Постановление ЕСПЧ от 10.10.2013 «Дело «Гакаева и другие (Gakayeva and Others) против Российской Федерации» Часть 10 [англ.]

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

  1. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention
  1. The applicants complained, under Article 2 of the Convention, that their relatives had disappeared after having been detained by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 reads as follows:

«1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

  1. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.»

 

  1. The parties’ submissions
  1. The Government contended that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the applicants’ relatives had been held under State control or that they were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an effective investigation.
  2. The applicants reiterated their complaints.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment
  1. Admissibility
  1. The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaints raise serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The complaint under Article 2 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible.

 

  1. Merits

(a) Alleged violation of the right to life of the applicants’ relatives

  1. The Court has already found that in all of the applications under examination, the applicants’ relatives may be presumed dead, following their unacknowledged detention by State agents. In the absence of any justification put forward by the Government, the Court finds that their deaths can be attributed to the State and that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Timerlan Soltakhanov, Aldam Yesiyev, Khamzat Alimkhanov, Sulim Khatulov, Akhmed Gazuyev, Usman Arzhiyev, Valid Arzhiyev, Khavazhi Elikhanov, Aslan Dzhamalov, Magomed Cherkasov, Ayub Istamulov, Musa Vakhidov and Robert Musayev.

(b) Alleged inadequacy of the investigations into the abductions

  1. The Court has already found that a criminal investigation does not constitute an effective remedy in respect of disappearances which have occurred, in particular, in Chechnya between 1999 and 2006, and that such a situation constitutes a systemic problem under the Convention (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 217). In the case at hand, as in many previous similar cases reviewed by the Court, the investigations have been pending for many years without bringing about any significant developments as to the identities of the perpetrators or the fate of the applicants’ missing relatives. While the obligation to investigate effectively is one of means and not of results, the Court notes that each set of criminal proceedings has been plagued by a combination of the same defects as those enumerated in the Aslakhanova and Others judgment (cited above, §§ 123 — 25). Each was subjected to several decisions to suspend the investigation, followed by periods of inactivity, which further diminished the prospects of solving the crimes. No meaningful steps have been taken to identify and question the servicemen who could have witnessed, registered or participated in the operations.
  2. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances of the disappearance and death of Timerlan Soltakhanov, Aldam Yesiyev, Khamzat Alimkhanov, Sulim Khatulov, Akhmed Gazuyev, Usman Arzhiyev, Valid Arzhiyev, Khavazhi Elikhanov, Aslan Dzhamalov, Magomed Cherkasov, Ayub Istamulov, Musa Vakhidov and Robert Musayev. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect.

 

  1. Alleged violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention
  1. The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:

Article 3

«No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.»

Article 5

«1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

  1. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
  2. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
  3. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
  4. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.»

Article 13

«Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.»

 

  1. The parties’ submissions
  1. The Government contested the applicants’ claims.
  2. The applicants reiterated their complaints.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment
  1. Admissibility
  1. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

 

  1. Merits
  1. The Court has found on many occasions that a situation of enforced disappearance gives rise to a violation of Article 3 in respect of the close relatives of the victim. The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the «disappearance» of the family member, but rather concerns the authorities’ reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164). Where the news about the missing person’s death was preceded by a sufficiently long period when he or she had been deemed disappeared, there exists a distinct period during which the applicants sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic to the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others, cited above, § 115).
  2. Equally, the Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see v. Turkey, No. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev, cited above, § 122).
  3. The Court reiterates its findings regarding the State’s responsibility for the abductions and the failure to carry out a meaningful investigation into the fates of the disappeared persons. It finds that the applicants, who are close relatives of the disappeared, must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish which they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of their inability to ascertain the fate of their family members and of the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with.
  4. The Court furthermore confirms that since it has been established that the applicants’ relatives were detained by State agents, apparently without any legal grounds or acknowledgement of such detention, this constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security of persons enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.
  5. The Court reiterates its findings of the general ineffectiveness of the criminal investigations in cases such as those under examination. In the absence of the results of the criminal investigation, any other possible remedy becomes inaccessible in practice.
  6. The Court thus finds that the applicants in these cases did not dispose of an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Articles 2 and 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

 

  1. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
  1. The applicants in Musayevy (application No. 73784/10) complained of the unlawful seizure and destruction of Robert Musayev’s car by the abductors. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides as follows:

«Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.»

 

  1. The parties’ submissions
  1. The Government contended that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under this heading by failing to claim damages through either the law-enforcement authorities or the domestic courts.
  2. The applicants reiterated the complaint.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment
  1. Admissibility
  1. The Court has already found that the Government’s objection concerning the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should be dismissed (see paragraphs 320 — 22 above). The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

 

  1. Merits
  1. From the documents submitted by the applicants it appears that their complaint concerning the seizure of Robert Musayev’s car was communicated promptly to the domestic law-enforcement authorities (see, for example, paragraphs 279, 281 and 283 above). However, the latter failed to take any measures to examine it (for a similar situation see, amongst others, Karimov and Others v. Russia, No. 29851/05, § 139, 16 July 2009). Taking into account that the Government did not call into question Robert Musayev’s ownership of the impugned vehicle and the fact that the Court has already found that the persons who detained Robert Musayev were State agents, the Court finds that the seizure and destruction of the car was imputable to the respondent State.
  2. Accordingly, there was an interference with the right to the protection of property. In the absence of any reference on the part of the Government to the lawfulness and proportionality of that action, the Court finds that there has been a violation of the right to protection of property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 

VII. Alleged violation of Article 38 of the Convention

  1. The applicants in Musayevy (application No. 73784/10) alleged that the Government had failed to disclose any of the documents from the investigation file on the abduction of Robert Musayev. Therefore, they invited the Court to find a violation of Article 38 of the Convention, which reads:

«The Court shall examine the case together with the representatives of the parties and, if need be, undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the High Contracting Parties concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities.»

  1. The Court reiterates that it is of utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted by Article 34 that States should furnish all necessary facilities to make possible a proper and effective examination of applications (see v. Turkey [GC], No. 23763/94, § 70, ECHR 1999-IV, and Velikova v. Bulgaria, No. 41488/98, § 77, ECHR 2000-VI). This obligation requires the Contracting States to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court, whether it is conducting a fact-finding investigation or performing its general duties as regards the examination of applications. A failure on a Government’s part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicants’ allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention (see Medova v. Russia, No. 25385/04, § 76, 15 January 2009, and v. Turkey, No. 23531/94, § 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).
  2. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the Government alleged that the entire criminal investigation file had been produced (see paragraph 295 above). In any event, the Court asked the Government to produce such relevant documents from the investigation file which were capable of rebutting the applicants’ allegations that their missing relative had been abducted by State servicemen, including witness statements. The Court also notes that the applicants furnished numerous copies of documents reflecting the contents of the criminal case file (see paragraphs 281 — 93 above).
  3. Having regard to the above, and to the conclusions as to the State’s responsibility for the abduction (see paragraph 366 above), the Court finds that the allegedly incomplete nature of certain documents and information did not prevent it from examining the application (see Khatsiyeva and Others v. Russia, No. 5108/02, § 168, 17 January 2008, and Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], No. 23458/02, § 234, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
  4. There has accordingly been no failure to comply with Article 38 of the Convention.

 

VIII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

  1. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

«If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.»

 

  1. The applicants’ claims
  1. The applicants’ just satisfaction claims can be summarised as follows.

 

  1. Damages

(a) Application No. 51534/08, Gakayeva v. Russia

  1. The applicant claimed 996,603 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 24,573 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage for the loss of financial support by the breadwinner. She based her calculations on the subsistence level provided for by domestic law and the Ogden Actuary Tables.
  2. She also claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  3. The Government submitted that the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated as she had failed to provide official documents proving the amount of her son’s salary. As for her claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Government stated that it was excessive and that finding a violation of the Convention would in itself comprise adequate compensation.

(b) Application No. 4401/10, Yesiyeva and Others v. Russia

  1. The applicants jointly claimed RUB 1,464,497 (approximately EUR 36,110) in respect of pecuniary damage for the loss of financial support by the breadwinner. They based their calculations on the subsistence level provided for by domestic law and the Ogden Actuary Tables.
  2. The applicants also jointly claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  3. The Government submitted that the applicants’ claim for pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated. As for the claim for non-pecuniary damage, it was excessive and the finding of a violation of the Convention would in itself comprise adequate compensation.

(c) Application No. 25518/10, Alimkhanova and Others v. Russia

  1. In respect of pecuniary damage, the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth applicants claimed EUR 29,700, EUR 24,479, EUR 25,373, EUR 34,895, EUR 26,290, EUR 33,216, EUR 32,400 EUR 28,440 and EUR 23,220 respectively for loss of financial support by the breadwinners. The applicants based their calculations on the official minimum subsistence level in Chechnya.
  2. As for non-pecuniary damage, the applicants asked to be awarded an amount which the Court would find reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
  3. The Government stated that the applicants’ claim for pecuniary damages was unsubstantiated and that the applicants had failed to claim non-pecuniary damages.

(d) Application No. 28779/10, Magamadova v. Russia

  1. The applicant claimed EUR 500,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  2. The Government submitted that the applicant’s claim was excessive and that finding a violation of the Convention would in itself comprise adequate compensation.

(e) Application No. 33175/10, Arzhiyeva v. Russia

  1. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicant asked the Court to award her an amount that the Court would find appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
  2. The Government stated that the applicant had failed to claim non-pecuniary damages.

(f) Application No. 47393/10, Elikhanova v. Russia

  1. The applicant claimed EUR 500,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  2. The Government submitted that the applicant’s claim was excessive and that finding a violation of the Convention would in itself comprise adequate compensation.

(g) Application No. 54753/10, Temiraliyeva and Others v. Russia

  1. In respect of pecuniary damage, the first, second, third, fifth and seventh applicants claimed RUB 474,810 (approximately EUR 11,705), RUB 474,810 (approximately EUR 11,705), RUB 3,925 (approximately EUR 100), RUB 9,415 (approximately EUR 232), and RUB 20,876 (approximately EUR 515) respectively for the loss of financial support by the breadwinner. The fourth and sixth applicants did not claim pecuniary damages. The applicants based their calculations on the subsistence level provided for by domestic law and the Ogden Actuary Tables.
  2. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicants jointly claimed EUR 245,000.
  3. The Government submitted that the applicants’ claim for pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated. As for non-pecuniary damage, their claim was excessive and the finding of a violation of the Convention would in itself comprise adequate compensation.

(h) Application No. 58131/10, Payzulayeva and Others v. Russia

  1. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants claimed RUB 351,739 (approximately EUR 8,673), RUB 335,908 (approximately EUR 8,282), RUB 703,478 (approximately EUR 17,346), RUB 276,707 (approximately EUR 6,825), RUB 337,617 (approximately EUR 8,327), RUB 560,618 (approximately EUR 13,827), RUB 488,368 (approximately EUR 12,045) and RUB 934,363 (approximately EUR 23,044) respectively in respect of pecuniary damage for the loss of financial support by the breadwinners. The applicants based their calculations on the subsistence level provided for by domestic law and the Ogden Actuary Tables.
  2. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicants jointly claimed EUR 280,000.
  3. The Government submitted that the applicants’ claim for pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated. As for non-pecuniary damage, their claim was excessive and the finding of a violation of the Convention would in itself comprise adequate compensation.

(i) Application No. 62207/10, Vakhidova v. Russia

  1. The applicant claimed RUB 971,002 (approximately EUR 23,948) in respect of pecuniary damage for the loss of financial support by the breadwinner. She based her calculations on the subsistence level provided for by domestic law and the Ogden Actuary Tables.
  2. The applicant further claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  3. The Government submitted that the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated as she had failed to provide official documents proving the amount of her son’s salary. As for her claim for non-pecuniary damage, they stated that it was excessive and that finding a violation of the Convention would in itself comprise adequate compensation.

(j) Application No. 73784/10, Musayevy v. Russia

  1. In respect of pecuniary damage, the first applicant claimed RUB 211,425 (approximately EUR 5,214), for the loss of financial support by the breadwinner. He based his calculations on the subsistence level provided for by domestic law and the Ogden Actuary Tables.
  2. In respect of non-pecuniary damages, the applicants jointly claimed EUR 75,000.
  3. The Government submitted that the first applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated as she had failed to provide official documents proving the amount of Robert Musayev’s salary. As for the applicants’ joint claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Government stated that it was excessive and that finding a violation of the Convention would in itself comprise adequate compensation.

 

  1. Costs and expenses
  1. The applicants in Gakayeva (No. 51534/08), Yesiyeva and Others (No. 4401/10), Temiraliyeva and Others (No. 54753/10), Payzulayeva and Others (No. 58131/10), Vakhidova (No. 62207/10) and Musayevy (No. 73784/10) were represented by the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants’ legal representation amounted to EUR 4,633, EUR 4,459, EUR 4,459, EUR 4,043, EUR 5,419 and EUR 4,027 respectively. Each claim included the drafting of legal documents submitted to the Court, and administrative and postal expenses. The applicants submitted copies of their legal representation contracts and invoices with a breakdown of the costs incurred.
  2. The applicants in Alimkhanova and Others (No. 25518/10), Magamadova (No. 28779/10), and Arzhiyeva (No. 33175/10) were represented by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants’ legal representation amounted to EUR 6,407, EUR 6,343 and EUR 6,551 respectively, which included the drafting of legal documents submitted to the Court, and administrative and translation expenses. The applicants submitted copies of their legal representation contracts and invoices for translation services.
  3. The applicant in Elikhanova (No. 47393/10) was represented by the Memorial Human Rights Centre. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to her legal representation amounted to 2,815 British pounds (GBP), which included the drafting of legal documents submitted to the Court, and administrative and translation costs. She submitted copies of invoices with a breakdown of the costs incurred.
  4. The Government submitted in respect of each application that the applicants’ claims for costs and expenses were unsubstantiated as it had not been shown that the expenses claimed had actually been incurred.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment
  1. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damages claimed by the applicants and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, where appropriate, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. The Court further finds that the loss of earnings applies to close relatives of the disappeared persons, including spouses, elderly parents and minor children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 213).
  2. Wherever the Court finds a violation of the Convention, it may accept that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations, and make a financial award.
  3. As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants’ representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A No. 324, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, No. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
  4. Having regard to its above conclusions, the principles enumerated above and the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the amounts to the applicants as detailed in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on those amounts. The awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts, as identified by the applicants.

 

  1. Default interest
  1. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

  1. Decides to join the applications;
  2. Declares the applications admissible;
  3. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives: Timerlan Soltakhanov, Aldam Yesiyev, Khamzat Alimkhanov, Sulim Khatulov, Akhmed Gazuyev, Usman Arzhiyev, Valid Arzhiyev, Khavazhi Elikhanov, Aslan Dzhamalov, Magomed Cherkasov, Ayub Istamulov, Musa Vakhidov and Robert Musayev;
  4. Holds that there has been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to investigate effectively the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives;
  5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants, on account of their relatives’ disappearance and the authorities’ response to their suffering;
  6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives on account of their unlawful detention;
  7. Holds there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention;
  8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention in application No. 73784/10;
  9. Holds that there has been no failure to comply with Article 38 of the Convention;
  10. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the amounts as indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. The amounts are to be converted into Russian roubles, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. As for the payments in respect of costs and expenses to the applicants’ representatives, they are to be made to the representatives’ bank accounts as indicated by the applicants; the payments are to be made in euros to the applicants represented by the SRJI, to be converted into Russian roubles to the applicants represented by Mr D. Itslayev and to be made in British pounds to the applicant represented by the Memorial Human Rights Centre;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

  1. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

 

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

President

Deputy Registrar

Appendix I

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATIONS

Application No., date of introduction Represented by Applicants Persons disappeared, date and place of abduction Investigation
1. No. 51534/08,

30 September 2008

SRJI Ms Zara Gakayeva, born in 1952, mother of Timerlan Soltakhanov. The applicant lives in Avtury, Chechnya Timerlan Soltakhanov, born in 1977; 7 June 2003, Shali, Chechnya On 25 June 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case No. 22099. The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file No. 22099 (a list of the contents with the number of pages is not attached). It appears that the investigation is still pending.
2. No. 4401/10,

30 December 2009

SRJI 1) Ms Zulkahn Dzukayeva, born in 1973;

2) Ms Laylya Yesiyeva, born in 1937;

3) Mr Ziaudi Yesiyev, born in 1936;

4) Ms Malika Yesiyeva, born in 1996;

5) Mr Shamil Yesiyev, born in 1998;

6) Mr Shamkhan Yesiyev, born in 1999;

7) Mr Khalid Yesiyev, born in 2002. The first applicant is Aldam Yesiyev’s wife, the second and third applicants are his parents and the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are his children. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya

Aldam Yesiyev, born in 1967; 19 September 2002, Urus-Martan, Chechnya. On 27 September 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case No. 61133. The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file (228 pages). It appears that the investigation is still pending.
3. No. 25518/10,

5 April 2010

D. Itslayev 1) Ms Madina Alimkhanova, born in 1976;

2) Mr Aslambek Alimkhanov, born in 1970;

3) Mr Ibragim Alimkhanov, born in 1994;

4) Mr Imam Alimkhanov, born in 1996;

5) Mr Rakhman Alimkhanov, born in 1999;

6) Mr German Alimkhanov, born in 1997;

7) Mr Rakhim Alimkhanov, born in 2001;

8) Mr Turpal Khatulov, born in 2000;

9) Ms Linda Khatulova, born in 1998;

10) Ms Khadizhat Khatulova, born in 1995. The first applicant is the sister of Khamzat Alimkhanov and the wife of Sulim Khatulov, the second applicant is Khamzat Alimkhanov’s brother, the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are his sons. The eighth, ninth and tenth applicants are the children of Sulim Khatulov. The applicants live in Argun, Chechnya.

1) Khamzat Alimkhanov, born in 1972

2) Sulim Khatulov, born in 1970 26 January 2001, Komsomolskaya, Grozny district, Chechnya

On 28 February 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case No. 19015. The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case-file (244 pages). It appears that the investigation is still pending.
4. No. 28779/10,

29 April 2010

D. Itslayev Ms Kamizat Magamadova, born in 1953, mother of Mr Akhmed Gazuyev. The applicant lives in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. Akhmed Gazuyev, born in 1976; 25 December 2000, Urus-Martan, Chechnya On 21 March 2001 the Urus-Martan temporary district department of the interior opened criminal case No. 25239. The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file (128 pages). It appears that the investigation is still pending.
5. No. 33175/10,

21 May 2010

D. Itslayev Ms Rumi Arzhiyeva, born in 1958, mother of Usman Arzhiyev and Valid Arzhiyev. The applicant lives in Avtury, Chechnya. 1) Usman Arzhiyev, born in 1978;

2) Valid Arzhiyev, born in 1986; 3 May 2005, Avtury, Chechnya

On 8 May 2005 the prosecutor’s office opened criminal case No. 46049. The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file (292 pages). It appears that the investigation is still pending.
6. No. 47393/10,

13 August 2010

Memorial Ms Roza Elikhanova, born in 1949, mother of Khavazhi Elikhanov. The applicant lives in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. Khavazhi Elikhanov, born in 1977; 4 November 2001, Urus-Martan, Chechnya On 14 December 2001 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office opened criminal case No. 25158. The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file (65 pages). It appears that the investigation is still pending.
7. No. 54753/10,

13 September 2010

SRJI 1) Ms Khizhan Temiraliyeva, born in 1959;

2) Mr Uzumkhazhi Dzhamalov, born in 1961;

3) Ms Dzharadat Dzhamalova, born in 1987;

4) Ms Khedi Dzhamalova, born in 1977;

5) Ms Satsita Dzhamalova, born in 1989;

6) Ms Khadizhat Dzhamalova, born in 1981

7) Ms Zhaneta Dzhamalova, born in 1993. The first and second applicants are Aslan Dzhamalov’s parents; the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are his sisters. The applicants live in Berkart-Yurt, Chechnya

Aslan Dzhamalov, born in 1979; 9 July 2002, Grozny, Chechnya On 5 February 2003 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case No. 20043. The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file (159 pages). It appears that the investigation is still pending.
8. No. 58131/10,

27 September 2010

SRJI 1) Ms Aset Payzulayeva, born in 1960;

2) Mr Ayuub Cherkasov, born in 1953;

3) Ms Zalina Mukulova, born in 1981;

4) Mr Said-Khusein Cherkasov, born in 1999;

5) Mr Shakhru — Ramazan Cherkasov, born in 2001;

6) Ms Khava Eskarova, born in 1959;

7) Mr Uvys Istamulov, born in 1951;

8) Ms Raisa Shakhtiyeva, born in 1986. The first and second applicants are the parents of Magomed Cherkasov; the third applicant is his wife and the fourth and fifth applicants are his children. The sixth and seventh applicants are the parents of Ayub Istamulov; the eighth applicant is his wife. The applicants live in Verkhniy Noyber, in the Gudermes district, Chechnya.

1) Mr Magomed Cherkasov, born in 1979;

2) Mr Ayub Istamulov, born in 1981; 30 Apr 2001, Verkhniy Noyber, in the Gudermes district, Chechnya.

On 27 September 2005 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case No. 45108. The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file (182 pages). It appears that the investigation is still pending.
9. No. 62207/10,

15 October 2010

SRJI Ms Khelipat Vakhidova, born in 1950, mother of Musa Vakhidov. The applicant lives in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. Musa Vakhidov, born in 1976; 22 June 2000, Zavodskoy district, Grozny, Chechnya On 28 February 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case No. 13029. The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file (152 pages). It appears that the investigation is still pending.
10. No. 73784/10,

29 November 2010

SRJI 1) Mr Mauldy Musayev, born in 1926;

2) Ms Kameta Musayeva, born in 1971

3) Ms Ayza Musayeva, born in 1963. The first applicant is Robert Musayev’s father, the second and third applicants are his sisters. The applicants live in Ulus-Kert, in the Shatoy district, Chechnya

Mr Robert Musayev, born in 1974; 8 May 2001, Dachu-Borzoy, Grozny district, Chechnya On 18 March 2002 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case No. 56036. The Government failed to disclose any documents from the case file. It follows from the Government’s observations that the investigation was resumed on 30 November 2011 and is currently pending.

Appendix II

AWARDS MADE BY THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

Application number and name Represented by Pecuniary damage Non — pecuniary damage Costs and expenses
1. No. 51534/08

Gakayeva v. Russia

SRJI EUR 15,000 EUR 60,000 EUR 3,500
2. No. 4401/10

Yesiyeva and Others v. Russia

SRJI EUR 25,000, jointly EUR 60,000, jointly EUR 3,500
3. No. 25518/10

Alimkhanova and Others v. Russia

D. Itslayev EUR 20,000 to the first applicant;

EUR 1,000 to the second applicant;

EUR 10,000 to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants each;

EUR 10,000 to the eighth, ninth and tenth applicant each

EUR 120,000, jointly EUR 4,500
4. No. 28779/10

Magamadova v. Russia

D. Itslayev EUR 60,000 EUR 3,500
5. No. 33175/10

Arzhiyeva v Russia

D. Itslayev EUR 120,000 EUR 4,000
6. No. 47393/10

Elikhanova v. Russia

Memorial EUR 60,000 EUR 3,500
7. No. 54753/10

Temiraliyeva and Others v. Russia

SRJI EUR 10,000 to the first and second applicants each EUR 60,000, jointly EUR 3,500
8. No. 58131/10

Payzulayeva and Others v. Russia

SRJI EUR 12,000 to the first and second applicants jointly;

EUR 25,000 to the third, fourth and fifth applicants jointly;

EUR 12,000 to the sixth and seventh applicants jointly;

EUR 15,000 to the eighth applicant

EUR 60,000, jointly to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants;

EUR 60,000, jointly to the sixth, seventh and eighth applicants

EUR 4,000
9. No. 62207/10

Vakhidova v. Russia

SRJI EUR 15,000 EUR 60,000 EUR 3,500
10. No. 73784/10

Musayevy v. Russia

SRJI EUR 3,000 to the first applicant EUR 60,000, jointly EUR 3,500

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован.

*

code