European Court Condemns Russian Authorities for the Disappearance of an Inhabitant of Chechnya in the Complex of Governmental Buildings in Grozny in 2006
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Memorial.Rus
Apr 20, 2011, 8:38:54 AM4/20/11
to hrcmemo...@googlegroups.com
European Court Condemns Russian Authorities for the
Disappearance of an Inhabitant of Chechnya in the Complex of
Governmental Buildings in Grozny in 2006
On April, 19 2011, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgement in the case of Matayeva and Dadayeva v. Russia (application №49076/06). The case is about the disppearance, in June, 2006 of the applicants' relative in the complex of governmental buildings of the Chechen Republic and about the officials' failure in carrying out an effective investigation of the matter. The European Court satisfied the applicants' requests in its decision and recognized the violations by Russian authorities of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The applicants were represented by lawyers of the European Human Rights Advocacy Center (EHRAC, London) and Human Rights Centre ''Memorial'' (Moscow).
In the years 2000 – 2003, Khamzat Tushayev, together with his brother, living in the village of Duba-Yurt in the Shalinskyi district of Chechnya, took part of the second Chechen war on the side of illegal armed groups. In summer 2003, after the federal authorities' declaration of amnesty for rebels surrendering their arms, Khamzat surrendered to the authorities with his arms and war equipment. He was handed to the Chechen department of the FSB and his case was investigated by the FSB. However, his right to freedom of movement was not restricted and he could move to Groznyi in 2003.
In March 2006 Khamzat was arrested by law enforcement officials of the Shalinskiy district of Chechnya. He was kept for some time in the Shalinskiy police department, as a criminal case had been opened against him on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups. He was then released on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.
In June 2006 Tushayev was asked to report to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Groznyi to present explanations in connection with the criminal case. On June, 8 Khamzat went with his wife to the complex of governmental buildings where the Leninskiy district prosecutor' office was located. The grounds were highly secured and the entrance was possible after a registration at the check-point. Khamzat went through the first check-point but did not reach the prosecutor's office. Tushayev disappeared without a trace on fenced premises guarded by law enforcement bodies.
On the next day, June, 9 Muradov, the acting prosecutor of the Leninskiy district, informed Tushayev's wife that no one in the Leninskiy district prosecutor's office had ever called Tushayev and said that such a disappearance on the guarded government complex was impossible without the knowledge of law enforcement agencies.
On June, 26 a criminal case was launched for the disappearance of Khamzat. After that, during the investigation process, Tushayev's wife learned that FSB officials were suspected for the disappearance of her husband. However, the criminal case was repeatedly stopped and resumed and so far, the identity of those responsibles for Tushaev's abduction and disappearance has not been established and no one has been handed to justice.
In December 2006, an application was sent to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court declared the application admissible with priority treatment.
The Court referred to its practice, according which in cases of deaths or abductions happening under the authorities' full control, the government has to present a plausible explanation. The Court asserts that in such situations the government is presumed responsible as long as it does not prove its non implication. Therefore, given the lack of plausible explanation from the authorities about Khamzat's disappearence, the Court declared the authorities of Russian Federation responsible for the disappearance and death of Tushayev. The Court also pointed to several substantial proceeding deficiencies made by investigative institutions during the investigation of the disappearance and concluded that there had been a violation of the applicants' right to an effective investigation.
Moreover, taking into account the involvement of governement officials in the disappearance of Khamzat and the authorities' refusal to recognize his arrest, the Court ruled that Tushayev was deprived of all procedural guarantees as a result of the authorities' lawlessness, that he had been victim of the violation of the Article 5 (right to liberty and security of person) of the Convention. Eventually the Court recognized that the applicants had no possibilities to address to a national authority to restore their rights regarding the involvement of government officials into the disappearance of their relative and uneffective investigation of the crime, in virtue of Article 13 of the Convention.
The Court held that the applicants were to be paid a total sum of 60 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and that 1 215 euros were to be paid to the applicants' representatives in respect of costs and expenses for addressing to the European Court.
It is to be noted that the decision in the case ''Matayeva and Dadayeva v. Russia'' was made unanimously by the European Court. Therefore, the remarks made by the Court regarding the circumstances of the disappearance and the following death of Khamzat are not subject to any doubts. ''Memorial'' welcomes this Court's decision and launches an appeal to the authorities of the Russian Federation to eliminate the investigation deficiencies pointed out by the Court, to establish the identity of the law enforcement officials responsible for Khamzat's adbuction and to punish them according to Russian laws.
April 20, 2011
On April, 19 2011, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgement in the case of Matayeva and Dadayeva v. Russia (application №49076/06). The case is about the disppearance, in June, 2006 of the applicants' relative in the complex of governmental buildings of the Chechen Republic and about the officials' failure in carrying out an effective investigation of the matter. The European Court satisfied the applicants' requests in its decision and recognized the violations by Russian authorities of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The applicants were represented by lawyers of the European Human Rights Advocacy Center (EHRAC, London) and Human Rights Centre ''Memorial'' (Moscow).
In the years 2000 – 2003, Khamzat Tushayev, together with his brother, living in the village of Duba-Yurt in the Shalinskyi district of Chechnya, took part of the second Chechen war on the side of illegal armed groups. In summer 2003, after the federal authorities' declaration of amnesty for rebels surrendering their arms, Khamzat surrendered to the authorities with his arms and war equipment. He was handed to the Chechen department of the FSB and his case was investigated by the FSB. However, his right to freedom of movement was not restricted and he could move to Groznyi in 2003.
In March 2006 Khamzat was arrested by law enforcement officials of the Shalinskiy district of Chechnya. He was kept for some time in the Shalinskiy police department, as a criminal case had been opened against him on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups. He was then released on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.
In June 2006 Tushayev was asked to report to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Groznyi to present explanations in connection with the criminal case. On June, 8 Khamzat went with his wife to the complex of governmental buildings where the Leninskiy district prosecutor' office was located. The grounds were highly secured and the entrance was possible after a registration at the check-point. Khamzat went through the first check-point but did not reach the prosecutor's office. Tushayev disappeared without a trace on fenced premises guarded by law enforcement bodies.
On the next day, June, 9 Muradov, the acting prosecutor of the Leninskiy district, informed Tushayev's wife that no one in the Leninskiy district prosecutor's office had ever called Tushayev and said that such a disappearance on the guarded government complex was impossible without the knowledge of law enforcement agencies.
On June, 26 a criminal case was launched for the disappearance of Khamzat. After that, during the investigation process, Tushayev's wife learned that FSB officials were suspected for the disappearance of her husband. However, the criminal case was repeatedly stopped and resumed and so far, the identity of those responsibles for Tushaev's abduction and disappearance has not been established and no one has been handed to justice.
In December 2006, an application was sent to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court declared the application admissible with priority treatment.
The Court referred to its practice, according which in cases of deaths or abductions happening under the authorities' full control, the government has to present a plausible explanation. The Court asserts that in such situations the government is presumed responsible as long as it does not prove its non implication. Therefore, given the lack of plausible explanation from the authorities about Khamzat's disappearence, the Court declared the authorities of Russian Federation responsible for the disappearance and death of Tushayev. The Court also pointed to several substantial proceeding deficiencies made by investigative institutions during the investigation of the disappearance and concluded that there had been a violation of the applicants' right to an effective investigation.
Moreover, taking into account the involvement of governement officials in the disappearance of Khamzat and the authorities' refusal to recognize his arrest, the Court ruled that Tushayev was deprived of all procedural guarantees as a result of the authorities' lawlessness, that he had been victim of the violation of the Article 5 (right to liberty and security of person) of the Convention. Eventually the Court recognized that the applicants had no possibilities to address to a national authority to restore their rights regarding the involvement of government officials into the disappearance of their relative and uneffective investigation of the crime, in virtue of Article 13 of the Convention.
The Court held that the applicants were to be paid a total sum of 60 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and that 1 215 euros were to be paid to the applicants' representatives in respect of costs and expenses for addressing to the European Court.
It is to be noted that the decision in the case ''Matayeva and Dadayeva v. Russia'' was made unanimously by the European Court. Therefore, the remarks made by the Court regarding the circumstances of the disappearance and the following death of Khamzat are not subject to any doubts. ''Memorial'' welcomes this Court's decision and launches an appeal to the authorities of the Russian Federation to eliminate the investigation deficiencies pointed out by the Court, to establish the identity of the law enforcement officials responsible for Khamzat's adbuction and to punish them according to Russian laws.
April 20, 2011
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages