ECHR Cases from the North Caucasus

In 1999 the administrative authorities of the Leninskiy District of Grozny provided the applicant with a housing allocation (a one‑room municipal flat in Grozny), where she consequently registered in 2005. Two years later, in 2007, the authorities decided to conduct an examination of all allocation orders granting occupation of municipal accommodation. The applicant’s housing allocation order appeared suspicious to the authorities and they commissioned an expert to verify its authenticity. The examination concluded that the allocation order was a forged document and the administration of Grozny brought court proceedings seeking to declare the allocation order null and void and to evict her from the flat in question. On 24 February 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny declared the housing allocation order null and void and issued an order to evict the applicant without provision of alternative accommodation. The Court held that there has been a violation of the applicant's right to respect for her home, as provided by Article 8 of the Convention.

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the refusal to grant her a residence order in respect of her son. She alleges in this connection that the domestic courts did not assess the family situation and the best interests of the child with sufficient thoroughness. In particular, they disregarded the fact that from his birth and until his abduction by E. I had lived with the applicant. Nor did they take into account that E. had a criminal record. They had not assessed properly the applicant’s and E.’s financial and family situations or work schedules. The applicant further alleges that the childcare authority of Grozny issued its opinion that I. should live with his father without meeting her or examining her living conditions.

In the morning of 26 March 2002 the applicant's husband, Mr. S. Kuchiyev, was abducted from his house by a group of armed men in balaclavas and military uniforms. The applicant 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 applicant complained that she had suffered mentally on account of her husband’s disappearance. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant 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.

On 26 December 2000 the two brothers, Visait and Vesmirt Eskiyev were abducted from their house by a group of about 25-30 armed men in military uniforms. The abductors started to beat Visait Eskiyev, when his brother tried to help him, so he was beaten too. Then both men were forced in the abductors’ APC and taken to an unknown destination. They have been missing since. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their husbands' 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 husbands' 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.

On 6 March 2000, during the identity check, the military servicemen forced the applicants and their relatives into a URAL military lorry which took them to another checkpoint. There women were released whereas six men were detained, allegedly for an identity check. They 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.

On 1 March 2002 the applicant's husband, Mr M. Magamadov, was abducted by a group of men in military uniforms and balaclavas, who drove around in two Armoured Personnel Carriers (the APCs) without registration numbers. The abductors did not ask for identity documents, but immediately started to beat Mr Magamadov and the applicant when she tried to help him. Then the abductors forced him in one of their APCs and drove off to an unknown destination. 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 her husband'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.

At night of 10 November 2002 a group of armed men in military uniforms and balaclavas, who were speaking unaccented Russian, arrived at the applicant's house in a UAZ military type van. Mr Nurdi Israilov was abducted and has been missing since, while his son, Mr Bekkhan Israilov, was shot dead. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for Mr. Nurdi Israilov's abduction and subsequent disappearance, as well as for the killing of Mr Bekkhan Israilov 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 tragedy led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their relatives' unlawful detention/death 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.

"

On 22 October, 2003, Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkayev and his brother were abducted from their house. A group of armed men in uniforms broke in and took them away. According to the victim's brother, they were taken to an unidentified location in the vicinity of Grozny and subjected to an identification parade. After that Said-Khasan was taken away in a different vehicle. He has been missing since. His brother was released and returned home. The applicants (the victim's wife and children) complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State agents had been responsible for their relative’s abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the State then had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the man's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relative’s 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.

On 3 July 2003, the applicant's husband, Mr Nogi Indervayev, left his house for work and has been missing since. Mr Indervayev was a shepherd. He disappeared from the field leaving behind his herd of cattle. According to the locals, a military UAZ vehicle drove around in the vicinity on the date of the abduction. 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 her husband's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she complained that the unlawful detention of Mr Indervayev 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.

At night on 24 November 2002 a group of armed military servicemen abducted the applicant's brother, Mr. Shamu Tasukhanov from his own house. They were wearing balaclavas and uniforms, spoke unaccented Russian and arrived in an armored personnel carrier (APC) and a Ural lorry. The victim has been miissing since. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for his brother'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 brother's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, he complained that the man'sunlawful 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.

On 21 March 2000, the applicants' brother, Mr Aslan Magomadov, went to Grozny on an errand and did not return. At the time military clashes between illegal armed groups and the federal military forces were taking place in the area. The applicant’s relative was later seen in Goy-Chu and appeared on a TV footage as one of the arrested members of illegal armed groups (video submitted to the Court). The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their relative'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 the man's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their Mr Magomadov's 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.

In Galashki, Ingushetiya Republic, on 11 December 2009 the applicant was abducted by S. with intent to marry her. She was kept locked in a room without being able to communicate with people outside S.’s family. The applicant told her mother once that her mother-in-law claimed that the applicant would not last living with them longer than two months. On 2 February 2010 the applicant lost consciousness and was taken to hospital. She has not regained consciousness since then. The investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of causing serious damage to health. The applicant complains under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that the inquiry into the circumstances leading to the serious deterioration of her health allegedly resulting from ill-treatment she sustained while kept at her husband’s house was not effective.

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.

The applicants complained of a breach of their property rights through the actions of Russian military forces in Chechnya in 2000 and the failure of the competent domestic authorities to provide them with effective remedies in respect of those breaches. The Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Mr M. Kaimov, having been diagnosed with tuberculosis, started receiving anti-bacterial treatment. On 23 September 2006 Mr M. Kaimov was arrested and, by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, on 28 October 2008 he was found guilty of several counts of criminal offences and sentenced to six years and six months of imprisonment. On 1 July 2010 Mr M. Kaimov died. On the following day the authorities issued the death certificate. It did not indicate the cause of death.

The applicants live in various towns of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria.They were clean-up workers at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. As a result they suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions which later led to their disability. In late 2010 the Nalchik Town Court of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria  awarded the applicants compensations of non pecuniary damage in the above connection. The judgments above have not been appealed against and became final and enforceable. However, Federal Treasury Fund on behalf of the Russian Ministry of Finance lodged an appeal requesting that the statutory ten-day time limit for lodging such an appeal against the judgments be restored. Finally, the ten-day time limit was restored and the decision regarding the compensation was quashed. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that restoration of the time-limit for an appeal resulting in quashing of the final judgment in their favour violated the principle of legal certainty.

The applicants were clean-up workers at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. As a result they suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions which later led to their disability. In early 2011 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Nalchik Town Court of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria (“the Town Court”) against the Russian Ministry of Finance seeking compensation of non pecuniary damage in the above connection.On 12 April 2011 the Town Court allowed the applicants’ claims in part and awarded the applicants compensations. The judgment above has not been appealed against and became final and enforceable. On 17 August 2012 the Department of the Federal Treasury Fund in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kabardino Balkaria and requested that the statutory ten day time limit for lodging such an appeal against the judgments be restored. On 24 August 2012 the Town Court ordered that the time limit for appeal be extended on the grounds that there was no evidence that the FTF had received copy of the judgment in due course. The applicants complain, among others, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that restoration of the time-limit for an appeal resulting in quashing of the final judgment in their favour violated the principle of legal certainty.

In 1990 Imran Gisayev took part in a brawl in which a certain S. was fatally wounded and died shortly afterwards. While nobody was convicted for his death, S’s relatives killed Imran Gisayev on 11 December 1998. U.S., the father of S., testified on 29 December 1998 that it had been his nephew, K.S., who had killed Imran Gisayev as a vengeance. On 11 February 1999 an investigator who led the initial stages of the investigation was questioned after the first applicant had alleged that he had promised the family of S. that he would not arrest the murderer. Subsequently, no one was prosecuted for the killing.The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that the investigation into the death of Imran Gisayev has not been effective and that the perpetrators have not been tried.

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their sons Mr Saidgadzhi Saidgadzhiyev and Mr Gadzhimagomed Akhmedov were killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicants complain that prior to their death their sons were subjected to torture and that no investigation was carried out into the matter. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complain that they did not have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

On May 27, 2015, staff at Prison Colony 6 260 beat Tuntuyev and used electric shock torture in order to obtain confessions and force him to refuse a lawyer’s assistance. In an attempt to cover up the marks left by the torture, staff at the prison colony’s medical unit cut the injured skin from his heels. On July 8, 2016, the Investigative Committee’s investigations department for the town of Kovrov in Vladimir Region opened a criminal case for use of physical violence against Ayub Tuntuyev by staff at Prison Colony 6 in Vladimir Region, where Tuntuyev is currently in detention.