Cases 61 - 80 of 766

Gairbekov v. Russia, (19278/10)

Communicated: 02/07/2020
Lodged: 20/03/2010
Date of violations: 15/03/2005
Location: Dagestan
Representative: Others
Violation: Torture

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by the ORB-2 officers and that the investigations into his allegations of ill-treatment were ineffective.

 

Dzhantemirov v. Russia, (8607/09)

Communicated: 02/07/2020
Lodged: 12/01/2012
Date of violations: 21/01/2003
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Torture

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated by the ORB-2 officers and that the investigations into their allegations of ill-treatment were ineffective. The applicants submitted that they had been taken to the Operational‑Search Division of the North Caucasus Operations Department of the Chief Directorate of the Russian Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit (ОРБ-2 СКОУ ГУ МВД РФ по ЮФО  “ORB‑2”). They were placed in the ORB-2 temporary detention facility (“IVS”) where they were ill-treated by electric shocks, beatings, suffocations with the use of gas masks. Arrest records were drawn up days after their apprehensions.

 

Razhayev v. Russia, (21531/09)

Communicated: 02/07/2020
Lodged: 02/04/2009
Date of violations: 07/08/2007
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Torture

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by the ORB-2 officers and that the investigations into his allegations of ill-treatment were ineffective.

 

Satybalova and Others against Russia, (79947/12)

Judgement date: 30/06/2020
Communicated: 27/06/2017
Lodged: 10/12/2012
Date of violations: 02/05/2010
Location: Dagestan
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Ill-treatment

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative Marat Satybalov was subjected to severe beatings by the police officers and died as a result. They further allege that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter.
Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the police officers subjected Mr Satybalov to severe ill-treatment and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complain that Mr Satybalov’s overnight detention at the police station between 2 and 3 May 2010 was unlawful. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants allege that they had no effective domestic remedies against the above-mentioned violations.

 

Bisultanovy v. Russia, (48608/19)

Communicated: 29/06/2020
Lodged: 29/08/2019
Date of violations: 01/09/2009
Location: Dagestan
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Disappearance

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that State agents abducted their relative Mr Abu Bisultanov, who has gone missing since and that the domestic authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter.

 

Gayeva v. Russia, (688/11)

Judgement date: 23/06/2020
Lodged: 24/12/2010
Date of violations: 15/11/2007
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Right to life

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that Mr Zeitun Gayev was murdered by agents of law-enforcement agencies. She further complains that the domestic authorities failed to thoroughly investigate her son’s alleged murder, in breach of the procedural obligation arising from Article 2 of the Convention. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that agents of law-enforcement agencies ill-treated her son after he was apprehended. She also complains that the domestic authorities did not investigate the alleged instances of ill-treatment, in breach of the procedural obligation arising from Article 3 of the Convention.

 

Sokiryanskaya and others against Russia, (4505/08)

Judgement date: 23/06/2020
Communicated: 12/03/2014
Lodged: 27/12/2007
Date of violations: 16/10/2006
Location: Ingushetia, Nazran
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Freedom of expression

On 16 October 2006 the applicants tried to take part in a peaceful assembly (‘picket’) in Nazran, the Republic of Ingushetia. At the site of the planned picket the applicants were attacked by the men in civilian clothes, who beat and injured some of the picketers and subsequently apprehended them without giving any reasons for the arrest. Relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicants allege that by failing to give sufficient reasons for the prohibition of the picket and by preventing them from holding the picket, the authorities breached the applicants’ rights to hold a peaceful assembly to express their solidarity with Ms Politkovskaya and protest against her murder.

 

Uzhakhov and Albagachiyeva v. Russia, (76635/11)

Judgement date: 23/06/2020
Communicated: 27/06/2017
Lodged: 26/11/2011
Date of violations: 25/11/2009
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: No representative
Violation: Killing

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that State agents killed their relative Mr Khamzat Uzhakhov and that no effective investigation was carried out into the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention the second applicant complains that she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during the house search conducted on 25 November 2009 and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter. Under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain of the unlawful search, and of the destruction and theft of the second applicant’s family property during that unlawful search carried out on 25 November 2009.

 

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

At about 6.20 p.m. on 27 September 2006 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks burst into the courtyard. They pushed Radzh Bulatov and Magomed Dambegov (the applicants) to the ground, hitting them with their gun butts, cuffed their hands and put dark plastic bags on their heads. The intruders then threw the applicants in their van where they continued beating them up and brought them to the so‑called “centre T” of the Ministry of the Interior of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic (“центр Т” МВД КБР”). Then other police officers of the counterterrorist department continued ill-treating the applicants with a view to having them confess to unlawful possession  of arms and other crimes. They beat them up and administered electric shocks to their bodies. The applicants denied having committed the crimes imputed to them. Radzh Bulatov and Magomed Dambegov complain 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.

 

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.

 

Sala Khamidov v. Russia, (32267/08)

Communicated: 15/06/2020
Lodged: 29/05/2008
Date of violations: 25/05/2000
Location: Chechnya
Violation: Ill-treatment

On 25 May 2000 at around 10 p.m. Russian military officers opened random fire in the village of Znamenskoye in the Nadterechniy district of Chechnya. The applicant was leaving his sister’s house when the officers attacked him, beating with gun butts and putting him in a UAZ-vehicle. Mr Kh.Kh. and Ms M.Kh., the applicant’s nephew and his wife, as well as their neighbours witnessed the applicant’s abduction. According to the applicant, the officers took him to the outskirts of the village, beat him, pulled out a denture with 17 golden teeth and took away his money (10,000 Russian roubles). When the applicant passed out, the officers undressed him and threw him out of the car.

 

Gasanovа and Others v. Russia, (45900/19)

Communicated: 12/06/2020
Lodged: 19/08/2019
Date of violations: 26/09/2016
Location: Dagestan
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that State agents abducted their relatives and then killed them having staged an exchange of fire with the law-enforcement agents on the night between 8 and 9 October 2016 and that no effective investigation into the matter has been carried out. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the moral suffering caused by their relatives’ abduction and the lack of information concerning their whereabouts and fate until their bodies were identified. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants alleged that they had no effective remedies against the violations under Article 2 of the Convention

 

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.

 

Ruslan Ugurchiyev v. Russia, (48809/18)

Communicated: 20/05/2020
Lodged: 01/10/2018
Date of violations: 19/02/2017
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: Others
Violation: Torture

The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. On 04/12/2017 the Magasskiy District Court declared the refusal of 10/09/2017 unlawful. On 29/01/2018 the Magasskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the refusal of 11/01/2018. On 03/04/2018 the Supreme Court of Ingushetia dismissed the appeal.

 

Berov v. Russia, (53922/15)

Communicated: 20/05/2020
Lodged: 23/10/2015
Date of violations: 06/03/2012
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Torture

The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. On 04/04/2012 a criminal case was opened. It was suspended and resumed for at least five times between 04/04/2013 and 01/11/2014 for the failure to identify perpetrators. On 25/06/2013 and 10/04/2014 a criminal case against officers Kh. and O. was refused. On 07/12/2015 the applicant complained to the Nalchik City Court about the inactivity of the investigative authorities. On 30/12/2015 the court granted the claim and declared the refusals and the latest decision to suspend the investigation of 01/11/2014 unfounded and unlawful.

 

Chibiyev v. Russia, (70960/14)

Communicated: 20/05/2020
Lodged: 03/11/2014
Date of violations: 29/10/2014
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Torture

The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. On 19/03/2015 the Magasskiy District Court declared the refusal of 11/12/2014 unreasoned and unlawful. On 27/04/2016 the Supreme Court of Ingushetia acquitted the applicant. On 14/07/2016 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the acquittal. No further information.

 

Akhmedov v. Russia, (43067/13)

Communicated: 20/05/2020
Lodged: 24/06/2013
Date of violations: 19/11/2007
Location: Chechnya
Representative: Committee Against Torture
Violation: Torture

The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. 03/12/2007 a criminal case was opened. On 10/01/2008 the applicant was granted victim status. The case was suspended and resumed for at least 13 times between 03/03/2008 and 30/12/2016 for the failure to identify perpetrators. The investigator’s requests to the Minister of Internal Affairs to facilitate the appearance of OMON officers for interviews were unsuccessful. On 12/02/2013 the Leninskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the decisions to extend the time limits of the investigation and investigators’ inactivity. On 19/03/2013 the Supreme Court of Chechnya rejected the applicant’s appeal.

 

Daurbekov v. Russia, (60844/11)

Communicated: 20/05/2020
Lodged: 22/09/2011
Date of violations: 14/05/2010
Location: Chechnya
Representative: Committee Against Torture
Violation: Torture

The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. The applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and unrecorded detention were dismissed as unfounded: the applicant was in the police station before his official arrest and he stayed voluntarily there. On 14/09/2010 the Achkhoy-Martanovskiy District Court dismissed the complaint against the refusal of 11/06/2010 since it had already been quashed by that time. On 18/03/2011 the Urus-Martanovskiy District Court dismissed the complaint against the refusal of 16/08/2010 since the criminal case against the applicant was pending. On 04/05/2011 the decision was upheld on appeal. On 27/01/2011 the Achkhoy-Martanovskiy District Court convicted the applicant. On 23/03/2011 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld the conviction.

 

Fredriksen v. Russia, (15476/08)

Communicated: 20/05/2020
Lodged: 13/03/2008
Date of violations: 11/05/2005
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Torture

The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. First refusal of 25/05/2005 (allegations of ill-treatment unfounded). On 14/04/2006 the trial court ordered an additional inquiry, which resulted in the refusal of 02/05/2006 (allegations of ill-treatment unsubstantiated). On 27/06/2006 the court again ordered an inquiry, which resulted in the refusal of 17/07/2006. On 29/01/2007 the Supreme Court of Chechnya acquitted the applicant on the grounds that his confession statements had been obtained under duress. On 13/09/2007 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the acquittal and remitted the case for a new examination. It found the court’s finding regarding duress unsubstantiated, referring to the refusals to open a criminal case.

 

Tazbiyev v. Russia, (30546/18)

Communicated: 20/05/2020
Lodged: 15/06/2018
Date of violations: 27/01/2017
Location: Chechnya
Representative: Others
Violation: Torture

On 27 January 2017 at around 8 p.m. police officers arrested the applicant in his house and took him to police department no. 3 in Grozny. He was placed in a temporary detention facility (IVS). The officers put a bag over his head and beat him with a truncheon. They demanded him to confess to having intended to go to Syria in order to participate in illegal armed groups. In the police station the applicant met Mr T., Mr Ya. and Mr L., who were also beaten and forced to confess in similar intentions. The applicant’s ill-treatment lasted for five or six days. He was forced to do splits, beaten with rubber truncheons and metal bars. Officers insulted him, using foul language, made gunshots passing by the applicant.

 
Cases 61 - 80 of 766