The Russian Authorities are Responsible for Uninvestigated Abduction of S. Shafiev
Human Rights Center Memorial
The Russian Authorities are Responsible for Uninvestigated Abduction of S. Shafiev
On May 3, 2012, the European Court of Human Rights has delivered the judgment on Shafieva case (Shafiyeva v. Russia, application no. 49379/09).
The application was lodged with the Court on September 14, 2009, by Khadizhat Magomedovna Shafieva, the resident of Dagestan. The applicant’s complaint concerned the forced abduction of her husband, Sirazhudin Minatullaevich Shafiev, born in 1971.
The Applicant was represented by the lawyers of Memorial Human Rights Center (Moscow) and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC, London).
Sirazhudin Shafiev left his home in Derbent to take his child to the kindergarten, early in the morning on September 8, 2009. At about eight o'clock, when he was on his way back, armed men (presumably the servicemen of the security forces), wearing uniform and driving two passenger cars, blocked Sirazhudin’s car. They pulled Shafiev out of his car, hit him on the head with a bludgeon, pushed him into their car and drove him away. Many local residents were witnesses of this incident.
The same day Shafiev’s relatives appealed to the authorities into the abduction of Sirazhudin Shafiev. The residents of Derbent held a rally requiring the release of the abducted person.
On September 10, 2009, Derbent Interregional Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Prosecutor of the Russian Federation of the Republic of Dagestan opened the criminal investigation under Article 126 (Abduction) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. But according to Shafiev’s relatives the investigating authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation, whereas the circumstances of the committed crime stated clearly the involvement of the security forces.
Being afraid that Shafiev will disappear without leaving a trace as it often happens in Dagestan with people suspected of the involvement into illegal armed groups and subsequently detained by the security forces, on September 11, 2009, Khadizhat applied to Memorial for legal support. Memorial lawyers submitted the application to the European Court requesting the priority examination and urgent communication of the application. In addition, they requested the Court to apply Rule 39 (interim measures) of the Rules of Court: to oblige the Russian authorities to inform the Applicant on her husband’s whereabouts, to allow him to see his lawyer and to provide him with medical treatment in case of need.
The Court however refused to apply Rule 39, on the basis that it did not found sufficient grounds in the materials provided by the lawyers that Shafiev was abducted by federal law-enforcement agencies. Nevertheless, the Court decided to consider the case as a priority.
On June 3, 2010, the application on Shafieva case was communicated (submitted to the parties by the Court for the observations) to the authorities of the Russian Federation. Thus the Court has addressed the questions to the Russian government regarding the violation of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms.
In its reply, the Russian government argued that the investigation on Shafiev’s abduction had been effective, and that there had been no evidence that could prove the involvement of federal law-enforcement agencies in this crime.
In its decision of May 3, 2012, the Court stated that the strength of all provided evidence does not lead nevertheless to conclusion that the law-enforcement agencies have in fact been involved in the abduction of the Applicant's husband, however the Russian authorities have violated Article 2 of the Convention as they did not effectively investigate Shafiev’s abduction. According to the Court’s decision, the Russian government should pay to Khadizhat Shafieva, the Applicant, 30 thousand euros in compensation for moral damages caused by authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation of committed crime.
By submitting the application to the European Court and while requesting to apply Rule 39, we hoped that we will save man’s life, as it has happened before. Unfortunately, Sirazhudin Shafiev’s whereabouts is still unknown.
Despite that the Court refused to apply urgent interim measures and to recognize the authorities of the Russian Federation responsible for the crime, yet the circumstances of the case explicitly showed the involvement of the security forces in Shafiev’s abduction. Memorial Human Rights Center is concerned about the current practice of abductions in the North Caucasus, lack of control of the security forces and the failure of investigating authorities to conduct an effective investigation of such crimes.
May 5, 2012