Communicated on 5 February 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 53284/13
Leyla Zemovna TURPULKHANOVA against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS AND COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into their relatives’ disappearance. Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violation of Article 2 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.
53284/13
Turpulkhanova v Russia
2.
22543/15
Khasiyeva v. Russia
3.
18988/16
Shaytilayeva v. Russia
4.
19820/16
Dyshneyeva v. Russia
QUESTIONS
1. 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, Buzurtanova and Zarkhmatova v. Russia, no. 78633/12, § 116, 5 November 2015, Ibragim Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 18011/12, § 70, 21 June 2016 and Salikhova and Magomedova v. Russia, no. 63689/13, § 90, 26 January 2016), 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?
2. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their above complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information:
(a) 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:
(b) 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 thereof.
Appendix No. 1
App No.
Case Title
Information about the applicant
53284/13
Turpulkhanova
v. Russia
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Address
Representative
Kinship to the abducted person(s)
Leyla
TURPULKHANOVA
F
1970
Urus-Martan, Chechnya
ASTREYA/Stichting Russian Justice Initiative
Mother
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
Luiza
MEZHIDOVA
F
1988
No
N/A
Sales assistant at a shop in Grozny
Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)
Date of disappearance
Narrative of the facts
Any last known information about the abducted person(s)
The night between 31/10/2011 and 01/11/2011
In the evening on 31/10/2011 Ms MEZHIDOVA, having returned home from work, received several phone calls. She left her mobile telephone home and gone out to meet someone late in the evening. According to the applicant, her daughter left the house to meet a police officer Mr I.M. from the Shali district police station and gone missing since. According to the witness statements obtained by the investigation, since 2009 Ms MEZHIDOVA had a romantic relationship with Mr I.M. which they kept secret as the officer was afraid of retaliation from her male relatives. On 06/12/2011 the profile of Ms MEZHIODVA on social network “Odnoklassniki” was accessed and posts were made. According to the applicant, third parties have accessed her missing daughter’s profile.
On 16/11/2011 a woman’s hand was found on the premises of a school in Grozny. According to the applicant, the remains could have belonged to her missing daughter.
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
Brief description of the criminal investigation
Procedural behaviour of the applicant
07/11/2011 the official complaint lodged with the Grozny police department
17/11/2011 by the Grozny police department
On 12/01/2012 the Leninskiy inter-district investigative department in Grozny opened criminal case no. 13002 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder)
The crime scene examined on 07/11/2011. The criminal case was opened in more than two and months after the disappearance complaint. On 16/11/2011 a woman’s hand was found on the premises of a local school and the police arrived and collected the evidence, but did not examine the premises. The evidence was never officially logged and gone missing under unclear circumstances. According to the applicant, the key witness Mr I.M. was questioned only in June 2012. His statements contained serious discrepancies which were not elucidated by the investigators.
On a number of occasions the supervisors criticized the investigators for failure to take necessary steps and comply with their previously issued orders concerning the investigation. For instance, on 20/05/2012 the head of the Chechnya Investigative Committee criticized the investigators for their failure to question the missing woman’s male relatives, her neighbours and colleagues, a certain Mr K. who according to the applicant, could have been involved in the incident, the key witness Mr I.M. and to commission comparative genetic expert evaluation of the applicant and the remains found on 16/11/2011. Subsequently, on 22/06/2012 the Staropromyslovskiy district deputy prosecutor criticized the investigators for their failure to take the previously ordered steps, including the commissioning of the comparative genetic expert evaluation and questioning of a number of witnesses, including Mr I.M.
According to the applicant, the orders of 22/06/2012 have not been complied with up to date. The proceedings having been suspended and resumed on several occasions. The last suspension took place on 6/02/2013. According to the applicant, the investigators failed to provide her with access to the investigation file despite her repeated requests.
The applicant actively participated in the proceedings by submitting evidence and information and requesting access to the case file.
On 04/12/2012 she complained to the Staropromyslovskiy district court in Grozny of the investigators’ failure to take basic steps, such as questioning of a number of witnesses, obtaining the CCTV footage from the nearby buildings (the relevant request was made only on 01/06/2012 but no footage was obtained). She requested that the suspended proceedings be resumed and the necessary steps taken. On 07/12/2012 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint as on 06/12/2012 the criminal investigation had been resumed.
Appendix No. 2
App No.
Case Title
Information about the applicant
22543/15
Khasiyeva
v. Russia
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Address
Representative
Kinship to the abducted person(s)
Lilya
KHASIYEVA
F
1964
Grozny, Chechnya
Committee against Torture
Daughter
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
Khadizhat
ELIMKHANOVA
F
1993
No
No
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)
06/07/2013
Ms Khadizhat ELIMKHANOVA was a "shame for her family"
"Gorodok Mayakovskogo" District of Grozny, in the street, near a shop
The applicant’s daughter was pushed into a car by an armed man in uniform, whom she allegedly knew, as she was shouting "Stop it, Muslim!" She has gone missing since.
Ms ELIMKHANOVA had a distant family member called Muslim, who served at the military base in Khankala.
Civilian car, day time.
Unclear
Mr M. E., special agent at military unit no. 27777 in Khankala, Chechnya.
Unknown
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
Brief description of the criminal investigation
Other relevant domestic proceedings
06/07/2013
N/A
24/07/2013 by the Chechnya Investigative Committee
No. 42040 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction)
Opening of the criminal case in 18 days after the complaint; failure to collect evidence: video-footage of the shop CCTV cameras was sent for expert examination in a month after the incident, the results of its examination are unknown. The suspect was questioned as a witness. The criminal proceedings were suspended on several occasions, including those on 24/10/2013, 20/02/2014 and 14/06/2014 and then resumed each time for the investigators’ failure to take necessary steps.
Reporting the incident within short time-frame (on the same day)
Witnesses and suspect interrogations, collecting evidence, ordering its expert evaluations, crime scene examination. The proceedings are still pending.
N/A
Appendix No. 3
App No.
Case Title
Information about the applicant
18988/16
Shaytilayeva v. Russia
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Address
Representative
Kinship to the abducted person(s)
Ayshat
SHAYTILAYEVA
F
1960
Komsomolskoye, Kizilyurt District, Dagestan
ASTREYA/Stichting Russian Justice Initiative
Mother
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
KHAYRULAYEV
M
1984
No
Unclear
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
Information on abductors’ identity
04/08/2012
The applicant’s son was suspected of murdering a police officer on 1/08/2012
2.30 a.m., in no. 31 Kavkazskaya Street, near the mosque of the Komsomolskoye village in the Kizilyurt District
Four witnesses saw a group of about seven armed men in balaclavas, camouflage uniforms and in military outfits, arriving at the mosque in two cars (a silver VAZ Priora-217030 and a black VAZ-21114) with tinted windows without registration numbers. The group forced the applicant’s son in one of their vehicles and drove off.
Night time; a group of 7 or more men; Duration less than 30 min
Certain police officers (as alleged by the applicant and the eye-witnesses in their statements given to the investigation).
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
Brief description of the criminal investigation
04/08/2012
N/A
06/08/2012 by the Kizilyurt Inter-district Investigative Committee, Dagestan
No. 207216 under Articles 126 and 222 of the Criminal Code (abduction and illegal possession of firearms)
Failure to take requested steps , such as to collect evidence, verify witness statement and the information concerning certain officers who could have been involved in the abduction.
Reporting the incident within short time-frame. The victim status was granted to the applicant on 04/10/2012.
The applicant lodged complaints under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the investigators’ inaction on 26/06/2014 and 8/09/2015 respectively.
1. Decision of the Kizilyurt District Court of 09/07/2014 – the complaint was rejected.
2. Decision of the Kizilyurt District Court of 02/10//2015 - the complaint was allowed.
The criminal proceedings were suspended on several occasions and then resumed each time for the investigators’ failure to take requested steps.
On 06/08/2012 two of eye-witnesses to the abduction stated that the abductors had been law-enforcement officers; subsequently, the applicant also stated in October 2012 that the abduction had been perpetrated by the police. According to the witness statements, on several occasions prior to the abduction, the applicant’s son had been detained on suspicion of terrorist-related activities and murder of a police officer. According to the explanation of the applicant given on 13/05/2013 and confirmed by witness M. M., within several months prior to the abduction, the police had searched her house on several occasions. The criminal proceedings are still pending.
\* MERGEFORMAT Appendix No. 4
App No.
Case Title
Information about the applicant
19820/16
Dyshneyeva
v. Russia
First name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Address
Representative
Kinship to the abducted person(s)
Madnyat
DYSHNEYEVA
F
1955
Dzerzhinskogo Street, Sunzhenskiy District, Ingushetia
Committee Against Torture
Mother
Information about the abducted person(s)
First Name
Surname
Sex
Year of birth
Suspected of terrorist activities
Criminal Background
Khusein
BADURGOV
M
N/A
Suspected terrorist
According to the information statement of the Ingushetia Ministry of the Interior, sent in reply to the investigators’ request of 10/08/2012, Mr Kh. BADURGOV was suspected of extremist activities and membership in illegal armed groups
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
Information on abductors’ identity
Any last known information about the abducted person(s)
10/07/2012
An alleged follower of an extremist religious movement (Wahhabis)
On 10/07/2012 at 10:30 a.m. after a job interview in "Tyan Shi" enterprise, in the Zavodskoy District in Grozny.
On 12/07/2012 Mr Khusein BADURGOV was seen twice by
Mr I. B. near "Berkat" market on the day of the abduction.
The applicant’s son was forced in a car leaving the job interview by two men in camouflage uniforms and gone missing since.
On 12/07/2012 a friend of Mr Badurgov, Mr Zaur Dzeytov, was also abducted under similar circumstances.
In her initial complaint the applicant stated that the abduction had been recorded by the nearest CCTV camera and requested that the footage be seized and examined.
According to the applicant, the abductors’ car was subsequently seen next to a Police Operational Search Unit (ОРЧ) in Ingushetia
The signal of
Mr Badurgov’s mobile phone was registered in the afternoon on the date of the abduction in Nesterovskaya in Ingushetia.
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
Brief description of the criminal investigation
12/07/2012
16/08/2012
10/09/2012
No. 10050 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction)
Opening of the criminal case in two months after it was reported. The investigators failed to collect evidence, verify witness statements and order expert evaluation of the evidence.
Reporting the incident within short time-frame, maintained contact with the authorities, obtained victim status on 04/12/2014 and lodged information requests.
The criminal proceedings were suspended on several occasions and then resumed each time for the investigators’ failure to take requested steps.
On 30/07/2012 the father of Mr BADURGOV stated that a month prior to the abduction, his son Khuseyn had been detained and questioned by the Magas town police officers on suspicion of extremist activities. This statement was subsequently corroborated by police officer O.G. and three other officers given on 24/08/2012. The same information was further was confirmed on 23/08/2012 by witness T. On 4/09/2012 witness B. stated that two men in camouflage uniforms were seen in the "Tyan Shi" enterprise on the day of Mr Badurgov’s job interview.
The criminal proceedings are still pending.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy