Communicated on 23 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 14667/09
Lida YEVLOYEVA and Roza TOMOVA
against Russia
lodged on 2 March 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Ms Lida Yevloyeva (“the first applicant”) and Ms Roza Tomova (“the second applicant”), who respectively were born in 1951 and 1964 and live in Ekazhevo and Nazran, Ingushetia. They are represented before the Court by Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO based in the Netherlands with representative offices in Moscow and Ingushetia.
The first applicant is the mother of Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev, who was born in 1976. The second applicant is the sister of Mr Ibragim Izmaylov, who was born in 1976.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Abduction of Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov
At about 10 p.m. on 11 March 2004 Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov were driving in their white VAZ 2107 car on the motorway from the direction of the town of Malgobek towards the Volga‑14 stationary traffic checkpoint located at the intersection of the Malgobek‑Mayskoye and Nazran-Kantyshevo motorways in Ingushetia (also known as the Kantyshevkiy intersection). When they reached the checkpoint, a dark‑grey metallic (цвет «мокрый асфальт») VAZ 21099 car without registration numbers overtook them at high speed and blocked the road. At the same time a white Niva car without registration numbers approached them from behind and bumped into their car’s rear end. Ten armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas jumped out of the two cars, surrounded Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov and opened fire; the armed men then handcuffed them, forced them into their vehicles and drove off in the direction of Nazran.
A police officer on duty at the traffic checkpoint (Mr A.A.) tried to intervene; however, one of the men ordered him to stay away, waving a service identification card. Speaking unaccented Russian, the man told him that he was from the Magas department of the Federal Security Service in Ingushetia (Федеральная Служба Безопасности) (hereinafter the “FSS”).
According to information obtained by the applicants from unidentified sources, on the same date (11 March 2004) Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov were taken to the FSS headquarters in Magas. The brother of Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev, Mr Kh.Y., went there straight away and saw a Niva car parked on the FSS premises. The car had physical damage to its body indicating that it had been in a collision with a white-coloured vehicle. It is unclear whether the applicants submitted this information to the investigators.
The whereabouts of Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov have remained unknown ever since.
2. Official investigation into the abduction
On 15 March 2004 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and asked for assistance in the search for her son.
On 17 March 2004 the Nazran district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia (прокуратура Назрановского района Республики Ингушетия) opened criminal case no. 04500010 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 18 and 20 March 2004 the investigators questioned police officer Mr A.A. and his colleagues, lieutenant M.D. and sergeant I.I., who had also been on duty at the traffic checkpoint and had witnessed the event. Their submission regarding the circumstances of the abduction was similar to the account that the applicants submitted to the Court.
On 17 November 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case.
On 17 December 2004 the investigation in respect of the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. This decision was quashed by the supervising authorities and on 1 April 2005 the investigation was resumed. It was again suspended on 1 March 2005, resumed on 29 March 2005 and suspended on 31 December 2006.
On numerous occasions between 2004 and 2009 the applicants complained to various state officials and law-enforcement agencies about the abduction and asked for assistance in the search for their relatives. In reply they received letters stating either that law-enforcement agencies had not been involved in the abduction of their relatives or that operational search activities were still in progress in order to establish their whereabouts.
It appears that the investigation is still pending.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of the right to life of Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov and submit that the circumstances of their abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted.
The applicants complain, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that they are suffering severe mental distress on account of the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relatives and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident.
The applicants submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives violates all the guarantees under 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 TO THE PARTIES
1. 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 the applicants’ relatives as a result of their 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, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 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 relatives were arrested by State servicemen in the course of a security operation?
(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in respect of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ abduction and ensuing disappearance (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 181-84, ECHR 2009, and Tanış and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005–VIII)? 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 relatives?
(d) Were the national authorities in the particular circumstances of the present case under an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life, in particular by taking measures aimed at preventing the abduction?
(e) 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 relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?
2. Has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance been sufficiently serious as 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?
3. Were the applicants’ missing relatives deprived of liberty, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees under Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?
4. 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?
5. 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 relatives were abducted by State servicemen;
and, in any event,
(b) a complete list (in chronological order) of all investigative steps taken in connection with the applicants’ complaints about the disappearance of their missing relatives, 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