Communicated on 7 January 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no 22751/10
Abdurashid RASHIDOV against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are four Russian nationals, whose details are listed in the Appendix. They live in various places in the Chechen Republic, the Republic of Ingushetia and the Republic of Dagestan. The applicants are close relatives of four men listed as “abducted/disappeared persons” in the Appendix.
The circumstances of the applications, as submitted by the applicants, can be summarised as follows.
A. General information pertaining to all of the applications
The applicants are close relatives of four men who disappeared after having been allegedly abducted by State agents from their homes and public places in Chechnya and Dagestan. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since then.
In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abduction to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In most of the cases the proceedings, after having been suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without any tangible results. According to the applicants’ submissions, the authorities either failed to take important investigative steps, such as questioning witnesses to the abductions, or they took such steps after long and inexplicable delays.
B. Particulars of the individual applications
A summary of the facts for each of the applications and the main investigative steps taken by the authorities are outlined below.
1. Application no. 22751/10 (Rashidov v. Russia)
The applicant is Mr Abdurashid Rashidov, who was born in 1952 and lives in the village of Gubden, Dagestan. He is represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (in partnership with the Astreya NGO) (SRJI/Astreya).
The applicant is the father of Mr Magomed Rashidov, who was born in 1984.
On 23 April 2010 the applicant asked the Court to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, alleging that the State was responsible for his son’s abduction and requesting that the Court apply interim measures to prevent him from disappearing.
On 26 April 2010 the President of the Section decided that the Government should be asked factual questions and be requested to produce the file on the investigation.
On 8 June 2010 the Government replied that the investigation into the abduction of Mr Magomed Rashidov was in progress and that various explanations were under consideration, including that of his abduction by members of the law-enforcement authorities. They forwarded copies of some documents from the criminal investigation file.
On 27 July 2010 the President of the Section declined the request for the application of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
(a) Abduction of Mr Magomed Rashidov
Mr Magomed Rashidov is a cousin of Mr M. Vagabov, allegedly a leader of an illegal armed group operating in Dagestan. At the material time, Mr Magomed Rashidov lived with his relatives, including the applicant, in Gubden.
On 11 December 2009 several police officers arrived at the applicant’s house in Gubden and searched the premises. The search was conducted in connection with Mr Rashidov’s suspected involvement in a recent explosion in Gubden. The police officers found nothing prohibited during the search. They took Mr Rashidov’s foreign passport and left.
At about 12.30 a.m. on 25 December 2009 a group of seven to eight armed men in black uniforms and balaclavas made a forced entry into the applicant’s house. They wore military boots and spoke Russian. They forced the applicant and his wife, Ms U.R., their two daughters, Ms A.R. and Ms N.R., and Mr Rashidov’s wife, Ms B.R., to the ground and ordered them to hand over jewellery, money and mobile phones. Shortly afterwards, the armed men forced Mr Rashidov outside, placed him in one of the two vehicles (a silver VAZ-2114 vehicle, and another one whose make and model the applicant did not remember) parked next to the applicant’s house, and drove away. They also took several items of jewellery and mobile phones belonging to Mr Rashidov, Ms A.R. and Ms N.R. According to the applicant, some of the abductors must have been present during the search of 11 December 2009 because they knew the layout of the rooms and the location of objects in the house.
On 29 December 2009 the applicant received a text message from Mr Rashidov’s mobile phone number saying that he was well and that the applicant was not to worry. According to the applicant, the message was written in the Dargin dialect, which was not common in Gubden.
The whereabouts of Mr Rashidov have remained unknown since the date of his abduction.
(b) Official investigation into the abduction
(i) Information submitted by the applicant
Immediately after the abduction, the applicant went to the local police station and reported the incident to Officer K. However, K. refused to take any measures, telling the applicant that the police would come to his house the following day. On 25 December 2009 the applicant complained about the abduction of his son to various State authorities, including the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Dagestan, but to no avail. The police did not go to the applicant’s house until 30 December 2009, when they examined the crime scene.
On 1 January 2010 the Kaspiyskiy inter-district investigation department of the Dagestan Investigations Committee (МРО СУ СК при прокуратуре РФ по РД) opened criminal case no. 0295 under Article 126 § 2 (aggravated abduction) and Article 162 § 2 (aggravated robbery) of the Criminal Code.
On 3 January 2010 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.
On 12 January 2010 the applicant’s legal representative requested that the investigators obtain information on telephone calls made from Mr Rashidov’s mobile phone, starting from the date of his abduction.
On an unspecified date in January or February 2010 the applicant complained to the Karabudakhkentskiy district prosecutor’s office (Прокуратура Карабудахкентского района Республики Дагестан) (hereinafter “the supervising authority”) that the investigation was ineffective. On 18 February 2010 the supervising authority replied to the applicant that it had ordered the investigators to remedy defects in the criminal proceedings and issued instructions to the operational search authorities to speed up the search for Mr Rashidov.
(ii) Information submitted by the Government
On 25 December 2009 the applicant informed the Karabudakhkentskiy district department of the interior (Карабудахкентский районный отдел внутренних дел (РОВД)) (hereinafter “the ROVD”) of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for his son.
On 26 December 2009 the investigators examined the crime scene and collected a bedsheet with blood stains as evidence.
On 1 January 2010 the Kaspiyskiy inter-district investigation department of the Dagestan Investigations Committee (Каспийский межрайонный следственный отдел СУ СК при прокуратуре РФ по РД) instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the abduction under Articles 126 § 2 and 162 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The case file was given the number 0295.
Between 1 and 14 January 2010 the investigators ordered a number of operational search measures to be taken in the case, such as obtaining information on calls made from the mobile phones of Mr Rashidov, Ms A.R. and Ms N.R., and questioning the people who had taken part in the search of the applicant’s house on 11 December 2009.
On an unspecified date at the beginning of January 2010, the head of the ROVD reported to the investigators that there existed operational information on the suspected involvement of Mr Rashidov in illegal armed groups.
Between 3 and 7 January 2010 the applicant and Ms B.R., Mr Rashidov’s wife, as well as Ms A.R., Ms N.R. and Ms U.R. – his two sisters and mother respectively – were granted victim status in the case and questioned. Their statements to the investigators were similar to the applicant’s account before the Court.
On 5 January 2010 the investigators decided to pursue three main theories for the abduction. These included Mr Rashidov’s abduction by members of the law-enforcement authorities because of his suspected terrorist activities; his abduction by relatives of law-enforcement officials killed by members of an illegal armed group, of which Mr Rashidov might have been a member; and his abduction by members of illegal armed groups.
On 15 January, 3 February and 30 March 2010 the investigators questioned Mr M.T., Mr R.M. and Mr S.Kh., the police officers in charge of the search of the applicant’s house on 11 December 2009, about the circumstances of the search and their possible involvement in Mr Rashidov’s abduction. The officers denied any involvement.
On 9 and 10 February, and then on 29 March 2010, the investigators requested various State authorities, detention facilities and medical institutions to inform them whether they had detained Mr Rashidov or provided him with medical treatment. They also requested information about whether a silver VAZ-2114 vehicle was used by the ROVD. No positive response was received.
On 15 February 2010 the investigators applied to the Karabudakhkentskiy District Court in Dagestan (Карабудахкентский районный суд Республики Дагестан) (hereinafter “the court”) for authorisation to obtain information from the local mobile service provider, Vimpelkom-Beeline (ОАО «Вымпелком-Билайн»), about all telephone calls made from the mobile phones of Mr Rashidov, Ms A.R. and Ms N.R. between 24 December 2009 and 14 February 2010. On the following day, 16 February 2010, the court gave its authorisation and on 23 March 2010 the investigators obtained the information from the company. On 17 February 2010 the investigators again examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.
On 18 February 2010 the investigators questioned Mr M.R., whose statement concerning the search of the applicant’s house on 11 December 2009 and the subsequent abduction were similar to the applicant’s account before the Court.
On 12 March 2010 the investigators requested the ROVD to carry out operational search measures concerning Mr Rashidov’s possible involvement in illegal activities. The ROVD replied that Mr Rashidov had been put on a list of people suspected of being involved in illegal armed groups. In the summer of 2009 he had joined an illegal group hiding in the mountains in Dagestan for two or three months. On 30 March 2010 the investigators obtained similar information from the Directorate for Combating Extremism of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior.
On 26 March 2010 the investigators again questioned the applicant, Ms B.R., Ms U.R. and Ms A.R. They stated, in particular, that several months prior to Mr Rashidov’s abduction, namely on 23 May 2009, he had left home without having informed anybody about his intention to leave. He was gone for about one and half months and had then returned home. In addition, the witnesses stated that they suspected that Mr R.M., the officer in charge of the search of the applicant’s house on 11 December 2009, had been involved in the abduction of Mr Rashidov.
On 27 March 2010 the investigators again questioned Mr R.M., who denied being involved in the abduction.
It appears that the investigation is still pending.
2. Application no. 38378/12 (Sigauri v. Russia)
The applicant is Ms Ayshat Sigauri, who was born in 1962 and lives in Ordzhonikidzovskaya, Ingushetia. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the Memorial Human Rights Centre.
The applicant is the mother of Mr Said Sigauri, who was born in 1988.
(a) Disappearance of Mr Said Sigauri and subsequent events
On the morning on 2 March 2011, Mr Said Sigauri left his home in Grozny. He has not returned since.
On the same day, a special operation was conducted by federal forces at 89 Shovkhalova Street in Grozny, where Mr Sigauri’s relatives lived. Mr A.S., the brother of Mr Sigauri, and Ms Kh.M., his cousin, and other relatives, were at home, when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms surrounded the building and opened fire. Mr A.S. was shot dead.
In the course of the operation, Ms Kh.M. and several other witnesses saw Mr Sigauri being detained by the police in the courtyard of the building.
On 3 March 2011 Mr Sigauri called his aunt, Ms M.M., and told her that he was in detention at Sunzhenskiy district police station in Chechnya. Later on the same day, Ms M.M. received a text message from Mr Sigauri’s mobile phone number, which said that he was in the village of Sernovodsk, Chechnya. Mr Sigauri then called his aunt again, asking whether the body of his brother, Mr A.S., had been returned to the family.
The whereabouts of Mr Sigauri have remained unknown ever since.
(b) Official investigation into the disappearance
On 9 March 2011 the applicant informed the Chechnya prosecutor’s office (Прокуратура Чеченской Республики) about the disappearance of Mr Sigauri and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.
On 24 June 2011 the Achkhoy-Martan investigating department of the Chechnya Investigations Committee (Ачхой-Мартановский межрайонный следственный отдел СУ СК при прокуратуре РФ по ЧР) opened criminal case no. 67002 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).
On 26 June 2011 the father of Mr Sigauri, Mr B.S., was granted victim status in the case.
On 1 July 2011 the applicant was questioned. The statement she gave to the investigators was similar to her account before the Court.
On 6 August 2011 the investigators questioned Ms Kh.M. She submitted, in particular, that on 2 March 2011 she had seen Mr Sigauri surrounded by police officers during the special operation in the courtyard of their house.
On 24 September 2011 the investigation was suspended owing to a failure to identify any perpetrators. It was resumed on 15 November 2011 and again suspended on 15 December 2011.
It appears that the investigation is still pending.
3. Application no. 70095/12 (Isayeva v. Russia)
The applicant is Ms Svetlana Isayeva, who was born in 1957 and lives in Makhachkala, Dagestan. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya.
The applicant is the mother of Mr Isa Isayev, who was born in 1982.
(a) Disappearance of Mr Isa Isayev and the applicant’s attempts to establish his whereabouts
At about 2 p.m. on 26 April 2007 Mr Isa Isayev left his home at 4 Shamilya Avenue in Makhachkala. He has not returned since.
At the same time, at about 2 p.m. on 26 April 2007, servicemen of the Sovetskiy regional department of the interior in Makhachkala (Отдел внутренних дел Советского района г. Махачкала) (hereinafter “the ROVD”), in cooperation with other law-enforcement agencies, conducted a special operation at the neighbouring house, 6 Shamilya Avenue. The house and the nearby area were cordoned off by servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas.
According to the applicant, about twenty male residents of Makhachkala, including her son, were abducted by law-enforcement agencies on that day. Some of the abducted men were later found in various pre-trial detention facilities, while others were discovered dead, bearing the signs of torture. Shortly before the abduction, her son complained of being under constant surveillance by law-enforcement agencies. He was allegedly threatened by Mr G.S., an officer of the Directorate for Combating Extremism and Criminal Terrorism at the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior (УБЭ и УТ МВД РФ по Республике Дагестан).
On 10 June 2007, during the search for her son, the applicant spoke to Mr I.T., a law-enforcement officer, who told her that he had seen her son and other abducted men on the premises of the ROVD.
On 10 July 2007 the applicant spoke to Mr G.G., an official from the Dagestan Security Council (Совет Безопасности Республики Дагестан), who told her that her son had been taken to the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala, Chechnya, and that a criminal case had been instituted against him.
Later, on an unspecified date, an unidentified man, who had allegedly been detained in Khankala and released, also informed the applicant that Mr Isa Isayev had been detained at the Khankala military base. The applicant submitted this information to the investigators.
The whereabouts of Mr Isa Isayev have remained unknown ever since.
(b) Official investigation into the disappearance
On 30 April 2007 the applicant lodged an official complaint, requesting that the authorities provide assistance in the search for her son.
On 17 May 2007 the Sovetskiy district prosecutor’s office in Makhachkala (Прокуратура Советского района г. Махачкала) (“the prosecutor’s office”) refused to open a criminal case regarding the disappearance, with reference to the absence of any criminal act.
On 24 May 2007 a supervising prosecutor overruled the above decision and ordered that an investigation be instituted.
On 29 May 2007 the prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 702839 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 702819) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 6 June 2007 the applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. Her statement to the investigators was similar to her account before the Court.
On 11 July 2007 the investigators again questioned the applicant. She informed them about her conversation with Mr G.G. of the Dagestan Security Council (see above).
On 29 July 2007 the investigation was suspended owing to a failure to identify any perpetrators. That decision was overruled on 17 August 2007 as unlawful and the investigation was resumed. It was suspended on 25 September 2007 and then resumed on the same date. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended and resumed on numerous occasions following criticism and orders from supervisory authorities. Thus, it was suspended on 25 October 2007, 19 January 2008, 9 May 2008, 20 November 2008, 3 April 2009, 19 February 2011, 23 June 2011, 5 April 2012, and resumed on 13 December 2007, 9 April 2008, 20 October 2008, 3 March 2009, 19 January 2011, 24 May 2011 and 5 March 2012.
On 3 and 13 August and 19 September 2007 the applicant informed the investigators about the threats which Mr Isa Isayev had allegedly received shortly before his disappearance from Mr G.S. of the Directorate for Combating Extremism and Criminal Terrorism. She also informed the investigators about her conversation with the law-enforcement officer, Mr I.T. (see above).
On 19 October 2007 the supervisor criticised the course of the investigation and ordered that a number of steps be taken.
On 22 December 2007 the investigators, referring to the poor quality of the operational search activities in the case, requested that the Dagestan Minister of the Interior (the police) provide effective operational support for the case.
On 20 and 21 April 2008 the investigators again questioned the applicant. She repeated her previous statements and submitted in addition that on 2 May 2007 she had spoken to Mr A.M., a lawyer who had been involved in the search for the group of men who had disappeared in Makhachkala on 26 April 2007. Mr A.M. had told her that after his disappearance, her son had been seen in a temporary detention centre with a group of other men.
On 15 August 2008 the first deputy prosecutor of Dagestan ordered that a number of procedural flaws in the investigation be eliminated.
On 7 July 2009 the applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the case file. No reply was given to the request.
On 23 March 2011 the applicant was questioned. She repeated her previous statements.
On 29 March 2011 Ms G.R., a human rights activist in Dagestan, and Ms Sh.D., the mother of another man who had disappeared, were questioned. They confirmed the disappearance of a group of about twenty young men on 26 April 2007 in Dagestan and related a conversation they had had with Mr I.T., the law-enforcement officer, who had told them that he had seen the abducted men at the ROVD.
On 15 November 2011 the applicant’s lawyer, Mr Sh.I., requested access to the case file. On an unspecified date the investigators allowed him to access some of the material in the case file.
On 13 February 2012 Mr Sh.I. requested full access to the case file and asked that the proceedings be resumed. The investigators refused to grant full access to the file, but resumed the proceedings.
It appears that the investigation is still pending.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
On 5 March 2010 the applicant challenged the lack of access to the case file and the investigators’ failure to examine her request of 7 July 2009 (see above) before the Sovetskiy District Court in Makhachkala (Советский районный суд г. Махачкала) (“the court”). On 25 March 2010 the court dismissed her complaint, finding that the application had been duly examined on 14 August 2009 and that there were no obstacles to accessing the file.
On 16 April 2012 the applicant’s legal representative challenged the refusal to grant full access to the investigation file before the court. On 26 April 2012 the court discontinued the proceedings, finding that the investigators had granted him full access to the case file on 25 April 2012.
4. Application no. 71667/12 (Yakha Ilyasova v. Russia)
The applicant is Ms Yakha Ilyasova, who was born in 1958 and lives in the village of A. Sheripova (also spelled as A-Sheripova), Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya.
The applicant is the mother of Mr Suleyman Ilyasov, who was born in 1985.
(a) Abduction of Mr Suleyman Ilyasov
Between 2006 and 2007 Mr Suleyman Ilyasov participated in the activities of illegal armed groups operating in Chechnya. On 12 March 2009 he surrendered to the authorities and admitted being guilty of taking part in illegal activities. On 21 March 2009 the authorities decided against instituting a criminal case against him, referring to the absence of corpus delicti. During the night of 1 October 2009 a special operation was conducted in A. Sheripova village, where Mr Ilyasov lived with his family. A group of fifteen to twenty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in the village in a UAZ military vehicle, a VAZ 2114, three Lada Priora cars, a jeep, and a white Gazel minivan with the registration number A499XX. The UAZ military vehicle was equipped with firing ports and had a registration number containing the digits 357 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 754). Two of the other vehicles in the convoy had registration numbers containing the digits 745 and 283. The servicemen were of Chechen appearance and spoke Chechen; some of them were wearing helmets and one of them had the Police Special Task Unit (Отдел милиции особого назначения (ОМОН)) (hereinafter “the OMON”) insignia on the back of his uniform.
The servicemen first made a forced entry into the house of the applicant’s neighbour, Ms A.N., searched the premises and then left. Some of them went into the courtyard of the house of another neighbour, Mr U.S., and asked him how to find the Ilyasovs’ house.
At about 11 p.m. that night the servicemen made a forced entry into the applicant’s house at 23 Nagayeva Street. The applicant, Mr Ilyasov, his sister, Ms A.I., and other family members were at home. Several servicemen forced Mr Ilyasov outside, while others searched the premises and seized his identity documents, his mobile phone and the mobile phone belonging to Ms A.I. The servicemen then took Mr Ilyasov to the vehicles, which were parked about two hundred metres away from the Ilyasovs’ house. They handcuffed him and put him into the white Gazel minivan. Ms A.I. followed the servicemen and saw her brother in the minivan. She managed to get into the van. However, the servicemen threatened to beat her and she got out. The convoy then left, driving though the nearby village of Shatoy in the direction of Grozny and passing without hindrance through checkpoints on the way.
The whereabouts of Mr Suleyman Ilyasov have remained unknown ever since.
(b) Official investigation into the abduction
On 2 October 2009 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Shatoy inter-district prosecutor’s office (Шатойская межрайонная прокуратура Чеченской Республики). Her complaint was referred on the same day to the Grozny inter-district investigation department of the Chechnya Investigations Committee (Грозненский межрайонный следственный отдел Следственного управления Следственного комитета при прокуратуре РФ по Чеченской Республике) (“the district investigation committee”) for further processing.
On 15 October 2009 the district investigation committee refused to open a criminal investigation, stating that Mr Ilyasov might have been detained by law-enforcement agencies in connection with his involvement in illegal armed groups.
On 30 October 2009 the above decision was overruled as unlawful.
On 9 November 2009 the district investigation committee opened criminal case no. 81010 under Articles 126 § 2 and 161 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction and robbery).
On 10 November 2009 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She stated, in particular, that at about 11 p.m. on 1 October 2009 two armed men in military uniforms had forced their way into her house and taken away her son, Mr Ilyasov. The men had spoken Chechen, one of them had been wearing a helmet and their military uniforms had had insignia on the back.
On 11 November 2009 the Chechnya traffic police department (УГИБДД МВД по Чеченской Республике) informed the investigators that a white Gazel minivan with registration number A499KX95 was listed as belonging to the Special Task Force Unit of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (ОМОН при МВД Чеченской Республики). Subsequently, the investigators obtained information that the vehicle was used by a police sergeant, A.M.
On 11 November 2009, Mr Ilyasov’s brother, Mr R.I., was questioned. His statement to the investigators was similar to the applicant’s account before the Court. He also stated that he had learnt from the applicant that the abductors had been in military uniforms which had the OMON insignia.
On 12 November 2009 Ms A.I., Mr Ilyasov’s sister, was questioned. Her statement to the investigators was similar to the applicant’s account before the Court.
On unspecified dates the investigators requested information from a number of law-enforcement agencies as to whether they had arrested or detained Mr Ilyasov, or whether any special operation had been conducted in A. Sheripova village at the time of the abduction. No positive response was received.
On 17 November 2009 and 7 December 2010 the Shatoy District Court (Шатойский районный суд Чеченской Республики) authorised the gathering of information from the mobile telephones of Mr Suleyman Ilyasov and Ms A.I.
On 24 November 2009 the investigators questioned Ms A.N., who stated that at around 11 p.m. on 1 October 2009 a group of ten to fifteen armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at her house in A. Sheripova village, inspected the premises and left.
On the same date, the investigators questioned the applicant’s fellow villagers, Mr U.S. and Ms S.S., both of whom stated that on the evening of 1 October 2009 a group of men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at their house and asked them about the location of the Ilyasovs’ house.
On 24 November 2009 the investigators questioned several servicemen who had manned checkpoint no. 221 at the entrance to Shatoy on the night of the abduction. They all stated that they had not seen a convoy of vehicles passing though the checkpoint that night.
On 24 November 2009 the investigators examined the crime scene. Several objects, including items of clothing belonging to Mr Ilyasov, were collected as evidence. On 30 November 2009 the investigators ordered a forensic biological expert examination of the evidence.
On 27 November 2009 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior informed the investigators that the UAZ vehicle with registration number A357KX/95 was used by their Special Task Force. Subsequently, the investigators were informed that the vehicle had been used by an officer, S.A., since 6 June 2008.
On 3 December 2009 the forensic experts informed the investigators that it was impossible to carry out an examination of the evidence owing to a lack of qualified specialists.
On 2 and 16 December 2009 Mr R.I. was questioned again. He repeated his account of the circumstances of his brother’s abduction.
On 9 January 2010 the investigation was suspended owing to a failure to identify any perpetrators. That decision was overruled on 8 November 2010 following orders and criticism from supervisors and the investigation was resumed. It was again suspended on 8 December 2010.
On 7 December 2010 the investigators requested the local mobile phone operator, Megaphone, to release information on Ms A.I.’s phone calls, starting from the abduction date. The outcome of the request is unknown.
On 12 September 2012 the applicant’s legal representative requested that the investigators grant her access to the criminal case file. The request was granted.
It appears that the investigation is still pending.
COMPLAINTS
1. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain of a violation of the right to life of their relatives, referred to as “abducted/disappeared persons” in the Appendix, and submit that the circumstances of their abduction/disappearance indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted.
2. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications, except for Rashidov case (no. 22751/10), complain that they have suffered severe mental distress owing to the indifference shown by the authorities in connection with the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relatives and to the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incidents.
3. The applicants in all the applications submit that the unacknowledged detention of the relatives referred to as “abducted/disappeared persons” in the Appendix violates all of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.
4. The applicants in all the applications complain under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. The applicant in Rashidov case (no. 22751/10) also complains of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 5 of the Convention.[A1]
QUESTIONS
1. Having regard to:
- the Court’s many judgments finding violations of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of both the disappearance of applicants’ relatives as a result of detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among many examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Khava Aziyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 30237/10, 23 April 2015); and
- the similarity of the present four applications, both to each other and to the cases cited above, as can be seen from the applicants’ submissions and the interim results of the respective investigations:
(a) Have the applicants made out a prima facie case that their relatives (referred to as “abducted/disappeared persons” in the Appendix) were arrested by State servicemen in the course of security operations?
(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in order to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the circumstances of the abduction and ensuing disappearance of the applicants’ relatives (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, § 184, ECHR 2009)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abductions/disappearances, by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events by other means?
(c) Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants’ missing relatives?
(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 applicants’ missing relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?
2. In respect of all the applications, except for Rashidov v. Russia (no. 22751/10), has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives; the authorities’ alleged indifference in that connection; and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into their disappearance, 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?
3. In respect of all the applications, were the applicants’ missing relatives deprived of their liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on the dates or periods of time listed in the Appendix? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?
4. In respect of all the applications, did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
5. Further to the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information in respect of each of the applications:
(a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants’ allegations that their missing relatives have been abducted by State agents;
and, in any event,
(b) a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants’ complaints about 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 documents from the investigation files in the respective criminal cases that are relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the allegations and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations.
[A2]
APPENDIX
No.
Number, name of application and date of application
Applicants’ details (name, year of birth, family relationship, place of residence)
Representative
Name and year of birth of abducted/disappeared persons
Brief description of the circumstances of the abduction/disappearance
Relevant details about the official investigation
22751/10
Rashidov v. Russia
23/04/2010
Mr Abdurashid Rashidov
(1952); Magomed Rashidov’s father;
Gubden, Dagestan.
SRJI/Astreya
Mr Magomed Rashidov (1984)
On the night of 24 to 25 December 2009 a group of about eight armed men broke into the applicant’s house in Gubden, Dagestan, and took Mr Magomed Rashidov away.
On 1 January 2010 the Kaspiyskiy inter-district investigation department of the Dagestan Investigations Committee opened criminal case no. 0295. The investigation is still pending.
38378/12
Sigauri v. Russia
15/06/2012
Ms Ayshat Sigauri
(1962); Said Sigauri’s mother; Ordzhonikidzevskaya Ingushetia.
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Mr Said Sigauri (1988)
On 2 March 2011 Mr Said Sigauri left his home in Grozny and did not return. Later on the same date, he was seen detained by the police in the course of a special operation in Grozny.
On 24 June 2011 the Achkhoy-Martan investigative department of the Chechnya Investigations Committee opened criminal case no. 67002. The investigation is still pending.
70095/12
Isayeva v. Russia
24/10/2012
Ms Svetlana Isayeva
(1957); Isa Isayev’s mother; Makhachkala, Dagestan.
SRJI/Astreya
Mr Isa Isayev (1982)
On 26 April 2007 Mr Isa Isayev left his home in Makhachkala, Dagestan, and did not return.
On 29 May 2007 the Sovetskiy district prosecutor’s office in Makhachkala opened criminal case no. 702839 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 702819). The investigation is still pending.
71667/12
Ilyasova v. Russia
26/10/2012
Ms Yakha Ilyasova
(1958); Suleyman Ilyasov’s mother;
A.Sheripova, Chechnya
SRJI Atreya
Mr Suleyman Ilyasov (1985)
On 1 October 2009 about twenty armed servicemen forced their way into the applicant’s house in A.Sheripova village and took Mr Suleyman Ilyasov away.
On 9 November 2009 the Grozny inter-district investigation department of the Chechnya Investigations Committee opened criminal case no. 81010. The investigation is still pending.
[A1]ITMARKFactsComplaintsEnd
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
[A2]ITMARKQuestionEnd
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy