CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 janvier 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   53 22.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Three Chamber judgments against Russia concerning disappearances in Chechnya     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments concerning Russia, none of which are final [1] . The applicants alleged that their relatives disappeared after being abducted by Russian servicemen. In the case of Sambiyev and Pokayeva , the applicants further alleged that their son, found dead the day after his disappearance, had also been killed by Russian servicemen. All the applicants complained that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They relied in particular on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgments which may be consulted on the Court’s website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ) are only available in English.   1.   Dolsayev and Others v. Russia (application no. 10700/04)   The applicants in the first case are five Russian nationals who live in Martan-Chu (Chechen Republic). They are the parents, sister and brothers of Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev, born in 1974, 1977, 1978 and 1980, respectively.   The four brothers   have not been seen since 21 October 2002 when they were   abducted from the family home by a group of   armed men in camouflage uniform and masks. The Court found as follows:   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of the applicants) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 (lack of an effective remedy)   The Court awarded 10,000   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage to Kursolt Dolsayev, the disappeared brothers’ father, EUR   140,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to all the applicants, jointly, and EUR   5,500 for costs and expenses.   2.   Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia (no. 38693/04)   The applicants in the second case are two Russian nationals who live in Stariye Atagi (Chechen Republic). They are the parents of Anzor Sambiyev, born in 1980, who was   abducted from the family home on 10   April 2004 by a group of armed   men in camouflage uniform and masks. His body   was found   the next day   with signs of a violent death. The Court found as follows:   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation) No violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of the applicants) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 (lack of an effective remedy)   The Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   5,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   6,000 for costs and expenses.   3.   Zaurbekova and Zaurbekova v. Russia (no. 27183/03)   The applicants in the third case are two Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the mother and sister of Isa Zaurbekov, born in 1967,   who was   has not been seen since 11   February 2003 when he was abducted from the family   home by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms. The Court found as follows:   Violations of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of the applicants) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for home) of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention as regards the search of Isa Zaurbekov’s and his sister’s flat and seizure of their belongings Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 (lack of an effective remedy) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention in respect of Isa Zaurbekov’s sister Violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) (refusal to submit documents requested by the Court)   The Court awarded EUR   9,000 to Isa Zaurbekov’s mother in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   35,000, jointly, to his mother and sister in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   7,150 for costs and expenses.   *********     Additional information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases [2]   In all three cases the Court considered that the applicants had presented a consistent account of their relatives’ abduction by Russian servicemen which had been corroborated by witness statements, two of the applicants having themselves been eyewitnesses to the incidents. In the first two cases the applicants’ allegations had even been on the whole accepted in the ensuing investigation.   The Court further considered, as regards the first and third cases, that it had been unlikely, as suggested by the Government, that a large group of armed men in uniform, could have moved freely at the time through Russian military checkpoints during curfew and apprehended the applicants’ relatives in their homes. The Court therefore held in those two cases that the evidence available to it established beyond reasonable doubt that the four Dolsayev brothers as well as Isa Zaurbekov had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen during a security operation.   In the second case, the Court noted that Anzor Sambiyev’s dead body had been found in the morning of 11 April 2004 and that the Government had not provided any information with regard to his possible release or escape following his apprehension by Russian servicemen. No other explanation having been provided as to his death, the Court held that the evidence available to it established beyond reasonable doubt that he had been apprehended and killed by Russian servicemen.   The Court, noting in the first and third cases that the Government had not provided any plausible explanation at all, and in the second case that the authorities had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of all of the applicants’ relatives.   In all three cases, the Court further held that there had been violations of Article   2 relating to the authorities’ failure to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared or, in the case of Sambiyev and Pokayeva , abducted and killed.   In the cases of Dolsayev and Others and Zaurbekova and Zaurbekova , the Court also found that the applicants had suffered and continued to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their relatives and their inability to find out what had happened to them. The manner in which their complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment, in violation of Article   3.   However, the Court found that the case of Sambiyev and Pokayeva was distinct from the majority of cases concerning disappearances in Chechnya in that the applicants’ son could be considered to have disappeared for no more than a few hours. The Court therefore held that no separate issues arose beyond those already examined under Article 2. Accordingly, although the Court did not doubt that the death of their son had caused the applicants profound suffering, it nevertheless held that there was no basis for finding a violation of Article   3 in their respect.   Lastly, the Court found in particular in all three cases that the applicants’ relatives had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article   5, which constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in that article.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.