Communicated on 15 June 2020
Published on 6 July 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 32267/08
Sala KHAMIDOV
against Russia
lodged on 29 May 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sala Khamidov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1933 and lives in Znamenskoye, Chechen Republic. The applicant is not legally represented before the Court.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case
1. Alleged ill-treatment
According to the applicant, on 25 May 2000 at around 10 p.m. Russian military officers opened random fire in the village of Znamenskoye in the Nadterechniy district of Chechnya. The applicant was leaving his sister’s house when the officers attacked him, beating with gun butts and putting him in a UAZ-vehicle. Mr Kh.Kh. and Ms M.Kh., the applicant’s nephew and his wife, as well as their neighbours witnessed the applicant’s abduction.
According to the applicant, the officers took him to the outskirts of the village, beat him, pulled out a denture with 17 golden teeth and took away his money (10,000 Russian roubles). When the applicant passed out, the officers undressed him and threw him out of the car.
On 26 May 2000 at around 6.30 a.m. the applicant was found by a passer-by, Mr R.A. He immediately informed the applicant’s son, Mr A.Kh., who took the applicant to a district hospital.
According to the extract of the applicant’s medical card (no. 762 of 26 May 2000), the applicant had a closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion of second degree, chest contusion, and a closed two-sided fracture of his lower jaw.
On 1 June 2000 the commandant of the Nadterechniy District requested the head of the military hospital in Mozdok in the North Ossetia to admit the applicant for a qualified medical treatment. According to the applicant, his medical treatment lasted for two months.
2. Official investigation into the alleged ill-treatment
On 26 May 2000 an investigator of the Prosecution Office in the Nadterechniy District opened criminal case no. 28015 into hooliganism under Article 213 of the Russian Criminal Code (“the CC”). According to the decision, a group of unidentified armed men opened random fire in the Znamenskoye village and then beat up civilians, including the applicant.
On the same day the applicant was granted victim status.
On 30 June 2000 the criminal case was transferred to a military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102.
On 21 July 2000 the criminal case was transferred back to the Prosecution Office of Chechnya on the ground that the involvement of military officers in the events had not been established.
Between July 2000 and March 2006 the criminal case was suspended for the failure to identify perpetrators and resumed at least three times:
1) On 26 July 2000 the case was suspended and resumed on 24 November 2004;
2) On 3 January 2005 the case was suspended and resumed on 28 February 2006;
3) On 28 March 2006 the case was suspended.
Meanwhile on 4 March 2005 the Committee on the implementation of constitutional rights of civilians of Chechnya (Комитет по обеспечению конституционных прав граждан Чеченской республики) requested the Prosecutor of the Chechen Republic and the military prosecutor to eliminate unjustified delays in the applicant’s case.
3. Proceedings against the investigators
On 19 November 2007 the applicant challenged the decision to suspend the criminal case of 28 March 2006 at the Nadterechniy District Court.
On 17 March 2008 the Head of the Naurskiy Inter-District Investigation Department quashed the decision of 28 March 2006.
On 19 March 2008 the Nadterechniy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the grounds that the decision had already been quashed.
On 18 April 2008 the investigator of the Naurskiy Inter-District Investigation Department issued the latest decision to suspend the investigation for the failure to identify perpetrators.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For the relevant provisions of domestic law, see Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, §§ 42-44, 5 February 2015.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about his ill‑treatment by the military officers and the lack of an effective investigation in this respect.
2. He also complains under Article 5 of the Convention about his unrecorded detention on 25 May 2000.
3. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his complaints.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant comply with the six-month time-limit for raising his complaint under the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention, given that the latest decision to suspend the criminal case was taken in March 2006 and the applicant challenged it in November 2007?
If yes,
2. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention between 25 and 26 May 2000 by the military officers?
3. Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant’s injuries were caused (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000‑VII, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 83 et seq., ECHR 2015)?
4. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint about unrecorded detention under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In answering the question, the parties are invited to address the following points:What was the final decision in respect of this complaint?Did the applicant lodge his complaint within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
If yes,
6. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If such detention took place, was it compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?
7. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy