CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 avril 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sD3427EA2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   282 2.4.09   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 in all three cases alleged that their relatives disappeared after being abducted by Russian servicemen and 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.   Dokuyev v. Russia ( no.6704/03 )   The applicants in this case are seven Russian nationals who live in Novye Atagi (Chechen Republic). They are close relatives of Magomed Dokuyev, born in 1977, who has not been seen since early 14   February 2001 when he and his father, Vakhit Dokuyev, were abducted from their family home by a large group of armed men in uniform, most of whom were wearing masks. Magomed’s father was released later that morning. Two days later, the family started looking for Magomed; they also applied to various authorities, both in person and in writing, alleging among other things that, according to a man held in custody with their son, Magomed had died in detention. There is at present no clear indication as to Magomed’s whereabouts.   Violations of Article 2 (right to life in respect of Magomed Dokuyev and lack of effective investigation into his disappearance) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment and lack of effective investigation in respect of Magomed Dokuyev) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of the parents and wife of Magomed Dokuyev on account of their mental suffering) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention in respect of Magomed Dokuyev) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in connection with Articles 2 and 3 Violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) (refusal to submit documents requested by the Court) The Court awarded Magomed Dokuyev’s wife 5,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, and his parents, wife and two sisters EUR   35,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded EUR   7,150 for costs and expenses.   2.   Dzhabayeva v. Russia ( no. 13310/04 )   The applicant in the second case is a Russian national, Ms Salimat Dzhabayeva, who lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). She has not seen her husband, Magomed Dzhabayev, born in 1953, since 10   March 2000. The versions of the parties differ as to the circumstances in which he disappeared: while Ms Dzhabayeva alleged that he was apprehended in the yard of his house by officers of the Oktyabrskiy Temporary Office of the Interior, the authorities, having opened an investigation into his disappearance, submitted that the circumstances had not been established.   Violations of Article 2 (in respect of Magomed Dzhabayev and lack of effective investigation into his disappearance) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of Ms Dzhabayeva on account of her mental suffering) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention in respect of Magomed Dzhabayev) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in connection with Article 2   The Court awarded Ms Dzhabayeva EUR   5,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR   35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   3.   Saydaliyeva and Others v. Russia ( no. 41498/04 )   The applicants in the third case are three Russian nationals who live in Serzhen-Yurt (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, sister and partner of Vakha Saydaliyev, born in 1976, who has not been seen since the early afternoon of 16   April 2002 when he was abducted from his family home by a large group of armed unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms.   Violations of Article 2 (in respect of Vakha Saydaliyev and lack of effective investigation into his disappearance) Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment in respect of the mother and partner of Vakha Saydaliyev) Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention in respect of Vakha Saydaliyev) Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in connection with Article 2   The Court awarded jointly to the mother and the partner of Vakha Saydaliyev EUR   4,300 in respect of pecuniary damage, and sums ranging between EUR   1,000 to EUR   15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded EUR   4,500 for costs and expenses.   *********   Additional information concerning the Court’s findings in these cases [2]   In all three cases the Court found it established that the applicants’ relatives had been apprehended by State servicemen and that they had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention. In particular, in the case of Dokuyev , the applicants had presented a coherent and convincing picture of their relative’s detention, including eye-witness submissions. In the case of Dzhabayeva , even though the applicant’s version of events had been inconsistent, it had been uncontested that there had been no news of her missing husband for over eight years, and that the Russian Government had failed to provide any explanation for his disappearance or any tangible results with regard to the investigation into his abduction. In the case of Saydaliyeva and Others , in addition to a written confirmation by a Russian officer that the applicants’ relative had been taken away by the Russian military, inferences could be drawn from the Government’s failure to submit a copy of the investigation file which had been in their exclusive possession. Having noted that, in all three cases, the authorities had not provided any justification in respect of the use of lethal force by their agents, or otherwise accounted for the death of the applicants’ relatives, it had followed that the Government had been responsible for their presumed deaths, and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 2 in respect of all three men.   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 investigations into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared.   The Court also found that certain of 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.   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.   Lastly, in all three cases, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in connection with Articles 2 and 3, as the investigations into the disappearances of the applicants’ relatives had been ineffective and had consequently undermined the effectiveness of any other remedies that might have existed for the applicants.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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.