Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 115
January 2009
Medova v. Russia - 25385/04
Judgment 15.1.2009 [Section I]
Article 2
Positive obligations
Disappearance of applicant's husband following interior-department decision to release him into the hands of his abductors in life-threatening circumstances: violation
Facts: The applicant alleged that her husband had been abducted in 2004 by a group of armed men who had identified themselves as Federal Security Service (“FSB”) officers. The cars in which the men were travelling were later stopped by police at a checkpoint near the internal border with Chechnya. They found the applicant's husband and a fellow captive hidden in the boots of the cars. The men refused to produce proper identification and so were taken with the applicant's husband and his fellow captive to the local department of the interior office (“ROVD”), where enquiries were made. The men were then allowed to proceed across the Chechen border with their two captives. The applicant's husband has not been seen since.
Law: Article 2 – The abduction of the applicant's husband by a group of armed men in life-threatening circumstances and the subsequent absence of any news of him for four years corroborated the assumption that he was dead. Although the evidence submitted was not sufficient to establish to the requisite standard of proof that his abductors were federal servicemen, that did not necessarily exclude State responsibility under Article 2 as the State was required not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard life. This could imply a positive obligation to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of others. For such a positive obligation to arise, it had to be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known that there existed a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take reasonable measures within the scope of their powers to avoid that risk.
The applicant's husband had been abducted by four armed men and put in a car which was stopped at a checkpoint. Following the captors' refusal to present their identity documents, they were taken to an ROVD. Although the ROVD officers might not have perceived the situation as life-threatening since the armed men had presented FSB identity papers and documents authorising the detention, they must have been alarmed by the men's suspicious behaviour, as they had immediately sought instructions from the district prosecutor's office. The prosecutor's office had confirmed the validity of the identity papers and the lawfulness of the detention, with the result that the armed men and their captives were released from the ROVD.
The prosecuting authorities did not, however, verify whether the men were indeed FSB officers or obtain from the FSB any written confirmation of the validity of the operation. For their part, the ROVD officers did not make copies of the documents presented by the men or log their detention in any official records. Accordingly, the authorities' decision to release the armed men with their captives, with the result that the applicant's husband disappeared, constituted a breach of the State's positive obligation to take preventive measures to protect a person whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of others.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court also found a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2, violations of Articles 5 and 13 and a failure by the State to comply with Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention. It found no violations of Articles 3 and 34.
Article 41 – EUR 35,000 in respect of non-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