FIRST SECTION
Application no. 35589/08
by Yarmet NAGMETOV and Rafik NAGMETOV
against Russia
lodged on 11 July 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Yarmet Uzerovich Nagmetov, and Mr Rafik Yarmetovich Nagmetov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1974 respectively and live in Makhachkala, Dagestan Republic. The first applicant is represented before the Court by Ms K. Kostromina, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A. Death of the applicants’ relative
The applicants are the farther and the brother to Mr M. The latter person participated on 25 April 2006 in a public gathering against corruption of the local administration in the village of Miskindzhi, in the Dokuzparinskiy District of the Dagestan Republic. Several hundreds of people took part in the public gathering. Around 3 pm special squad officers encircled the participants, made several warning shots in the air and used gas bottles against the participants.
This gathering was dispersed by the authorities with use of firearms (see below). M. was wounded by a grenade and deceased. Five other people were seriously wounded; a large number of people sustained injuries and were arrested.
The Dagestan regional prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings on charges of murder and handling firearms (Articles 105 and 222 of the Criminal Code).
A forensic expert examined the deceased’s body.
On 6 July 2006 the first applicant was informed that M. had been wounded with a grenade.
On 31 July 2006 an investigator issued a decision discontinuing the criminal proceedings against unspecified public officials due to the absence of a criminal event.
On 6 September 2006 the Federal office of forensic examination was asked to prepare a ballistic expert examination in order to determine the type of the firearms, which had been used against M. However, the experts did not reach any definite result.
On 12 October 2006 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala considered that the decision of 31 July 2006 was unlawful. This court decision was subsequently quashed on appeal.
On 15 November 2006 another ballistic report was sought from the Forensic Science Institute of the Federal Security Service. Its outcome is unclear. It also appears that a third report was sought from another specialised public institution.
It appears that the proceedings were suspended since 26 February 2007.
On 9 March 2007 the District Court upheld the discontinuation decision of 31 July 2006. On 7 May 2007 the Supreme Court of Dagestan upheld the judgment.
On 30 August 2007 the applicants’ lawyer brought court proceedings challenging inaction of the investigating authority. By a judgment of 8 October 2007 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala dismissed the complaint. On 14 January 2008 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld the judgment.
The second applicant sought judicial review of the suspension decision of 26 February 2007. By a judgment of 25 July 2008 the District Court dismissed the complaint.
B. Investigation concerning the dispersal of the public gathering
In separate proceedings the second applicant complained to the Regional prosecutor’s office about the dispersal of the public gathering.
On 17 July 2006 a prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the alleged unlawful dispersal of the public gathering.
On 5 October 2006 the supervising prosecutor annulled this decision considering that the inquiry had not been thorough.
On 14 December 2006 the district prosecutor issued a refusal to bring criminal proceedings.
C. Proceedings before the Court
On 11 June 2008 the first applicant issued an authority form by which he authorised Ms K. Kostromina to lodge an application before the Court. On 11 July 2008 lawyers O. Mikhaylova and K. Kostromina lodged an application before the Court on behalf of the applicants. No authority form was submitted in respect of the second applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that their relative deceased in the circumstances disclosing an unlawful and excessive use of lethal force. They also contend that no effective investigation was carried out.
Lastly, the applicants allege that the circumstances of the case disclose violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the present application validly lodged by the second applicant?
2. Has the applicants’ relative’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
In particular, did the applicants’ relative’s death result from use of force which was absolutely necessary for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Article?
Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy