Cases 1 - 20 of 710

Vladovskiye v. Russia, (40833/07)

Judgement date: 06/10/2020
Lodged: 05/09/2007
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: O. Sadovskaya
Violation: Torture

Mikhail Aleksandrovich Vladovskiy was ill‑treated at the hands of the police in 2004, that there was no effective investigation into the matter, and that he had no effective domestic remedy at his disposal to complain of the ill-treatment.

 

Chudalov and Chudalova v. Russia, (796/07)

Judgement date: 22/09/2020
Communicated: 20/12/2012
Lodged: 15/12/2006
Date of violations: 08/01/2005
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Torture
Non-pecuniary damage: 67600 €

At approximately 12.30 p.m. on 8th January 2005 Muslim Chudalov was stopped at the Kupskiy check-point and driven to the Leninskiy ROVD by policemen. Within the premises of the district police station (hereinafter Leninskiy ROVD) he was severely tortured into confessing to 15 crimes. The confessions signed by Muslim under torture formed the basis for his conviction on 12 charges out of 15. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment by a final decision of the Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 15 June 2006. The Prosecutor's office refused to open a criminal inquiry into the ill-treatment despite the existence of medical reports and witness statements in support of his complaints.

 

X and Y v. Russia, (43411/06)

Judgement date: 22/09/2020
Communicated: 07/04/2009
Lodged: 18/10/2006
Date of violations: 26/05/2004
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Torture
Non-pecuniary damage: 50500 €

In the middle of the night on 26 May 2004 a group of masked military servicemen detained X in Grozny and brought him to the Leninsky District Department of the Interior (ROVD). A number of policemen started to beat him with truncheons, electroluted him with wires attached to different parts of his body and sexually abused him. X eventually signed a confession. In the following weeks, the torture and ill-treatment continued both at the Leninsky ROVD and in ORB-2.

 

Tasuyeva and Others v. Russia, (19809/11)

Judgement date: 16/06/2020
Lodged: 25/02/2011
Date of violations: 07/10/1999
Location: Chechnya
Representative: Committee Against Torture
Violation: Indiscriminate bombing

Between 12 and 1 p.m. on 7 October 1999 the village of Elistanzhi in the Vedeno district was subjected to an aerial strike by Russian military forces. According to the applicants, there were no military or other facilities, or objects which could have been perceived as such, in the village or in the vicinity at the material time and the attack was therefore unprovoked and sudden. A number of buildings, including the local school, were destroyed in the attack. Thirty-five residents of the village were killed and sixty were wounded.

 

Bulatov and Dambegov v. Russia, (8306/07)

Judgement date: 16/06/2020
Lodged: 25/01/2007
Date of violations: 27/09/2006
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria
Representative: Others
Violation: Ill-treatment

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that during and after their arrest on 27 September 2006 they were subjected to ill‑treatment and that the national authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into it. Under Article 5 of the Convention they complain about the unlawfulness of and the lack of reasons for their arrest and the insufficiency of the reasons for their continued detention.

 

Pshibiyev and Berov v Russia, (63748/13)

Judgement date: 09/06/2020
Communicated: 11/07/2018
Lodged: 07/08/2013
Date of violations: 07/08/2012
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Private and family life
Non-pecuniary damage: 26000 €

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that for already seven years they cannot receive a long-term visit with their relevants, who are detained in prisons. They also complain about the conditions of the short-term visits. In particular, they complain about the impossibility of physical contact with their relatives from behind the wall installed in the rooms, the bugging of the device used to communicate with them, and the prohibition of their minor children to visit their parents.

 

Dashuyeva Eliza v. Russia, (5725/11)

Judgement date: 19/05/2020
Communicated: 07/09/2018
Lodged: 22/12/2010
Date of violations: 14/10/2006
Location: Chechnya, Prigorodnoye village
Representative: No representative
Violation: Right to life

The present case regards the deaths of the applicant’s brother and mother. On 17 November 2005 the applicant’s brother, Mr Zelimkhan Dashuyev, was abducted from his house in the Prigorodnoye village, in the Grozny district by a group of State servicemen in camouflage uniforms. The next day his body, bearing the traces of a violent death, was found in the vicinity of the Chechen-Aul village in the Grozny district. Even though, the criminal case was opened, it was suspended on several occasions and there was no progress in the investigation. On 14 October 2006 an unidentified person opened fire in the street, in the vicinity of the house of the applicant’s mother (Ms Ayupova). As a result, she received a gunshot wound to the chest and died instantly. The investigation was suspended on several occasions. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that her brother and then her mother had been killed by State agents in 2005 and 2006 respectively and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their deaths.

 

Gubasheva and Ferzauli v. Russia, (38433/17)

Judgement date: 05/05/2020
Communicated: 20/11/2017
Lodged: 19/05/2017
Date of violations: 19/08/2014
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Private and family life

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 9 February 2015 granting the first applicant a residence order in respect of the second applicant. They further complain under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy against the alleged violation under Article 8.

 

Bakayeva v. Russia, (24776/11)

Judgement date: 28/04/2020
Communicated: 06/03/2013
Lodged: 02/04/2011
Date of violations: 04/01/2001
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: I. Timishev
Violation: Killing

Until 1999 Ayzat Bakayeva (the applicant) with her family resided in Grozny. After they had become aware that the new military operation to liquidate separatist Chechen government was initiated by the Russian authorities, they fled to Ingushetia. On 4 February 2001 the applicant returned to Grozny to visit her relatives. She discovered that her parents were missing and their house had been looted. Later she was informed that her father Mr B.A. was killed by a Russian sniper and her mother Ms. B.Z. shot and her body was burned by the Russian soldiers in Martan-Chu village. During the investigation the person who had committed this crime could not be indentified.

 

Murdalovy v. Russia, (51933/08)

Judgement date: 31/03/2020
Communicated: 09/01/2018
Lodged: 14/10/2008
Date of violations: 02/01/2001
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance
Pecuniary damage: 15000 €
Non-pecuniary damage: 80000 €

The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives’ abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had suffered mentally on account of their relatives’ disappearance and their inability to ascertain their faith as well as the authorities’ indifference to their complaints and requests for assistance in elucidating the circumstances of the incidents. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relatives’ unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Suleymanov and Others v. Russia, (35585/08)

Judgement date: 24/03/2020
Communicated: 23/09/2011
Lodged: 22/07/2008
Date of violations: 03/12/2004
Location: Chechnya
Representative: Others
Violation: Indiscriminate bombing

On 3 December 2004 the first applicant and his wife were away staying at their relatives’. Their three children – the second and third applicants and fourteen-year-old Saydan – remained at home. At about 8.30 p.m. the second applicant heard a helicopter approaching the village and then a bomb exploding in the vicinity of their house. The windows were blown out and the candles went out. The second applicant tried to calm down the third applicant and Saydan who were very frightened. He lit a candle and asked his brother and sister to lie down on the floor. He then ran out to open the door of the cowshed. Immediately after the second applicant returned to the house he heard the helicopter approaching again and a new explosion followed. He lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness his head ached, he was blinded and blood covered his face. He heard the third applicant screaming. He found her by the sound of her voice, pulled her out from the debris and carried her outside. He then returned to the house in search of Saydan. He found his body lying on the floor and carried it outside. The neighbours came to help them. One of them brought the second and third applicants to the doctor at the neighbouring village. They were transported to a hospital in Gudermes and then in Grozny. The third applicant was diagnosed with an open craniocerebral injury, brain contusion, a penetrating head trauma and a trauma of the left eye. She followed a lengthy treatment. In January 2006 she had an ocular prosthesis fitted. The second applicant also had an eye trauma and had to follow lengthy treatment. He is now blind in left eye. The applicants’ house completely burned down.

 

Turpulkhanova and Khasiyeva v. Russia, (53284/13; 22543/15)

Judgement date: 17/03/2020
Communicated: 05/02/2018
Lodged: 29/04/2013
Date of violations: 01/11/2011
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance
Non-pecuniary damage: 26000 €

In the evening on 31/10/2011 Ms Mezhidova, having returned home from work, received several phone calls. She left her mobile telephone home and gone out to meet someone late in the evening. According to the applicant, her daughter left the house to meet a police officer Mr I.M. from the Shali district police station and gone missing since. According to the witness statements obtained by the investigation, since 2009 Ms Mezhidova had a romantic relationship with Mr I.M. which they kept secret as the officer was afraid of retaliation from her male relatives. On 06/12/2011 the profile of Ms Mezhidova on social network “Odnoklassniki” was accessed and posts were made. According to the applicant, third parties have accessed her missing daughter’s profile.

 

Zhovbatyrov and Dorsigova v. Russia, (6594/15)

Judgement date: 04/02/2020
Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 27/01/2015
Date of violations: 04/08/2011
Location: Ingushetia, Ordzhenikidzevskaya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance
Pecuniary damage: 26000 €
Non-pecuniary damage: 80000 €

A perimeter set up around a residential quarter in the settlement of Ordzhenikidzevskaya. Passport spot check carried out by armed persons in camouflage uniforms without insignia who drove around in two Gazel-model minibuses. One of the buses had registration number containing digits 904 or 906 and the region indication 06.

 

Ugurchiyev and Others v. Russia, (33731/14)

Judgement date: 04/02/2020
Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 24/04/2014
Date of violations: 23/08/2011
Location: Ingushetia, Sunzhenskiy District
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance

On 23 August 2011, two men, Mr Ugurchiyev and Mr Bersanov, were abducted in front of their house by a group of about ten armed men in black and camouflage uniforms and balaclavas who drove a white GAZEL-model minibus with tinted windows and a silver Lada-Priora model car. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for the men's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as their relatives' disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their sons' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Machigov v. Russia , (8417/10)

Judgement date: 21/01/2020
Communicated: 05/02/2018
Lodged: 24/11/2009
Date of violations: 29/09/2000
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance

On 29/09/2000 Mr Kazbek Machigov, was arrestedon his way to the market by three officers: Mr A.S., Mr A.G. and Mr V.S. on suspicion of alleged drug use and taken in their UAZ vehicle to the Oktyabrskiy district police station in Grozny. He has gone missing since.

 

Dzhalilov v. Russia, (11499/14)

Judgement date: 21/01/2020
Communicated: 22/03/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2014
Date of violations: 06/01/2005
Location: Dagestan, The police checkpoint "Yarag-Kazlalyar", in the Derbent District
Representative: Others
Violation: Disappearance

On 6 January 2005, the applicant's wife, Ms Serizha Dzhalilova, was arrested at the checkpoint during her shopping trip to Azerbaijan and taken to the headquarters of the Federal Security Service in Khankala on the following day. Subsequently, the FSB office in Khankala was closed in July 2005. All the documents were destroyed, the FSB officers who arrested the applicant’s wife never subjected to identification parade. The woman has been missing since. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for his wife's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. He additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as his wife's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, he complained that Ms' Dzhalilova's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, he had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Adisova and Others v. Russia, (13793/13)

Judgement date: 21/01/2020
Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 12/04/2013
Date of violations: 12/04/2002
Location: Chechnya, Alleroy
Representative: Tagir Shamsudinov
Violation: Disappearance

On 12 April 2002, four men were taken away during a “mopping-up” operation conducted in the Alleroy settlement. More than 4 officers participated in the abduction. They were in military uniform and conducted an identity check: searched the house premises and questioned local residents. The four men have been missing since.  The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives' abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their relatives' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Patsuyev and Others v Russia, (9862/12)

Judgement date: 21/01/2020
Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 21/08/2012
Date of violations: 21/08/2003
Location: Ingushetia, Sunzhenskiy District
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Disappearance

Adam Patsuyev, Ibragim Idigov and Salam Kerimov are cousins. On 21/08/2003 they went to the Sunzhenskiy district hospital where Ibragim Idigov was to have a wound bandaged. At about 2 p.m. two GAZEL-model minivans arrived at the hospital. A group of about 15 to 20 armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas yelled to those present to get on the ground. They kept shooting in the air and running around, looking for someone. Six of the armed men ran into the surgery unit where they beat Mr R.S. who was undergoing wound dressing unconscious and Lom-Ali SHAIPOV who was there with him, breaking Mr Shaipov’s arm. Then they forced Mr R.S. and Mr SHAIPOV into one of their vehicles. Meanwhile, Mr. Idigov tried to escape and was shot in the shoulder. Mr Patsyev and Mr Kerimov wanted to help him, but were beaten by the armed men. Then all three of them were forced into the car and drove in an uknown direction. On the way from the hospital, the abductors drove next to the local police car who had been summoned by the hospital’s security. The policemen did not take any steps to stop the abductors. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives' abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their relatives' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Khatimat Saidova v. Russia, (36963/09)

Judgement date: 21/01/2020
Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2009
Date of violations: 17/07/2005
Location: Dagestan, Makhachkala
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Disappearance

In 2004 Mr Salikh Saidov, the applicant's son, moved from Makhachkala (Daghestan) to Moscow. In July 2005 three friends of Mr Saidov from Dagestan informed the applicant that they had been arrested with her son in Moscow. They were released, whereas Mr. Saidov was not. The applicant then found out that upon the request of investigator E.A. from the Dagestan Prosecutor’s office, on 17 July 2005 Mr Salikh had been arrested by the police in Moscow and taken for questioning to Makhachkala. According to the applicant, in Makhachkala her son was taken to the 6th Department of Ministry of the Interior (the Organised Crime Unit) for 3 days and then transferred to ORB-2 (police operational –search bureau no. 2) in Grozny, Chechnya. Since his detention on 17 July 2005 Mr Saidov has gone missing. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her son's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as her son's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she complained that her son's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Markha Indrisova v. Russia, (19/16)

Judgement date: 21/01/2020
Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 26/12/2015
Date of violations: 06/02/2014
Location: Chechnya, Sadovoye, Grozny District
Representative: Tagir Shamsudinov
Violation: Disappearance

Mr M. Magomadov, the applicant's spouse, went outside his home after somebody knocked on the gate. When his brother looked outside, he only saw a white Lada-Priora model car driving off. Mr. Magomadov has been missing since. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her husband's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she complained that her husband's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 
Cases 1 - 20 of 710