Cases 1 - 20 of 670

Dzhanaraliyev and Others v. Russia, (67947/13; 24632/15; 53248/15)

Judgement date: 14/06/2018
Lodged: 18/10/2013
Date of violations: 22/08/2008
Location: Dagestan
Representative: Others
Violation: Proper medical assistance

The applicants complained principally about the poor conditions of their detention, aggravated by the seriousness of their medical problems and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

 

Khatimat Saidova v. Russia, (36963/09)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2009
Date of violations: 17/07/2005
Location: Dagestan, Makhachkala
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Disappearance

In 2004 Mr Salikh Saidov, the applicant's son, moved from Makhachkala (Daghestan) to Moscow. In July 2005 three friends of Mr Saidov from Dagestan informed the applicant that they had been arrested with her son in Moscow. They were released, whereas Mr. Saidov was not. The applicant then found out that upon the request of investigator E.A. from the Dagestan Prosecutor’s office, on 17 July 2005 Mr Salikh had been arrested by the police in Moscow and taken for questioning to Makhachkala. According to the applicant, in Makhachkala her son was taken to the 6th Department of Ministry of the Interior (the Organised Crime Unit) for 3 days and then transferred to ORB-2 (police operational –search bureau no. 2) in Grozny, Chechnya. Since his detention on 17 July 2005 Mr Saidov has gone missing. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her son's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as her son's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she complained that her son's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Zhovbatyrov and Dorsigova v. Russia, (6594/15)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 27/01/2015
Date of violations: 04/08/2011
Location: Ingushetia, Ordzhenikidzevskaya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance

A perimeter set up around a residential quarter in the settlement of Ordzhenikidzevskaya. Passport spot check carried out by armed persons in camouflage uniforms without insignia who drove around in two Gazel-model minibuses. One of the buses had registration number containing digits 904 or 906 and the region indication 06.

 

Ugurchiyev and Others v. Russia, (33731/14)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 24/04/2014
Date of violations: 23/08/2011
Location: Ingushetia, Sunzhenskiy District
Representative: SRJI
Astreya
Violation: Disappearance

On 23 August 2011, two men, Mr Ugurchiyev and Mr Bersanov, were abducted in front of their house by a group of about ten armed men in black and camouflage uniforms and balaclavas who drove a white GAZEL-model minibus with tinted windows and a silver Lada-Priora model car. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for the men's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as their relatives' disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their sons' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Aziyeva and Others v. Russia, (2297/15)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 26/08/2015
Date of violations: 05/12/2014
Location: Chechnya, Naurskiy District
Representative: SRJI
Astreya
Violation: Disappearance

On 5 December 2014 a police officer arrived at one of the applicants’ houses and took Mr Bislan Aziyev and Mr Kazbek Karimov to the same police station to clarify some information. At about midnight of the same day the father of Mr. Aziyev telephoned that police officer. The officer told him that his son and Mr Karimov would be released soon. However, the applicants’ sons did not return home. On 5 January 2015 the applicants were taken to the ROVD where they were informed them that both men had been released from on 6 December 2014 and that their whereabouts after that date were unknown. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for the men's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their sons' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Markha Indrisova v. Russia, (19/16)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 26/12/2015
Date of violations: 06/02/2014
Location: Chechnya, Sadovoye, Grozny District
Representative: Tagir Shamsudinov
Violation: Disappearance

Mr M. Magomadov, the applicant's spouse, went outside his home after somebody knocked on the gate. When his brother looked outside, he only saw a white Lada-Priora model car driving off. Mr. Magomadov has been missing since. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her husband's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she complained that her husband's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Isayeva and Others v. Russia, (21260/16)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 12/04/2016
Date of violations: 05/12/2014
Location: Chechnya, Naurskiy District
Representative: SRJI
Astreya
Violation: Disappearance

On 5 December 2014 the five men (the sons of the four applicants) were taken by the police to the Naurskiy ROVD. According to the applicants, it was done within the campaign of reprisals for the armed attack on State bodies in Grozny on 3-4 December 2014. That campaign included burning of houses of family members of persons suspected of involvement in illegal armed groups, their arrests and detentions. It was told that the men had been released on 6 December 2014, bud they have gone missing since. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their sons' abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their sons' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Valigabandov v. Russia, (67897/16)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 22/08/2016
Date of violations: 22/08/2013
Location: Dagestan, Makhachkala
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Disappearance

On 22 August 2013 the applicant's brother, Mr Omar Valibagandov went to work. He first stopped to answer the phone calls and in the evening of the same day he ended in the hospital, being shot in the thigh with a rubber bullet. He was taken to the Karabudakhkent Central Hospital by a group of officers from the FSB and shortly thereafter transferred to the Izberbash hospital handcuffed and under their surveillance. On the premises of the Izberbash hospital a group of about 20-25 police officers waited for the ambulance with the applicant’s brother. In the hospital, during the removal of the bullet, Mr Valigabandov told the doctors that he had been beaten, shot and abducted by the law-enforcement officers. Shortly after he was taken to the police car and driven off. He has gone missing since. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for his brother's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Moreover, the applicant complained of the State’s failure to comply with the positive obligation to protect the right to life of his disappeared brother. He additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the brother's disappearance led to a mental suffering. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained that his brother's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, he had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Pyatimat Ausheva v. Russia, (56941/17)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 17/02/2017
Date of violations: 17/02/2012
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: No representative
Violation: Disappearance

On 17 February 2012 the applicant's son, Mr Rustam Aushev left home to go to Belgium to visit his sister.  He was at the Mineralnye Vody train station, when a group of seven men in civilian clothing approached him, showed him their service identity cards and then forced him in their white Gazel-model minivan. One of the abductors later introduced himself to the train station’s security personnel as Officer L. from the FSB and showed them his service identity card. After that Mr Aushev gone missing. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her son's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the son's disappearance led to a mental suffering. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained that her son's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Darsigova v. Russia, (54382/09)

Judgement date: 15/05/2018
Communicated: 10/11/2016
Lodged: 29/09/2009
Date of violations: 24/02/2009
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: Others
Violation: Property

In 1999 the administrative authorities of the Leninskiy District of Grozny provided the applicant with a housing allocation (a one‑room municipal flat in Grozny), where she consequently registered in 2005. Two years later, in 2007, the authorities decided to conduct an examination of all allocation orders granting occupation of municipal accommodation. The applicant’s housing allocation order appeared suspicious to the authorities and they commissioned an expert to verify its authenticity. The examination concluded that the allocation order was a forged document and the administration of Grozny brought court proceedings seeking to declare the allocation order null and void and to evict her from the flat in question. On 24 February 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny declared the housing allocation order null and void and issued an order to evict the applicant without provision of alternative accommodation. The Court held that there has been a violation of the applicant's right to respect for her home, as provided by Article 8 of the Convention.

 

Leyla Khamarzovna Muruzheva v. Russia, (62526/15)

Judgement date: 15/05/2018
Communicated: 25/04/2018
Lodged: 11/12/2015
Date of violations: 25/04/2015
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Private and family life

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 25 June 2014 granting her a residence order in respect of her children.

 

Elita Khaidovna Magomadova v. Russia, (77546/14)

Judgement date: 10/04/2018
Communicated: 04/06/2015
Lodged: 05/12/2014
Date of violations: 10/02/2014
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Private and family life

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the refusal to grant her a residence order in respect of her son. She alleges in this connection that the domestic courts did not assess the family situation and the best interests of the child with sufficient thoroughness. In particular, they disregarded the fact that from his birth and until his abduction by E. I had lived with the applicant. Nor did they take into account that E. had a criminal record. They had not assessed properly the applicant’s and E.’s financial and family situations or work schedules. The applicant further alleges that the childcare authority of Grozny issued its opinion that I. should live with his father without meeting her or examining her living conditions.

 

Kuchiyeva v. Russia, (9862/12)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2012
Date of violations: 25/02/2002
Location: Chechnya, Gudermes
Representative: Others
Violation: Disappearance

In the morning of 26 March 2002 the applicant's husband, Mr. S. Kuchiyev, was abducted from his house by a group of armed men in balaclavas and military uniforms. The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives’ abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that she had suffered mentally on account of her husband’s disappearance. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained that her husband's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Aslanbekova and Others v. Russia, (63554/13)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2013
Date of violations: 06/03/2000
Location: Chechnya, Duba-Yurt
Representative: Others
Violation: Disappearance

On 6 March 2000, during the identity check, the military servicemen forced the applicants and their relatives into a URAL military lorry which took them to another checkpoint. There women were released whereas six men were detained, allegedly for an identity check. They have been missing since. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives'abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their relatives' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Raysa Magamadova v. Russia, (57707/13)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 01/03/2013
Date of violations: 01/03/2002
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Disappearance

On 1 March 2002 the applicant's husband, Mr M. Magamadov, was abducted by a group of men in military uniforms and balaclavas, who drove around in two Armoured Personnel Carriers (the APCs) without registration numbers. The abductors did not ask for identity documents, but immediately started to beat Mr Magamadov and the applicant when she tried to help him. Then the abductors forced him in one of their APCs and drove off to an unknown destination. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her husband's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as her husband's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she complained that her husband's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Umayeva and Others v. Russia, (61555/13)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 26/12/2013
Date of violations: 26/12/2000
Location: Chechnya, Zamay-Yurt
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Disappearance

On 26 December 2000 the two brothers, Visait and Vesmirt Eskiyev were abducted from their house by a group of about 25-30 armed men in military uniforms. The abductors started to beat Visait Eskiyev, when his brother tried to help him, so he was beaten too. Then both men were forced in the abductors’ APC and taken to an unknown destination. They have been missing since. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their husbands' abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their husbands' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Adisova and Others v. Russia, (13793/13)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 12/04/2013
Date of violations: 12/04/2002
Location: Chechnya, Alleroy
Representative: Tagir Shamsudinov
Violation: Disappearance

On 12 April 2002, four men were taken away during a “mopping-up” operation conducted in the Alleroy settlement. More than 4 officers participated in the abduction. They were in military uniform and conducted an identity check: searched the house premises and questioned local residents. The four men have been missing since.  The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives' abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their relatives' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Patsuyev and Others v Russia, (9862/12)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 21/08/2012
Date of violations: 21/08/2003
Location: Ingushetia, Sunzhenskiy District
Representative: No representative
Violation: Disappearance

Adam Patsuyev, Ibragim Idigov and Salam Kerimov are cousins. On 21/08/2003 they went to the Sunzhenskiy district hospital where Ibragim Idigov was to have a wound bandaged. At about 2 p.m. two GAZEL-model minivans arrived at the hospital. A group of about 15 to 20 armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas yelled to those present to get on the ground. They kept shooting in the air and running around, looking for someone. Six of the armed men ran into the surgery unit where they beat Mr R.S. who was undergoing wound dressing unconscious and Lom-Ali SHAIPOV who was there with him, breaking Mr Shaipov’s arm. Then they forced Mr R.S. and Mr SHAIPOV into one of their vehicles. Meanwhile, Mr. Idigov tried to escape and was shot in the shoulder. Mr Patsyev and Mr Kerimov wanted to help him, but were beaten by the armed men. Then all three of them were forced into the car and drove in an uknown direction. On the way from the hospital, the abductors drove next to the local police car who had been summoned by the hospital’s security. The policemen did not take any steps to stop the abductors. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives' abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their relatives' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Tasukhanov v. Russia, (64246/16)

Communicated: 22/03/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2016
Date of violations: 24/11/2002
Location: Chechnya, Pravoberezhnoye village, Grozny District
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Disappearance

At night on 24 November 2002 a group of armed military servicemen abducted the applicant's brother, Mr. Shamu Tasukhanov from his own house. They were wearing balaclavas and uniforms, spoke unaccented Russian and arrived in an armored personnel carrier (APC) and a Ural lorry. The victim has been miissing since. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for his brother's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. He additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as his brother's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, he complained that the man'sunlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, he had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Gereykhanova v. Russia, (13653/15)

Communicated: 22/03/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2015
Date of violations: 03/07/2003
Location: Chechnya, Koshkeldy
Representative: Others
Violation: Disappearance

On 3 July 2003, the applicant's husband, Mr Nogi Indervayev, left his house for work and has been missing since. Mr Indervayev was a shepherd. He disappeared from the field leaving behind his herd of cattle. According to the locals, a military UAZ vehicle drove around in the vicinity on the date of the abduction. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her husband's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as her husband's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she complained that the unlawful detention of Mr Indervayev violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 
Cases 1 - 20 of 670