Communicated on 5 April 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 61161/15
Akhmed SHAKHGIRIYEV and Others
against Russia
lodged on 19 November 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are:
(1) Mr Akhmed Shakhgiriyev, who was born in 1956;
(2) Ms Amanat (also spelled Amnat) Shakhgiriyeva, who was born in 1959;
(3) Ms Dzhamilya Shakhgiriyeva, who was born in 1988; and
(4) Ms Kheda Shakhgiriyeva, who was born in 1993.
The first, second and third applicants live in Argun, Chechnya. They are the parents and sister of Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev, who was born in 1981. The fourth applicant lives in Alleroy, Chechnya, and is his sister.
The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of non‑governmental organisation (NGO) Materi Chechni, practising in Chechnya.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Abduction of Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev
Between 10 and 11 a.m. on 10 April 2003 Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev and his acquaintance, A.A., were in the courtyard of school no. 2 at 8a Titova Street in Argun when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas approached them. Speaking Chechen, the servicemen handcuffed A.A. and started pulling Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev towards a white VAZ-2106 car which was parked nearby. The car’s registration number contained the digits 640 95, and it had a label reading “Soni” on its rear window. Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev resisted, therefore the servicemen opened fire, forced him into the car, and drove off to an unknown location.
The whereabouts of Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev have remained unknown ever since.
2. Official investigation into the abduction
On 10 April 2003 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal investigation be opened.
On 11 April 2003 the Argun town prosecutor’s office (Прокуратура г. Аргун) opened criminal case no. 26022-03 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On the same date, 11 April 2003, the first applicant was granted victim status. He and his wife, the second applicant, were questioned. Their statements to the investigators were similar to their account submitted to the Court.
Between 11 April and 7 May 2003 eyewitnesses to the abduction – A.R., A.S., A.G. and M.D. – were questioned. They stated that in the morning of 10 April 2003 they had been at school no. 2 in Argun and had seen several men dressed in black forcing a young man into a white car.
Between 11 and 13 April 2003 the investigators questioned K.G. and S.M. – policemen who had manned checkpoints nos. 131 and 111 in the vicinity of Argun on the day of the abduction. They stated that, while they were on duty at the above checkpoints, they had seen a white VAZ-2106 car with a registration number containing the digits 640 95 and a label reading “Soni” on its rear window on several occasions. The car had belonged to a Chechen policeman, who had showed his service certificate to pass through the checkpoints.
Within the same period the investigators questioned several owners of white VAZ-2106 cars with registration numbers containing the digits 640. All of the owners denied any involvement in the abduction of Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev.
On 6 June 2003 the investigators questioned A.A. He stated that at about 11 a.m. on 10 April 2003 he had been standing with Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev next to school no. 2 in Argun when an armed man in a black camouflage uniform resembling that of the Police Patrol and Checkpoint Service (ППС) had approached them. The man had had fair hair and had spoken in Chechen. He had hit him (A.A.) in the stomach, pointed a gun at Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev and ordered him not to move. A car had then driven up and another armed man in the same black camouflage uniform and a balaclava had approached them. Together they had started pulling Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev into the car, however he had resisted. Two more men in black camouflage uniforms had then stepped out of the car and approached them, trying to put handcuffs on Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev. They had not managed to do that, and had dropped the handcuffs on the ground. Finally, the four men had forced Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev into the car and driven off.
On 11 June 2003 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It is unclear whether the applicants were informed about that decision. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on 7 May and 26 September 2013, suspended on 16 May and 26 October 2013, and resumed again on 13 April 2015.
On 9 May 2005, before the Chechnya prosecutor’s office (Прокуратура Чеченской Республики), the second applicant complained regarding the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps. The outcome of that complaint is unknown.
On 6 May 2013 the second applicant was granted victim status in the case.
On 24 July 2013 the second applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings. The request was rejected.
On 26 November 2014 the second applicant asked the investigators to grant her access to the criminal case material. The outcome of that request is unknown.
On 21 July 2015 the NGO Materi Chechni asked a number of state officials to assist in the search for Mr Shakhgiriyev. The outcome of those requests is unknown.
It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.
3. Proceedings against the investigators
On 13 September 2013 and 28 March 2015, before the Shali Town Court of the Chechen Republic (Шалинский городской суд Чеченской Республики), the second applicant challenged the decisions of 16 May and 26 October 2013 to suspend the investigation and the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps.
On 4 October 2013 and 13 April 2015 the court rejected the complaints, having found that on 26 September 2013 and 13 April 2015 respectively the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 19 May 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court (Верховный Суд Чеченской Республики) upheld the decision of 13 April 2015 on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev’s right to life, and submit that the circumstances of his abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicants also complain that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted.
Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they are suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relative, and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident.
The applicants submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relative violates all the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.
The applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article 2 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS
1. Have the applicants 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 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 time-limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009)? 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 the abduction of their 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 applicants’ relatives as a result of 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 and 4 others, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 61536/08 and 4 others, 30 January 2014); and
‑ the similarity of the present application 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 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 to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants’ relative’s abduction and ensuing disappearance (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others, cited above)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants’ 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 applicants’ missing relative?
3. 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 relative sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?
4. Has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relative and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the 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?
5. Was the applicants’ missing relative deprived of his 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?
6. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
7. 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 relative was abducted by State servicemen;
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 relative, 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.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy