ECHR Cases from the North Caucasus

Zara Murtazaliyeva alleged in particular that the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against her had been undermined because she had not been able to see or effectively examine the surveillance videotapes shown during the hearing on her case as she could not see the video screen in the courtroom; and because she had not been allowed to question in court the police officer whose actions, in her opinion, could be considered as police incitement or the two attesting witnesses, who could have clarified her allegations concerning the planting of the explosives in her bag. She relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) (right to a fair trial / right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence / right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).

The complaint is brought by 130 Russian nationals. They raise various issues related to the terrorist attack, siege and storming of school no. 1 in Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia, on1-3 September 2004. Some applicants were held hostage and/or injured;others had family members among those taken hostage, killed or injured. Several applicants lodged complaints also in respect of their family members.

The complaint is brought by 98 Russian nationals. They raise various issues related to the terrorist attack, siege and storming of school no. 1 in Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia, on1-3 September 2004. Some applicants were held hostage and/or injured;others had family members among those taken hostage, killed or injured. Several applicants lodged complaints also in respect of their family members.

The complaint is brought by 49 Russian nationals. They raise various issues related to the terrorist attack, siege and storming of school no. 1 in Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia, on1-3 September 2004. Some applicants were held hostage and/or injured;others had family members among those taken hostage, killed or injured. Several applicants lodged complaints also in respect of their family members.

The complaint is brought by 57 Russian nationals. They raise various issues related to the terrorist attack, siege and storming of school no. 1 in Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia, on1-3 September 2004. Some applicants were held hostage and/or injured;others had family members among those taken hostage, killed or injured. Several applicants lodged complaints also in respect of their family members.

The complaint is brought by 58 Russian nationals. They raise various issues related to the terrorist attack, siege and storming of school no. 1 in Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia, on1-3 September 2004. Some applicants were held hostage and/or injured;others had family members among those taken hostage, killed or injured. Several applicants lodged complaints also in respect of their family members.

The complaint is brought by 42 Russian nationals. They raise various issues related to the terrorist attack, siege and storming of school no. 1 in Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia, on1-3 September 2004. Some applicants were held hostage and/or injured;others had family members among those taken hostage, killed or injured. Several applicants lodged complaints also in respect of their family members.

The complaint is brought by 13 Russian nationals. They raise various issues related to the terrorist attack, siege and storming of school no. 1 in Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia, on1-3 September 2004. Some applicants were held hostage and/or injured;others had family members among those taken hostage, killed or injured. Several applicants lodged complaints also in respect of their family members.

In different dates the applicants applied for recalculation of the social benefits they were entitled to as persons who took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. Their claims were granted by domestic courts. The applicants complained that the unlawful extension of the time‑limit for appeal granted by the domestic courts following the defendant authority’s request had resulted in the judgments in their favour being quashed, which consequently constituted a violation of their right to a court. The Court found the violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

The applicant in the case, Arsan Mukayev, was arrested in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan at 13 January 2006. On February 2006 the Russian authorities officially requested the applicant’s extradition to Russia. Then the applicant was taken to remand prison IZ-77/4 in Moscow. On 23 February 2006 Arsan Mukayev was arrived at Operational Search Bureau no. 2 (“ORB-2”) in Grozny, where over the course of month he was subjected to torture on a regular basis, including severe beatings, electrocution, and was forced to sign confessions. In March 2006 the applicant retracted his statements, claiming that he had signed them only to escape further torture, and pled not guilty to the charges against him. Several days afterwards, Arsan was again tortured by electrocution. During his trial the applicant alleged that he had been tortured in detention in order to sign a confession by several police officers whose identities were known to him. On 22 May 2007 the Chechnya Supreme Court Chechnya convicted Arsan Mukayev based in the large part on the applicant’s statements obtained under torture.

The case concerns the abduction and ill-treatment of a human rights activist and three journalists, in  Ingushetia (Russia), during November 2007. The first applicant, Oleg Orlov (born in 1953), was at the  relevant time the chairman of Memorial, a Russian human rights NGO. The other three applicants,  Artem Vysotskiy (born in 1974), Stanislav Goryachikh (born in 1986), and Karen Sakhinov (born in  1982), were a reporter and camera team for REN TV, a Russian television company. They were in the  region to cover a planned protest against the abuse of power by state security services. On the night  of 23 November 2007, which was the eve of the public protest, all four applicants were staying in the  Hotel Assan in Nazran, Ingushetia. According to multiple witnesses, the security guards and police  who were normally present at the hotel were summoned away from the premises, following a call made by a Deputy Minister of the Interior of Ingushetia.

On 25 January 2006 Ibragim Kushtov disappeared. The applicants considered that he had been abducted by State agents. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the State failed to protect life and secure an investigation into the forced disappearance of Ibragim Kushtov. The applicants complain that, as a result of Ibragim Kushtov’s disappearance, they endured mental suffering which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention.

The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention

The applicants alleged that on 30 September 2002 their husbands Shamkhan Abubakarov and Badrudi Abubakarov had been killed by military servicemen in Chechnya and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter effectively.

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that police officers used unnecessary, potentially lethal force against them and the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into that incident.

The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long.

On 23 may 2002 Mr Magomedrasul Magomedov went to his sister’s house in Mesker-Yurt with his friend Mr Kh. M. The next day, when they wanted to leave the settlement, they noticed that Mesker-Yurt was surrounded by military servicemen and all the roads leading to and from the village were blocked. In early June Mr Magomedov and Mr Kh. M. were told by the servicemen to go to the village mosque and join the other residents who had gathered there. Mr Magomedov was taken away from the mosque on the same day and, most probably, taken to the temporary filtration camp. His whereabouts remain unknown since. As for Mr Kh. M., a few days later he was allowed to leave the village.

Between 21 May and 11 June 2002 servicemen of the federal forces conducted a sweeping-up operation in Mesker-Yurt village, Chechnya. They blocked the village, set up a temporary filtration camp at the outskirts of the settlement; as a result of this operation some people were apprehended from their homes, local mosque and other locations in the village. Sixteen persons were transferred to an unknown location and their relatives have had no news of them thereafter.

On 8 October 1999, the applicants Ms Malika Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Mr Ramzan Abdulkhadzhiyev together with the neighbors tried to evacuate their cattle due to artillery fire from the territory controlled by Russian military forces in the outskirts of village Savelyevskaya. Having permission from military, the applicants and other people walked toward the pasture when they were shot by a servicemen standing there. Both applicants were wounded in the arm. Another civilian, who witnessed the incident and tried to approach the servicemen, was shot dead. One of the neighbors managed to inform the authorities about the incident, while both applicants were hooded and moved to the military headquarters of unit no. 54256. They were soon released following the request from the local authorities. The cattle belonging to the applicants remained in control of the military. The criminal proceedings in regard to the incident were started in October 2000, but brought no results.

On 23 February 2003 Mr Yushayev was at his relatives’ house at 21 Sovetskaya Street in the village of Oyskhar, Chechnya, when at approximately 3 a.m. a group of about ten armed servicemen in white camouflage uniforms arrived in two UAZ (tabletka) minivans without registration numbers. The servicemen were of Asian appearance and spoke unaccented Russian; some of them were wearing balaclavas. They made a forced entry into the house, arrested Mr Yushayeva and his relative, Mr S.Sh., put them into one of the vehicles and drove away to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of Mr Yushayev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction.