Last Updated on November 21, 2019 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 57707/13
Raysa Saidrakhmanovna MAGAMADOVA against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on24 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, as well as the application numbers, appear in the appended tables.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. At the material time, the applicants lived in the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after being allegedly detained by State agents between 2000 and 2006. The whereabouts of the applicants’ abducted relatives remain unknown.
5. The applicants reported the incidents 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 any tangible results being achieved. The perpetrators have not been identified by the relevant investigating bodies. It appears that in each of the cases the proceedings are still pending.
6. 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 to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities.
1. Magamadova v. Russia (no. 57707/13)
7. The applicant is the wife of Mr Magomed Magamadov, who was born in 1972 (see Appendix no. 1)
(a) Disappearance of Mr Magomed Magamadov
8. At about 11:30 a.m. on 1 March 2002 Mr Magamadov was abducted from the vicinity of his house in Argun by a group of men wearing military uniforms and balaclavas and driving in two armoured personal carriers (APCs) without registration plates. The abductors did not ask for identity documents. Rather, they immediately started to beat Mr Magamadov and – when she tried to help him – the applicant. The abductors forced him into one of their APCs and drove off to an unknown destination. Mr Magamadov was allegedly taken to the premises of the 34th Independent Special Tasks Brigade (34-я Отдельная бригада особого назначения).
(b) Official investigation into the abduction
9. On 8 April 2002 the sister of Mr Magamadov, Ms S.M., lodged a complaint with the Argun District prosecutor’s office regarding the disappearance and asked for assistance in the search for her missing brother.
10. On 17 April 2002 a neighbour, Ms P.U., and another sister of Mr Magamadov, Ms D.M., were interviewed. Their statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.
11. On 26 April 2002 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 78047 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
12. On 26 April 2002 Ms S.M. was questioned. She stated that she had heard about the abduction from her sister, Ms D.M.
13. On 5 May 2002 the investigators interviewed the applicant and Mr Magamadov’s brother. No new information was obtained. On the same day the applicant lodged a request with the investigators, asking them to grant her civil plaintiff status in the criminal case and to award her 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage.
14. On 8 May 2002 the investigators granted the applicant victim status and civil plaintiff status in the criminal case and questioned her.
15. On the same day Ms D.M. was questioned; she reiterated her earlier statements.
16. On 12 May 2002 Ms P.U. was questioned again but provided no new information.
17. On 16 May 2002 Mr E.D., the director of the company where Mr Magamadov worked, was questioned. His statements did not contain any information with regard to the abduction.
18. In May and June 2002 the investigators lodged a request for information from the local law‑enforcement authoritiesregarding Mr Magamadov’s abduction. The replies received were in the negative.
19. On 26 June 2002 the investigation was suspended. On 21 April 2003 the investigators’ superior overruled that decision and ordered that the investigation be resumed.
20. On 19 March 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Russian Prosecutor General regarding the abduction and asked him for assistance in the search for Mr Magamadov.
21. On 7 May 2003 the applicant was questioned again but provided no new information.
22. On 21 May 2003 the investigation was suspended again.
23. On 28 July 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the President of Russia regarding Mr Magamadov’s abduction and asked him to assist her in the search for him.
24. On 23 March 2004 Mr Magamadov’s uncle, Mr. D.Zh, lodged a complaint with the Russian Parliament regarding Mr Magamadov’s abduction and asked for assistance in the search for him. In April 2004 that request was forwarded to the investigators.
25. On 13 April 2004 the investigators’ superior overruled the 21 May 2003 suspension of the investigation. The investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 12 May 2004.8
26. Meanwhile, on 5 May 2004 Mr. D.Zh. lodged another request with the President of Russia that was similar to the one he submitted on 23 March 2003. That request was forwarded to the investigators.
27. On 24 May 2004 the Ministry of the Interior informed the investigators that they had no information concerning any special operation on 1 March 2002 in Argun.
28. On 2 June 2009 Ms S.M. lodged a complaint with the Chechen Parliament regarding the abduction and asked for assistance in the search for him.
29. On 16 March 2011 the applicant requested the investigators to resume proceedings, to take additional steps and to inform her of any progress in the case. In response, the investigators allowed the applicant to study the case file and make copies of the documents.
30. On 4 May 2011 the applicant lodged a request with the investigators for an update on the progress in the investigation and to provide copies of certain documents. Her request was granted.
31. On 20 May 2011 the investigation was resumed. Several relatives and neighbours of the applicant were questioned, but no new information was obtained. The proceedings were suspended again on 20 June 2011. The applicant was informed thereof.
32. On 17 August 2011 the applicant lodged a request for an update on the investigation. No reply was forthcoming.
33. On 17 January 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the investigator for a copy of the latest decision to suspend the investigation.
34. On 18 February 2013 the investigation was resumed. It appears that it is still pending.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
35. On 6 May 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the investigator’s decision of 12 May 2004 to suspend the proceedings.
36. On 23 May 2011 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 20 May 2011. That decision was upheld on 29 June 2011 by the Supreme Court of Chechen Republic.
37. On 22 January 2013 the applicant again lodged a complaint regarding the investigators’ inaction with the same court. On 20 February 2013 it terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 18 February 2013. Following an appeal by the applicant that decision was upheld on 17 April 2013 by the Supreme Court of Chechen Republic.
2. Aslanbekova and Others (no. 63554/13)
38. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Musa Astamirov, who was born in 1953, Mr Alibek Astamirov, who was born in 1982, Mr Sultan Akhmadov, who was born in 1948, Mr Balavdi Imakayev, who was born in 1959, Mr Zilaudi Malikov, who was born in 1964 and Mr Said-Magomed Yasuyev, who was born in 1961 (see Appendix no. 2).
(a) Disappearance of the applicants’ relatives
39. On 6 March 2000 the applicants and several of their relatives were abducted at the military checkpoint in the outskirts of Duba-Yurt. The military servicemen forced the applicants and their relatives into an URAL military lorry, in which they were driven to another checkpoint. There the women were released, but the men were detained, allegedly for the purposes of an identity check.
40. The military servicemen were allegedly members of infantry regiment no. 276. They were acting under the command of a military officer with the nickname “San Sanych” (Сан Саныч).
41. On 9 April 2012 on a website dedicated to the war in Chechnya the applicants found YouTube video footage allegedly shot by servicemen of infantry regiment no. 276, on which they recognised the bodies of their abducted relatives (except for those of Mr Malikov and Mr Alibek Astamirov).
(b) Official investigation of the abduction
42. On an unspecified day in 2000 the fourth and the fifth applicants were interviewed; they reiterated the account of events given above.
43. On 23 June 2000, the Chechnya prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 72047 (subsequently, no. 22008) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction) into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives and five other men.
44. In July 2000 the applicants and the relatives of the other abducted men wrote to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Special Representative of the Russian President asking him to assist the applicants in the search for their relatives.
45. On 18 September 2000 the commander of military unit no. 69771, Mr N.Sh., was questioned. He confirmed the detention of a group of people including eleven men and stated that all of the men had been released, whereas the women and the children had been taken to Chiri-Yurt for an identity check.
46. On 27 December 2000 the investigation was suspended. On 1 March 2001 the investigators’ superior overruled that decision and the investigation was resumed.
47. On 23 May 2001 the third applicant wrote to the Chechen Parliament asking for assistance in the search for their relatives.
48. On 25 July 2001 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116 declined to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the murder of nineteen persons by the federal forces in Duba-Yurt and Chiri-Yurt in 2000.
49. On 19 July 2001 the investigation was suspended again, then resumed and then suspended yet again on 2 April 2002 without any tangible results having been achieved.
50. Meanwhile, in July and August 2001 the applicants requested the Chechnya prosecutor and the Prosecutor General for assistance in the search for their missing relatives.
51. On 15 May 2002 the second, the fourth, the fifth applicants and a brother of Mr Imakayev were granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned.
52. On 22 August 2002 criminal case no. 22008 was joined to criminal case no. 24005, which had been opened on account of the murder of three persons initially declared abducted in February 2000.
53. On 4 October 2002 the proceedings were resumed; they were subsequently suspended and resumed on several occasions; they were resumed for the last time on 18 March 2009. Throughout the period the applicants did not contact the investigators.
54. On 12 February 2009 criminal case no. 22008 was transferred for investigation to the military investigators on the grounds that the abduction of some of the persons had been perpetrated by the commander of military unit no.13206. The military investigators registered the case under no. 34/00/0006-09D.
55. On 21 February 2008 the first applicant requested the military investigators to provide her with a copy of the decision to open criminal case no. 22008. Her request was granted.
56. On 30 June 2008 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.
57. On 8 April 2009 the brother of Mr Malikov, Mr A.M., requested the Chechen Parliament for assistance in the search for his brother. His request was forwarded to the investigators, who provided him with an update on the proceedings.
58. In April and May 2009 a number of relatives of the other abducted persons were questioned; no new information was obtained.
59. In May and June 2009 the military investigators questioned the applicants, their relatives and other witnesses.
60. On 5 June 2009 the fifth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned.
61. On 10 and 25 June 2009 the military commander, Mr A.D., and a military officer Mr A.S. with the nickname “San Sanych” were questioned. No new information was obtained.
62. In July and August 2009 a number of witnesses and relatives of the other abducted persons were questioned; their accounts of events were similar to the one described above.
63. On 6 July 2009 the brother of Mr Akhmadov, Mr S.A., requested that criminal proceedings into the abduction of his brother be instituted. On 27 July 2009 the investigators refused to open a criminal case for lack of corpus delicti. That decision was quashed by the investigators’ superior on 19 October 2009 and the case file was transferred to the military investigators for investigation.
64. On 18 September 2009 the military investigators severed the case‑file materials concerning the alleged abduction of the applicants’ relatives by military officers into a separate set of proceedings (выделение в отдельное производство материалов в отношении военнослужащих).
65. On 28 September 2009 the military investigators of military unit no. 310 declined to open a criminal case in respect of the military officers for the lack of corpus delicti.
66. On 13 November 2009 the military investigators severed that part of the criminal case relating to the abduction of the applicants’ relatives and transferred it to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, where that part was registered as a new criminal case file – no. 34/00/0026‑09D.
67. In December 2009 and January 2010 a number of the applicants’ relatives and neighbours were questioned. They reiterated their previous statements.
68. On 26 January 2010 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof.
69. On 15 June 2011 the fifth applicant requested the investigators to resume the proceedings, to take basic steps and to allow her to study the investigation file.
70. On 7 July 2011 the investigation was resumed.
71. On 8, 10 and 12 July 2011 the applicants were questioned; no new information was obtained.
72. On 14 July 2011 the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned.
73. On 17 July 2011 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof.
74. On 19 October and 22 December 2011 the first and the second applicants lodged a request with the investigators for them to be allowed to study the case file and to make copies of the documents. Their request was granted.
75. On 18 January 2011 all of the applicants, except for the fourth, lodged a request with the investigators for them to be granted civil plaintiff status in the criminal case. Their request was granted.
76. On 29 February and 20 March 2012 the Shatoy District Court declared Mr Sultan Akhmadov, Mr Balavdi Imakayev and Mr Zilaudi Malikov dead, at the request of the applicants. Death certificates were subsequently issued, at the applicants’ request.
77. On 11 April 2012 the applicants lodged a request with the investigators, asking them to take steps to find their relatives’ bodies, which they had identified on the video posted on YouTube (see paragraph 41 above).
78. On 12 April 2012 the investigation was resumed. A DVD containing a copy of the video was added to the case file.
79. Between 12 and 27 April 2012 the applicants were questioned. They stated that they had been able to identify the bodies of their husbands and to recognise several of the military officers appearing in the YouTube footage. They had recognised the place where the video had been made as the premises of a cement factory in Chiri-Yurt.
80. On 20 April 2012 a non-governmental organisation, Materi Chechni, wrote on behalf of the applicants to the Chechnya Ombudsman asking for assistance in finding the location of the mass grave featured on the video.
81. On 24 April 2012 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court declared Mr Musa Astamirov and Mr Alibek Astamirov dead at the request of the first applicant. Subsequently, their death certificates were issued.
82. On 5 May 2012 the third and the fourth applicants were questioned.
83. On 15 May 2012 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 1 June 2012. The applicants were informed thereof. Subsequently, the applicants were questioned again.
84. On 15 May 2012 the Shali Town Court declared Mr Said-Magomed Yasuyev dead at the request of the fifth applicant. Subsequently, Mr Yasuyev’s death certificate was issued.
85. On 22 June 2012 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General regarding the investigators’ inactivity and their failure to take steps to identify the location of their relatives’ mass grave.
86. On 1 July 2012 the investigators suspended the proceedings and then resumed them again on 3 July 2012.
87. On 5 July 2012 the investigators ordered an examination of the video footage.
88. On 1 August 2012 the International Committee of Red Cross lodged a request with the Chechen authorities, asking them to expedite the investigation. This request was forwarded to the investigators.
89. Between March and August 2013 the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. On 23 August 2013 it was resumed yet again.
90. On 23 September 2013 the investigators suspended the proceedings; they subsequently resumed them, and suspended them again on 2 March 2014.
91. On 20 September 2016 the applicants lodged a request for an update on the progress in the criminal case. Their request was granted.
92. On 28 November 2017 the investigation was resumed and then again suspended on 27 December 2017. The applicants were informed thereof. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
93. On 13 June 2011 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the suspension of 26 January 2011.
94. On 7 July 2011 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 7 July 2011. That decision was upheld on 14 September 2011 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.
(d) Civil proceedings concerning non-pecuniary damage
95. On 25 July 2012 the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny allowed a civil claim for damages lodged by the fifth applicant and awarded her a lump sum of RUB 20,000 (493 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage caused by the abduction of her relative.
96. On 18 March 2013 the Shali Town Court partially allowed claims lodged by the applicants for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the abduction of their relatives and awarded the first applicant RUB 2 million (EUR 49,900) and the other applicants the amount of RUB 1 million (EUR 25,000) each. On 6 August 2013 that decision was quashed following an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and the claims were dismissed.
3. Kuchiyeva v. Russia (no. 63613/13)
97. The applicant is the wife of Mr Suleyman Kuchiyev, who was born in 1969 (see Appendix no. 3).
(a) Disappearance of Mr Suleyman Kuchiyev
98. At about 10 a.m. on 25 February 2002 Mr Suleyman Kuchiyev was abducted from his house at Kavkazskaya Street in Gudermes by a group of armed men in balaclavas and military uniforms driving in an UAZ vehicle and an APC.
(b) Official investigation of the abduction
99. On 26 February 2002 the uncle of Mr Kuchiyev, Mr K.Mag., lodged a complaint with the Gudermes District prosecutor’s office regarding his nephew’s disappearance and asked for assistance in the search for his missing nephew.
100. On 4 March 2002 the Gudermes District prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 57018 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
101. On 5 March 2002 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.
102. On 5 March 2002 Mr K.Mag. was granted victim status and questioned. He stated that he had heard that Mr Suleyman Kuchiyev had been abducted by four policemen driving in a white VAZ-2106 vehicle belonging to Mr Sh.Z. and an UAZ vehicle.
103. On 11 March 2002 Mr Z.Sh. was questioned and stated that on the date of the abduction, a group of about forty armed service personnel in APCs had arrived at his place of his work, the warehouse owned by the Kuchiyev family. As the owners had not been there, the men had requested that Mr Kh., who had been working in the warehouse, take them to the Kuchiyev family house.
104. On 28 March 2002 the brother of Mr Kuchiyev, Mr A.K., was questioned; he stated that he had learned of the abduction from others.
105. On 30 April 2002 the investigation was suspended. It is unclear whether the applicant was informed thereof.
106. On 2 August 2010 the applicant lodged a request for an update on the investigation and asked to be granted victim status.
107. On 11 October 2010 the investigation was resumed. On the same day the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She reiterated the account of events submitted to the Court.
108. On 12 October 2010 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 19 July 2011.
109. On 21 July 2011 the applicant was questioned again but provided no new information.
110. On 29 July 2011 Mr Kuchiyev’s son, Mr K.Man., was questioned and reaffirmed the account of events given above.
111. On 19 August 2011 the investigation was suspended and the applicant was informed thereof.
112. On 4 April 2012 the applicant lodged a request with the investigators for her to be granted civil plaintiff status in the criminal case. On 6 April 2012 the investigation was resumed and the applicant’s request was granted. On 9 April 2012 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof.
113. On 12 April 2012 the Gudermes Town Court declared Mr Kuchiyev dead, at the applicant’s request. His death certificate was issued thereafter.
114. On 10 February 2014 the criminal proceedings were resumed and then suspended and resumed on several occasions – for the last time on 23 July 2014. Meanwhile, the applicant contacted the investigators on 20 March 2014 requesting an update.
115. It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
116. On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint against the decision of 12 October 2010 to suspend the criminal proceedings.
117. On 21 July 2011 the Gudermes Town Court rejected the complaint, as the investigation had already been resumed on 19 July 2011.
118. In October 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint against the decision of 19 August 2011 to suspend the proceedings and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps.
119. On 31 October 2011 the Gudermes Town Court rejected the complaint as unsubstantiated.
(d) Civil proceedings concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage
120. On 10 July 2012 the Leninskiy District Court allowed a civil claim lodged by the applicant and awarded her RUB 20,000 (EUR 493) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the military operation in Chechnya.
121. On 1 April 2013 the Gudermes Town Court allowed a civil claim for damages lodged by the applicant and awarded her RUB 1,000,000 (EUR 25,100) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the disappearance of her husband. Following an appeal by the Ministry of Finance, that judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Chechen Republic on 23 May 2013.
4. Siriyeva v. Russia (no. 45131/17)
The applicant is the wife of Mr Sultan Musalov, born in 1973 (see Appendix 4).
(a) Abduction of Mr Sultan Musalov
122. At around 1:30 a.m. on 15 October 2006 Mr Musalov heard women crying and shouting next to his house. He went out to see what was going on and was abducted in the street in the centre of Kiri, in the presence of witnesses, by a group of ten armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms. The abductors were driving in a silver VAZ Niva vehicle (registration no. A‑382‑AT95), a khaki UAZ vehicle (registration no. C‑489-XT95) and a grey UAZ vehicle (registration no. K-696-XX95). They forced Mr Musalov in one of their vehicles and drove off to Grozny.
123. The cars entered Grozny through a checkpoint and drove to military unit no. 3025 of the 46th Independent Special Tasks Brigade (ISTB) of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Interior located near Airport in Grozny. At the checkpoint the abductors produced a Federal Security Service (FSB) service identity card. One of them introduced himself as Mr E. The registration numbers of their cars had been issued to the FSB office in Khankala, the headquarters of the Russian federal forces in Chechnya. One of the drivers was later identified by the witnesses as Mr R.S. from military unit no. 6783.
(b) Official investigation into the abduction of Mr Musalov
124. On 15 October 2006 one of the brothers of Mr Musalov, Mr R.M. informed the Shatoy District Prosecutor’s Office of his brother’s abduction and asked for assistance with the search for him. On the same day Mr R.M. and Mr Kh.M, the younger brother of Mr Musalov, were interviewed. Their statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. In addition they stated that their brother was serving in the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Interior.
125. On 15 October 2006 three officers of the security staff of the head of the Shatoy District administration were also questioned and submitted that, to the best of their knowledge, Mr Musalov had been abducted instead of Mr Kh. (the target of a special operation) while he had been trying to prevent the latter’s abduction.
126. On 15 and 16 October 2006 a number of witnesses were interviewed and provided accounts of the events similar to the one given above.
127. On 17 October 2006 the head of the criminal search division of the Shatoy Police Department, Mr T.M., and the senior officer from the checkpoint were interviewed. They stated that three cars had stopped at the checkpoint. One of the officers in the car, Mr E., had shown a special permit at the checkpoint and had said that the officer that the special operation had been conducted with the knowledge of all Chechen law-enforcement agencies and that therefore their cars could not be stopped. The convoy had been immediately allowed to pass through. The on-duty officer had written down the registration numbers of the cars.
128. On 17 October 2006 the brother of Mr Musalov, Ms R.M., lodged a request with the Chechen government for assistance in the search. Similar requests were also lodged by a number of neighbours of Mr Musalov; those requests were forwarded to the investigators, and subsequently all of neighbours’ signatures turned out to have been falsified.
129. On 18 October 2006 the senior on-duty officer from the Shatoy Police Department, Mr G.S., was interviewed. His statements were similar to those of Mr T.M.
130. On 24 October 2006 another witness was interviewed and gave an account of the events similar to the applicant’s submission before the Court.
131. In October 2006 the Shatoy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal case no. 66003 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
132. On 31 October 2006 the investigators lodged several requests for information to law-enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements to the effect that no relevant information was available.
133. On 31 October 2006 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 informed the investigators that the convoy of three cars driven by the alleged abductors had neither entered the 46th ISTB of the Ministry of Interior nor belonged to military unit no. 3025 of the 46th ISTB. The military prosecutor enclosed (i) several statements from the officers who had been on duty at the 46th ISTB’s checkpoint at the time in question and (ii) the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the officers of military unit no. 3025.
134. On 1 November 2006 the investigators ordered a ballistic examination ofseveral pieces of evidence collected at the crime scene, including seventeen bullet cartridges and one bullet.
135. Between 28 October and 22 November 2006 the investigators questioned Mr T.M., Mr R.A. and several other officers, who had manning the checkpoint on the date of the abduction.
136. Between 23 and 26 November 2006 a number of witnesses, including the on-duty officers from the checkpoint and the relatives of Mr Musalov, were questioned. No new information was obtained.
137. On 26 November 2006 the brother of Mr Musalov was granted victim status in the criminal case. On the same day he and his other brother were questioned.
138. On 6 December 2006 and 13 February 2007 the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigation of the criminal case and pointed out a number of defects in the proceedings which they ordered to be remedied.
139. On 18 December a police officer identified the UAZ vehicle with the registration number C-489-XT 95, which had been found in Alkhan‑Churt, Grozny District. The vehicle was disassembled. Its owner was identified as a Mr S.T.
140. Between 25 and 28 December 2006 a number of witnesses, including the relatives of Mr Musalov, were questioned. No new information was obtained.
141. On 20 February 2007 three relatives of Mr Musalov were questioned. One of the relatives, Mr Kh.Sh, stated that he and Ms M.M. had chased the abductors’ convoy until it had entered Grozny through the checkpoint; the convoy had then driven on to military unit no. 3025 of 46th ISTB. On the same day two brothers of Mr Musalov were questioned. They reiterated the statements that they had previously given.
142. On 25 February 2007 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
143. On 11 April 2007 the ballistic examination report was issued.
144. On 22 June 2007 the investigators’ superior overruled the suspension of 25 February 2007 and ordered that it be resumed. On the same day the mother of Mr Musalov lodged a complaint with the Russian President regarding the investigators’ failure to take active steps. She provided the names and positions of the persons, who, in her opinion, had abducted her son.
145. On 22 September 2007 the investigation was suspended. Mr Musalov’s brother was informed thereof.
146. On 10 June 2008 the mother of Mr Musalov was questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.
147. On 15 September 2008 the investigation was resumed.
148. On 25 September 2008 Mr M.T. was questioned; his statement did not provide any new information.
149. On 15 October 2008 the proceedings were suspended again. Mr Musalov’s brother was informed thereof.
150. On 5 March 2014 Mr M.Kh. lodged a request for information on the progress in the criminal proceedings and asked to be granted victim status.
151. On 21 March 2014 the investigation was resumed. On 22 March 2014 Mr M.Kh. and Ms P.M were granted victim status in the criminal case and were questioned, along with other relatives of Mr Musalov. In addition to his previous statements Mr M.Kh stated that at the time of the abduction Mr Musalov had recognised one of the abductors, Mr I.D., and had asked him what he had been doing at the abduction site. Mr I.D. had replied that he was doing his job.
152. On 23 March 2014 Mr B.M., another brother of Mr Musalov, was granted victim status and questioned.
153. On 28 March 2014 the applicant and Mr Musalov’s sister, Ms M.M., were granted victim status and questioned. Ms M.M. stated that one of the abductors had been Mr I.D. and that she was willing to give evidence against him.
154. On 29 March 2014 the investigators questioned Mr I.D., one of the alleged abductors. He stated that with regard to Mr Musalov’s abduction he had had (after the abduction had taken place) an argument with the latter’s relatives and had urged them to “swear” which they had failed to do.
155. On 31 March 2014 the proceedings were suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof.
156. On 18 August 2014 Ms M.M., Mr Musalov’s sister, lodged a request for victim status in the criminal case. On 24 August 2014 the investigation was resumed and her request granted.
157. On 25 August 2014 the investigation was suspended again and the applicant was informed thereof.
158. On 17 April 2015 the applicant lodged a request with the investigators for her to be granted victim status and the proceedings to be resumed. Her request was rejected, as she had already been granted that status and questioned. The investigators found that there was no reason to resume the proceedings.
159. On 27 June 2016 the investigation was resumed and then suspended and resumed on several occasions, for the last time on 3 March 2017. The applicant was informed thereof. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
B. Relevant domestic law
160. For a summary of the relevant domestic law and international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012).
COMPLAINTS
161. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relatives had allegedly been abducted by State agents and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter effectively.
162. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in Magamadova v. Russia (57707/13), Aslanbekova and Others v. Russia (no. 63554/13) and Kuchiyeva v. Russia (no. 63613/13) complained that they had endured mental suffering as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the authority’s reaction thereto and alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation thereof.
163. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants in Magamadova v. Russia (57707/13), Aslanbekova and Others v. Russia (no. 63554/13) and Kuchiyeva v. Russia (no. 63613/13) complained of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention by State agents.
164. The applicants furthermore argued that contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
165. 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.
B. Admissibility of the applications
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The Government
166. 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 also submitted that the applicants had remained passive and had not maintained contact with the investigating authorities for significant periods of time. Therefore, according to the Government, the applications should be declared inadmissible as lodged “out of time”.
167. The Government also argued that in Kuchiyeva v. Russia (no. 63613/13) the applicant had lost her victim status owing to the fact that the domestic court had awarded her compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
(b) The applicants
168. The applicants in all the applications submitted that they had brought their applications before 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 Chechen Republic at the material time had led them to believe that delays in the investigation had been inevitable. It had also made the applicants fear for their lives and caused them to feel confusion and uncertainty. Owing to their lack of legal knowledge and financial means to hire a lawyer, they had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the investigations. It had been only with the passage of time and a lack of information from the investigating authorities that they had begun to doubt the effectiveness of the investigation. Lastly, they pointed out that throughout the criminal proceedings they had maintained regular contact with the investigators and had not ceased their attempts to find their missing relatives by themselves.
169. The applicant in Kuchiyeva v. Russia case (no. 63613/13) also contested the Government’s argument regarding her loss of victim status, stating that the award by a domestic court had not deprived her of that status because the award had been insufficient and because the investigators had failed to identify the perpetrators of the abduction.
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
170. A summary of the principles concerning compliance with the six‑month rule in cases involving violations of Article 2 of the Convention allegedly perpetrated by State servicemen may be found in Sultygov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 369-74, 9 October 2014, and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, §§ 34-40.
171. The Court reiterates that applicants who lodge their applications more than ten years after the disappearance of their relatives and the initiation of the respective criminal investigation should provide convincing justification for the delay in bringing their complaints before the Court (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC],nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, 31 July 2012).
(b) Application of the principles to the present case
172. The Court considers that it is not required to decide whether the applicant in Kuchiyeva v. Russia case (no. 63613/13) can be considered to have been deprived of victim status, because her application, as well as the remainder of the applications under examination, are inadmissible for the following reasons.
173. The Court observes that in respect of the aforementioned applications the applicants lodged their complaints between more than eleven to fourteen years after the incidents in question. Accordingly, in order 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, cited above, § 166).
174. 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 crimes perpetrated against their family members (see, among many other authorities, Aslakhanova and Others, 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).
175. The Court observes that in each case, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions; neither the perpetrators nor any suspects have been identified and the whereabouts of the applicants’ abducted relatives have not been established. As regards the applicants’ communication with the investigative authorities, their stance in the respective criminal proceedings and the corresponding explanations given for the delay, the Court notes as follows.
176. In Magamadova and Others v. Russia (no. 57707/13) the Court observes that the applicants lodged their complaint within eleven years and five months from the date of the alleged abduction and that they remained passive vis-à-vis the investigation for significant periods of time. In particular, the documents submitted show that they had no contact with the authorities between May 2004 and June 2009 and then between July 2009 and March 2011(see paragraphs 27-29 above).
177. In Aslanbekova and Others v. Russia case (no. 63554/13)lodged thirteen and a half years after the abduction of the applicants’ relatives, the Court notes that the applicants did not communicate with the investigators between May 2003 and March 2009 (see paragraphs 53-54 above). Further, the documents submitted show that the applicants and relatives of the other abducted persons were informed of the suspensions and other steps taken in the criminal proceedings. However, the overall duration of the investigation and the lack of tangible progress therein – as well as the authorities’ consistent failure to take basic steps, such as verification of the location of the mass grave and identifying the bodies appearing on the video footage (see paragraphs 77-80 and 85 above) – should have prompted the applicants to realise that the steps taken by the investigators were a mere formality.
178. In Kuchiyeva v. Russia case (no. 63613/13), the Court observes that the applicant lodged her complaint with the Court eleven and a half years after the abduction and that the investigation was suspended for more than eight years. Neither Mr K.Mag., who had victim status in the criminal case, nor the applicant contacted the investigators throughout that period (see paragraphs 105-106 above).
179. Turning to Siriyeva v. Russia (no. 45131/17), which was lodged more than ten and a half years after the alleged abduction, the Court notes that despite the initially active stance in the proceedings of the applicant’s relatives, the documents submitted show that subsequently, between 2008 and 2014, the applicant and her relatives did not contact the investigating authorities (see paragraphs 149-150 above).
180. In sum, the Court observes that in each case at hand there are significant periods of time during which the applicants had no contact with the investigators. However, taking into account the fact that they 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 any information regarding the investigation that would have given them hope of its ability to achieve a tangible result, they should have drawn the appropriate conclusions concerning the lack of real progress in the proceedings long before the lodging of their applications with the Court (compare Sultygov and Others, cited above; 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).
181. Furthermore, the Court is not convinced that – given both the overall time that had elapsed since the incidents, the lengthy periods of the suspensions of the proceedings and the lack of any meaningful communication with the authorities – the applicants had any grounds for believing that there were realistic prospects for either the identification or eventual prosecution of the perpetrators. The investigators’ steps, particularly in the later periods, amounted to no more than a mere formality, and did not provide realistic possibilities for progress in the proceedings (compare Doshuyeva and Yusupov, cited above, § 47; Dzhabrailova and Others (dec.) [Committee], nos. 3752/13 and 9 others, March 2019; and Ismailova and Others v. Russia, (dec.) [Committee], nos. 2664/12 and 5 others, March 2019, where the Court dismissed ten applications concerning alleged abductions in the Chechen Republic because the applicants had failed to comply with the six-month rule).
182. Accordingly, it finds that all the applications 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 on 17 October 2019.
Stephen Phillips Georgios A. Serghides
Registrar President
________________
Appendix no. 1
| App No. | Case Title | Information about the applicant | ||||
| 57707/13 | Magamadova v. Russia | Applicant | Date of birth | Address | Representative | Kinship to the abducted person(s) |
| Ms Raysa MAGAMADOVA | 20/04/1974 | Grozny, the Chechen Republic | MATERI CHECHNI | Wife | ||
Appendix no. 2
| App No. | Case Title | Information about the applicant(s) | ||||
| 63554/13 | Aslanbekova and Others v. Russia | Applicant(s) | Date of birth | Address | Representative | Kinship to the abducted person(s) |
| Ms Kulpa ASLANBEKOVA | 07/01/1957 | Grozny, the Chechen Republic | Mr Said MUSHAYEV | Wife of Mr Musa ASTAMIROV and mother of Alibek ASTAMIROV | ||
| Ms Khazan MUSAYEVA | 23/10/1963 | Ulus-Kert, the Chechen Republic | Wife of Mr Sultan AKHMADOV | |||
| Ms Taisa IMAKAYEVA | 10/12/1964 | Grozny, the Chechen Republic | Wife of Mr Balaydi IMAKAYEV | |||
| Ms Raisa MALIKOVA | 12/09/1961 | Ulus-Kert, the Chechen Republic | Wife of Mr Zilaudi MALIKOV | |||
| Ms Markha YASUYEVA | 05/01/1965 | Chiri-Yurt, the Chechen Republic | Wife of Mr Said-Magomed YASUYEV | |||
Appendix no. 3
| App No. | Case Title | Information about the applicant | ||||
| 63613/13 | Kuchiyeva
v. Russia |
Applicant | Date of birth | Address | Representative | Kinship to the abducted person(s) |
| Ms Larisa
KUCHIYEVA |
12/06/1972 | Gudermes, the Chechen Republic | Mr Said MUSHAYEV | Wife | ||
Appendix no. 4
| App no. | Case title | Information about the applicant | ||||
| 45131/17 | Siriyeva v. Russia | Applicant | Date of Birth | Place of residence, nationality | Representative | Kinship to the abducted person(s) |
| Ms Tua
SIRIYEVA |
13/01/1973 | Kiri, the Chechen Republic | Mr Ilyas TIMISHEV | Wife | ||
Leave a Reply