Communicated on 26 March 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 9862/12
Murat Akhmetovich PATSUYEV and Others against Russia
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives’ abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had suffered mentally on account of their relatives’ disappearance and their inability to ascertain their faith as well as the authorities’ indifference to their complaints and requests for assistance in elucidating the circumstances of the incidents. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relatives’ unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
The relevant details regarding the applicants’ allegations and their version of factual circumstances are reflected in the attached appendices.
The table of appendices:
Appendix
Application number
Name of the case
1
19862/12
Patsuyev and Others v Russia
2
13793/13
Adisova and Others v. Russia
3
57707/13
Magamadova v. Russia
4
61555/13
Umayeva and Others v. Russia
5
63554/13
Aslanbekova and Others v. Russia
6
63613/13
Kuchiyeva v. Russia
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants, except for the applicants in Patsuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 9862/12), complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there “excessive or unexplained delays” on the applicants’ part in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives, 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 time-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 and Sagayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 22698/09 and 31189/11, §§ 60-62, 8 December 2015)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their application with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with their relatives’ abduction.
2. Having regard to:
- previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 of the Convention were found in respect of both the disappearances of applicants’ relatives as a result of abduction by members of the security forces, and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Ortsuyeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 3340/08 and 24689/10, 22 November 2016 and Kushtova and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 60806/08, 21 February 2017); and
- the similarity of the present applications to the cases cited above, as can be seen from the applicants’ submissions and the interim results of the investigation:
(a) Have the applicants made out a prima facie case that their relatives were apprehended by State agents?
(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ abduction and ensuing disappearance (see Varnava and Others, cited above, §§ 183-84)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants’ allegations concerning the State agents’ involvement in the abductions by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession, or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events?
3. Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants’ missing relatives?
4. 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 and Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, § 217, 18 December 2012), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?
5. Has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation thereof been sufficiently serious 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 applicants?
6. Were the applicants’ missing relatives deprived of their liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?
7. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
8. 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 applicants’ allegations that their missing relatives were abducted by State agents;
and, in any event,
(b) a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants’ complaints regarding the disappearance of their missing relatives, in chronological order, 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.
\* MERGEFORMAT Appendix No. 1
App No.
Case Title
Information about the applicant(s)
9862/12
Patsuyev and Others
v Russia
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Address
Representative
Kinship to the abducted person(s)
Murat
PATSUYEV
M
1956
Nesterovskaya, Ingushetia
Nesterovskaya, Ingushetia
Ordzhenikidzevskaya,Ingushetia
Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya
Not legally represented
Father of Mr Adam PATSUYEV
Abaz
IDIGOV
M
1950
Father of Mr Ibragim IDIGOV
Eset
KERIMOVA
F
1960
Mother of Mr Salam KERIMOV
Vakha
SHAIPOV
M
1956
Father of Mr Lom-Ali SHAIPOV
Information about the abducted person(s)
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Suspected of terrorist activities
Criminal background
Official employment at the time of abduction
Adam
PATSUYEV
M
1984
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ibragim
IDIGOV
M
1983
Salam
KERIMOV
M
1985
Lom-Ali
SHAIPOV
M
1982
Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of apprehen-sion
Alleged reason thereof
Time and place of apprehension
Narrative of the Facts
Any last known information about the abducted person(s)
21/08/2003
Special counter-terrorist operation
2 p.m. at the Sunzhenskiy district hospital
Adam PATSUYEV, Ibragim IDIGOV and Salam KERIMOV are cousins. On 21/08/2003 they went to the Sunzhenskiy district hospital where Ibragim IDIGOV was to have a wound bandaged. At about 2 p.m. two GAZEL-model minivans arrived at the hospital. A group of about 15 to 20 armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas yelled to those present to get on the ground. They kept shooting in the air and running around, looking for someone. Six of the armed men ran into the surgery unit where they beat Mr R.S. who was undergoing wound dressing unconscious and Lom-Ali SHAIPOV who was there with him, breaking Mr Shaipov’s arm. Then they forced Mr R.S. and Mr SHAIPOV into one of their vehicles.
Meanwhile, Ibragim IDIGOV saw the armed men beating Mr R.S. and Mr SHAIPOV. He tried to escape from the skirmish through the courtyard, but was shot in the shoulder. Mr PATSUYEV and Mr KERIMOV wanted to help Mr IDIGOV, but were beaten by the armed men. Then all three of them were forced into the white GAZEL minivan with the registration number containing digits A-63 and region 95. According to the eye-witnesses, the armed men dragged out several other men outside of the hospital and one of them was shot dead on the porch. After that the abductors drove off. In about 60 meters from the hospital they pushed out from their vehicle surgeon Khashiyev whom they had forced in their car along with the other abducted persons. On the way from the hospital, the abductors drove next to the local police car who had been summoned by the hospital’s security. The policemen did not take any steps to stop the abductors.
On 22/08/2003 the federal TV channel ORT stated in its evening news programme that “as a result of a successful special operation five persons were detained, three of those bandits have been identified”.
Also, on 22/08/2003 news programme of information agency “Russkaya liniya” broadcasted news, referring to the law-enforcement agencies of the Southern Federal Circuit, that five persons suspected of involvement in illegal armed groups, had been detained as a result of a special operation carried out at the hospital. On 21 or 23/08/2003 the newspaper “Pravozaschita” in its issue 5(56) for August-September 2003 stated that the law-enforcement agencies had been involved in the special operation carried out at the hospital.
Information about the applicant’s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of introduction of criminal complaint
Date of the decision to open and the authority
Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code
Brief description of the criminal investigation
Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)
21/08/2003
21/08/2003 by the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia
No. 23600052 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction)
The criminal proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions without attaining tangible results. On several occasions the investigators were criticized for their failure to take necessary steps and comply with previously issued orders.
For instance, on 29/06/2010 the Sunzhenskiy district court allowed the applicants’ complaint of the investigators’ inaction. It stated, amongst other things, that the investigators had failed to verify the involvement of the officers from the law-enforcement “mobile group” who had been stationed at the material time in Karabulak, Ingushetia, given that an armoured shield of that unit had been found at the crime scene. In addition, the investigators failed to order a comparative examination of the three shell casings found at the crime scene with the fire-arms used by “the mobile group”.
From the documents submitted it transpires that the investigation’s shortcomings pointed out by the court were not remedied and the proceedings were suspended yet again without the necessary measures having been taken. The last suspension took place on 26/09/2010; the applicants were informed thereof on 29/07/2011. The proceedings are still pending.
According to the applicants, they were not duly informed of the progress in the investigation.
The applicants maintained contact with the investigation, provided their statements, assisted in collection of evidence and requested information on the progress of the proceedings. The documents submitted show that on a number of occasions the suspended proceedings had been resumed owing to the applicants’ complaints either to the investigators’ supervisors or the local court.
Appendix No. 2
App No.
Case Title
Information about the applicant(s)
13793/13
Adisova and Others v. Russia
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Address
Representative
Kinship to the abducted person(s)
Khalimat
ADISOVA
F
1957
Alleroy, the Nozhay-Yurt District, Chechnya
Mr Tagir SHAMSUDINOV, a human-rights defender
Mother of Musa ADISOV
Markha
ALIYEVA
F
1966
Sister of Ashab ALIYEV
Aset
GAYRBEKOVA
F
1969
Wife of Khamdula GAYRBEKOV
Eset
KHALADOVA
F
1976
Wife of Vakharsolta IBALAYEV
Information about the abducted person(s)
First Name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Suspected of terrorist activities
Criminal background
Official employment at the time of abduction
Askhab
ALIYEV
M
1964
Yes
N/A
Unknown
Musa
ADISOV
M
1978
Khamdula
GAYRBEKOV
M
1964
Vakharsolta
IBALAYEV
M
1972
Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of apprehension
Time and place of apprehension
Narrative of the facts
Relevant circumstances
Information on abductors’ Identity
Places of detention
Any last known information about the abducted person(s)
12/04/2002
Day-time, at home in Alleroy, the Nozhay-Yurt District, Chechnya
In the presence of witnesses the applicants’ four relatives were taken away during a “mopping-up” operation conducted in the Alleroy settlement
More than 4 officers participated in the abduction; They were in military uniform and conducted an identity check: searched the house premises and questioned local residents; Used special military vehicles, weapons and dogs. They cordoned off of the village.
Acted openly. One of the perpetrators told the first applicant that her son would be taken to a local office of the Federal Security Service. Later the investigation established that the abducted persons had been taken to the Temporary Department of the Interior in Alleroy.
First taken to the Temporary Department of the Interior in Alleroy and then transferred to the Temporary Department of the Interior in Khankala
On 12/04/2002 taken to the Temporary Department of the Interior in Alleroy and afterwards transferred to the military base situated at the headquarters of the Russian federal forces in the village of Khankala
Information about the applicant’s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of introduction of criminal complaint
Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case
Date of the decision to open and the authority
Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code
Initial shortcomings in the investigation
Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)
Brief description of the criminal investigation
Other relevant domestic proceedings
12/05/2002, the local council of elders filed an official complaint (the village was cordoned off for a week after the incident)
N/A
20/06/2002, the Nozhay Yurt District Prosecutor’s office
Initially, no. 71032 (then on 18/07/2002 joined with no. 71030). Under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction)
Passive nature of the investigation. Witness statements collected, but not properly evaluated.
The first applicant actively participated in the proceedings and maintained contact with the authorities. There is a gap in communication between 2006 and 2010. Very active stance for the first several years of the investigation (constant information requests on the progress of the proceedings).
The case was suspended on 11/06/2004, 02/09/2004, 22/11/2004, 14/02/2005, 13/06/2012
By a decision of the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny of 11/12/2013 the first applicant was awarded a compensation (RUB 1 million) for non-pecuniary damage.
Appendix No. 3
App No.
Case Title
Information about the applicant(s)
57707/13
Magamadova v. Russia
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Address
Representative
Kinship to the abducted person(s)
Raysa
MAGAMADOVA
F
1974
Grozny, Chechnya
Mothers of Chechnya (Materi Chechni)
Wife
Information about the abducted person(s)
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Suspected of terrorist activities
Criminal background
Official employment at the time of abduction
Magomed
MAGAMADOV
M
1972
No
N/A
No
Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of apprehension
Alleged reason thereof
Time and place of apprehension
Narrative of the Facts
Relevant circumstances
Other factors
Alleged nature of operation
Information on abductors’ identity
Places of detention
Any last known information about the abducted person(s)
01/03/2002 (in the witness statements obtained in 2007, the date of abduction was also referred to as 22/04/2002)
Unknown
At about 11.30 a.m.; next to his house at 12, Sovkhoznaya Str. in Argun
Mr MAGAMADOV was abducted by a group of men in military uniforms, in balaclavas, who drove around in two Armoured Personnel Carriers (the APCs) without registration numbers. The abductors did not ask for identity documents, but immediately started to beat Mr MAGAMADOV and the applicant when she tried to help him. Then the abductors forced him in one of their APCs and drove off to an unknown destination.
Military uniform and vehicles, the APCs
Day time
Unclear
Allegedly taken to the premises of the 34th Independent Special Tasks Brigade (34-я Отдельная бригада особого назначения)
N/A
N/A
Information about the applicant’s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of introduction of criminal complaint
Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case
Date of the decision to open and the authority
Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code
Initial shortcomings in the investigation
Procedural behaviour of the Applicant(s)
Brief Description of the Criminal Investigation
Other Relevant Domestic Proceedings
04/04/2002
N/A
26/04/2002 the Grozny Prosecutor’s office
Criminal case no. 78047, Article 126 part 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction)
Failure to collect evidence (including the ones from the crime scene) and to verify information concerning the perpetrators’ identities
Reporting the incident within short time-frame
In 2007 several witnesses were questioned. There is a gap in the proceedings between 12/05/2004 and 16/03/2011, when the applicant requested to resume the investigation. The most recent suspension of the proceedings took place on 20/06/2011, then on 18/02/2013 they were resumed again.
On 20/02/2013 the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the decision to suspend the proceedings as unlawful and premature; that decision was upheld on appeal on 17/04/2013.
Appendix No. 4
App No.
Case Title
Information about the applicant(s)
61555/13
Umayeva and Others v. Russia
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Address
Representative
Kinship to the abducted person(s)
Zulay
UMAYEVA
F
1962
Zamay-Yurt, the Nozhay-Yurt District, Chechnya
Mothers of Chechnya (Materi Chechni)
Wife of Vesmirt ESKIYEV
Masa
SAYKHANOVA
F
1957
Wife of Visait ESKIYEV
Information about the abducted person(s)
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Suspected of terrorist activities
Criminal background
Official employment at the time of abduction
Vesmirt
ESKIYEV
M
1957
No
No
No
Visait
ESKIYEV
M
1955
Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of apprehension
Alleged reason thereof
Time and place of apprehension
Narrative of the facts
Relevant circumstances
Other factors
Alleged nature of operation
Information on abductors’ identity
Places of detention
Any last known information about the abducted person(s)
26/12/2000
Unknown
At about 11.00 a.m. at their house
Abducted by a group of about 25-30 armed men in military uniforms. The abductors started to beat Visait ESKIYEV, when Vesmirt ESKIYEV tried to help his brother, then the servicemen beat him too. Then both of the applicants’ husbands were forced in the abductors’ APC and taken to an unknown destination.
Military uniform and the APC
Day time
Unclear
Allegedly, the abduction was carried out under the orders of Lieutenant Colonel S.
N/A
N/A
Information about the applicant’s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of introduction of criminal complaint
Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case
Date of the decision to open and the authority
Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code
Initial shortcomings in the investigation
Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)
Brief description of the criminal investigation
Other relevant domestic proceedings
N/A
N/A
18/01/2001, the Nozhay-Yurt District prosecutor’s office
Criminal case no. 35004 (in some documents the number was also referred to as 35005), Article 126 part 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction)
Failure to collect evidence and to verify information concerning identities of the perpetrators
Reporting the incident within short time-frame
Between 2001 and 2012 the investigation was suspended on at least five occasions. The last time suspension took place on 05/06/2012.
In reply to the applicants’ complaint to the local court concerning premature suspension of the proceedings, on 18/06/2013 the investigation was resumed and the applicants’ complaint was subsequently dismissed as groundless. That decision was upheld on appeal on 17/07/2013.
Appendix No. 5
App No.
Case Title
Information about the applicant
63554/13
Aslanbekova and Others v. Russia
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Address
Representative
Kinship to the abducted person(s)
Kulpa
ASLANBEKOVA
F
1957
Grozny, Chechnya
Mr Said MUSHAYEV, a human-rights defender
Wife of Musa ASTAMIROV and mother of Alibek ASTAMIROV
Khazan
MUSAYEVA
F
1963
Ulus-Kert, Shatoy district, Chechnya
Wife of Sultan AKHMADOV
Taisa
IMAKAYEVA
F
1964
Grozny, Chechnya
Wife of Balaydi IMAKAYEV
Raisa
MALIKOVA
F
1961
Ulus-Kert, Shatoy district, Chechnya
Wife of Zilaudi MALIKOV
Markha
YASUYEVA
F
1965
Chiri-Yurt, Shali district, Chechnya
Wife of Said-Magomed YASUYEV
Information about the abducted person(s)
First Name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Suspected of terrorist activities
Criminal background
Official employment at the time of abduction
Musa
ASTAMIROV
M
1953
No
N/A
N/A
Alibek
ASTAMIROV
M
1982
Sultan
AKHMADOV
M
1948
Balavdi
IMAKAYEV
M
1959
Zilaudi
MALIKOV
M
1964
Said-Magomed
YASUYEV
M
1961
Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of apprehension
Alleged reason thereof
Time and place of apprehension
Narrative of the facts
Relevant circumstances
Other factors
Alleged nature of operation
Information on abductors’ identity
Places of detention
Any last known information about the abducted person(s)
06/03/2000
identity check
Morning; at the military checkpoint in the outskirts of Duba-Yurt
The abduction took place at the checkpoint situated on the way to the safe zone. The military servicemen forced the applicants and their relatives into a URAL military lorry which took them to another checkpoint. There women were released whereas the men were detained, allegedly for an identity check
The abduction took place at the military check-point; Special operation was announced the day before; a number of other local residents had been detained by military officers in January and February 2000 and subsequently disappeared.
Day time
identity check
Infantry regiment no. 276, the abductors acted under the command of a military officer with the nickname "San Sanych" (Сан Саныч)
N/A
On 09/04/2012 on the applicants found a video footage allegedly made by servicemen of the 276th infantry regiment, on which they recognised bodies of their abducted relatives (except for those of Mr MALIKOV and Mr Alibek ASTAMIROV)
Information about the applicant’s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of introduction of criminal complaint
Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case
Date of the decision to open and the authority
Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code
Initial shortcomings in the investigation
Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)
Brief description of the criminal investigation
Other relevant domestic proceedings
N/A
N/A
16/10/2000, the Chechnya Prosecutor’s office
Criminal case no. 72047, Article 126 (2) of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction)
Belated opening of the criminal case
Victim statuses granted to all applicants, except for Ms Khazan MUSAYEVA, on the following dates: 15/05/2002, 30/06/2008, 05/06/2009, 14/07/2011.
The criminal case was suspended on a number of occasions, including the one on 26/01/2010. Then it was resumed on 07/07/2011 after the applicants’ complaint the local court, which rejected it on the same date as groundless. The applicants’ appeal of that decision was dismissed on 14/09/2011.
The applicants lodged a claim for non-pecuniary damages. On 18/03/2013 the local court granted partially the claims, awarding the first applicant RUB 2 million and other applicants the amount of RUB 1 million each. That decision was quashed and the claim was dismissed on 06/08/2013 on appeal.
Appendix No. 6
App No.
Case Title
Information about the applicant(s)
63613/13
Kuchiyeva
v. Russia
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Address
Representative
Kinship to the abducted person(s)
Larisa
KUCHIYEVA
F
1972
Gudermes, Chechnya
Mr Said MUSHAYEV, a human-rights defender
Wife
Information about the abducted person(s)
First Name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Suspected of terrorist activities
Criminal background
Official employment at the time of abduction
Suleyman
KUCHIYEV
M
1969
No
N/A
No
Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of apprehension
Alleged reason thereof
Time and place of apprehension
Narrative of the facts
Relevant circumstances
Other factors
Alleged nature of operation
Information on abductors’ identity
Places of detention
Any last known information about the abducted person(s)
25/02/2002
Unknown
At about 10 a.m. from his house at 101, Kavkazskaya Street in Gudermes
Abducted during the daytime by a group of armed men in balaclavas and military uniforms, who drove around in an UAZ-type military car and an APC .
Military uniform and vehicles such as the APC
Day time;
Unclear
N/A
N/A
N/A
Information about the applicant’s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of introduction of criminal complaint
Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case
Date of the decision to open and the authority
Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code
Initial shortcomings in the investigation
Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)
Brief description of the criminal investigation
Other relevant domestic proceedings
N/A
N/A
04/03/2002, the Gudermes District prosecutor’s office
Criminal case no. 57018, Article 126 part 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction)
Failure to verify information concerning identities of the servicemen involved in the abduction
There is a gap in communication with the authorities between 04/03/2002 and 11/10/2010, when the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.
The criminal investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions; the last suspension took place on 12/10/2012.
On 01/04/2013 the local court granted partially the applicant’s civil claim for compensation amounting to RUB 1 million. On 23/05/2013 that decision was upheld on appeal.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy