ECHR Cases from the North Caucasus

The husband of the applicant Muma Babuyev worked as a driver on the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala, Chechnya.  От 30 August 2002 the couple went to the military base for getting the salary of Muma. He entered inside while the applicant was waiting for him at the checkpoint outside. Her husband did not return from the territory of the base. The applicant has not seen Muma Babuyev since 30 August 2002. It is unclear whether the criminal proceedings in respect him disappearance are currently pending.

The Court examined the circumstances of the detention of Mr Islam Deniyev, who was last seen on 24 November 2000 at the “Chernorechensky” checkpoint along the Kavkaz military highway between Alkhan-Yurt and Grozny. Witnesses had seen Mr Deniyev and two others standing outside of their car, surrounded by military men. A short time later, the car he had been driving in, with the same license plate, was spotted in a military convoy. A year after the abduction, the blown-up remains of the car were found as well as the remains of the bodies of the three men, which were identified by relatives. A criminal case was opened only in February 2001 by the Grozny Prosecutor’s office, and although a number of key witnesses were questioned early on, the investigation was soon suspended for a failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently the investigation was re-opened and suspended nine times over a period of seven years.

The applicants alleged that their relative Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev had been abducted by State agents in Dagestan, Russia, and had subsequently disappeared and that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate the matter.

On 29 July 2002 a group of men in military uniforms seized Mr Akhmed Bakayev on a street in Kirova settlement, Chechnya, and took him away. On 9 July 2003 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 30111. The investigation is still pending.

The case concerned the seizure of Mr Salamov’s truck during a counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya. During an identity check in December 1999 military servicemen seized a truck from Mr Salamov’s home in Shali (Chechnya). The truck was eventually returned to him in April 2000, but it was damaged. He thus attempted to submit complaints to the local and military prosecutors, but was advised in August 2003 to seek damages in civil proceedings. He therefore went on to sue the military unit concerned for unlawful seizure of his truck, claiming compensation for missing parts and the cost of repairs. He notably submitted eyewitness statements of the truck’s seizure, two letters issued by military commanders confirming the seizure and return of the vehicle and findings reached by a local administration commission confirming his account of the circumstances of his 10 case. However, in July 2004 the domestic courts, relying on the statements of two servicemen from the military unit in question (who denied having seen the truck) as well as the military unit’s log book (which had no record of the seizure), found that the State could not be held responsible for the damage to Mr Salamov’s truck. This decision was upheld on appeal in September 2004. An internal inquiry was subsequently conducted by the military prosecutor in 2009, during which the military unit stated that it had not conducted any special operations in Shali in December 1999 and that their
archives had no trace of any complaints by Mr Salamov regarding the seizure of his truck. Four servicemen in the military unit in question also signed affidavits confirming that they could not recall a truck seized by a local inhabitant having been used by their unit. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Salamov complained that the seizure of and damage to his truck had breached his property rights.

The first applicant, Mr Oleg Petrovich Orlov, is a Russian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Moscow. The second applicant is the Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation registered in Russia. The applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention that their right to freedom of expression was violated. They claim, in particular, that the interference was not lawful, because Article 152 of the Civil Code of Russia made no distinction between statements of fact and value judgments. They also claim that the interference was not “necessary in a democratic society” because the domestic courts failed to examine the case in line with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention and because the interference was disproportional to the legitimate aim pursued.

The applicant alleged that in July 2002 federal servicemen had killed her son, Mr Aslan Dudayev, during an attack on her house and had abducted and subsequently killed her husband, Mr Ali Dudayev, and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter.

Since 1995 Mr Rasul Mukayev has been suffering from a disability. In 2001 and 2002 he was detained in sweeping-up operations in Duba-Yurt and subsequently released since no charges were brought against him. At the material time the village was surrounded by numerous checkpoints. Two checkpoints were located in the vicinity of the applicants’ house. On 3 December 2004 at around 5 a.m. an APC arrived at the applicants’ house in Duba-Yurt. Another APC and two UAZ “tabletka” vehicles remained waiting in a neighbouring street. A group of eight to ten armed servicemen who were masked and in camouflage uniforms broke into the house. Threatening the applicants in unaccented Russian, they searched the house for valuables, arms and ammunition and took some items. The servicemen handcuffed Rasul, pulled his T-shirt over his head and forced him outside, where one of them reported to someone via portable radio: “The object is taken. We are leaving”. The servicemen told the applicants that they were taking Rasul to the ROVD and then drove away in the direction of Khankala. The applicants subsequently learnt from anonymous witnesses that their son had been taken to the Main Federal Military Base in Khankala.The applicants have not seen Mr Rasul Mukayev since his abduction on 3 December 2004.

On 8 August 2000 at around noon a group of more than twenty five masked and armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in two APCs and several UAZ “tabletka” cars. They broke inside and quickly searched the premises, taking away all documents and family pictures. They arrested Khasan Sagayev, put him in APC no. 802 and drove away in the direction of the Rostov-Baku highway. There they joined a convoy of APCs and UAZ cars. Other Alkhan-Yurt residents were arrested on that day. Later in the morning Mr Supyan Mokhchayev, the Grozny mayor, contacted a military commander, who reported that APC no. 802 belonged to a Russian regiment stationed on the premises of the Main Federal Military Base in Khankala. However, Khankala servicemen denied this. Mr Mokhchayev also learnt from anonymous witnesses that Khasan had been brought to Khankala and questioned by three investigators. Later on Mr Muni Akhmadov, a resident of Alkhan-Yurt, told the applicant that Khasan’s name was listed in one of the secret databases in Khankala. The applicant has not seen Mr Khasan Sagayev since his abduction on 8 August 2000.

In the aftemoon on 27 May 2002 Magomed Bimuradov was abducted from the street next to his house in the village of Gordaly, Chechnya, by a group of armed masked men in a car. In the presence of a number of witnesses he was forced in the car which drove away in the direction of the Shuani village in the Nozhy-Yurt district. According to the applicant, the abductors belonged to the federal forces. Magomed Bimaradov has gone missing since.  It is unclear whether the investigation into the murder and/or the disappearance of the applicant’s brother has been completed.

The applicant, Yarmet Nagmetov, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Makhachkala (Republic of Dagestan, Russia).
5. The case concerned the death of his son, Murad Nagmetov, as a result of a tear gas grenade fired during a demonstration. On 25 April 2006, Murad Nagmetov took part in a public gathering of several hundred people in Makhachkala alleging corruption of local public officials. The gathering was dispersed by the authorities with the use of firearms and Murad Nagmetov died of injuries sustained by a tear gas grenade. On the same day a criminal investigation into murder and the illegal handling of firearms was opened. In February 2007, the investigating authority suspended the investigation. In December 2009 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 16 January 2010. In February 2011, the acting prosecutor determined that the decision of 16 January 2010 was unlawful and
ordered a resumption of the investigation. In particular, he noted that the investigation had not exhausted the measures aimed at establishing the circumstances of the crime, the collection of evidence or the identification of the rifle used to cause the victim’s death. The prosecutor did not believe that it was impossible to identify the rifle, as reported by an expert, if the cartridges of the relevant type were provided. Most recently, in April 2011, the investigation was once again suspended. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Mr Nagmetov complained that his son had died as a result of excessive use of force by the state and that the investigation into his son’s death had been ineffective. In particular, he complained about the quality of the expert reports.

Akhmed Buzurtanov was a trainer in a sports club “Kaloy” in Nazran. The applicants alleged that at night on 6 December 2012 at a 200 to 300 meters distance from his home Akhmed had been stopped by unknown masked men in military uniforms who had previously chased him in three cars. They had forced him into one of their cars and taken him away to unknown destination. The applicants have had no news of Akhmed Buzurtanov since his disappearance. The applicants complain, among other matters, under Article 2 of the Convention about the violation of the right to life of Akhmed Buzurtanov.

On 10 July 2009 an official of the Derbent town administration hired the applicant as his personal assistant for minor tasks such as making tea and cleaning up the office. On 17 July 2009 Mr R. and Mr A. locked the door to Mr R.’s office at the end of the working day and raped the applicant. The pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of rape was pending from July 2009 until June 2014; the means employed during the investigation were not capable of leading to identification and punishment of those responsible. The applicant complained, relying on Articles 6, 7, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention, about the lack of an effective investigation by the domestic authorities into the reported rape.

The applicant owned flat no. 12 in an apartment block at 53, Kavkazskaya Street, Grozny. The building was destroyed during the hostilities in 1999 - 2000. In November 2004 the applicant applied to the Commission and his file was assigned number 02/13975.
In 2008 the applicant was registered as a person eligible for social housing because his flat had been destroyed during the hostilities. He was assigned number 1569 in the waiting list; in 2010 his number was 1689. In April 2010 he was informed that his application was not considered by the Commission since the building in question has not been included into the register of destroyed buildings. The applicant complained to a court. On 5 July 2010 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny rejected his complaint since the Commission was unable to proceed in the absence of the technical group’s register.

The applicant’s flat was damaged during the hostilities in 1994 -1995, and then destroyed in 1999-2000. It was situated in a 70-flat apartment block at 21, Tereshkova Street in Grozny, Chechnya. In March 2005 the applicant submitted an application for administrative compensation to the Compensation Commission (Комиссия по рассмотрению заявлений граждан о компенсационных выплатах за утраченное жилье и имущество, thereafter “the Commission”). She received acknowledgment of receipt of documents no. 22/9777. n 2011 she was informed by the Commission’s secretariat that the technical group has not been operational since 2005 and that the Commission was not aware whether and when it would restart its work.
The applicant instituted civil proceedings, seeking damages for the destroyed property directly from the Government of Chechnya. On 21 March 2013 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny rejected the applicant’s claim, referring to the expiration of the time-limit and lack of legal grounds for such claims. On 28 May 2013 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld the decision, except the reliance on the prescription term. The Supreme Court stressed that the compensation could not be paid because the new procedure for the payment of compensations was being developed.

On 17 May 2005 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Khizir Galtakov on a street in Znamenskoye, Chechnya, and took him away in an UAZ (“таблетка”) vehicle without registration numbers. On 28 May 2005 the Nadterechnyy district prosecutor’s office in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 49007. The investigation is still pending.

In the early hours of 4 February 2000 the village of Katyr-Yurt, a so-called ''safe zone'', came under aerial attack without any warning. Taisa Abakarova and her family hid in the cellar under their house as the shelling continued throughout the day. Later Taisa's father said that it was too dangerous to stay in Katyr-Yurt and that they would go to Achkhoy-Martan. As Taisa and her family got into their "Volga" car, there were several explosions. At some point Taisa lost here memory of the events, and regained consciousness when she was lying on the road. Their car was on fire, and as a result of the air-strike her father Mansur Abakarov, her mother Khava Zaumayeva, her brothers Ruslan and Magomed Abakarov, and her sister Madina Zaumayeva were killed.  An official criminal investigation was initiated but later closed as no criminal acts could be established. The facts of the case are connected to Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, decided on 24 February 2005.

On 6 April 2000 a group of police officers detained Mr Alu Tsumayev at checkpoint “Chernorechye” in the Zavodskoy District of Grozny and took him to the Zavodskoy district department of the interior in Grozny. On 10 August 2000 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 12115. The investigation is still pending.

On 25 June 2010 the second applicant and her husband Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov were visiting their relative Ms F.Sh. in Kaspiysk. At about 9 p. m. there arrived a group of five to seven men, some of whom were in black masks. One of them told the second applicant that they were from the police. The men abducted Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov next to the house, in the street. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov had been abducted and subsequently deprived of his life by State agents, and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the matter.

On 2 October 2008 the Regional Administration brought a defamation claim against the applicant company and the editorial board of “the Caucasian Knot” seeking the publication of a disclaimer against expressions  saying that “the Regional Administration [had] lobbied the Volzhanin factory to win the tender” and that “the suspension of allocation of subsidies to the Town of Volgograd from the regional budget [had been] an act of revenge for the lost tender”. The Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant company to publish on “the Caucasian Knot” website a disclaimer stating that the extracts were false and damaging to the business reputation of the Administration of the Volgograd Region, as well as to publish the operative part of the present judgment. The Moscow City Court, endorsing the reasoning of the first instance court, upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant company complains under Article 10 of the Convention about an unjustified interference with its freedom of expression.