Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 167
October 2013
Yandiyev and Others v. Russia - 34541/06, 43811/06 and 1578/07
Judgment 10.10.2013 [Section I]
Article 2
Article 2-1
Effective investigation
Failure to effectively investigate civilian disappearances in Ingushetia: violation
Facts – The applicants were close relatives of three men who disappeared in Ingushetia in 2002 and 2004 after being apprehended by armed men they identified as Russian security forces. In each case a criminal investigation was opened by the local prosecutor’s office and the proceedings were subsequently suspended and resumed on several occasions. At the time of the European Court’s judgment, the proceedings were still pending and the whereabouts of the missing men and the identity of the abductors were still unknown. The parties disputed the level of State involvement in the disappearances as well as whether the abducted men could be presumed dead.
Law – Article 2
(a) Substantive aspect – The Court found it established that the applicants’ family members had been taken into custody by agents of the State. In the absence of any reliable news of the three men since their abduction, and given the life-threatening nature of such detention, they could be presumed dead. Responsibility for their deaths rested with the respondent State, who had provided no grounds justifying the deaths.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(b) Procedural aspect – The investigations into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives had been pending for many years without bringing about any significant development as to the identities of the perpetrators or the fate of the victims. The proceedings in each of the cases had been plagued by a combination of defects. In particular, no steps had been taken to find out the nature and provenance of the special passes the abductors had used when transporting the men. This could have led to the establishment of the abductors’ identities and the discovery of their fate. What was at stake here was nothing less than public confidence in the State’s monopoly on the use of force. The State had therefore to ensure, by all means at its disposal, an adequate response, judicial or otherwise, so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the right to life was properly implemented, and any breaches of that right were halted and punished. The respondent State had failed to ensure such an adequate response in the instant case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court further found unanimously violations of Article 3 (on account of the distress and anguish suffered by the applicants), Article 5 (on account of the detention without any legal grounds or acknowledgement) and of Article 13 (on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2 and 3).
Article 41: The applicants were awarded between EUR 45,000 and EUR 60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and between EUR 7,800 and EUR 23,000 in respect of pecuniary damage.
(See Imakayeva v. Russia, 7615/02, 9 November 2006, Information Note 91; Gakayeva and Others v. Russia, 51534/08 et al., 10 October 2013; Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, 2944/06 et al., 18 December 2012, Information Note 158; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey, 16064/90 et al., 18 September 2009, Information Note 122)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy