Communicated on 9 February 2010
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 16363/07
Nino DZIDZAVA
against Russia
lodged on 17 April 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The background to the case
1. During the period from the end of September 2006 to the end of January 2007 identity checks of Georgian nationals residing in Russia were carried out in the streets, markets and other workplaces and at their homes. Many were subsequently arrested and taken to police stations. After a period of custody in police stations, they were grouped together and taken by bus to a court, which summarily imposed administrative penalties on them and gave decisions ordering their administrative expulsion from Russian territory. Subsequently, after sometimes undergoing a medical visit and a blood test, they were taken to detention centres for foreigners where they were detained for varying periods of time, and then taken by bus to various airports in Moscow, and expelled to Georgia by aeroplane. Some of the Georgian nationals against whom expulsion orders were issued left the territory of the Russian Federation by their own means (for further details as to the background of the case see Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 45, ECHR 2014).
B. The circumstances of the present case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant, Mrs Nino Dzidava, is a Georgian national born on 24 September 1949 who lives in Senaki (Georgia). She is represented before the Court by Mr S. Japaridze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi (Georgia), and by Mr P. Leach and Mr B. Bowring, lawyers practising in London (United Kingdom).
4. The applicant and Mr Tengiz Togonidze, her late husband, had lived in St Petersburg since 2004. In May 2006 the applicant returned to Georgia because her visa had expired. Mr Togonidze’s visa had expired on 9 February 2005 and his registration was no longer valid either.
1. The arrest and the conditions of detention and transportation of Mr Togonidze
5. At about 8.50 p.m. on 3 October 2006 Mr Togonidze was arrested by police officers in St Petersburg and placed in detention.
6. At about 3.30 p.m. on 4 October the federal judge of the Federal Court of Nevski (District of St Petersburg) ordered Mr Togonidze to be detained at the St Petersburg special detention centre for aliens pending his administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation on the ground that he had infringed the residence rules governing foreign nationals, contrary to Article 18. 8 of the Code of Administrative Offences.
7. Mr Togonidze was allegedly placed in a cell measuring between 35 and 40 m2 with 25 to 30 other Georgian nationals, which was therefore very overcrowded. Furthermore, there was no fresh air and the sanitary conditions were appalling, as the toilets were not separated from the rest of the cell.
8. While he was held in the detention centre Mr Togonidze was unable to go outside and did not see a doctor, despite the fact that he was suffering from asthma and needed medical treatment. In April 2006 he had started suffering from coughing fits, shortness of breath and thickening of the aorta walls, and he had drawn the authorities’ attention to this when he was placed in detention.
9. On 14 October 2006 Mr Pataridze, Consul of Georgia in the Russian Federation at the material time, visited the detention centre. When he saw Mr Togonidze, who was having difficulty breathing and whose face had turned black, he had requested that he be immediately transferred to hospital but that request was not complied with.
10. On 17 October 2006 Mr Togonidze, together with 26 other Georgian nationals, was transferred by bus from the detention centre to Domodedovo Airport in Moscow with a view to his expulsion by aeroplane to Georgia. The conditions of transport in the bus were allegedly very difficult, with no air conditioning, and although the journey had lasted between eight and nine hours the officers of the Russian special police force (OMON) who had been accompanying the detainees had not allowed them to open the windows. Anyone who protested had allegedly received electric shocks, like Mr Togonidze, who had asked several times to be allowed to breathe fresh air.
11. Between 7 and 8 a.m. the bus arrived at the airport and Mr Togonidze was at last able to get out. He had taken a few steps and then collapsed, before dying.
12. Mr Pataridze, who had been present at the airport, indicated that when Mr Togonidze had got off the bus he had seen that he was very ill and was “suffocating like a fish out of water” and begging to be allowed to breathe fresh air. He had subsequently physically supported him and then called an ambulance but the doctors had been unable to resuscitate him.
2. The investigation carried out by the Russian authorities following Mr Togonidze’s death
13. On 19 October 2006 the authorities issued a death certificate according to which Mr Togonidze had died of tuberculosis.
14. In its autopsy report of 3 November 2006 the Moscow Forensic Medical Bureau, of the Department of Health, indicated that Mr Togonidze had died of methadone poisoning and that his broken ribs were due to the heart massage carried out in an attempt to resuscitate him.
15. On 15 December 2006 the Federal Migration Service challenged the allegation that Mr Togonidze had died of methadone poisoning, saying that he had died of tuberculosis.
COMPLAINTS
16. The applicant complained that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in connection with the death of Mr Togonidze. She submitted that the authorities had known the risk related to his deteriorating health but had failed to take the necessary measures to prevent his death. Furthermore, she maintained that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation as required by Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention.
17. The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to provide Mr Togonidze with the appropriate medical treatment and that this, in connection with general conditions of detention and transportation to the airport, amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
18. She also considered that the lack of an effective remedy amounted to a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the right to life, enshrined in Article 2 of the Convention, of Mr Togonidze, the applicant’s late husband?
Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of the judgment in Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000‑VII), did the investigation carried out in the present case by the domestic authorities meet the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention, as well as those of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2?
2. Did the detention and transport conditions of Mr Togonidze amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy