Communicated on 19 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 71377/13
Khalimat NAZIROVA
against Russia
lodged on 25 October 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant is Ms Khalimat Nazirova, who was born in 1980 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by Materi Chechni, an NGO based in Chechnya.
The applicant is the wife of Mr Ibragim Altyyev, who was born in 1974.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Abduction of Mr Ibragim Altyyev
On the morning of 29 December 2004 Mr Ibragim Altyyev, who was a taxi driver in Grozny at the material time, left his home and went to work. He did not return.
On the following day, two unidentified men contacted the applicant and gave her the passport of Mr Ibragim Altyyev and some documents from his car. On the same date the car was found abandoned on a street in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny.
According to the applicant, she learned from an eyewitness, Mr R.B., that Mr Ibragim Altyyev had been abducted by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms who had been in a Gazel minivan and a VAZ-21099 car. The men had stopped Mr Ibragim Altyyev’s car on a street in Grozny, apprehended him and driven off. Mr R.B. was subsequently questioned by the investigators (see below).
The whereabouts of Mr Ibragim Altyyev have remained unknown ever since.
2. Official investigation into the abduction
On 9 February 2006 the applicant informed the authorities of the disappearance of her husband and requested that a criminal case be opened.
On 10 March 2006 an officer of the Leninskiy district department of the interior in Grozny (Ленинский районный отдел внутренних дел г. Грозный (РОВД)) (hereinafter “the ROVD”) interviewed a member of Mr Ibragim Altyyev’s family, Ms Z.N.. She submitted that during the evening of 29 December 2004 the applicant had told her that she (the applicant) had learned from two unidentified men of the circumstances of Mr Ibragim Altyyev’s abduction, as specified above. Ms Z.N. further submitted that the applicant had officially complained about the incident in August 2005.
On the same date the applicant was interviewed. Her statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction was similar to the account of the event that she submitted to the Court. She testified additionally that she had complained about the abduction for the first time only about eight months after the event, having until then hoped that her husband would come back.
On 11 March 2006 the ROVD interviewed an eyewitness, Mr R.B. He stated that at the end of 2004 he had seen a group of armed men in camouflage, in a Gazel minivan and a VAZ 21099 car, stopping a taxi on a street in Grozny. The men had forced the taxi driver and his passenger out, put them in the minivan and driven off to an unknown destination.
On 12 March 2006 the ROVD examined the crime scene. Nothing was seized as evidence.
On 12 March 2006 an officer from the ROVD reported the disappearance of Mr Ibragim Altyyev to his supervisor, noting, in particular, that a complaint about the abduction had already been lodged by the applicant with the ROVD on 18 May 2005.
On 24 April 2006 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny (Прокуратура Заводского района г. Грозный) opened criminal case no. 51065 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).
On 15 June 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the case.
On 24 June 2006 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on unspecified dates in 2006 and 2008, suspended on 28 November 2006 and 10 December 2008 and then again resumed on 5 August 2013.
On 27 November 2006 the investigators questioned Mr R.B. He reiterated his previously given statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction.
It appears that the investigation is still pending.
3. Proceedings against the investigators
On 18 June 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny challenging the decision of 10 December 2008 to suspend the criminal investigation. The outcome of those proceedings is unknown.
On 17 July 2013 the applicant lodged a similar complaint challenging the same decision of 10 December 2008 to suspend the criminal investigation.
On 12 August 2013 the court rejected the complaint, having found that on 5 August 2013 the investigators had already resumed the criminal investigation. On 10 September 2003 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains of a violation of Mr Ibragim Altyyev’s right to life and submits that the circumstances of his abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicant further complains that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted.
The applicant complains, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that she is suffering severe mental distress on account of the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of her husband and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident.
The applicant submits that the unacknowledged detention of her husband violates all of the guarantees under Article 5 of the Convention.
The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of her complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on the part of the applicant “excessive or unexplained delays” in submitting her complaints to the domestic authorities and the Court after the abduction of her relative and have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009)? The applicant is invited to provide an explanation for the delay in lodging her complaint with the domestic authorities and the Court, and to provide copies of her correspondence (and related documents) with the authorities in connection with the abduction of her relative.
2. Having regard to:
- the Court’s numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 of the Convention were found in respect of both the disappearances of the applicants relatives as a result of their detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014); and;
- the similarity of the present application to the cases cited above, as can be seen from the applicant’s submissions and the interim results of the investigation,
(a) Has the applicant made out a prima facie case that her relative was arrested by State servicemen in the course of a security operation?
(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in respect of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicant’s relative’s abduction and ensuing disappearance (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others, cited above, §§ 181-84, and Tanış and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005‑VIII))? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicant’s submissions that State agents were involved in the abduction by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the event?
(c) Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicant’s missing relative?
(d) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearance of the applicant’s missing relative sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicant’s mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of her close relative and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance been sufficiently serious as to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant?
4. Was the applicant’s missing relative deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees under Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of her complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
6. In accordance with the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information:
(a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicant’s allegations that her missing relative was abducted by State servicemen;
and, in any event,
(b) a complete list (in chronological order) of all investigative steps taken in connection with the applicant’s complaints about the disappearance of her missing relative, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings;
as well as:
(c) copies of those documents in the investigation file that are necessary for establishing the factual circumstances of the allegations and evaluating the effectiveness of the criminal investigation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy