Cases 41 - 60 of 694

Elzhurkayevy v. Russia, (13909/12)

Judgement date: 23/10/2018
Communicated: 16/10/2015
Lodged: 27/02/2012
Date of violations: 03/08/2004
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance
Pecuniary damage: 12000 €
Non-pecuniary damage: 60000 €

On 3 August 2004 a group of about thirty armed servicemen arrived at the applicants’ house in a VAZ-21010, UAZ vehicles and a Zhiguli model car and took Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev away. On 13 August 2004 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutors’ office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 33066. The investigation is still pending.

 

Askhabayeva v. Russia, (79940/12)

Judgement date: 23/10/2018
Communicated: 07/01/2016
Lodged: 07/12/2012
Date of violations: 18/01/2005
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance
Pecuniary damage: 10000 €
Non-pecuniary damage: 60000 €

On 18 January 2005 a group of armed servicemen arrived at the applicant’s house in an APC, two UAZ vehicles and a Niva car and took Mr Saykhan Isayev away. On 8 June 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44048 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 44004). The investigation is still pending.

 

Shovkhalova v. Russia, (34290/11)

Judgement date: 23/10/2018
Communicated: 08/06/2015
Lodged: 26/04/2011
Date of violations: 17/02/2005
Location: Chechnya, Avtury
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance
Non-pecuniary damage: 60000 €

On 17 February 2005 a group of around twenty armed servicemen arrived at the Mr Adam Sadgayev’s house in a Gazel and UAZ (“таблетка”) vehicles and took him away. On 5 April 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 46036. The investigation is still pending.

 

Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia, (32554/12)

Judgement date: 23/10/2018
Date of violations: 04/11/2002
Location: Chechnya
Representative: Tagir Shamsudinov
Violation: Disappearance

At about 3 a.m. on 4 November 2002 a group of ten to twelve armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in the village of Goyskoye. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen searched the premises, checked Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev’s passport and took him away to an unknown destination. At the time of the events the applicants’ neighbours saw heavy military vehicles parked on the road near their house. Two days after the abduction, on 6 November 2002, the same military servicemen again arrived at the applicants’ house in an Ural lorry. They thoroughly searched the premises and left. The whereabouts of Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicants.

 

Luisa Abuyevna TAPAYEVA and Others against Russia, (24757/18)

Communicated: 22/10/2018
Lodged: 23/05/2018
Location: the Chechen Republic
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Women Rights

Mazepa and Others v. Russia, ( 15086/07)

Judgement date: 17/10/2018
Lodged: 06/04/2007
Date of violations: 07/10/2006
Location: Moscow
Representative: K. Moskalenko
Violation: Right to life

The present case regards the killing of the investigative journalist Ms Anna Politkovskaya. The applicants are Anna's relatives, who complain that there was no effective investigation into her assasination, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention. Anna was killed in the elevator of the house, where she lived. The investigation, which lasted since 2006 concluded with the identification and the further conviction of five men, who were directly involved into the murder. However, the applicants complained, that the authorities failed to identify the persons, who had commissioned and financed the crime. First of all, the Court underlined, that in cases where the victim of a killing is a journalist, it is crucially important to check a possible connection of the crime to the journalist’s professional activity. Moreover, the Court noticed, that the investigation into a contract killing cannot be considered adequate in the absence of genuine and serious investigative efforts taken with the view to identifying the intellectual author of the crime, that is, the person or people who commissioned the assassination. Finally, the Court heldthat there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural limb.

 

Makhloyev v. Russia, (66320/09)

Judgement date: 16/10/2018
Lodged: 17/12/2009
Date of violations: 29/10/2009
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Disappearance

The Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Mr Maskhud Makhloyev, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect. As to the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention, having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect, the Court considers that there is no need for a separate examination of it on its merits (see Saidova v. Russia, no. 51432/09, § 85, 1 August 2013; Dobriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 18407/10, § 89, 19 December 2013; and Ibragim Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 18011/12, § 71, 21 June 2016).

 

Tsakoyev and Tsakoyeva v. Russia, (16397/07)

Judgement date: 02/10/2018
Communicated: 16/06/2009
Lodged: 09/04/2007
Date of violations: 27/09/2004
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria, Nalchik
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Torture

On 27 September 2004 Rasul Tsakoyev was detained and taken to the Organized Crime Unit of the Ministry of the Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria (OCU) in Nalchik. Between 27 and 29 September he was repeatedly tortured by OCU officers who tried to force him to confess to participation in an illegal armed group. The officers beat him with rubber truncheons, burned cigarettes against his body, put needles under his nails and tortured him with electric shocks. At about 8 p.m. on 29 September Rasul was brought home in a very bad shape. His relatives immediately called for an ambulance and he was taken to the emergency room where he was diagnosed with multiple serious injuries. On 4 October 2004 Rasul died in the hospital.

 

Avsanova and others against Russia, (62380/12)

Communicated: 07/09/2018
Lodged: 30/04/2012
Date of violations: 03/09/2004
Location: North Ossetia, Beslan
Representative: Others
Violation: Right to life

The facts of the present case are connected to the Tagayeva and Others case. The applicants are thirty nine individuals who had either been taken hostage and/or injured, or are family members of those killed during the terrorist attack at a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, on 1-3 September of 2004. The hostage-taking was organized by the members of the Chechen separatist movement and occurred at the opening ceremony of the academic year. More than 1,000 people were held captive. A number of hostages were killed by the terrorists in the first two days. On the 3 of September, the armed intervention of the Russian forces killed over 330 people (including over 180 children) and injured over 750 people. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained about violations of the right to life on the following accounts: a breach of the positive obligation to protect life as the school security had not been properly ensured prior to the attack; the absence of an effective investigation due to the fail to establish all the relevant circumstances of the tragic events and to identify the persons responsible, as well as the denial of the victims’ full access to the documents of the criminal investigation; and finally, the disproportionate use of force as the storming of the building was not undertaken with the primary aim of preserving lives.

 

Dashuyeva Eliza v. Russia, (5725/11)

Communicated: 07/09/2018
Lodged: 22/12/2010
Date of violations: 14/10/2006
Location: Chechnya, Prigorodnoye village
Representative: No representative
Violation: Right to life

The present case regards the deaths of the applicant’s brother and mother. On 17 November 2005 the applicant’s brother, Mr Zelimkhan Dashuyev, was abducted from his house in the Prigorodnoye village, in the Grozny district by a group of State servicemen in camouflage uniforms. The next day his body, bearing the traces of a violent death, was found in the vicinity of the Chechen-Aul village in the Grozny district. Even though, the criminal case was opened, it was suspended on several occasions and there was no progress in the investigation. On 14 October 2006 an unidentified person opened fire in the street, in the vicinity of the house of the applicant’s mother (Ms Ayupova). As a result, she received a gunshot wound to the chest and died instantly. The investigation was suspended on several occasions. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that her brother and then her mother had been killed by State agents in 2005 and 2006 respectively and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their deaths.

 

Khashagulgovy v. Russia, (73006/17)

Communicated: 06/09/2018
Lodged: 28/09/2017
Date of violations: 15/02/2013
Location: North Ossetia, Vladikavkaz
Representative: Others
Violation: Right to life

The applicants of the present case are the brother and the son of Sultan-Girey Khashagulgov, who was known as a local community activist in opposition to the local authorities. In 2013 there was a criminal case opened in connection with the attempt of Mr. Khashagulgov on the life of a law-enforcement officer. On 8 February 2013 the brother of Sultan-Girey was detained by the police and taken to the temporary detention centre in Vladikavkaz. There he was tortured in order to make him give incriminating evidence against his brother. On 13 February 2013 a group of law enforcement agents arrived at the applicants’ house and searched the premises. During the search, while Sultan was inside the house, an explosion occurred. It is unclear whether he was wounded during the explosion or by the officers who conducted the search, as well as what degree of injuries he had sustained and whether any medical assistance had been provided to him on the spot or later on. Further he was taken to the same police department where his brother was held. According to the Sultan’s brother, while in detention, he heard his brother being tortured and screaming from pain. Two days later Sultan died in detention. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that State agents used unjustified lethal force against their relative and that the domestic authorities failed to investigate the incident. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that State agents ill-treated the first applicant (Sultan’s brother) and that no proper investigation into the matter has been carried out.

 

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.

 
Cases 41 - 60 of 694