Cases 21 - 40 of 687

Abuyevа Marusa v. Russia, (63329/14)

Communicated: 06/09/2018
Lodged: 05/09/2014
Date of violations: 04/02/2000
Location: Chechnya, Katyr-Yurt
Representative: Others
Violation: Indiscriminate bombing

The applicant’s son, Ruslan Abuyev died in 2000 as a result of bombing of the Chechen village Katyr-Yurt. The Court examined the episode of bombing on several occasions in the following judgments: Isayeva v. Russia, Abuyeva and Others v. Russia and Abakarova v. Russia. In the Isayeva judgment the Court found violations of Article 2 on the account of the State’s failure to protect the right to life and to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the military operation. In 2010 the Court delivered its judgment in Abuyeva and Others,  finding that, as in Isayeva, that the planning and execution of the airstrike had been carried out in violation of Article 2 of the Convention and that all the major flaws of the investigation into the military operation indicated in Isayeva had persisted throughout the second round of criminal investigations into the matter, which ended in 2007. In 2015 the Court further examined the same situation in the judgment it delivered in the case of Abakarova, where the applicant complained of the same airstrike and of the continuing failure of the authorities to investigate the matter effectively. As regards the investigation, the Court found that none of the issues raised in the two previous cases had been resolved by the domestic authorities. In April 2017 the Committee of Ministers published its 10th annual report (for 2016) concerning the supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. It stated that there was no progress in the investigation. In the present application the applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the bombing in Katyr-Yurt. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complains of lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention.

 

Gaysultanov and Others against Russia, (52867/15)

Communicated: 03/09/2018
Lodged: 16/10/2015
Date of violations: 10/03/2013
Location: Ingushetia, Bamut village
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Right to life

In the period of March 2013 the special military operation “Barrier 2013” took place at the administrative border of Ingushetia and Chechnya. It was aimed at arresting members of illegal armed groups hiding in the forests in the area. According to the applicants (parents of Usman Gaysultanov), they were never informed about the operation. On 10 March 2013 the applicants’ sons Usman and Mayrbek Gaysultanov, the third applicant and eleven other residents of Achkhoy-Martan boarded a URAL lorry to go to Bamut village to pick ramsons. On the way to the forest the lorry passed through a military checkpoint without being stopped. Moreover, there were no warnings signs or markings around the area and no information concerning a special operation in the vicinity of the forest. While picking up ramsons, the three men were subjected to a half-hour of mortar fire. Usman Gaysultanov was severely wounded by one of the projectiles and both of his legs were torn off. The third applicant received serious injuries to the lower part of his body. As soon as the pickers were able to leave the forest, they went to Bamut village, from where Usman Gaysultanov was taken to a hospital in Grozny and the third applicant to a hospital in Urus-Martan.On the following day, Mr Gaysultanov died in the hospital. The applicants complain under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to safeguard the right to life of Mr Usman Gaysultanov and the third applicant by failing to warn them about the special operation. They also allege that the authorities failed to comply with the negative obligation under Article 2 as the men had been subjected to mortar fire aimed at them by State agents. In addition, under the procedural limb of Article 2  the applicants complain that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter.

 

Alikhanov and Others v. Russia, (17054/06)

Judgement date: 28/08/2018
Communicated: 07/04/2009
Lodged: 05/04/2006
Date of violations: 23/12/2004
Location: Dagestan, Makhachkala
Representative: Others
Violation: Disappearance
Extra-judicial execution

In the evening on 23 December 2004, Amrikhan Alikhanov was driving to the village of Kaspiysk, Dagestan. At transport police check point “Mars-20” on the outskirts of Makhachkala, his car was stopped by several men in police uniform and masks. They put Amrikhan into one of their cars before driving away. According to police officers serving at the check point, the men had introduced themselves as officers of the Organized Crime Unit. Amrikhan has not been seen since. In April 2005 six bodies bearing signs of torture were discovered in a forest near the village of Zamay-Yurt, Chechnya and immediately buried. Amrikhan's clothes were found close to the discovery site. They were bloodied and pierced with bullet holes.

 

Shamaan Banzayev V. Russia, (21129/09)

Communicated: 13/07/2018
Lodged: 26/03/2009
Date of violations: 15/11/2002
Location: Chechnya, Gezenchu
Representative: No representative
Violation: Right to life

In 2001, as a part of the military counter-terrorist operation, the Russian military forces opened shelling of the village of Gezenchu, as a result of which the applicant’s wife, Malika Vanayeva died. The applicant’s brother, Shamkhan Banzhayev, at the time was the head of the village administration. He lodged an official complaint about the incidence, where he argued that, since the village consisted of only seven families, the federal forces could readily have ascertained that, due to its size, the village would have been unable to harbour illegal armed groups without the authorities’ knowledge. He added, that the day prior to the shelling, he and a number of other representatives of the local community had gone to the military base in Engenoy and spoken with them in an effort to prevent any bombing. The military officers had promised to keep in mind their request. No criminal case on matter was opened. On 15 November 2002 Mr Shamkhan Banzhayev was abducted, allegedly by military servicemen who wanted to stop him from pushing the authorities to investigate the shelling. After his abduction the applicant’s brother had remained missing. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that his wife’s and his brother’s right to life was violated and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate the incidents.

 

PSHIBIYEV et BEROV contre la Russie, (63748/13)

Communicated: 11/07/2018
Lodged: 07/08/2013
Date of violations: 07/08/2012
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Private and family life

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that for already seven years they cannot receive a long-term visit with their relevants, who are detained in prisons. They also complain about the conditions of the short-term visits. In particular, they complain about the impossibility of physical contact with their relatives from behind the wall installed in the rooms, the bugging of the device used to communicate with them, and the prohibition of their minor children to visit their parents.

 

Abdulkadyrov and Dakhtayev v. Russia, (35061/04)

Judgement date: 10/07/2018
Lodged: 08/09/2004
Date of violations: 25/09/2002
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: K. Moskalenko
Violation: Torture

On 25 and 19 September 2002 respectively the applicants were arrested in Grozny in the Chechen Republic and taken to the temporary detention. For several days they remained without legal assistance. Their families were unaware of their whereabouts. The applicants submitted that during those days they were repeatedly ill-treated and forced into confessing to being members of an illegal armed group in Grozny, and to the murders of several people, including police officers and military servicemen. Following the applicants’ conviction, in September 2004 their families requested to allocate them to penal facilities in regions adjacent to their home region, the Chechen Republic. Nevertheless, the first applicant was allocated to a strict-regime correctional colony in the Republic of Komi, (3,000 kilometres from the Chechen Republic) and the second applicant was first allocated to a strict regime correctional colony in the Omsk Region (3,400 kilometres from the Chechen Republic) and then transferred to Murmansk region ( 3,700 km from the Chechen Republic). The Court found violations of several rights: a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in that the applicants were subjected to torture, and under its procedural limb on account of the lack of an effective investigation into their allegations; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (as the convictions were based on the confessions that the applicants had made under duress); and a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (as the authorities’ decisions to allocate the applicants to remote penal facilities to serve their prison sentences amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their family life).

 

Malika Turayeva v. Russia, (36255/16)

Communicated: 05/07/2018
Lodged: 14/06/2016
Date of violations: 20/10/2014
Location: Chechnya, Bamut
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Right to life

Mr. Zila Turyaev (the applicant's husband) was working as a lorry driver at a construction site. On 20 October 2014, whilst he was working on the site, his lorry was blown-up as a result of hitting a mine and he was seriously injured. He was immediately taken to the hospital, where he died shortly after arrival. Although the investigation concluded the involvement of a military servicemen into the accident, as priorly the zone was occupied by a military unit of the Russian Ministry of Defence until 2009, it did not lead to any effective result. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the State violated its positive obligation by failing to clear the construction site of mines and to erect signs indicating its vicinity for the local population. Under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the authorities failed to investigate her husband’s death.

 

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.

 

Karsamauli v. Russia, (83409/17)

Communicated: 05/06/2018
Lodged: 01/12/2017
Date of violations: 28/07/2012
Location: Ingushetia, Magas
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Right to life

The case regards the events, described in the case Khayauri and others v. Russia. Mr Artur Karsamauli was one the the persons killed together with Mr Khayauri  on 28 July 2012 on the premises of the Ingushetia State University. The applicant (Artur's father) complain under Article 2 of the Convention that his son was killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter.

 

Gasangusenov v. Russia, (78019/17)

Communicated: 05/06/2018
Lodged: 02/11/2017
Date of violations: 23/08/2016
Location: Dagestan, Goor-Khindakh
Representative: Others
Violation: Right to life

The applicant’s sons Gasangusen and Nabi Gasangusenov were shepherds. The local police was informed of each shepherd working in the area. On 23 August 2016 the two men went to work and did not come back home. The next day the applicant’s wife asked her relative Mr I.M. to go to the pasture and look for her sons. They found the two bodies in less than one km from the village, in three-four metres from the road, in the bushes. The bodies were next to each other; face down, in large black jackets with hoods pulled over the head. Automatic guns were on their backs with gun belts on the necks; army boots and backpacks were lying nearby. According to the applicant, neither the black coats, nor the army boots and the backpacks found at the crime scene belonged to his sons. The criminal case was opened against Gasangusen and Nabi Gasangusenov under Articles 317 and 222 of the Criminal Code (attempt on the life of a law-enforcement officer and unlawful turnover of firearms). According to the official statement, on 23 August a special operation to verify operative-search information was being carried out by the representatives of the local Dagestan Federal Security Service and the Dagestan Counterterrorism Centre. The two brothers opened fire at the representatives of the law-enforcement agencies. Notwithstanding several requests of the applicant, no criminal case was opened into the killing of his sons. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that his two sons were killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter.

 

Khayauri and Others v. Russia, (33862/17)

Communicated: 05/06/2018
Lodged: 20/04/2017
Date of violations: 28/07/2012
Location: Ingushetia, Magas
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Right to life

"In the evening on 28 July 2012 Mr Khayauri (the son and the brother of the applicants) was sitting on a bench with his friends Mr Artur Karsamauli and Mr I.T. on the premises of the Ingushetia State University awaiting the time to go to the mosque. At about 10 p.m. the FSB officers opened gunfire at the three young men and killed all of them. The criminal case was opened against three men on suspect of an unlawful possession of firearms and an attempt on the life of a law-enforcement officer. According to the investigators, the three men belonged to an illegal armed group and that day had a meeting with a certain Mr M. Dzh. who had been wanted by the authorities. To date no criminal case has been opened into the killing of Magomed Khayauri, Artur Karsamauli and Mr I.T. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative was killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter. Under Article 13 they allege that they had no effective domestic remedies against the violation alleged.
"

 

Salakhbekov and Abukayev and v. Russia, (28368/09; 28636/09)

Judgement date: 29/05/2018
Lodged: 05/05/2009
Date of violations: 24/12/2008
Location: Dagestan, Kizilyurt and Leninaul
Representative: Others
Violation: Right to a fair trial

In 2008 the applicants applied for recalculation of the social benefits they were entitled to as persons who took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. Their claims were granted by domestic courts. The applicants complained that the unlawful extension of the time‑limit for appeal granted by the domestic courts following the defendant authority’s request had resulted in the judgments in their favour being quashed, which consequently constituted a violation of their right to a court. The Court found the violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

 

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.

 
Cases 21 - 40 of 687