FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23507/06
by Zina TASUYEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 May 2006,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Zina Tasuyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Zakan-Yurt. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. Disappearance of the applicant's relative
At the material time the applicant's brother, Musadi Sugaipov, who was born in 1969, was married and had two children. He lived in the village of Zakan-Yurt, in the Achkhoy-Martan district, Chechnya.
In the morning of 31 July 2002, at about 8 a.m., Musadi Sugaipov went by bus from Zakan-Yurt to Achkhoy-Martan to run errands. He was seen in the town centre around midday. He did not return home that day and there has been no news of him ever since.
On 25 May 2006 the Zakan-Yurt village administration issued certificate no. 1919 confirming that Musadi Sugaipov has gone missing since 31 July 2002.
B. The official investigation into the disappearance
On 27 October 2002 the applicant complained about her brother's disappearance to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor's office (the district prosecutor's office).
On 3 November 2002 the district prosecutor's office initiated an investigation into the disappearance of Musadi Sugaipov under Article 127 § 2 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). The case file was given the number 63086.
On 5 or 8 November 2002 the applicant's father was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned.
On 10 November 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant.
On 19 and 25 November 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant's relatives Ms M.A. and Mr Z.S.
On 3 January 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant's father was informed about the decision.
From January 2003 to February 2006 the applicant did not contact the investigating authorities.
On 27 February 2006 the applicant requested information about the investigation. On 2 March 2006 the district prosecutor's office replied that they had suspended the investigation.
On 14 March 2006 the department of the interior of the Achkhoy-Martan district (the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD) provided a statement to the effect that the ROVD was taking operational-search measures to establish the persons involved into the disappearance of Musadi Sugaipov.
On 4 May 2006 the applicant's mother wrote to the Chief Military Prosecutor's office, the Chechnya prosecutor's office and the Prosecutor General's office. She complained about her son's disappearance and requested assistance in establishing his whereabouts. On 22 May 2006 the Chief Military Prosecutor's office replied that her request had been forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor's office. On 31 May 2006 the latter forwarded the request further to the district prosecutor's office.
On 3 April 2007 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant's mother that the investigators had taken a number of steps and operational‑search measures; that they were collaborating with the Federal Security Service (the FSB), the military commander's office, the military prosecutor's office and other law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya and other regions. However, the whereabouts of Musadi Sugaipov had not been established.
On 17 July 2007 the investigators questioned the applicant's neighbour Mr B.B., the applicant and the applicant's father.
On 17 June 2008 the decision concerning the suspension of the investigation of 3 January 2003 was overruled by the supervisory prosecutor and the investigation of the criminal case was resumed. The applicant's father was informed about it on 18 June 2008.
On 20 June 2008 the investigators questioned police officers M.I. and M.T. who stated that as a result of operational-search measures the whereabouts of Musadi Sugaipov could not be established.
The criminal investigation into the disappearance of the applicant's brother has not been completed to date.
COMPLAINTS
Without invoking any particular provision of the Convention the applicant complained in broad terms about her brother's disappearance and the failure of domestic authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the events. Under Article 5 she complained of unlawfulness of Musadi Sugaipov's apprehension and a violation of the guarantees against arbitrary detention in his respect.
THE LAW
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court observes that, by letter of 23 June 2009 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit her observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 16 September 2009.
By letter dated 25 January 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 16 September 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy