CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 octobre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 90 October 2006 Estamirov and Others v. Russia - 60272/00 Judgment 12.10.2006 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-2 Use of force Killings in Chechnya by agents of the Russian State, followed by inadequate criminal investigation: violation   Facts :The seven applicants are Russian nationals and are all related. Until 1999 they were residents of Grozny, Chechnya. They claimed that in February 2000 five members of their family had been killed by agents of the Russian State and that no effective investigation into their deaths had been carried out. Law : Article   2 – Alleged inadequacy of the investigation : The investigation had been plagued by inexplicable delays, although it was crucial in cases of deaths in contentious situations for the investigation to be prompt. Those unexplained delays not only demonstrated the authorities’ failure to act on their own initiative but also constituted a breach of the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness. Moreover, a number of crucial steps had never been taken: none of the applicants, apart from one, had been questioned; they had not been granted victim status in the proceedings and had not been informed about the progress of the investigation; the investigation had not ensured sufficient public accountability and had not safeguarded the interests of the next-of-kin; the investigation had been adjourned and resumed a number of times and the supervising prosecutors repeatedly had pointed out deficiencies in the proceedings and had ordered measures to remedy them, without those instructions having been complied with. In sum, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the applicants’ relatives. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   2 – Failure to protect the right to life : The deaths of the applicant’s relatives could be attributed to the Russian State and no justification had been shown for the use of lethal force by its agents. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   13 – The criminal investigation into the killings had been ineffective and any other remedy that might have existed had been undermined. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – Awards for non-pecuniary damage ranging from EUR 2 to 70,000. For further details, see Press Release no. 581.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes