Last Updated on September 22, 2021 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55050/11
Fariza KHASULBEKOVA and Others
against Russia and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 September 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Georgios A. Serghides, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details appear in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, then by Mr A. Fedorov, Head of the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. At the material time the applicants lived in the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by service personnel during special operations. The events concerned took place between 2000 and 2003 in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives remain unknown, with the exception of Mr Akhmed Doshayev, who was found dead (see paragraph 63 below).
4. The applicants reported the abductions to the authorities and official investigations were opened. In each of the cases, the proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for years without achieving any tangible results. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the investigators.
5. Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities.
1. Khasulbekova and Others v. Russia (no. 55050/11)
6. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed Ibayev, who was born in 1970. The first applicant is his wife and the other applicants are his children.
(a) Disappearance of Mr Magomed Ibayev
7. On 24 July 2002 Mr Ibayev left his flat to go to the central market in Grozny and disappeared. The next day the first applicant went to the market along with her relatives and learned from the stallholders that her husband had been arrested and taken away by servicemen.
(b) Official investigation into the abduction
8. According to the first applicant, after the abduction she had contacted various authorities trying to find her husband, but to no avail.
9. On 20 June 2003 she formally asked the deputy prosecutor of Grozny to assist her in the search.
10. On 17 July 2003 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office of Grozny opened criminal case no. 30116 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
11. On 24 July 2003 the first applicant was questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of the events described above.
12. On 28 July 2003 she was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
13. On 17 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
14. On 27 September 2010 the first applicant requested the investigators to provide her with copies of documents from the criminal case file. Three days later she asked them to resume the criminal proceedings and to take steps to establish her husband’s whereabouts.
15. On 25 November 2010 the first applicant again requested that the proceedings be resumed.
16. On 27 December 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings and then, on 26 January 2011, suspended them once again.
17. On 12 April 2011 the first applicant contacted the investigators asking them to establish her husband’s whereabouts. Six days later the investigators informed her that the request had been noted.
18. The investigators subsequently resumed the proceedings on 25 July 2011 and suspended them on 5 August 2011.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
19. On 30 March 2011 the first applicant appealed to the Zavodskoy District Court against the decision of 26 January 2011 to suspend the investigation. On 7 April 2011 the latter quashed the decision of 26 January 2011.
2. Tsumayevy v. Russia (no. 67743/11)
20. The applicants are sisters of Mr Alu Tsumayev, who was born in 1951.
(a) Abduction of Mr Alu Tsumayev
21. On 6 April 2000 Mr Tsumayev was passing through the “Chernorechye” checkpoint in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny when the police stopped him for an identity check. He was then arrested and taken to the Zavodskoy district department of the interior in Grozny (“the ROVD”).
22. On 24 May 2000 his burnt-out car was found in Grozny.
(b) Official investigation into the disappearance
23. On 12 April 2000 the first applicant informed the authorities of her brother’s disappearance and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.
24. On 17 April 2000 the head of the Grozny town administration asked the Chechnya Prosecutor to assist the applicants in the search for their missing relatives. He noted that, according to the police officers who had been manning the checkpoint, Mr Tsumayev had been released from detention at about 5 p.m. on 6 April 2000.
25. On 20 April 2000 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the ROVD, who stated that Mr Tsumayev had been arrested for drunk driving and brought to the ROVD on 6 April 2000, but had been released later on the same day.
26. On 20 April 2000 the ROVDrefused to open criminal proceedings.
27. On 24 May 2000 the investigators found the burnt-out shell of Mr Tsumayev’s car.
28. On 10 August 2000 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 20 April 2000 and opened criminal case no. 12115 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).
29. On 10 October 2000 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. That decision was quashed on 24 November 2000 as premature and the proceedings were resumed.
30. On 26 December 2000 the investigators suspended the proceedings.
31. On 28 June 2002 the first applicant asked the Chechen Government to assist in the search for her brother. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who interviewed her on 12 September 2002 without the criminal proceedings having been resumed.
32. On an unspecified date in 2006 the first applicant contacted the Chechen Parliament seeking its assistance in the investigation. In reply, on 6 April 2006, she was informed that the operative search activity in the case was ongoing.
33. On 31 July 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings. They were subsequently suspended on 7 September and 29 December 2010, and then resumed on 24 December 2010 and 6 October 2011 respectively.
34. In the meantime, on 26 August 2010, the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On the same day she was questioned by the investigators.
35. On 2 September 2010 the investigators requested a number of State authorities and detention facilities to inform them whether they had arrested or detained Mr Tsumayev. No information to that effect was received.
36. On 3 September 2010 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
37. On 27 September 2011 the first applicant applied to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny, challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic steps.
38. On 7 October 2011 the court dismissed the complaint after finding that the investigators had resumed the proceedings a day earlier.
3. Bachayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 24737/13)
39. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Muslim Bachayev, who was born in 1974. The second and third applicants are his siblings.
(a) Abduction of Mr Muslim Bachayev
40. At about 7 a.m. on 11 January 2000 Mr Muslim Bachayev left his house in Grozny to visit his aunt. Near the Tashkala bus stop several armed men forced him into an armoured personnel carrier and took him away to an unknown destination.
(b) Official investigation into the abduction
41. On 2 April 2000 the first applicant complained to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office about Mr Muslim Bachayev’s abduction and requested assistance in establishing his whereabouts.
42. On 19 April 2000 the applicant’s request was forwarded to the Grozny prosecutor’s office. From there, on 29 May 2000, the request was further forwarded to the Grozny temporary department of the interior (“the Grozny OVD”).
43. On 9 June 2000 the Grozny OVD refused to open a criminal case into the incident.
44. In August 2000 (the exact date is illegible) the deputy prosecutor of Grozny quashed the above decision and ordered that an additional inquiry be carried out.
45. In December 2000 (the exact date is illegible) the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 12323 (in the documents submitted the number is also referred to as 12232) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
46. On 2 February 2001 the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The proceedings were then resumed on the investigator’s initiative on 10 February 2005.
47. In February 2005 the investigators sent several requests to various law-enforcement agencies to establish Mr Muslim Bachayev’s whereabouts. The respondent authorities replied that they had no relevant information.
48. On 10 March 2005 the proceedings were suspended again.
49. On 6 November 2005 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened a new criminal case concerning the incident, this time under the number 48049 (in the documents submitted the number is also referred to as 48050) under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).
50. On 11 November 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.
51. On 23 November 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
52. On 21 June 2006 the investigations in criminal cases no. 48049 and no. 12323 were joined under the common number 12323. On the same day the investigation was resumed.
53. On 2 July 2006 the investigation was suspended.
54. On 30 November 2009 the International Committee of the Red Cross asked for the Chechnya Prosecutor’s assistance in the search for a number of disappeared persons including Mr Muslim Bachayev.
55. On an unspecified date the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her access to the criminal case file. In reply she was informed on 19 January 2011 that the criminal case had been referred to the prosecutor’s office in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny.
56. On 17 March 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators take all steps possible to establish her son’s whereabouts.
57. On 13 April 2011 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 2 July 2006 to suspend the investigation. The criminal case was then forwarded to the Leninskiy district investigative committee for further investigation.
58. On 20 April 2011 the proceedings were resumed. The investigators subsequently suspended them on 20 May 2011 and 12 May 2012 and then resumed them on 2 May 2012 and 10 October 2012 respectively.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
59. On 23 April 2012 the first applicant complained to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court about the investigators’ decision of 20 May 2011 to suspend the criminal investigation and the investigators’ failure to take the necessary investigative steps. On 2 May 2012 the court terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the first applicant had withdrawn the complaint.
60. On 1 October 2012 the first applicant complained to the same court about the investigators’ decision of 12 May 2012 to suspend the criminal investigation. On 12 October 2012 the court rejected the complaint as the investigators had resumed the investigation two days earlier. On 28 November 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.
4. Doshayev v. Russia (no. 25506/13)
61. The applicant is the father of Mr Akhmed Doshayev and Mr Alvi Doshayev, who were born in 1977 and 1979 respectively.
(a) Abduction of Mr Akhmed Doshayev and Mr Alvi Doshayev
62. On 4 February 2000 in the course of a “sweeping-up” operation in Shaami-Yurt, Mr Akhmed Doshayev and Mr Alvi Doshayev and a number of other residents of the village were detained by military servicemen (the factual circumstances of that “sweeping-up” operation were established by the Court in Gerasiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 28566/07, §§ 15-16, 7 June 2011).
63. On 6 March 2000 the body of Mr Akhmed Doshayev was discovered with a bullet wound and knife wounds in Shaami-Yurt near the river Fortanga. The whereabouts of his brother Mr Alvi Doshayev have not been established.
(b) Official investigation into the abduction
64. On 21 February 2000 the heads of the Achkhoy-Martan and Shaami‑Yurt local administrations complained to the law-enforcement and military authorities about the abductions of 4 February 2000, including the abduction of Mr Akhmed Doshayev and Mr Alvi Doshayev.
65. On 14 March 2001 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 27010 under Articles 105 (murder) and 127 (unlawful deprivation of liberty) of the Criminal Code.
66. On 14 April 2001 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
67. On 19 April 2001 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.
68. On 14 March 2001 the investigators suspended the criminal proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators.
69. On 30 May 2007 the applicant asked the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office to inform him of the progress of the investigation.
70. On 17 June 2008 the investigators resumed the proceedings. The investigation was subsequently suspended and resumed on several occasions.
71. In the meantime, on 25 March 2011, the applicant requested the Achkhoy-Martan investigative committee to resume the investigation.
72. On 18 July 2011, at the applicant’s request, the investigators granted him the status of civil claimant in the criminal proceedings.
73. On 21 October 2011, following an application by the applicant, the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr Alvi Doshayev dead.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
74. On 23 May 2011 and 5 November 2012 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court about the investigators’ decisions to suspend the criminal investigation, dated 17 July 2008 and 24 July 2011 respectively.
75. The Town Court dismissed the complaints on 15 July 2011 and 18 December 2012 respectively on the grounds that the impugned decisions had already been annulled and that the proceedings had been resumed on 14 July 2011 and 17 December 2012.
76. On 10 August 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the first judgment.
(d) Civil proceedings concerning non-pecuniary damage
77. On 23 January 2012 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage on account of the disappearance and killing of his two sons. The amount claimed was 4,800,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 115,913 euros (EUR)).
78. On 19 April 2012 the Leninskiy District Court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of RUB 2,000,000 (EUR 51,661).
5. Izhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 62822/15)
79. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Ruslan Gerikhanov, who was born in 1974. The second and third applicants are his children, and the fourth and fifth applicants are his sisters.
(a) Abduction of Mr Ruslan Gerikhanov
80. At about 4.30 a.m. on 14 July 2003 a group of ten to twelve armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicants’ house in Grozny in two UAZ minivans and a Volga car. The men spoke unaccented Russian and used portable radio sets. They broke into the applicants’ house and, having checked Mr Gerikhanov’s passport, forced him into one of the UAZ minivans and drove off to an unknown destination.
81. One of the perpetrators lost a bullet while reloading his machine gun in the courtyard of the applicants’ house during the operation. The bullet was found and given to the investigators (see paragraph 83 below).
(b) Official investigation into the abduction
82. On 14 July 2003 the first applicant informed the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny of the abduction of her husband and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.
83. On the same day investigators from the prosecutor’s office examined the crime scene. The bullet found in the courtyard of the applicants’ house was seized as evidence.
84. On 26 July 2003 the prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 30124 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
85. On 6 August 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned.
86. On 7 August 2003 the investigators questioned an eyewitness, Mr M.K.
87. On 26 September 2003 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The investigation was subsequently resumed and suspended on numerous occasions.
88. In the meantime, on 21 July 2004, the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. On 11 December 2007 the investigators questioned her again.
89. On 14 and 22 June 2005 and on 17 April 2006 the investigators informed Mr Ruslan Gerikhanov’s father (Mr B.G.) that operational search activities were under way to establish his son’s whereabouts.
90. On 28 July 2005 the investigators questioned Mr B.G., who gave a statement regarding the circumstances of the abduction that was similar to that given by the applicants.
91. On 24 February 2006 and on 27 August 2008 Mr B.G. asked a number of State officials for assistance in the search for his son.
92. On 16 March 2011 and on 23 July 2013 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her access to the criminal case file and to resume proceedings in the case. The outcome of those requests is unknown.
93. On 6 May 2011 the NGO Materi Chechni asked a number of State officials and law-enforcement agencies for assistance in the search for Mr Gerikhanov.
94. On 20 January 2015 the fourth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
95. On 4 April 2015, at the fourth applicant’s request, the investigators allowed her to view the criminal case file.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
96. On 25 July 2013 the first applicant lodged a complaint before the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny challenging the decision of 30 November 2008 to suspend the investigation. The outcome of those proceedings is unknown.
97. On 16 April 2015 the fourth applicant challenged before the same court the decision of 20 January 2015 to suspend the criminal proceedings.
98. On 30 April 2015 the court rejected the complaint after finding that the investigators had resumed the proceedings on 27 April 2015. On 2 June 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law and international materials
99. For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice and for international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012).
COMPLAINTS
100. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that their relatives had been abducted by State agents and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter effectively.
101. Under Article 3 of the Convention, they complained that they had endured mental suffering as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the authority’s reaction thereto.
102. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention by State agents.
103. They further argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention.
104. The applicants in Tsumayevy v. Russia (no. 67743/11) and Doshayev v. Russia (no. 25506/13) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
105. The applicants mentioned in the preceding paragraph and the applicant in Bachayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 24737/13) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
106. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background.
II. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATIONS
A. The parties’ submissions
1. The Government
107. In their observations, the Government argued that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court more than six months after the date on which they should have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation. They pointed out that the applicants had remained passive and had not maintained contact with the investigating authorities for significant amounts of time. Therefore, according to the Government, the applications should be declared inadmissible as lodged “out of time”.
108. The Government also argued that the applicants in Tsumayevy (no. 67743/11) had failed to exhaust domestic remedies and that the applicant in Doshayev (no. 25506/13) could no longer claim victim status owing to the compensation for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the domestic courts (see paragraph 78 above).
2. The applicants
109. The applicants submitted that they had complied with the six‑month rule. In particular, the applicants in Khasulbekova and Others v. Russia (no. 55050/11) argued that they had lodged the application with the Court within six months from the date of the final decision in their case. The applicants in Tsumayevy (no. 67743/11), Bachayeva and Others (no. 24737/13), Doshayev (no. 25506/13) and Izhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 62822/15) submitted that they had brought their applications to the Court as soon as they had considered the domestic investigations to be ineffective. According to them, the armed conflict which had been taking place in Chechnya at the material time had led them to believe that delays in the investigation had been inevitable. It had also caused the applicants to fear for their lives and caused them to feel confusion and uncertainty. Owing to their lack of legal knowledge and the financial means to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of any domestic provisions granting free legal assistance to victims of enforced disappearances, they had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the investigations. Only with the passage of time and in view of the lack of information from the investigating authorities had they begun to doubt the effectiveness of the investigation. They had then started looking for free legal assistance in order to assess the effectiveness of the proceedings, and had subsequently lodged their applications with the Court without undue delay. Lastly, they pointed out that they had maintained regular contact with the investigators throughout the criminal proceedings and had not ceased their efforts to find their missing relatives by themselves.
110. The applicants in Tsumayevy (no. 67743/11) also contested the Government’s non-exhaustion plea, stating that they had had no effective remedy to exhaust.
111. The applicant in Doshayev (no. 25506/13) argued that the award made by the domestic courts did not deprive him of his victim status, because the award had been insufficient and the investigators had failed to identify the perpetrators of his sons’ abduction.
B. The Court’s assessment
112. The Court considers that it is not required to decide whether the applicants in Tsumayevy (no. 67743/11) can be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies or whether the applicant in Doshayev (no. 25506/13) ceased to have victim status since their applications, as well as the remainder of the applications under examination, are inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
1. Khasulbekova and Others v. Russia (no. 55050/11)
113. The Court observes that in Khasulbekova and Others (no. 55050/11) the applicants lodged their complaint with the Court nine years after the disappearance of their relative (see paragraph 7 above and the appended table). Although the delay is significant, it cannot by itself warrant the conclusion that the applicants have failed to comply with the six-month rule. To decide on the issue the Court has to consider other aspects of the case.
114. From the documents submitted it appears that the applicants formally complained of their relative’s abduction almost eleven months after the incident (see paragraph 9 above). The Court sees no justification for that delay. Even assuming that the applicants had contacted the authorities informally before then (see paragraph 8 above), without clear information on the date of first contact with the authorities the Court cannot accept that the applicants demonstrated due promptness in informing the authorities of the abduction.
115. The Court notes that the criminal proceedings in the case were suspended on several occasions. In particular, they remained suspended for more than seven years and three months, between 17 September 2003 and 27 December 2010 (see paragraphs 13 and 16 above). During that period the applicants did not contact the investigators for more than seven years, until the first applicant requested them to provide her with information from the case file in September 2010 (see paragraph 14 above). In the absence of any explanations, such inactivity seems to indicate that the applicants were not expecting any important investigative developments which could have succeeded in establishing the whereabouts of their relative, identifying the perpetrators or making significant progress in solving the crime.
116. Furthermore, the Court notes that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ relative had been ongoing for more than nine years at the time they lodged their application. It was pending without any meaningful investigative steps having been taken by the authorities or any new evidence or information emerging which would have provided the applicants with grounds for hope or some realistic prospect that the search for their missing relatives would be effective and attain tangible results. If the applicants remained unaware of the ineffectiveness of the investigation despite such a significant lull in the proceedings, the Court considers that this was a consequence of their own negligence (see, for example, Findik and Omer v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 33898/11 and 35798/11, § 15).
117. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants ought to have concluded a considerable time beforehand, and certainly more than six months before the introduction of the present application, that the investigation was ineffective (compare with Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the Court declared the application, lodged more than eight years and three months after the date of the alleged abduction, inadmissible, in particular because of the applicants’ inactivity for almost eight years).
118. Accordingly, the Court finds that the present application must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 §§ 1 of the Convention.
2. Tsumayevy v. Russia (no. 67743/11), Bachayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 24737/13), Doshayev v. Russia (no. 25506/13) and Izhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 62822/15)
119. The Court observes that in each of the aforementioned applications the applicants lodged their complaints eleven years and six months or more after the disappearance of their relatives. Accordingly, to comply with the six-month rule they should provide convincing justification for the delay in initiating the proceedings before the Court (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR 2009).
120. The Court notes that in each of the applications the domestic investigations were pending for years without any tangible results being achieved. Specifically, the investigation was pending for more than eleven years and six months in Tsumayevy (no. 67743/11); for more than twelve years and five months in Izhayeva and Others (no. 62822/15); and for more than thirteen years and one month in Doshayev (no. 25506/13) and Bachayeva and Others (no. 24737/13).
121. The investigators suspended and resumed the proceedings on numerous occasions, but the resumptions of the proceedings did not lead to any real advancement in terms of either the identification or the eventual prosecution of the perpetrators. The investigators’ activity, particularly in the later periods, amounted to no more than a formality and did not provide realistic opportunities for progress in the investigations (compare with Doshuyeva and Yusupov, cited above,§ 47; Utsmiyeva, cited above, § 38; Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and, mutatis mutandis, Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
122. During the counter-terrorist operation in the region and after its completion the applicants had direct access to the authorities and could have freely communicated with the investigators regarding the abduction of their family members, as was done by the applicants in many other disappearance cases from the same region (see, amongst many other authorities, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, cited above; Kaykharova and Others v. Russia, nos. 11554/07 and 3 others, 1 August 2013; Gakayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 51534/08 and 9 others, 10 October 2013; Dovletukayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 7821/07 and 3 others, 24 October 2013; Tovbulatova and Others v. Russia, nos. 26960/06 and 3 others, 31 October 2013; and Akhmatov and Others v. Russia, nos. 38828/10 and 6 others, 16 January 2014).
123. The Court observes that according to the documents submitted the applicants in the cases at hand contacted the authorities only sporadically. It therefore considers that their stance in the proceedings concerning them cannot be described as active.
124. For example, in Tsumayevy (no. 67743/11), the investigation remained dormant for almost nine years and seven months, between 26 December 2000 and 31 July 2010 (see paragraphs 30 and 33 above). During that time the first applicant contacted the Chechen Government and the Chechen Parliament just once asking for their assistance in the search for her missing relative (see paragraphs 31 and 32 above). Moreover, during the first ten years of the investigation none of the applicants asked the investigators to grant them victim status in the proceedings.
125. In Bachayeva and Others (no. 24737/13), Doshayev (no. 25506/13) and Izhayeva and Others (no. 62822/15) the applicants either delayed their initial application to the authorities (see paragraph 41 above), or delayed their requests for victim status in the criminal case or did not request it at all (see paragraphs 51 and 66 above). Moreover, each set of criminal proceedings was plagued by significant periods of inactivity during which the investigation was suspended and no meaningful communication took place between the applicants and the authorities (see paragraphs 46, 68, 70 and 87 above).
126. The Court notes that in the above cases some of the applicants occasionally contacted the investigators for an update on the investigation (see, for example paragraphs 69 and 92 above). However, taking into account the fact that the applicants were close relatives of the abducted individuals, they should have demonstrated diligence by having more regular contact with the investigating authorities and demonstrating a more active stance in the criminal proceedings. In the absence of information from the investigation, they should have drawn the appropriate conclusions concerning the lack of real progress in the investigation long before the lodging of their applications with the Court (compare Sultygov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, 9 October 2014; Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 53036/08 and 19 others, 9 January 2014; and Yandiyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 34541/06 and 2 others, 10 October 2013).
127. The Court is not convinced that, given the time which had elapsed since the incidents, the lengthy suspensions in the proceedings and the lack of meaningful communication with the authorities, the applicants in the cases at hand had any grounds for hope or any realistic prospects that the search for their missing relatives would become effective and would attain a tangible result (see Dzhabrailova and 9 Others (dec.) [CTE], 7 May 2019, where the Court dismissed ten applications concerning alleged abductions in Chechnya because of the applicants’ failure to comply with the six-month rule).
128. Accordingly, it finds that the applicants in Tsumayevy (no. 67743/11), Bachayeva and Others (no. 24737/13), Doshayev (no. 25506/13)and Izhayeva and Others (no. 62822/15)must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 §§ 1 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on10 October 2019.
Stephen Phillips Georgios A. Serghides
Registrar President
______________
APPENDIX
| No. | Application no. and date of introduction | Applicant
Date of birth Place of residence |
Represented by |
| 1 | 55050/11
13/08/2011 |
(1) Ms Fariza KHASULBEKOVA 08/12/1975 Grozny(2) Mr Mansur IBAYEV 03/04/1998 Grozny (3) Ms Aminat MUSADOVA (4) Mr Karim IBAYEV |
Mr B. ELMURZAYEV |
| 2 | 67743/11
11/10/2011 |
(1) Ms Malika TSUMAYEVA 19/03/1957 Grozny(2) Ms Roza TSUMAYEVA 22/06/1959 Grozny |
Mr T. SHAMSUDINOV |
| 3 | 24737/13
21/03/2013 |
(1) Ms Tuita BACHAYEVA 11/06/1954 Zakan-Yurt(2) Mr Magomed BACHAYEV 06/02/1988 Zakan-Yurt (3) Ms Madina LAGIYEVA |
MATERI CHECHNI
|
| 4 | 25506/13
18/03/2013 |
Mr Arbi DOSHAYEV 29/04/1953 Shaami-Yurt |
Mr S. MUSHAYEV
|
| 5 | 62822/15
01/12/2015 |
(1) Ms Larisa IZHAYEVA 23/09/1973 Grozny(2) Mr Khamzat GERIKHANOV 23/06/1998 Grozny (3) Ms Madina GERIKHANOVA (4) Ms Nura ILYASOVA (5) Ms Aset KASUMOVA |
MATERI CHECHNI
|
Leave a Reply