Last Updated on May 24, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 6 September 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 63329/14
Marusa ABUYEVA
against Russia
lodged on 5 September 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Marusa Abuyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Katyr-Yurt. She is represented before the Court by Mr Kirill Koroteyev, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case and the relevant developments
1. Background information concerning the facts
The applicant lives in the Chechen village of Katyr-Yurt (also spelt as Katar-Yurt), which was bombed by the Russian military forces in February 2000. As a result, the applicant’s son, Mr Ruslan Abuyev, and dozens of other local residents died and/or suffered bodily injuries.
The factual circumstances concerning the airstrike and the ensuing investigation were established by the Court in its judgments Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, 24 February 2005, Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, 2 December 2010 and Abakarova v. Russia, no. 16664/07, 15 October 2015.
2. Information concerning the domestic investigation into the bombing
In February 2005 the Court examined the bombing of Katyr-Yurt in its first judgment on the matter, Isayeva, cited above, in which it found violations of Article 2 on the account of the State’s failure to protect the right to life and to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the military operation.
In July 2005 the applicant, along with a number of other residents of Katyr-Yurt, lodged their application with the Court complaining of the same aerial attack of February 2000 and the authorities’ failure to investigate it properly.
In December 2010 the Court delivered its judgment in Abuyeva and Others, cited above, finding that, as in Isayeva, that the planning and execution of the airstrike had been carried out in violation of Article 2 of the Convention and that all the major flaws of the investigation into the military operation indicated in Isayeva had persisted throughout the second round of criminal investigations into the matter, which ended in 2007.
In October 2015 the Court further examined the same situation in the judgment it delivered in the case of Abakarova, cited above, where the applicant complained of the same airstrike and of the continuing failure of the authorities to investigate the matter effectively. As regards the investigation, the Court found that none of the issues raised in the Abuyeva and Others judgment had been resolved by the domestic authorities.
Furthermore, in the Abakarova judgment the Court argued under Article 46 of the Convention that in carrying out the investigation, the respondent State had manifestly disregarded the specific findings of the Court’s judgment in Isayeva. It pointed out that to date there had been neither any independent study of the proportionality and necessity of the lethal force, nor any attribution of individual responsibility for the operation, which had caused loss of life, nor an evaluation of its aspects by an independent body, preferably of a judicial nature. The Court was of the view that a new, independent investigation should be conducted, which would bear due regard to the above conclusions in respect of the failures of the investigation carried out to date.
In April 2017 the Committee of Ministers published its 10th annual report (for 2016) concerning the supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The relevant part concerning the execution of the Abakarova judgment (see Appendix 5, page 129) reads:
“… GM: The Court found that the State had manifestly disregarded its specific findings in the cases of Isayeva and Abuyeva and Others within the Kashiyev group and that no previously identified defect in the investigation into the disproportionate use of lethal force in anti-terrorist operations in Chechnya had been resolved to date. Criminal investigations had still not succeeded in establishing the relevant factual circumstances. Furthermore, no independent expert report on the “absolute necessity” of the lethal force used had been established, nor individual responsibility between the commanders and the civilian authorities attributed. The outstanding measures should also focus on non-judicial mechanisms aimed at the prevention of similar occurrences and the protection of victims’ rights in any new proceedings, including through access to measures for obtaining reparation for the harm suffered. …
… the CM expressed grave concern about the continuing failure to address the shortcomings of the successive investigations carried out into the events at issue in the Isayeva case, as evidenced by the Abuyeva and others judgment (concerning the second investigation) and the recent Abakarova judgment (concerning the third investigation). It stressed the importance, in order to prevent impunity, of pursuing the investigations in the cases in this group and rapidly taking further action to counter the problems observed with respect to their effectiveness, in particular the effects of prescription.
The CM also invited the authorities to provide clarifications as regards the qualification given to the crimes at issue in three cases which have so far been reported closed on the basis of prescription and stressed further the importance of exploring other avenues, aimed at learning lessons and ensuring the non-repetition of similar occurrences in the future, including through non-judicial mechanisms, in line also with the European Court’s findings under Article 46 in the Abakarova judgment. …”
B. Relevant domestic and international material
See Abakarova, cited above, §§ 59-70.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the bombing in Katyr-Yurt.
Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complains of lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention and the Court’s findings in Abakarova v. Russia, no. 16664/07, § 114, 15 October 2015, was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the circumstances of the attack on Katyr-Yurt sufficient to meet their obligation under those provisions?
2. Did the applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. The Government are invited to provide a complete list of individual and general measures taken by the domestic authorities in order to comply with the Court’s findings in Abakarova v. Russia, no. 16664/07, §§ 110-14, 15 October 2015 and copies of relevant documents.
Leave a Reply