Source: http://www.waynakh.com/eng/2009/05/shakhgiriyeva-and-others-v-russia/
Timestamp: 2019-07-17 10:43:39
Document Index: 382149370

Matched Legal Cases: ['application no. 27251', '§ 1', '§ 66', '§ 1', '§ 104', '§ 123', '§ 1', '§ 70', '§ 71', '§ 1', '§ 103', '§ 161', '§ 117', '§ 109', '§ 130', '§ 139', '§ 159', '§ 184', '§ 114', '§ 213', '§ 220']

Waynakh Online » Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia
Submitted by admin on Monday, 11 May 2009. 986 views	No Comment
The ECHR case of Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia (application no. 27251/03).
(7) Ms Svetlana Galaniyevna Dakasheva, born in 1961.
12. On the night of 22 to 23 October 2002 the first applicant and her family were at home sleeping. At about 5 a.m. an APC smashed the gates of their house and entered the courtyard. It was followed by a UAZ vehicle. Servicemen in uniforms and masks, armed with automatic weapons, surrounded the house and entered. The military did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations. They did not ask for the inhabitants’ identity documents. The first applicant and her two younger children were locked in one room. The servicemen threatened to shoot if they tried to go outside.
13. The first applicant’s husband and her elder son, Magomed Shakhgiriyev, were ordered to go outside into the courtyard. Magomed Shakhgiriyev, who was wearing a long-sleeved T-shirt, trousers and socks, was escorted by the soldiers into the APC. He was not allowed to put on his boots. The first applicant submitted that her husband had been drunk on that night, and the servicemen seated him on the ground in the courtyard and asked where his machine gun was. He said that he had no weapons.
16. The second and third applicants are the wife and mother of Ali Baudinovich Magomadov, born in 1966. The applicants’ family live in Chechen-Aul in their own house at 81 Lenina Street. The second applicant has four minor children, who in October 2002 were aged between 2 and 11, from her marriage to Ali Magomadov. Ali Magomadov worked in Grozny at the local branch of Gazprom as a mechanic. The administration of Chechen-Aul described him as a good member of the community who had worked hard to support his large family and who had no connections with illegal armed groups.
20. The soldiers put him against the wall and asked him his name. He gave his full name and the soldiers immediately led him away. They gave no explanations and asked no further questions. One of the servicemen asked for Ali Magomadov’s passport and the second applicant went to fetch it from his jacket. When she returned to the corridor the soldiers had already taken her husband away. Other servicemen took his passport.
23. The third applicant submitted that the armed men had entered the room where she and her 11-year-old granddaughter had been sleeping and put a machine gun to the head of her granddaughter, who had hidden under the blanket out of fear. The third applicant shouted “Don’t shoot, it’s a child!” and the armed man put the gun away. She was shocked by the night raid, she could not understand what was happening and then through the window she saw her son being led away by two men armed with machine guns.
24. The fourth applicant is the sister of Ismail Kharonovich Umarov, born in 1975. The Umarov family live in their own house at 9 Sadovaya Street. Their house has two separate entrances. One part of the house is occupied by the fourth applicant, her two children, who in October 2002 were aged 9 and 7, and her mother. The fourth applicant is a widow; her husband died in 1995. The other part of the house is occupied by the family of the fourth applicant’s brother Ismail Umarov, his wife and two children, aged 2 and 3 at that time. In October 2002 Ismail Umarov’s wife was pregnant with a third baby, who was born in February 2003.
25. At about 4 a.m. on 23 October 2002 a group of masked men in camouflage uniforms with black armbands forcibly entered the courtyard of the Umarovs’ house. The servicemen were armed with machine guns and spoke Russian. They were hostile and aggressive, shouting and shooting in the air. The military did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations.
26. They arrived in two UAZ vehicles, climbed over the fence, opened the gates from inside and entered the courtyard. The fourth applicant’s mother woke up and alerted the fourth applicant. Together they dressed up and went out into the courtyard, where there were several servicemen standing by the door which led to Ismail Umarov’s part of the house. Upon the soldiers’ orders, the fourth applicant’s mother knocked on the door and called her son, saying that there were soldiers looking for him. When he opened the door, the servicemen dragged him out and put him into the UAZ vehicle. They did not ask for his identity documents and did not allow him to put on his shoes; he was taken away in a T-shirt and training trousers, barefoot. The servicemen then searched the house.
29. The Abayev family live in their own house at 29 Partizanskaya Street. In the early hours of 23 October 2002 a group of servicemen arrived at their house in an APC and two UAZ vehicles. They were armed and wearing camouflage uniforms and masks. They forcibly entered the Abayev family house and ordered all the men to come out. The women said that there was only one man in the house, and the soldiers went into the room where Umalat Abayev was sleeping. They raised him from his bed and took him out into the street; he was not permitted to get dressed. When the relatives asked where he was being taken, the servicemen said that they could put questions to the Argun military commander’s office and that Abayev would be “checked through a computer” and then released.
34. On the applicants’ behalf letters enquiring about the fate of their relatives were forwarded by a member of the State Duma, Mr Igrunov, and by the NGO “Civic Assistance” to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office and to the Prosecutor General’s Office. On 18 November 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed Civic Assistance that on 26 January 2002 (sic) the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office had opened a criminal investigation into the kidnapping of Mr Abayev and others under Article 126 of the Criminal Code, and that at present the investigation had been adjourned for failure to identify the culprits.
36. The sixth applicant is the wife of Aslan Ramzanovich Israilov, born in 1972 (she is also the sister of Umalat Abayev, who was detained on 23 October 2002). Aslan Israilov was a graduate of the Teachers’ Institute and a teacher in a local sports school. He had three minor children, who in 2002 were aged between 1 and 10, from his marriage to the sixth applicant.
38. The applicants submitted that Khasin Yunusov as a policeman had obtained information that the detained men might be held in Khankala, the main Russian military base in Chechnya. On 3 November 2002 the three men left in the morning in Khasin Yunusov’s Gazel utility vehicle and went to Khankala in order to meet a man named “Ilyas” who had allegedly worked for the Main Military Intelligence Department of the Army (GRU) and who could help them to find the persons detained on 23 October 2002. Later on the same day they met the head of the village administration of Chechen-Aul, Saypudin Ts., in a café by the roadside. Mr Ts. later recounted to the applicants that the three men had told him that they had not found “Ilyas” in Khankala and had headed to his house in the village of Tolstoy-Yurt, but that they would return to Khankala by 3 p.m. on the same day because they had arranged for a meeting there. The seventh applicant later talked to the women who had served in the café, who confirmed that the three men had eaten there, that they had said that they were in a hurry and that they were going to Khankala.
39. The applicants submitted that on 3 November 2002 a military helicopter had been downed above Khankala. They submitted a number of press and human rights groups’ reports, according to which that day the military, in response to the attack, had detained a large number of people on the road, had blown up three five-storey buildings from where the rocket could have been fired and had shelled the village of Prigorodnoye near the airport.
43. According to the Government, the five bodies had been found in the forest in the vicinity of Darbanbakhi village, in the Gudermes district. They also stated that, according to the information from the prosecutor’s office, the relatives had identified only four bodies – those of the applicants’ relatives – while the relatives of R.Z. had not identified the fifth body as his.
44. Among the documents submitted by the Government (see below) the 27 September 2003 decision of the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office to adjourn the investigation contained the following description:
46. Ali Magomadov’s sister Khazhar I. submitted an account of how she identified her brother’s body:
“My brother was killed by unimaginable acts of torture. His whole body was covered with strange pink spots, the upper part of the body was darker in colour as if the blood had rushed to it. Maybe he was tortured by electricity or suspended upside down. His hands were tied together behind his back, the neck was also covered with something. Maybe there was a mark there. The feet up to the ankles and hands were as if they had been put into hot water, skin peeled off like after a blister. He was wearing the same clothes and barefoot. The nose was broken, the face was covered with blood mixed with dirt. Everything was too unexpected, the signs of torture were too horrible, we were all in shock…”
50. On 10 December 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the first applicant’s letter to the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office and informed her that the investigation into the “kidnapping” of her son was under way.
53. On 17 December 2002 Mr Igrunov, a member of the State Duma, again wrote to the Prosecutor General’s Office and asked him to ensure that additional investigative steps were taken in order to find out who was responsible for the kidnapping and murder of Umalat Abayev and other villagers. He noted that the arrest and detention had been carried out by a military group and that it should be relatively easy to establish who had been responsible for the mission in question.
54. On 15 January 2003 the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office issued the second applicant with a note confirming that the death of her husband on 23 October 2002 was being investigated by that office. The certificate was issued for submission to Ali Magomadov’s employer, the Grozny branch of Gazprom.
56. On 23 January 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office replied to Mr Igrunov’s enquiry about the investigation into the abduction and murder of Umalat Abayev. The letter stated that on 23 October 2002 the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office had opened criminal investigation file no. 56166 under Article 126, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). After the discovery of Umalat Abayev’s body on 8 November 2002, the Gudermes District Prosecutor’s Office had opened criminal investigation no. 57103 under Article 105, paragraph 2 (murder with aggravating circumstances). On 10 January 2003 the two sets of proceedings had been joined as file no. 56166 at the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office. The letter further stated that the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office had examined the investigation file. In order to solve the crime, requests for information had been forwarded to various military and security services in Chechnya and in the Northern Caucasus. The investigation obtained information that Mr Abayev had been a follower and a supporter of the “Wahhabi” movement, and had actively promoted its teachings. The letter also explained that the previous letter of 18 November 2002 from the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office, which had referred to the adjourned criminal investigation into Mr Abayev’s abduction, had in fact concerned his detention on 24 December 2001 during a special operation. After a check Mr Abayev and others had returned home. On 26 January 2002 criminal investigation file no. 56014 had been opened into his kidnapping but had later been adjourned for failure to identify the culprits. On 15 February 2003 Mr Igrunov forwarded his correspondence with the prosecutor’s office to Umalat Abayev’s family.
57. On 11 April 2003 the relatives of the five men from Chechen-Aul wrote to the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office and the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office. They asked for details of the criminal investigation and requested to be granted victim status in the proceedings.
60. On 9 July 2003 the SRJI, acting upon the applicants’ behalf, asked the Chechnya Prosecutor and the Grozny District Prosecutor for an update on the criminal investigation into the abduction and murder of five men from Chechen-Aul and asked them to grant the relatives victim status.
61. On 9 July 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the “collective letter from the villagers of Chechen-Aul” to the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office.
62. On 27 September 2003 the investigator of the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office ordered the adjournment of investigation no. 56166 for failure to identify the culprits. According to the relevant document, the investigation had been adjourned on 23 January 2003, reopened on 15 August 2003 and adjourned on 27 September 2003. In the same document the Grozny ROVD was instructed to continue to take steps to identify the culprits.
63. On 14 October 2005 the SRJI, acting on the applicants’ behalf, asked the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office to inform it about the progress made and to allow the relatives access to criminal investigation file no. 56166.
70. On 15 December 2002 the Grozny Town Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation under Article 105, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code. The decision to open the criminal investigation stated that on 3 November 2002 Khasin Yunusov had left home in a Gazel vehicle and disappeared. The facts of the case, including Mr Yunusov’s membership of the police force, gave rise to a suspicion that he had been killed. The disappearance of Mr Yunusov was confirmed by his family members and a report of 22 November 2002 by the head of the Grozny ROVD.
71. On 16 January 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the seventh applicant that on 15 December 2002 the Grozny Town Prosecutor’s Office had opened criminal investigation file no. 56192 into the disappearance of Khasin Yunusov, Aslan Israilov and Adash A. The investigation established that on 3 November 2002 at about 3 p.m. the three men had been seen in the Zara café on the road near Tolstoy-Yurt. They had been heading to Grozny in order to find missing fellow villagers. After that they had not been seen again. The investigation into the circumstances of the disappearance was continuing.
72. On 31 March 2003 Khasin Yunusov’s sister was granted victim status in the proceedings.
73. On 18 April 2003 the SRJI wrote to the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office on behalf of the sixth and seventh applicants and asked it for an update in criminal case no. 56192.
74. According to the applicants, on 18 April 2003 three male bodies were discovered in Khankala, 400 metres away from the fence of the military base. The Government stated that the bodies had been found near the village of Berdykel in the Grozny district. The decision of the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office of 10 May 2003 to transfer the investigation contained the following description:
75. The bodies were inspected by a policeman of the Grozny ROVD and by a military prosecutor, who authorised the Grozny ROVD to take the bodies away for identification and burial. The bodies were taken to the mosque of the village of Berket-Yurt and the local policeman informed the policeman in Chechen-Aul and the relatives of the missing persons. On 24 April 2003 the policeman from Chechen-Aul and Khasin Yunusov’s brother identified his body by the clothes he had been wearing. The relatives of Aslan Israilov and Adash A. also identified them by their clothes. It appears that the bodies had been in an advanced stage of decomposition. No documents were found on them.
78. On 18 April 2003 the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal investigation file no. 42076 following the discovery of three unidentified male bodies with signs of violent death. On 10 May 2003 this investigation was joined to criminal investigation no. 56192, following the identification of the corpses.
79. On 7 May 2003 the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office informed the SRJI and the seventh applicant that the criminal case had been pending with that office since 15 December 2002 as file no. 56192 and that the “interested parties” could access the documents within the file by visiting the premises of that office.
80. On 22 May 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 based in Khankala replied to the family of Khasin Yunusov that there were no reasons to suspect the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction and killing of their relative and two other men. The criminal investigation into the abduction and murder was pending before the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office.
81. On 6 June 2003 an investigator of the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office adjourned the investigation of criminal case no. 56192 for failure to identify the persons responsible for the crime.
82. On 14 October 2005 the SRJI, acting on the applicants’ behalf, asked the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office and the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office to inform it, and/or the relatives of the missing and killed men from Chechen-Aul, about the status of the investigation. They also asked the prosecutor’s office to allow the relatives access to the case file. In its letter the SRJI reminded the prosecutor’s office of its obligations under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Convention to inform the victims of progress in the investigation.
84. In April 2008 the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that the sixth applicant, the wife of Aslan Israilov and sister of Umalat Abayev, had moved outside the Russian Federation following several instances of harassment of her family in 2004 by masked men in camouflage uniforms. She and one of her minor children had suffered from psychological trauma and required medical assistance, as attested by medical documents.
85. In their observations the Government did not dispute the information concerning the investigation of the deaths of Magomed Shakhgiriyev, Ali Magomadov, Ismail Umarov, Umalat Abayev, Aslan Israilov and Khasin Yunusov as submitted by the applicants. Relying on information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, they referred to a number of other procedural steps taken by the investigation which had not been mentioned by the applicants. However, despite specific requests from the Court, the Government did not submit copies of most of the documents to which they referred (see below).
86. As regards the investigation into the kidnapping of the applicants’ four relatives on 23 October 2002, the Government stated that on the same day the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office had opened investigation file no. 56166 upon an application by Umalat Abayev’s mother and by the head of the Chechen-Aul administration. The investigation had initially been opened to investigate the charges of kidnapping committed by a group, but was later altered to include the charges of kidnapping of several persons, committed with the use of violence, destruction of property, robbery and armed robbery.
87. The Government submitted that on 25 October 2002 the head of military unit no. 3671 had informed the investigation that the servicemen of that unit had not taken part in any military operations in Chechen-Aul and that no military vehicles of the Argun military commander’s office had been used for these purposes.
88. In November 2002 the Gudermes District Prosecutor’s Office received applications from Umalat Abayev’s mother about the kidnapping of her son, as well as the theft of money, an audio player and documents for a car. They also received an application from the head of the Chechen branch of Gazprom about the kidnapping of its employee Mr Magomadov.
89. Immediately after the finding of five bodies, on 8 November 2002 the Gudermes District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal investigation file no. 57103 in respect of the aggravated murder of several persons. According to the Government, the investigators had examined the site where the bodies had been discovered, carried out forensic examinations, produced ballistic expert reports and questioned the person who had found the bodies, as well as the head of the village administration of Darbanbakhi. On 10 November 2002 the forensic expert reports were produced for the five bodies. They concluded that the deaths could have been caused by gunfire wounds to the heads. One bullet found together with the bodies had been submitted for a ballistic report, which concluded on 19 November 2002 that it had been fired from a Russian-made PM or APS pistol.
91. The investigators questioned a number of applicants and other relatives of the victims. The first applicant was questioned and granted victim status on 25 December 2002. She gave statements relating to the kidnapping of her son, Magomed Shakhgiriyev, and the subsequent finding of his body in the Gudermes district. She had identified the body of her son in the village cemetery on 9 November 2002. On 17 January 2006 the investigation questioned Magomed Shakhgiriyev’s father, who explained that on 23 October 2002 a group of armed men had taken away his son and his friend, R.Z., from their house. On 9 November 2002 he had identified both his son and R.Z. among the five bodies brought to the village cemetery.
92. On 23 October 2002 the investigators questioned the second applicant, Ali Magomadov’s wife, who was granted victim status on 25 December 2002. She explained that during the night she had heard noise in the courtyard and had seen about ten armed men wearing masks. They had asked if there were any men in the house and had driven her husband away in a Ural truck. She specified that the “military” had spoken unaccented Russian between themselves. Later her husband’s body had been discovered. It had been identified by her husband’s sister.
93. Also on 23 October 2002 the investigators questioned Ismail Umarov’s mother and wife and granted victim status to the latter. Both women stated that at about 5 a.m. on 23 October 2002 about ten men armed with automatic weapons and wearing camouflage uniforms, using two UAZ vehicles, had entered their house and taken away Ismail Umarov. She was again questioned on 12 January 2006. The fourth applicant, Ismail Umarov’s sister, was questioned on 19 December 2002. She confirmed the statements about her brother’s abduction. On 8 December 2005 Islam Umarov’s brother testified that on 9 November 2002 he had identified his brother’s body in the village cemetery. The body had haematomas and abrasions, but he had not noticed any firearm wounds.
94. Umalat Abayev’s mother was questioned on 23 October 2002 and on 11 January 2006. During her first interview she stated that her son had been detained by a group of about 20 armed men wearing camouflage uniforms, who had placed him in an APC and had also searched the house. They had also taken away family property and some documents. She had also noted a UAZ vehicle in the street. On 25 December 2002 she was granted the status of victim in the proceedings. Later, Umalat Abayev’s body had been discovered in the Gudermes district. His mother had identified him and described a wound to the back of the head and an abrasion on the left side of the face.
95. According to the Government, on 23 October 2002 the investigators questioned a son of M.Zh., who stated that on that night his father had been taken away by unknown armed men, who had first checked their documents. M.Zh.’s wife gave similar statements on 23 October 2002. They also specified that they saw Ural trucks and UAZ cars in the street. The same men had taken the family’s VAZ-2107 car and an audio player. On 17 September 2003 M.Zh.’s wife was granted victim status. On an unspecified date M.Zh. was also questioned and granted victim status. He stated that on that date a group of about 30 armed men had entered their courtyard, checked their documents and ordered them to lie on the ground in the courtyard. Then he had been blindfolded and placed in a car, together with some other fellow villagers, including his neighbour Ali Magomadov. He, Ali Magomadov and four other persons from their village had been kept in a former bath house for two days. Then everyone except for himself and A.Zh. had been taken away and he and A.Zh. had been released and had returned home. Later he had learnt that other persons who had been kidnapped had been found dead. On 11 January 2006 M.Zh. brought a civil claim, in the same proceedings, relating to the theft of his property.
“At about 2-3 a.m. on 23 October 2002 I was at home and heard noise in the street. I looked outside and saw men running around wearing camouflage uniforms. I didn’t go out, because we are afraid of the military. In the morning I learnt that during the night masked men in military camouflage uniforms had come to the Shakhgiriyevs’ house. They came in one APC and two or three UAZ cars. The military broke the gates with the APC and entered into the courtyard. They did not let anyone enter. There were more than 25 of them, all armed with automatic weapons. They took away [seven men] from our village. They collected them from all over Chechen-Aul. … The men in camouflage uniforms carried out their operation in ten or 15 minutes, i.e. they broke the gates, took the men and left. They spoke Russian among themselves. I did not note the numbers on the cars and vehicles. …”
100. From the documents submitted by the Government and from their observations, it follows that in 2006, within the same set of criminal proceedings, the investigators questioned and granted victim status to other persons whose property had been damaged on 23 October 2002. On 10 January 2006 the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office granted victim status and the status of civil claimant to Zhabrail Kh. on the following grounds:
104. The Government submitted that on 15 December 2002 criminal investigation file no. 56192 had been opened by the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office. The murder investigation under Article 105 of the Criminal Code had been opened on the basis of a complaint by Khasin Yunusov’s sister concerning the disappearance of her brother.
105. The investigation established that on 3 November 2002 Khasin Yunusov and his two friends Aslan Israilov and Adash A. had left Chechen-Aul in Yunusov’s Gazel vehicle.
107. In December 2002 the Chechnya Department of the Interior carried out an internal investigation into the disappearance of its staff member Khasin Yunusov. It did not establish his whereabouts and the Grozny ROVD concluded that Khasin Yunusov’s disappearance could be linked to the latter’s professional service.
108. On 18 April 2003 three male bodies with signs of violent death were found near the village of Berdykel of the Grozny district. On the same day the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal investigation file no. 42076 in respect of aggravated murder (paragraph two of Article 105 of the Criminal Code). Later the three bodies had been identified as those missing from 3 November 2002.
110. On 13 May 2003 the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office obtained the report of the examination of the site where the three bodies had been found, compiled by the servicemen of military unit no. 20112 (the Khankala military base). The report stated that the bodies had been found in a quarry near the village of Khankala with signs of advanced decomposition. The body no. 1 had the left leg missing from the knee joint down, and bodies nos. 2 and 3 had the right feet missing.
112. According to the Government, at some point the investigators questioned Khasin Yunusov’s brother, who confirmed that his brother had been missing since 3 November 2002. He also stated that three months after that the frame of his brother’s vehicle had been found in a forest. On 5 April 2003 the witness had learnt of the discovery of three unidentified bodies. He and a brother of Aslan Israilov had identified the bodies of their relatives, as well as the body of Adash A. All three bodies had parts of their legs missing below the knee.
113. At some point the investigation questioned Umalat Abayev’s mother, who stated that the three men had been involved in the search of those kidnapped on 23 October 2002. Aslan Israilov had told her that on 3 November 2002 they had arranged a meeting with a man named “Ilyas” in Khankala, who could help in obtaining the release of her son and other detainees. On the same day she learnt that a helicopter had been downed above Khankala, following which all transport movement had been restricted. She had managed to return home, while her son-in-law Aslan Israilov had not returned. Six months later his body, together with the bodies of Khasin Yunusov and Adash A., had been found near Khankala with signs of violent death.
114. According to the Government, other relatives of the three missing men were questioned and granted victim status on unspecified dates. They gave similar statements and testified that they had no information about their relatives’ deaths. Khasin Yunusov’s sister was granted victim status on 31 March 2003. His mother was also questioned and granted victim status on an unspecified date. Aslan Israilov’s brother and Adash A.’s mother were also questioned and granted victim status at some point.
118. The Government also submitted that the investigation had not been made aware of the relatives’ allegations to the Court that the three men had been detained in the vicinity of Minutka Square on 3 November 2002. The investigators would take steps in order to check this information.
119. In relation to both investigation files, the Government submitted that they had failed to identify the persons who had committed the crimes. The investigating authorities sent requests for information to the competent State agencies in November and December 2002, March 2003, December 2005, and January and April 2006. The investigation found no evidence to support the involvement of the “special branches of the power structures” (специальных подразделений силовых структур) in the crimes. The law-enforcement authorities of Chechnya had never arrested or detained the applicants’ relatives on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in respect of them. The Ministry of the Interior and the FSB had no information about the involvement of the kidnapped men with illegal armed groups or any other serious crimes. The investigation also found out that no special operations had been carried out in respect of the applicants’ relatives and that no military vehicles had been assigned by the military commander’s office for that purpose.
120. In their submissions the Government stated that the investigation in both cases carried out by the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office had been adjourned and reopened on numerous occasions, owing to the fact that the perpetrators of the crimes could not be identified. The progress of both cases was monitored by the Prosecutor General’s Office. The persons who had victim status in the proceedings had been regularly informed of their progress.
122. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government failed to disclose most of the material in criminal files nos. 56166 and 56192, providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status, as well as of the relatives’ applications to the district prosecutor’s office and notifications to the relatives about the adjournment and reopening of the proceedings. They also submitted two witness statements, as indicated above. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.
125. The applicants contested that objection. With reference to the Court’s practice, they argued that they had not been obliged to apply to the courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that their complaints to that effect had been futile.
130. The Court considers that this limb of the Government’s preliminary objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants’ complaints. Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention.
132. The Government submitted that on 23 October 2002 “unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns” had abducted Magomed Shakhgiriyev, Ali Magomadov, Ismail Umarov and Umalat Abayev. They further contended that the investigation into the incident was still pending, that there was no evidence that the men had been State agents and that there were therefore no grounds for holding the State liable for the alleged violations of the applicants’ rights. No information had been obtained by the investigation about the carrying out of special operations in Chechen-Aul on that day. They also referred to some other criminal investigations where gangs in Chechnya had been equipped with camouflage uniforms, weapons and forged documents belonging to members of the security forces. They also noted that the witnesses had said that some of the abductors had spoken among themselves in Chechen.
133. As to the disappearance on 3 November 2002 of Aslan Israilov and Khasin Yunusov, the Government stressed that the documents in the criminal investigation file had contained no information about the latter’s detention in Grozny. The applicants and other relatives of the missing men had never informed the investigating authorities about the alleged detention of their relatives during a sweeping operation in Grozny. Furthermore, they drew the Court’s attention to the fact that, according to the conclusions of the internal investigation carried out by the Ministry of the Interior in relation to the disappearance of its staff member Khasin Yunusov, his death had been linked to the carrying out of his professional duties. In such circumstances, there were no reasons to suspect that the State agents had been implicated in his abduction and murder.
134. The Court has on many occasions reiterated that the Contracting States are required to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court and that a failure on a Government’s part to submit information which is in their hands, without a satisfactory explanation, may reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Timurtaş v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI).
136. The Government confirmed the principal facts as submitted by the applicants. They refused to disclose most of the documents from the criminal investigation files, relying on Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Government also argued that the Court’s procedure contained no guarantees of the confidentiality of documents, in the absence of sanctions for applicants in the event of a breach of confidentiality. They also argued that the applicants were represented by foreign nationals who could not be brought to account in Russia in the event of such a breach. Lastly, the Government argued that by providing detailed information about the progress of the investigation and some documents from the criminal investigation files, they had complied with their obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a).
138. The Court further notes that it has already found on a number of occasions that the provisions of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not preclude the disclosure of documents from a pending investigation file, but rather set out a procedure for and limits to such disclosure (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 104, 26 January 2006, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-XIII). For these reasons the Court considers the Government’s explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of the key information requested by it.
139. As to the Government’s argument that they had complied with the requirements of Article 38 § 1 (a) by providing a summary of the investigative steps and some documents from the investigation files requested, the Court reiterates that in cases where the applicants raise the issue of the effectiveness of the investigation, the documents of the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of facts and their absence may prejudice the Court’s proper examination of the complaint both at the admissibility and at the merits stage (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 70, ECHR 1999-IV). The Court would also stress in this regard that the evaluation of the evidence and the establishment of the facts is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see Çelikbilek v. Turkey, no. 27693/95, § 71, 31 May 2005).
140. Reiterating the importance of a respondent Government’s cooperation in Convention proceedings, the Court finds that there has been a breach of the obligation laid down in Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention to furnish all necessary facilities to assist the Court in its task of establishing the facts.
141. The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, §§ 103-109, 27 July 2006). The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25). In view of this, and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government’s conduct in respect of the well-foundedness of the applicants’ allegations. The Court will thus proceed to examine crucial elements in the present case that should be taken into account when deciding whether the deaths of the applicants’ relatives can be attributed to the authorities.
144. The Court notes that, on the contrary, the applicants’ version of the events is supported by the witness statements collected by the applicants and by the investigation. The applicant and the neighbours stated that the perpetrators had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation – they had checked the residents’ identity documents, and they had spoken Russian among themselves and to the residents. Some witnesses also referred to the use of military vehicles such as APCs, which could not be available to paramilitary groups (see, for example, paragraphs 91 and 93 above). In the only witness statement produced by the Government from the investigation file no. 56166, the witness referred to them as “military” (see paragraph 96 above). In their applications to the authorities the applicants consistently maintained that their relatives had been detained by unknown servicemen and requested the investigation to look into that possibility. Finally, some of the documents issued by the investigation directly mentioned the carrying out of a security operation (see paragraph 99 above).
145. The Court finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform during curfew hours, equipped with military vehicles, was able to move freely through military roadblocks and proceeded to check identity documents and to arrest several persons at their homes in an urban area strongly supports the applicants’ allegation that these were State servicemen. The other detainees’ accounts about the circumstances of their detention and release support this conclusion. The domestic investigation also accepted factual assumptions as presented by the applicants and took steps to check the involvement of law-enforcement bodies in the arrest. The investigation was unable to establish which precise military or security units had carried out the operation, but it does not appear that any serious steps were taken in that direction.
147. Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their relatives were detained by State servicemen. The Government’s statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of the special forces in the abduction is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court considers that Magomed Shakhgiriyev, Ali Magomadov, Ismail Umarov and Umalat Abayev were arrested on 3 November 2002 at their homes in Chechen-Aul by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation.
148. The bodies of the five detained men, including four of the applicants’ relatives, were discovered on 8 November 2002 in a forest. The forensic documents cited by the Government and witness statements attest that the deaths were violent, referring to gunshot wounds to the heads.
152. The Court finds that the facts of the present case strongly suggest that the deaths of these detainees were part of the same sequence of events as their apprehension and support the assumption that they were extrajudicially executed by State agents. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the State bears the responsibility for the deaths of the applicants’ four relatives.
154. The applicants likewise submitted that Aslan Israilov and Khasin Yunusov had been unlawfully detained by State servicemen on 3 November 2002, allegedly in Grozny. They had later been killed by the same servicemen and their bodies had been found in the vicinity of the Khankala military base. The Government regarded this version as unfounded. They reiterated that the applicants had not given this information to the investigation and that Khasin Yunusov’s death had been found to be linked to his professional activities as a member of the police force.
156. However, in the present case the Court has little evidence on which to draw such conclusions. The only verifiable information about the applicant’s two relatives indicates that they were last seen in the afternoon of 3 November 2002 on the road between Grozny and Tolstoy-Yurt. The exact circumstances or the timing of their alleged abduction and death have not been elucidated.
157. The Court notes that some information about the alleged detention of the applicants’ two relatives on 3 November 2002 was indeed communicated by them to the authorities. In particular, the undated letter from the village authorities and the letter of 7 November 2002 from the seventh applicant stated that the three men had been illegally arrested in Minutka Square in Grozny and that they had been detained in the Khankala military base (see paragraphs 66 and 67 above). However, the applicants could not point to any more specific information concerning the alleged kidnapping. They themselves were not eyewitnesses to the events, and no witnesses were ever identified by them or by the investigation. The seventh applicant’s letter referred to “rumours” as the basis of her suspicion that her husband had been detained in the Khankala military base. Furthermore, from the documents reviewed by the Court it does not appear that the applicants informed the investigation about the alleged link between the disappearance of their relatives and the security operations in Grozny following the downing of the helicopter, which they assumed in the submissions to the Court. Nor does it appear that they ever relayed to the investigating authorities the information about the meetings with the head of the village administration and the head of the Grozny ROVD (see paragraph 67 above).
158. The bodies of the three missing men were found six months later with signs of violent death, but there is no information allowing the Court to draw inferences about the implication of State agents in their deaths to the extent proposed by the applicants. The fact that the bodies were found several hundred metres away from the fence of the military base cannot serve as the sole basis for such a conclusion, since it was not alleged that the area in question had been guarded by the military servicemen or could otherwise be described as being under their “undisputed effective control”. Nor has this link been assumed in the domestic investigation, which, on the contrary, connected Khasin Yunusov’s death with his service in the police force.
161. The Court has already found it established that the applicants’ relatives’ deaths can be attributed to the State. In the absence of any justification in respect of the use of lethal force by State agents, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Magomed Shakhgiriyev, Ali Magomadov, Ismail Umarov and Umalat Abayev.
162. The Court has established above that, in the absence of relevant information, it is unable to find that the security forces were implicated in the deaths of the applicants’ relatives. In such circumstances the Court finds no State responsibility and thus no violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 in respect of Aslan Israilov and Khasin Yunusov.
163. The applicants argued that the investigation had not been effective and adequate, as required by the Court’s case-law on Article 2. They noted that it had been adjourned and reopened a number of times and that the taking of the most basic steps had thus been protracted, and that the applicants had not been informed properly of the most important investigative steps. They argued that the fact that the investigation had been pending for such a long period of time without producing any known results had been further proof of its ineffectiveness. The applicants invited the Court to draw conclusions from the Government’s unjustified failure to submit the documents from the case file to them or to the Court.
164. The Government claimed that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators. They argued that the decisions to adjourn and to reopen the investigation signified that the authorities had continued to take steps in order to resolve the crime. They also noted that the investigation had been opened on the same day as the kidnapping, and that on that day a large number of witnesses had been questioned, that the prosecutor’s office had forwarded numerous information requests to various bodies, trying to check the applicants’ version of the events. The absence of results could not be treated as a breach of the positive obligations under Article 2, which entailed an obligation to use particular means.
165. The Court has developed a number of guiding principles to be followed for an investigation to comply with the Convention’s requirements (for a summary of these principles see Bazorkina, cited above, §§ 117-119).
168. Turning to the facts of the case, the Court notes that the authorities were immediately aware of the crime through the applicants’ submissions. The investigation was opened on 23 October 2002. It also appears that on that day and within the following days some applicants, members of the detained men’s families and their neighbours were questioned and the scene of the crime inspected. On 25 October 2002 the local military commander’s office informed the investigation that none of its servicemen had been involved in the special operation in question. Following the discovery and identification of the five bodies on 8 November 2002, a new investigation was opened. Within the following days the site of the crime was examined, two witnesses were questioned and forensic and ballistic expert examinations were carried out. Members of the kidnapped men’s families were granted victim status between October and December 2002. However, it appears that after that a number of crucial steps were delayed and were eventually taken only after the communication of the complaint to the respondent Government, or not at all.
171. Further, it does not appear that the investigation fully established the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ deaths. Even though a forensic examination of the bodies was carried out, it does not appear that it established the timing of the deaths or that it addressed any injuries except for firearm wounds, as described by the relatives and a medical doctor in Chechen-Aul (see paragraphs 46 and 47 above). There has been no explanation for the difference in the results communicated by the Government, according to which the deaths of all the victims had been caused by firearm wounds, and the medical report issued by the Chechen-Aul medical service to the effect that that the death of Ali Magomadov had resulted from strangulation and numerous blows (see paragraph 48 above). The Court also notes that the death certificates issued by the local registration office indicated 23 October and 9 November 2002 as the dates of the deaths (see paragraphs 49, 51, 55 and 58 above).
174. The Government raised the possibility for the applicants to make use of judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes that the applicants, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged actions or omissions of investigating authorities before a court. Furthermore, the investigation was resumed by the prosecuting authorities themselves a number of times owing to the need to take additional investigative steps. However, they still failed to investigate the applicants’ allegations properly. Moreover, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative measures that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer usefully be conducted. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection as regards the applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation.
177. The Court first notes that the authorities were aware of the applicants’ two relatives’ disappearance at the latest by 11 November 2002 (see paragraph 106 above). Nevertheless, the investigation into the murder was not opened until 15 December 2002. This delay in itself was liable to affect the investigation of such a serious crime, where crucial action had to be taken within the first days after the reported disappearance.
178. From the documents submitted by the Court it does not appear that since the finding and the identification of the bodies in April 2003 any progress whatsoever has been made in the investigation of the murders. It does not appear, for example, that the timing of the deaths has been established, or that the investigation has taken any steps at all in order to check the applicants’ version, however vague, that Aslan Israilov and Khasin Yunusov could have been arrested by servicemen in Grozny or that in November 2002 they could have been detained at the military base in Khankala. It is true that the obligation to carry out an effective investigation is not an obligation of result, but of means. However, any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death of the person will risk falling below this standard (see Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109).
179. Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicants were not fully informed about the progress of the investigation, except for occasional communication to them of the decisions to reopen and adjourn it. In such circumstances, and for reasons similar to those listed in paragraph 174 above, the Court finds that the Government’s preliminary objection about the failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the context of the criminal investigation should be dismissed.
180. In view of the above, and drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to disclose most of the documents from the criminal investigation file, the Court finds that there has been a violation of the obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the deaths of Aslan Israilov and Khasin Yunusov.
181. The applicants further relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives’ abduction and murder and the State’s failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:
182. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that in the absence of any evidence suggesting that the applicant’s relatives had been abducted and murdered by representatives of the State, there were no grounds for alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s mental suffering.
183. The Court notes that while a family member of a “disappeared person” can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 in view of the suffering endured as a result of uncertainty about the fate of their relatives and the authorities’ inadequate reaction (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, and Bazorkina, cited above, §§ 139-41), the same principle would not usually apply to cases where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III). In such cases the Court would limit its findings to Article 2. However, if a period of initial disappearance is long it may in certain circumstances give rise to a separate issue under Article 3 (see Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 184-86, ECHR 2005-XI, and Luluyev and Others, cited above, §§ 114-15).
184. In the present case, in so far as the complaint was brought by the relatives of Magomed Shakhgiriyev, Ali Magomadov, Ismail Umarov and Umalat Abayev, the news of the applicants’ relatives’ deaths was preceded by a period of about ten days during which they were deemed to have disappeared. They immediately notified the authorities of the kidnappings, and on 23 October 2002, i.e. on the day following the events, the district prosecutor’s office commenced a criminal investigation. While not doubting that the situation caused the applicants profound distress and anxiety, the Court does not find, in the circumstances of the present case, that a separate issue arises under Article 3 as distinct from its above conclusions concerning the double violation of Article 2.
196. The applicants claimed damages in respect of the lost wages of their relatives following their arrests and subsequent deaths. They claimed that their relatives had been unemployed at the time of their arrest, or that they were unable to obtain salary statements for them, and that in such cases the calculation should be made on the basis of the subsistence level established by national law. They calculated their earnings for the period, taking into account an average 10% inflation rate. Their calculations were also based on the actuarial tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases published by the United Kingdom Government Actuary’s Department in 2004 (“Ogden tables”).
197. The second applicant claimed a total of 429,354 Russian roubles (RUB) under this heading (12,084 euros (EUR)). She claimed that she could have counted on 20% of her husband’s earnings for herself and 10% for each of their four children until they reached the age of majority.
198. The third applicant, who retired in 1977, submitted that she could have counted on 10% of her son’s earnings. She claimed a total of RUB 51,590 (EUR 1,448).
200. The fifth applicant, the widow of Umalat Abayev, claimed a total of RUB 679,497 (EUR 19,074). She submitted that she could have counted on 30% of her husband’s earnings for herself and on 20% for their daughter until the age of 18.
203. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicants and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, in appropriate cases, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. Furthermore, under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, any claim for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with the relevant supporting documents, “failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part”. The Court further finds that the loss of earnings also applies to dependent children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 213). Having regard to its above conclusions, it finds that there is a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 in respect of the second, third and fifth applicants’ family members and the loss by these applicants of the financial support which they could have provided.
204. As to the claim brought by the fourth applicant, the Court notes that she submitted no documents or any other evidence to support her claim that she took care of her late brother’s three minor children. In such circumstances, the Court finds that there is no reason to award her compensation for pecuniary damage.
205. As to the claims brought by the sixth and the seventh applicants, the Court observes that it has been unable to establish the State’s responsibility for the deaths of the applicants’ relatives. It therefore does not discern a causal link between the violations found and the damage claimed.
206. Having regard to the above and to the second, third and fifth applicants’ submissions, and accepting that it would be reasonable to assume that their relatives would have eventually had some earnings resulting in the financial support of their families, the Court awards the following sums in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts:
209. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention and disappearance of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants’ relatives. It has also found a procedural violation of Article 2 and of Article 13 on account of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the deaths of the sixth and seventh applicants’ relatives. The Court thus accepts that they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards the following amounts to the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable on them:
210. The applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised schedule of costs and expenses that included research and interviews in Ingushetia and Moscow, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for the work in the area of exhausting domestic remedies and of EUR 150 per hour for the drafting of submissions to the Court. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants’ legal representation amounted to EUR 8,957.
212. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants’ representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
213. Having regard to the details of the information submitted and the contracts for legal representation concluded between the SRJI and the applicants, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants’ representatives. The Court notes that this case was rather complex and required the amount of research and preparation claimed by the applicants.
214. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants, the Court awards them the amount of EUR 8,957, less EUR 850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, the net award to be paid into the representatives’ bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicants.
(vii) EUR 8,107 (eight thousand one hundred and seven euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representatives’ bank account in the Netherlands;