first applicant’s statement about the events of 14 February 2001 and the information obtained later, the applicants complained that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The first, second and third applicants complained that the anguish and distress suffered by them as a result of their son’s and husband’s disappearance and the authorities’ reaction amounted to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Government submitted that the investigation had been conducted in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention and had produced no evidence that either the applicants or Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been subjected to treatment prohibited by the above Convention provision.

The applicants argued that their allegations that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 had not been duly investigated. They also maintained the complaint that the first, second and third applicants had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention because of the anguish and distress they had suffered as a result of Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s disappearance.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. It concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

3. The applicants complained that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been deprived of his liberty in violation of Article 5 of the Convention. The relevant parts of Article 5 provide:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

...

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”

The Government submitted that there was no evidence that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been deprived of his liberty in violation of Article 5 of the Convention.

The applicants contended that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty in violation of Article 5 of the Convention.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. It concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

4. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were unable to bring civil proceedings for compensation for Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s unlawful detention or death until the investigation was completed. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicants’ right of access to a court.

The applicants made no further submissions.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. It concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

5. The first, second and third applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the disappearance of Mr Magomed Dokuyev had interfered with their right to respect for their family life. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The Government submitted that the authorities had not interfered with the applicants’ family life.

The applicants made no further submissions.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. It concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

6. The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had had no effective remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies.

The applicants contested the Government’s submissions. They argued that the administrative practice of non-compliance with the obligation to investigate crimes that had existed at the relevant time in the Chechen Republic rendered all potential remedies ineffective.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. It concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join to the merits the Government’s objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies;

Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits.

Søren NielsenLoukis Loucaides
RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy