ITEMID: 001-76489
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: CASE OF FADIN v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: No violation of Art. 6;No violation of P7-4
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson
TEXT: 7. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Tula.
8. On 7 May 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the attempted rape of his flatmate. He was subsequently also charged with attempted murder.
9. On 5 August 1996 the Tula Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted rape and attempted murder (Articles 15, 103 and 117 of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (“RSFSR”) Criminal Code).
10. On 31 October 1996, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the conviction and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The Supreme Court instructed the Tula Regional Court to examine certain evidence.
11. On 14 March 1997 the Tula Regional Court ordered a psychiatric expert examination of the applicant.
12. On 5 January 1998 the applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
13. On 24 March 1998 the Tula Regional Court reclassified the charges as attempted rape and attempted murder with aggravating circumstances (Articles 15, 103 and 117 of the RSFSR Criminal Code). It held that, on account of his mental disorder, the applicant was not responsible for the acts he had committed and ordered his compulsory treatment in a psychiatric hospital. The applicant did not appeal.
14. The applicant remained in hospital from 20 April 1998 to 30 January 1999. After being discharged from hospital, he travelled to Belarus.
15. On 20 September 1999 the applicant applied to the Prosecutor-General requesting supervisory review of his criminal case. It appears that it was not his first request for supervisory review. The applicant stated, inter alia:
“...I repeat my request to you:
1. That the case ... against me be fully re-examined by a court...”.
16. On 12 November 1999 the Deputy Prosecutor-General lodged an application for supervisory review of the Tula Regional Court’s decision of 24 March 1998.
17. On 7 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the decision of 24 March 1998 under the supervisory-review procedure and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The Supreme Court found that in the trial of 24 March 1998 the Tula Regional Court had failed to comply with the instructions the Supreme Court had given in its decision of 31 October 1996. Furthermore, it had unlawfully held that the applicant had committed more serious acts than those of which he had initially been convicted on 5 August 1996.
18. On an unspecified date the case was set down for a hearing on the merits on 13 July 2000. It appears that the applicant was duly summoned. However, in a telegram addressed to the court he stated that he could not attend the hearing since he had no money to pay for the journey from Belarus to Russia.
19. On 20 July 2000 the Tula Regional Court found the applicant’s failure to appear at the hearing unjustified as he had not appended any evidence of his alleged financial hardship to his telegram. It ordered his arrest.
20. On 26 April 2001 the applicant was arrested in Belarus pursuant to a request of the Russian investigative authorities. He was subsequently extradited to Russia. On 24 August 2001 he was placed in the Tula Remand Prison no. IZ-71/1.
21. On 4 September 2001 the Tula Regional Court ordered a psychiatric expert examination of the applicant.
22. According to the expert report, dated 27 September 2001, an in-patient psychiatric expert examination was required. The examination was ordered on 2 October 2001.
23. On 22 October 2001 a written obligation not to leave his place of residence without permission was imposed on the applicant as a preventive measure.
24. On 28 May 2002 the Tula Regional Court reclassified the charges of attempted rape as charges of disorderly behaviour (Article 213 of the RSFSR Criminal Code) and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of the expiry of the statutory time-limit. It acquitted the applicant of the murder charges.
25. On 2 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment.
26. Section VI, Chapter 30, of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure (Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс РСФСР), as applicable at the material time, allowed certain officials to challenge a judgment which had become final and to have the case reviewed on points of law and procedure. The supervisory-review procedure (Articles 371-383) was distinct from proceedings in which a case was reviewed in the light of newly established facts (Articles 384-390). However, similar rules applied to both procedures (Article 388).
Article 356 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that a judgment took effect and became enforceable from the date on which the appellate court delivered its judgment or, if it was not appealed against, once the time-limit for appealing had expired.
“The grounds for quashing or varying a judgment [on supervisory review] are the same as [those for setting aside judgments (which have not become final) on appeal] ...”
“The grounds for quashing or varying a judgment on appeal are as follows:
(i) prejudicial or incomplete investigation or pre-trial or court examination;
(ii) inconsistency between the facts of the case and the conclusions reached by the court;
(iii) a grave violation of procedural law;
(iv) misapplication of [substantive] law;
(v) discrepancy between the sentence and the seriousness of the offence or the convicted person’s personality.”
Article 371 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that the power to lodge a request for a supervisory review could be exercised by the Procurator-General, the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or their respective deputies in relation to any judgment other than those of the Presidium of the Supreme Court, and by the presidents of the regional courts in respect of any judgment of a regional or subordinate court. A party to criminal or civil proceedings could seek the intervention of those officials to apply for such a review.
Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure set a limitation period of one year during which an application for a supervisory review that might be detrimental to a convicted person could be submitted by an authorised official. The period ran from the date on which the impugned judgment became enforceable.
Under Articles 374, 378 and 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a request for supervisory review was to be considered by the judicial board (the Presidium) of the appropriate court. The court could examine the case on the merits, was not bound by the scope and grounds of the request for supervisory review and was obliged to conduct a full review of the evidence.
The Presidium could dismiss or grant the request. If the request was dismissed, the earlier judgment remained operative. If it granted the request, the Presidium could decide to quash the judgment and terminate the criminal proceedings, remit the case for a new investigation, order reconsideration by a court at any instance, uphold a first-instance judgment reversed on appeal, or vary or uphold any of the earlier judgments.
Article 380 §§ 2 and 3 provided that the Presidium could, in the same proceedings, reduce a sentence or amend the legal classification of a conviction or sentence to the defendant’s advantage. If it found a sentence or legal classification to be too lenient, it was obliged to remit the case for reconsideration.
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6


ITEMID: 001-107943
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: MNE
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2011
DOCNAME: CASE OF BARAC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
TEXT: 5. The applicants - Mr Blagota Barać, Mr Milan Terzić, Mr Zoran Stanišić, Mr Stanko Burić, Ms Stanica Marković, Mr Radovan Kadović, Mr Ranko Tomašević, Mr Novo Stanišić, Mr Branko Radulović, Mr Novak Nikolić, Mr Mihailo Popović, Mr Milan Golubović, and Mr Ranko Kovačević - are all Montenegrin nationals who were born in 1968, 1953, 1961, 1950, 1956, 1951, 1952, 1963, 1951, 1966, 1955, 1953, and 1955 respectively and live in Danilovgrad.
6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7. On 14 January 2005 the applicants filed a claim for compensation (isplata zimnice) against their employer.
8. On 13 February 2006 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Danilovgrad ruled in their favour, awarding them 150 euros (EUR) each, plus legal costs totalling EUR 1,875.
9. On 26 April 2006 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica overturned the previous judgment and rejected the applicants’ claim, relying solely on the Act on Changes and Amendments to the Labour Act 2004 (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o radu, hereinafter “the Labour Amendments Act 2004”). At the same time, the applicants were ordered to pay jointly to their employer EUR 900 for legal costs. The applicants received this judgment on 23 May 2006 at earliest.
10. On 12 September 2006 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica rejected the applicants’ appeal on points of law on procedural grounds (revizija se odbacuje).
11. On 28 February 2006 the Constitutional Court of Montenegro (Ustavni sud) declared the Labour Amendments Act 2004 unconstitutional (see paragraph 14 below).
12. On 18 April 2006 that decision was published in Official Gazette no. 24/06 (Službeni list br. 24/06), and thereby the said Act ceased to be in force (see paragraph 13, in particular Article 62 therein, and paragraph 16 below).
13. The relevant provisions of the Act provided as follows:
“When it is established that an Act [...] is not in accordance with the Constitution [...] that Act [...] ceases to be in force on the day when the Constitutional Court’s decision is published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro.”
“[Such an] Act [...] cannot be applied to matters (odnosi) which arose before the day when the decision of the Constitutional Court was published unless a final decision in the particular matter was rendered before that day.”
“Those whose rights have been violated by final decisions rendered on the basis of an Act ... which the Constitutional Court established was not in accordance with the Constitution ... have the right to request the body in charge to change the final decision [in question].
A request to have [such a] decision changed shall be submitted within six months of the day when the decision of the Constitutional Court was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro.”
“If the consequences of the implementation of the [unconstitutional] Act ... cannot be removed by having the impugned decision changed, the Constitutional Court can determine that the consequences be removed by restitutio in integrum, compensation, or in some other way.”
14. The relevant part of the Decision reads as follows:
“It has been established that the Labour Amendments Act 2004 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro, no. 79/04) is not in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro and it shall cease to exist on the day when this decision is published.
15. The Decision specified that the reason for declaring the above Act unconstitutional was that it had not been adopted in Parliament by an absolute majority of MPs, as required by the Constitution.
16. The Decision was published on 18 April 2006.
17. The Government submitted three decisions of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, rendered in September 2003, December 2005 and July 2006, respectively, on the basis of Articles 70 and 71 of the Constitutional Court Act 1993. In all three decisions the Constitutional Court, in rejecting other claimants’ requests, had held that Article 70 actually provided for an individual the right to request the reopening of proceedings in which an impugned decision had been rendered.
18. In particular, in its decision of September 2003 the Constitutional Court had rejected an initiative to assess the constitutionality of Article 70 of the Constitutional Court Act 1993.
19. In December 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected a claimant’s request to amend a decision rendered by the Court of First Instance in November 2004, which first-instance decision had been based on a provision which was later, in April 2005, declared unconstitutional.
20. In July 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected a claimant’s request to remove the consequences he had allegedly suffered before November 2005 on account of the implementation of a decision of the Water Supply Company of 2002, the decision having been declared unconstitutional in November 2005.
21. In the latter two decisions, the claimants’ requests were rejected as they had failed to previously request the reopening of the proceedings in which the impugned decisions had been rendered.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-76173
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: POL
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: CASE OF DZYRUK v. POLAND
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 8;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
JUDGES: Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: 4. The applicant was born in 1963 and he is presently detained in Hrubieszów Prison, Poland.
5. On 21 September 1999 the applicant was convicted of a driving offence by the Board for Administrative Offences at the Włodawa District Court (Kolegium d.s. wykroczeń). He appealed.
On 29 November 1999 the Włodawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) dismissed his appeal.
6. On 9 March 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 12 March 2001 the Włodawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of fraud. The applicant had allegedly been corresponding with several men from different countries, passing himself off as a lady wishing to meet them.
7. On 3 December 2001 the Włodawa District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention, finding that it was highly probable that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The court further found that there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding or obstruct the proceedings.
That decision was upheld on appeal on 17 December 2001.
8. On 31 January 2002 the applicant was indicted on charges of fraud against ten Dutch, French and German nationals who had given him money under false pretences, believing that the applicant was a women interested in meeting and visiting them. In the correspondence with the victims the applicant had been using a false name “Narcissus Flower” (Narcyza Kwiatek) and had obtained from them a total of 270 German Marks and 1,600 US Dollars.
9. The applicant filed an application for release, but on 11 February 2002 the Włodawa District Court dismissed it reiterating the original grounds for the detention. The court further prolonged his detention, finding that the applicant’s place of permanent residence was far from the trial court and, if released, he would obstruct the proper course of proceedings. Simultaneously, the court dismissed the applicant’s request to be released on bail.
10. On 8 March, 6 June and 30 July 2002 the Włodawa District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand. The decisions repeated the same grounds for the applicant’s detention: the reasonable suspicion against him, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fear that he might go into hiding or otherwise obstruct the proceedings.
11. On 5 August 2002 the Włodawa District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine.
12. The applicant lodged an appeal.
13. On 14 August 2002 the Lublin Regional Court released the applicant on bail. The court found that the original reasons for keeping the applicant in detention had ceased to exist since the applicant had no previous conviction and had a permanent place of residence.
14. On 15 July 2003 the Lublin Regional Court partly amended the judgment. It appears that the judgment is final.
15. The applicant submits that during his detention his correspondence, in particular that with the Court, was censored by the authorities. In March 2001 the Włodawa District Prosecutor decided to obtain and control the correspondence from the applicant’s post office box - apparently during the investigation stage. The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed by the Lublin Regional Prosecutor.
16. On 4 April 2001 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant addressed to his post office box. The applicant provided the Registry with the original of this letter and complained that it had been censored by the authorities. On the top of the Registry’s letter there is a stamp: “District Prosecutor Bogusław Lechocki” (Prokurator Prokuratury Rejonowej Bogusław Lechocki), a hand-written note: “censored, 12 June 2001” (“Ocenzurowano, 12/06/2001”) and an illegible signature.
17. On 28 February 2002 the Registry received the applicant’s letter of 14 February 2002. The envelope bears a hand-written note: “Włodawa District Court” (S.R. Włodawa). The envelope, which is addressed to the Registrar, the European Court of Human Rights, bears signs of having been opened after being sealed: its right side had been cut open and then resealed with a white self-adhesive paper slip. It is postmarked 18 February 2002.
18. On 19 March 2002 the Registry received the applicant’s letter of 5 March 2002. The envelope, which is addressed to the Registrar, the European Court of Human Rights, bears a hand-written note: “Włodawa District Court” (SR Włodawa). The envelope bears signs of having been opened after being sealed: its right side had been cut open and then resealed with five white self-adhesive paper slips. It is postmarked 8 March 2002.
19. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1997, which entered into force on 1 September 1998, defines detention on remand as one of the socalled “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze). The other measures are bail (poręczenie majątkowe), police supervision (dozór policji), guarantee by a responsible person (poręczenie osoby godnej zaufania), guarantee by a social entity (poręczenie społeczne), temporary ban on engaging in a given activity (zawieszenie oskarżonego w określonej działalności) and prohibition on leaving the country (zakaz opuszczania kraju).
Article 249 § 1 sets out the general grounds for imposition of the preventive measures. That provision reads:
“Preventive measures may be imposed in order to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings and, exceptionally, also in order to prevent an accused committing another serious offence; they may be imposed only if evidence gathered shows a significant probability that an accused has committed an offence.”
20. Article 258 lists grounds for detention on remand. It provides, in so far as relevant:
“1. Detention on remand may be imposed if:
(1) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding, in particular when his identity cannot be established or when he has no permanent abode [in Poland];
(2) there is a justified fear that an accused will attempt to induce [witnesses or co-defendants] to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means;
2. If an accused has been charged with a serious offence or an offence for the commission of which he may be liable to a statutory maximum sentence of at least 8 years’ imprisonment, or if a court of first instance has sentenced him to at least 3 years’ imprisonment, the need to continue detention to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings may be based on the likelihood that a severe penalty will be imposed.”
21. The Code sets out the margin of discretion as to the continuation of a specific preventive measure. Article 257 reads, in so far as relevant:
“1. Detention on remand shall not be imposed if another preventive measure is sufficient.”
Article 259, in its relevant part, reads:
“1. If there are no special reasons to the contrary, detention on remand shall be lifted, in particular if depriving an accused of his liberty would:
(1) seriously jeopardise his life or health; or
(2) entail excessively harsh consequences for the accused or his family.”
The 1997 Code not only sets out maximum statutory time-limits for detention on remand but also, in Article 252 § 2, lays down that the relevant court – within those time-limits – must in each detention decision determine the exact time for which detention shall continue.
22. Article 263 sets out time-limits for detention. In the version applicable up to 20 July 2000 it provided:
“1. Imposing detention in the course of an investigation, the court shall determine its term for a period not exceeding 3 months.
whole may not exceed 12 months.
3. The whole period of detention on remand until the date on which the first conviction at first instance is imposed may not exceed 2 years.
4. Only the Supreme Court may, on application made by the court before which the case is pending or, at the investigation stage, on application made by the Prosecutor General, prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding the periods referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, when it is necessary in connection with a stay of the proceedings, a prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused, a prolonged preparation of an expert report, when evidence needs to be obtained in a particularly complex case or from abroad, when the accused has deliberately prolonged the proceedings, as well as on account of other significant obstacles that could not be overcome.”
On 20 July 2000 paragraph 4 was amended and since then the competence to prolong detention beyond the time-limits set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 has been vested in the court of appeal within whose jurisdiction the offence in question has been committed.
23. Rules relating to means of controlling correspondence of persons involved in criminal proceedings are set out in the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (Kodeks karny wykonawczy) (“the 1997 Code”) which entered into force on 1 September 1998.
24. The relevant part of Article 103 § 1 of the Code provides as follows:
“Convicts (...) have a right to lodge complaints with institutions established by international treaties ratified by the Republic of Poland concerning the protection of human rights. Correspondence in those cases (...) shall be sent to the addressee without delay and shall not be censored.”
25. Article 214 § 1 reads as follows:
“Unless exceptions are provided for in the present Chapter, a detainee shall enjoy at least the same rights as are secured to a convicted person serving a sentence of imprisonment under the ordinary regime in a closed prison. No restrictions shall be applied to him except such as are necessary to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, to maintain order and security in a remand centre and to prevent demoralisation of detainees.”
26. Article 217 § 1 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“(...) detainee’s correspondence shall be censored by [the authority at whose disposal he remains], unless the authority decides otherwise.”
Article 242 § 5 reads as follows:
“The prohibition of censorship shall also mean the prohibition of acquainting oneself with the content of the letter.”
27. On 1 September 1998 the Rules of Detention on Remand (Rozporządzenie Ministra Sprawiedliwości w sprawie regulaminu wykonywania tymczasowego aresztowania) entered into force.
§ 36 of the Rules provides:
“The detainee’s correspondence, including the correspondence with the international institutions for the protection of human rights, which act on the basis of international agreements ratified by the Republic of Poland, with the Ombudsman and public and local government institutions, is mailed through the intermediary of the organ at whose disposal he remains.”
28. Article 218 of the Code concerns seizure of correspondence by a decision of prosecution authorities. It provides as follows:
“1. Offices, institutions and entities operating in post and telecommunications fields, customs houses, and transportation institutions and companies, shall be obligated to surrender to the court or prosecutor upon demand included in their order, any correspondence or transmissions significant to the pending proceedings. Only the court and a prosecutor shall be entitled to open them or to order their opening.
3. Correspondence and transmissions irrelevant to the criminal proceedings should be returned to the appropriate offices, institutions or companies as set forth in § 1, without delay.”
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 5
8
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 5-3


ITEMID: 001-106651
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: CZE
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2011
DOCNAME: HAVELKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Josef Havelka, is a Czech national who was born in 1946 and lives in Rychnov u Jablonce nad Nisou.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 5 May 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the president of the Jablonec nad Nisou District Court alleging that he had violated his rights. At the same time he applied for the appointment of a lawyer to act on his behalf, for a waiver of court fees and for the exclusion of the District Court judges from the case due to their lack of impartiality.
Due to the applicant’s modifications of his initial action the case was referred to the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court, subsequently the applicant challenged the impartiality of the Regional Court’s judges.
On 11 September 2000 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court refused the applicant’s request for the waiver of court fees and for the appointment of the lawyer. On 27 February 2001 the Prague High Court upheld this decision.
In July 2001 the applicant lodged further submissions and the Regional Court discontinued proceedings as he had not paid the court fees.
On 5 February 2002 the Regional Court quashed this decision as the applicant had paid the court fees in the meantime.
On 1 August 2002 the Regional Court appointed a lawyer on the applicant’s behalf as his financial standing had deteriorated.
On 21 July 2003 the High Court rejected the applicant’s challenge of the impartiality of the Regional Court’s judges for the most part and excluded one judge from the proceedings for different reasons than the ones raised by the applicant.
On 15 July 2004 the High Court admitted the applicant’s new objection as to the impartiality of the Regional Court judges and referred the case to the Hradec Králové Regional Court which in February 2005 granted the applicant’s request to modify the action and to extend it to the Ministry of Justice.
On 26 April 2005 the applicant requested the court to examine the case-files from other proceedings as supplementary evidence.
The hearing was fixed for 30 January 2007, however, it was adjourned owing to the applicant’s health problems. At the same time the applicant withdrew the action as regards the Ministry and applied for the entry of the Jablonec nad Nisou District Court to the proceedings.
On 23 March 2007 the Regional Court refused the entry of the District Court, which was upheld by the High Court on 29 June 2007.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision and applied for a lawyer to act on his behalf. This request was granted, however, on 20 December 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law.
The applicant brought a constitutional appeal and applied for a lawyer to act on his behalf. This request was granted, however, on 13 November 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal.
On 16 April 2008 the proceedings on merits were stayed due to the applicant’s health problems, this decision became final on 7 May 2008; the Court was not informed as to whether the proceedings have resumed since. Overall, throughout the whole proceedings hearings were scheduled on three occasions, however, they all had to be adjourned due to the applicant’s health problems or other proceedings initiated by him.
In February 2007 the applicant claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the above proceedings, under Act No. 82/1998 as amended by Act no. 160/2006.
As the Ministry of Justice did not deal with the applicant’s request within the six-month statutory time-limit, he brought a civil action for damages against the Ministry on 17 January 2008. He specified the non-pecuniary damage allegedly suffered at CZK 300,000 (EUR 11,481).
In a letter of 8 February 2008 the Ministry of Justice acknowledged that the proceedings were unreasonably lengthy. Taking into account the complexity of the proceedings and the applicant’s substantial contribution to the delays, the Ministry awarded the applicant CZK 22,000 (EUR 857) for non-pecuniary damage.
On 30 July 2008 the Prague 2 District Court dismissed the action holding that the proceedings on merits had been carried out smoothly without delays. The court found that in the absence of any judgment, it would be difficult to assess the complexity of the proceedings. Further, it considered that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings by not having paid the court fees in due time, by unclear claims and by applying for extensions of the action to other parties. Besides, the proceedings were affected by the applicant’s health and his procedural requests, which could however not be invoked to the applicant’s detriment.
The applicant appealed and challenged the impartiality of judges of the Prague Municipal Court and the Prague High Court; these objections were dismissed by the directly superior courts including the Supreme Court.
On 10 March 2010 (served on 10 April 2010) the Prague Municipal Court upheld the judgment, finding that the proceedings were primarily affected by the applicant’s failure to conform to the procedural rules and by his procedural requests. It considered that the State could not be held responsible for the delays caused by a party’s uncooperativeness or even deliberate misconduct.
On 3 April 1995 the applicant brought proceedings against a municipality seeking compensation for the lack of diligence in maintaining the State property that he had recovered in the restitution proceedings. At the same time he applied for a waiver of court fees.
Later, the proceedings were joined with similar proceedings; altogether the applicant sought payment of CZK 1,400,000 (EUR 40,936).
The hearing was fixed for 2 May 1995, however, the applicant excused himself.
In May and June 1995 the Jablonec nad Nisou District Court invited the applicant to provide information documenting that he had limited means to be eligible for the waiver of court fees.
On 4 July 1995 the District Court refused the request for the waiver of the court fees. The applicant appealed and challenged the impartiality of the judge. On 15 February 1996 the appellate court upheld this decision.
On 29 May 1996 the District Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not paid the court fees despite having been invited to.
On 19 September 2002 the applicant appealed this decision asserting that the requests for the payment of the courts fees had not been delivered to his new address; in October 2002 he supplemented the appeal.
On 19 November 2002 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court quashed the decision finding that the applicant had not been duly invited to pay the court fees as set by the relevant procedural rules.
On 14 January 2003 the applicant applied for a waiver of the court fees. In February and April 2003 the District Court invited him to provide the necessary information justifying the request.
On 22 April 2003, 8 December 2003 and 2 February 2004 the applicant challenged the impartiality of different judges.
On 15 March 2004 the District Court refused not to charge the applicant the court fees. On 25 August 2004 the Regional Court changed this decision and granted the waiver up to 80 % of the court fees and dismissed the challenge of the judges’ impartiality.
On 7 January 2005 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the Regional Court judges.
On 11 November 2005 the District Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had failed to pay the court fees despite having been invited to.
On 25 January 2006 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal as it had been filed outside the time-limit.
On 6 March 2006 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against this decision as filed outside the time-limit. On 13 April 2006 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against this decision for the same reasons.
On 14 July 2006 the High Court decided on the impartiality of the Regional Court judges.
On 6 October 2006 the Regional Court upheld the District Court decision of 13 April 2006, which became final on 24 September 2008.
On 27 November 2007 the applicant claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the above proceedings.
As the Ministry of Justice did not deal with the applicant’s request within the six-month statutory time-limit, he brought a civil action for damages against the Ministry on 10 July 2008. He specified the non-pecuniary damage allegedly suffered at CZK 600,000 (EUR 25,570).
On 15 September 2008 the Ministry of Justice acknowledged that the proceedings were unreasonably lengthy and awarded the applicant CZK 56,000 (EUR 2,337) for non-pecuniary damage.
On 30 January 2009 the Prague 2 District Court, referring to the case-law of the Court, dismissed the action. It reiterated that out of thirteen and half years long proceedings, the delays in years 1996 – 2002 were attributable to the first-instance court, otherwise the proceedings had been smooth. The court found that the complexity of the proceedings had been difficult to estimate as not a single hearing had been held. Further, it considered that the importance of the proceedings for the applicant had been low given that he had not attempted to accelerate them during the six years pause and that they had been discontinued eventually as he had not paid the court fees.
On 21 January 2010 (served on 12 May 2010) the Prague Municipal Court upheld the judgment, considering that from the District Court’s perspective the proceedings had been finished in 1996, the applicant having not duly notified his new address and having not been interested in the proceedings for six years. Under these circumstances and with regard to the low importance of the proceedings for him, the just satisfaction awarded had been appropriate.
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the Court’s decision in the case of Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (no. 40552/02 (dec.), §§ 11-24, 16 October 2007).


ITEMID: 001-24029
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: FRA
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2003
DOCNAME: MONTCORNET DE CAUMONT v. FRANCE
IMPORTANCE: 1
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Robert Montcornet de Caumont, is a French national who was born in 1930 and lives in Briançon. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. de Caumont, of the Paris Bar.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit authorised outside built-up areas (173 k.p.h. instead of the permitted 130 k.p.h.) at Peyrolles on 1 June 1992.
In a judgment delivered on 16 December 1992, the Aix-en-Provence Police Court acquitted him, finding that there was insufficient evidence to convict.
On an appeal by the prosecution, the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal reversed that judgment on 5 May 1994 and found the applicant guilty of exceeding the speed limit. It imposed a fine of 3,000 French francs and disqualified him from driving for one month.
In its judgment, it held, inter alia:
“The aforementioned particulars in the incident report which served as the basis for the prosecution show that it was indeed the accused's vehicle, whose registration number and make were correctly noted, which was intercepted after its speed had been recorded. The gendarmes' findings are not refuted by the accused's bare denials ...
Consequently, ... this Court reverses the judgment appealed against and, there being no need to order additional investigations, finds the accused guilty as charged.”
The applicant appealed on points of law but, in a judgment delivered on 22 February 1995, the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal.
The applicant's conviction therefore became final and on 22 April 1996 the Finance Department of the City of Marseilles issued a formal demand for payment of the fine that had been imposed by the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal in its judgment of 5 May 1994.
The applicant applied to the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal for relief under the Amnesty Act (Law no. 95-884 of 3 August 1995). The application was rejected by the Court of Appeal in a judgment of 15 December 1997, in which it found: “The offence the applicant has been found guilty of is excluded from the Amnesty Act by virtue of section 25(10) of that Act.”
The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. In a single ground of appeal, he relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and “the rights of the defence as a whole”, essentially arguing that the Court of Appeal had not given adequate reasons to explain why the offence did not qualify for an amnesty under the Act. In his submission, he was entitled to an amnesty, as the only way he could be deprived of that right was by the retrospective application of the Amnesty Act.
In a judgment delivered on 21 September 1999 and served on 21 December 1999, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.
“The following shall be excluded from the scope of this Act:
...
(10) The minor road-traffic offences referred to in sub-paragraph 2 of Article R. 256 of the Highway Code as worded on 18 May 1995.”
This provision was worded as follows under the decree of 23 November 1992, which came into force on 18 May 1995:
“Any breach of the Articles listed below ... shall give rise to the automatic deduction of points as follows:
1. Six points shall be deducted for relatively serious offences [délits] under the following Articles:
...
2. Four points shall be deducted for minor offences under the following Articles:
...
– ... exceeding the speed limit by 40 k.p.h. or more;
3. Three points shall be deducted for minor offences under the following Articles:
...
4. Two points shall be deducted for minor offences under the following Articles:
...
5. One point shall be deducted for minor offences under the following Articles:
...
I. – This decree shall enter into force on 1 December 1992.
II. – (a) The number of points to be deducted for offences proved ... prior to 1 December 1992 shall continue to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned decree of 25 June 1992.
(b) The number of points to be deducted for offences committed before 1 December 1992 but not proved until after that date shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of this decree.
III. – The number of points allotted to each driving licence on 30 November 1992 shall be doubled on 1 December 1992.”


ITEMID: 001-107693
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: MDA
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2011
DOCNAME: CASE OF BERCUT S.R.L. v. MOLDOVA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of P1-1
JUDGES: Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Mihai Poalelungi;Nona Tsotsoria
TEXT: 5. The applicant company was founded in 1992 and since 1995 has, inter alia, run a driving school, being in possession of the necessary licence issued by the State for that purpose. On 30 June 2005 the applicant company’s licence was renewed with a term of validity of five years. At that time the driving school employed approximately sixty people and had approximately 2,400 students.
6. On 7 August 2006 the State Registration Chamber conducted an unannounced check on the driving school and discovered that two of its instructors had been replaced and that the State Registration Chamber had not been informed of this within the ten-day time-limit provided for by the law.
7. On 10 August 2006 the State Registration Chamber issued decision no. 2985, by which the applicant company’s licence was withdrawn in view of the irregularity.
8. On 12 August 2006 the applicant company initiated court proceedings against the State Registration Chamber, seeking the revocation of its order of 10 August 2006. The applicant company submitted, inter alia, that the check carried out by the defendant on 7 August 2006 had been unlawful and that it had announced to the State Registration Chamber the changes to its personnel by letters of 19 August 2005 and 7 February 2006. In that respect the applicant company submitted a copy of its internal register of incoming and outgoing correspondence containing notes of two letters sent to the State Registration Chamber.
9. On 27 November 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s action, finding that its system of registering correspondence was not sufficient proof. The applicant company appealed against the judgment.
10. On 21 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
11. The relevant provisions of Law no. 451 on Licensing (“the Licensing Act”) read as follows:
(2) Unannounced checks can be conducted only on the basis of a written request in respect of a breach of licence conditions by a licence holder.
(1) (f) [A licence may be withdrawn] if a licence holder fails to notify the appropriate authority in due time of a change in the data contained in the annexes to an application for a licence.
12. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code read as follows:
“(1) Default interest is payable for delayed execution of pecuniary obligations. Default interest shall be 5% above the interest rate provided for in Article 585 [NBM refinancing interest rate] unless the law or the contract provides otherwise. Evidence that a lower level of damage has been incurred shall be admissible.
(2) In non-consumer-related situations default interest shall be 9% above the interest rate provided for in Article 585 unless the law or the contract provides otherwise. Evidence that a lower level of damage has been incurred shall be inadmissible.”


ITEMID: 001-90420
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2009
DOCNAME: CASE OF SHAKHGIRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
JUDGES: Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens
TEXT: 7. The applicants are:
(1) Ms Asht Khamidovna Shakhgiriyeva, born in 1960;
(2) Ms Zarema Baudinovna Esmurzayeva (Magomadova), born in 1971;
(3) Ms Alpatu Magomadova, born in 1922;
(4) Ms Zarema Kharonovna Umarova, born in 1968;
(5) Ms Ayshat Bibulatovna Gerasiyeva, born in 1985;
(6) Ms Aza Ayubovna Abayeva, born in 1972;
(7) Ms Svetlana Gelaniyevna Dakasheva, born in 1961.
8. The applicants are Russian nationals and residents of the village of Chechen-Aul, in the Grozny district of Chechnya. The sixth applicant currently resides outside Russia.
9. The facts of the case are mostly not in dispute between the parties. They may be summarised as follows.
10. The applicants submitted that in the early hours of 23 October 2002 eight persons had been detained in their village by a group of servicemen wearing masks and camouflage uniforms and moving around in a Ural military truck, UAZ all-terrain military vehicles and armoured personnel carriers (APCs) with obscured number plates. Among the eight persons there were four relatives of the applicants: Magomed Shakhgiriyev, Ali Magomadov, Ismail Umarov and Umalat Abayev.
11. The first applicant is the mother of Magomed Khamidovich Shakhgiriyev, born in 1986. She lives with her family in Chechen-Aul at 37 Lenina Street. In October 2002 Magomed Shakhgiriyev was 16 years old and attended school. He was described by the school head teacher and the head of the village administration as a good student and a well-mannered young man. The first applicant is married and has two other children, who were then aged 6 and 15.
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.
14. The first applicant submitted that a neighbour had tried to find out what had been happening and wanted to enter their courtyard, but the servicemen had hit her and told her to stay away.
15. During the search the soldiers seized some items from the house, including the goods the first applicant traded in the market and those stored at her house by other traders overnight, because her house was close to the market.
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.
17. In October 2002 the applicants were carrying out construction work on the house, and some windows on the second floor were not glazed.
18. On the night of 22 to 23 October 2002 the second and third applicants, Ali Magomadov and the children were at home sleeping. At approximately 4.30 a.m. a group of about 15 masked men in camouflage forcibly entered the house. They arrived in a Ural truck, whose number plates the applicants could not distinguish in the darkness. The servicemen were armed with machine guns and spoke Russian, largely using swearwords. They were hostile and aggressive. The military did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations.
19. The second applicant submitted that five or six men had entered the house through the windows of the second floor and had spread out around the rooms. In addition, about ten servicemen had kept guard in the courtyard. Once in the house, the servicemen ordered the second applicant to turn on the light, but she replied that the village was without electricity on that night. They ordered her to go and get matches, which she did. The servicemen searched the room where the applicant and her daughter had been sleeping and asked the applicant if there were any men in the house. The applicant replied that her husband was the only man in the house, and the soldiers told her to fetch him. The second applicant went into the room where her husband and her sons had been sleeping and told Ali Magomadov that there were armed men looking for him. He put on a shirt and trousers and came out of the room.
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.
21. The second applicant realised that her husband had been taken away barefoot and tried to follow them out of the house, but the soldiers shouted at her to close the door and remain inside.
22. The second applicant saw her husband being put into the Ural truck, which then left in the direction of Grozny.
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.
27. The fourth applicant tried to intervene but the soldiers told her that her brother would be taken to a “filtration point”.
28. The fifth and sixth applicants are the wife and sister of Umalat Ayubovich Abayev, born in 1978. Shortly before the events of October 2002 the head of the village administration recommended Umalat Abayev for work as a security guard and described him as a good man who had no connection with illegal or extremist groups and had not otherwise discredited himself. Similar recommendation letters were issued to him by the imam of the village mosque in Chechen-Aul and the local policeman.
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.
30. Then the servicemen searched the house, without producing any documents to justify their actions. According to the applicants, they “turned the whole house upside down”, checked the documents and took away some valuables.
31. The applicants submitted that four other men had been detained in Chechen-Aul on the same night: S.Yu., R.Z., M.Zh. and A.Zh. (the latter two are spelled in official documents as M.Dzh. and A.Dzh.). Two days later, on 25 October 2002, M.Zh. and A.Zh. were released. According to the applicants, they said that they had been detained in a cellar but could give no other details of their detention because they had been taken around blindfolded.
32. The Government in their observations did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 23 October 2002, at about 4 a.m., unidentified persons armed with automatic weapons and wearing camouflage uniforms had kidnapped in Chechen-Aul and taken in an unknown direction M. Shakhgiriyev, A. Magomadov, I. Umarov, U. Abayev, R.Z., M.Zh. (M.Dzh.), A.Zh. (A.Dzh.) and S.Yu. The last-mentioned person had sustained a firearm wound. M.Zh. and A.Zh. had been released later.
33. Immediately after the detention of their family members the applicants and other relatives started to look for them. On 23 October 2002 the first applicant wrote a letter to the Chechnya Prosecutor about the detention of her son and seven other men by armed men in an APC. She also complained about the taking of property and money from her house.
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.
35. On 3 November 2002 three men from Chechen-Aul went looking for their missing fellow villagers Aslan Israilov, Khasin Yunusov and Adash A. No complaint was brought in relation to the disappearance of Adash A.
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.
37. The seventh applicant is the sister of Khasin Gelaniyevich Yunusov, born in 1971. Khasin Yunusov was a sub-lieutenant in the police force and served in the Grozny district department of the interior (ROVD).
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.
40. Later the applicants learned from unnamed local residents that their three relatives could have been detained on 3 November 2002 at a roadblock in Minutka Square in Grozny. According to this information, a group of servicemen had arrived at the roadblock in an APC and a GAZ vehicle and had taken three men and a Gazel vehicle away. The applicants did not submit any additional information on this matter.
41. The Government in their observations did not challenge the principal facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 3 November 2002 Khasin Yunusov had left home in his own Gazel vehicle in an unknown direction, accompanied by his friends Aslan Israilov and Adash A. They had never returned. The Government also stated that the applicants had never informed any State bodies of the fact that their relatives had been detained in Minutka Square.
42. According to the applicants, on 8 November 2002 five male bodies were discovered by the local residents in the forest near the village of Vinogradnoye, in the Grozny district, near the road to Tolstoy-Yurt. The bodies were delivered to the mosque of Tolstoy-Yurt. On 9 November 2002 several relatives of the persons missing since 23 October 2002 travelled there and identified them as the five men who had been detained in Chechen-Aul: Magomed Shakhgiriyev, Ali Magomadov, Ismail Umarov, Umalat Abayev and R.Z. The body of the sixth person detained on that night, S.Yu., has never been found and he is still considered missing. On the same day the five bodies were brought to Chechen-Aul and buried.
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:
“On 8 November 2002 at about 10 a.m. in the forest, about 10 kilometres away from the village of Darbanmakhi, Gudermes district, towards the village of Vinogradnoye, Grozny district, two kilometres to the south from the Darbanmakhi – Vinogradnoye road, five male bodies were discovered with the heads bound with fragments of cloth, the hands tied and firearm wounds. They were later identified by their relatives as having been kidnapped in Chechen-Aul on 23 October 2002: I.Kh. Umarov, A.B. Magomadov, M.Kh. Shakgiriyev, U.A. Abayev and [R.Z.].”
45. It appears that the applicants did not see the bodies before they were buried, nor did they submit them for an autopsy. It also appears that they did not take any photographs before the burial. However, it appears that the bodies were photographed and submitted for a forensic report in Tolstoy-Yurt and that a local medical worker in Chechen-Aul inspected the bodies before the burial.
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...”
47. The first applicant submitted that the bodies of the five men had borne numerous firearm wounds, bones had been broken, and skin on the fingers had been chipping off.
48. On 22 November 2002 the Chechen-Aul outpatient medical service issued a medical certificate of death in respect of Ali Magomadov. The date and place of death were recorded as 9 November 2002, Gudermes district. The certificate indicated that a doctor had examined the body and concluded that death had occurred as a result of murder through strangulation and numerous blows.
49. On 10 December 2002 the same medical service issued a certificate of death in respect of Magomed Shakhgiriyev. The date and place of death were recorded as 9 November 2002, Vinogradnoye village. The cause of death was recorded as a firearm wound to the head – an act of murder.
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.
51. On 11 December 2002 the Grozny district civil registration office issued a death certificate for Ali Magomadov. The date and place of death were recorded as 9 November 2002, Gudermes.
52. On 15 December 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in criminal investigation no. 56166, opened into the kidnapping and subsequent murder of her son and other men.
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.
55. On 17 January 2003 the Grozny district civil registration office issued a death certificate for Magomed Shakhgiriyev. The date and place of death were recorded as 9 November 2002, Vinogradnoye, Grozny district.
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.
58. On 16 April 2003 the Grozny district civil registration office issued a death certificate for Umalat Abayev. The date and place of death were recorded as 23 October 2002, Chechen-Aul.
59. On 22 April 2003 the applicants wrote to the Chechnya Prosecutor and the Grozny District Prosecutor asking to be informed of the progress in the investigation concerning the abduction and murder of six men from Chechen-Aul. They noted that they were not aware of the criminal investigation file number or whether there had been any progress in the proceedings. They also asked to be granted victim status in the proceedings. As no reply was received to that letter, they sent it again in May or June 2003.
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.
64. On 14 February and on 31 March 2008 the relatives of the missing men were informed by the Grozny inter-district department of the investigation committee that on the same days the investigation of criminal case no. 56166 had been adjourned.
65. The sixth and seventh applicants started to look for their missing relatives, Aslan Israilov and Khasin Yunusov, immediately after their disappearance on 3 November 2002.
66. On an unspecified date the head of the village administration of Chechen-Aul, the village imam and the chairman of the committee of elders signed requests to the authorities asking for the release of the three men who had been illegally detained on 3 November 2002 in Minutka Square in Grozny.
67. The seventh applicant submitted that on 6 November 2002 she and the head of the village administration, Mr Ts., had gone to the head of the Grozny ROVD and asked him if he was aware that Khasin Yunusov, one of his servicemen, had disappeared after a trip to Khankala. The seventh applicant submitted that the head of the department had assured her that he was aware of that fact and that a large number of people had been detained after the downing of the helicopter. He allegedly told her that the Federal Security Service (FSB) had been checking the detainees and that they would all be released after 15 November 2002.
68. After 15 November 2002 the applicants continued to look for their relatives. The seventh applicant submitted that she had talked to a man who had allegedly worked at the Khankala military base and who had initially agreed to help them find out the fate of their relatives. He assured her that he had seen the name of her husband and two other men in the lists of detainees. However, one month later the same man allegedly told her that the lists had been destroyed and that he could not help them.
69. On 11 December 2002 the seventh applicant wrote a formal complaint to the Chechen Government about the disappearance of her brother on 3 November 2002. She stressed that her brother had been a member of the police force and that, according to rumours, he had been detained at the Khankala military base.
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:
“On 18 April 2002 at about 5 p.m. in the village of Khankala, at the bottom of a quarry, about 400 metres from the location of the VV [Internal Troops] of the Ministry of the Interior and about one kilometre from the location of the VOGO and P [Temporary Operative Alignment of Bodies and Services] of the Ministry of the Interior, three unidentified male bodies with signs of violent death were discovered.”
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.
76. On the same day the three bodies were taken to Chechen-Aul and buried. The applicants did not have a chance to look at them. It appears that upon the discovery of the bodies a report was drawn up, and photographs were taken of them and of the objects collected from them, but the applicants do not have copies of those reports. The applicants did not submit the bodies for an autopsy or a medical examination before burial. They referred to unnamed witness statements which indicated that the three bodies had numerous firearm wounds to the head and chest, that there were pieces of rope and that the right legs of the three bodies had been missing as if they had been tied together and blown up by an explosive charge.
77. The seventh applicant submitted that one month later the head of the administration of Chechen-Aul, Ts., and the local policeman who had first identified the bodies had been killed.
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.
83. The applicants submitted they had not been informed of the progress of the proceedings and that they had no effective access to the investigation file.
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.
90. On 10 January 2003 the two criminal cases were joined as file no. 56166.
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.
96. A.Zh. was questioned on 9 November 2002 and granted victim status. He was again questioned on 1 December 2005. He stated that in the evening of 23 October 2002 he had been coming home and had been stopped in the street by unknown armed persons. He had been taken to an unknown location, where he had stayed for three days. He had not been ill-treated.
97. According to the Government, the investigators also questioned relatives and neighbours of S.Yu., who had also been kidnapped on 23 October 2002 and whose whereabouts had not been established. Some of the witnesses referred to the UAZ vehicles used by the perpetrators. His relatives explained that a large group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had entered their house, asked if they had any weapons, beaten up three brothers from the Yu. family and when one of them, S.Yu., had tried to escape, had shot at him and wounded him. He had been dragged into the UAZ vehicle and driven away. The same men, who had spoken Russian and Chechen among themselves, had taken 500 United States dollars from their house. His mother had been granted victim status on 25 December 2002.
98. Furthermore, the Government stated that the identity and place of residence of the eighth person kidnapped on that day, R.Z., could not be established. No one had applied to the law-enforcement authorities in relation to his kidnapping and his relatives could not be identified.
99. Among the documents submitted by the Government, one witness statement made in April 2006 by a neighbour of the Shakhgiriyevs, I.S., contained the following information:
“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:
“It has been established that on 23 October 2002 at about 3 a.m. in the village of Chechen-Aul in the Grozny district, in the course of a special operation being carried out in the said village, the servicemen fired at the house situated at 31 Ordzhionikidze Street, the property of Zhabrail Kh. As a result of opening fire, a stallion belonging to Zhabrail Kh. was killed in the barn.”
101. On 11 January 2006 the same investigating authority granted victim status and the status of civil claimant to Gulnara E. on the following grounds:
“On 23 October 2002 at about 4 a.m. unknown persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks, armed with automatic weapons, committed arson in a room in the house and exploded a hand grenade in another room of the house situated at 83 Lenina Street, by which pecuniary damage in the amount of 45,000 roubles and non-pecuniary damage was caused to Gulnara E.”
102. As indicated in the documents submitted by the Government, the same investigation also dealt with the kidnapping and murder on 27 October 2002 in Chechen-Aul of Ismail G., born in 1977, and Isa G., born in 1966, committed by “unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms”.
103. It further appears that a number of applicants, their relatives and neighbours were additionally questioned in January 2006 and gave statements confirming the above descriptions of the kidnappings, the theft of property and the subsequent discovery of the bodies.
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.
106. Among the documents submitted by the Government, on 11 November 2002 a waitress from a roadside café testified that on 3 November 2002 she had served lunch to three men, one of them Khasin Yunusov. They had talked about a special operation in Chechen-Aul and Khankala and were in a hurry. They had then left in the direction of the village of Petropavlovskaya. On the same day an employee of a petrol station located at the same place testified that Khasin Yunusov had bought gasoline for his Gazel vehicle there.
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.
109. On 10 May 2003 the two criminal cases were joined as file no. 56192.
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.
111. Forensic reports found that the three bodies had perforating wounds to the head, chest and neck, which could have caused the deaths. It is unclear if any other injuries were mentioned. The Government did not submit copies of these reports and did not specify whether they had established the time of the deaths.
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.
115. The Government stated that the sixth and seventh applicants, the sisters of Umalat Abayev and Khasin Yunusov respectively, had not been granted victim status in the proceedings because they had never applied to the law-enforcement bodies with such requests. The Government also noted that the victims had been informed about the progress of the investigation and that they had never requested to be informed of the results of the forensic expert reports.
116. On 8 May 2003 the head of the Chechen-Aul administration confirmed the information from the relatives concerning the disappearance of three men on 3 November 2002 and the subsequent discovery of their bodies. The Government submitted a copy of his witness statement.
117. In addition, the investigation questioned five other persons. The Government did not provide any other information in relation to these witnesses.
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.
121. As indicated in the documents submitted by the Government, between 23 October 2002 and April 2008 the investigation in case no. 56166 concerning the murder of Magomed Shakhgiriyev, Ali Magomadov, Ismail Umarov and Umalat Abayev was adjourned at least six times, and every time the investigation was later reopened by prosecutors. The investigation in case no. 56192 concerning the murders of Aslan Israilov and Khasin Yunusov was adjourned and reopened four times between November 2002 and April 2006.
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.
123. For a summary of relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, § 67-69, 10 May 2007.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 13
2
38
5
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 2-1
5-1
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 2
3
5
NON_VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 2-1
5-1