ECHR Cases from the North Caucasus

The facts of the present case are connected to the Tagayeva and Others case. The applicants are thirty nine individuals who had either been taken hostage and/or injured, or are family members of those killed during the terrorist attack at a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, on 1-3 September of 2004. The hostage-taking was organized by the members of the Chechen separatist movement and occurred at the opening ceremony of the academic year. More than 1,000 people were held captive. A number of hostages were killed by the terrorists in the first two days. On the 3 of September, the armed intervention of the Russian forces killed over 330 people (including over 180 children) and injured over 750 people. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained about violations of the right to life on the following accounts: a breach of the positive obligation to protect life as the school security had not been properly ensured prior to the attack; the absence of an effective investigation due to the fail to establish all the relevant circumstances of the tragic events and to identify the persons responsible, as well as the denial of the victims’ full access to the documents of the criminal investigation; and finally, the disproportionate use of force as the storming of the building was not undertaken with the primary aim of preserving lives.

The application concerns allegations of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial execution of the applicants’ relatives by law-enforcement agencies perpetrated in the end of 2016 - beginning of 2017 in the Chechen Republic. After the disappearance of their relatives, the applicants and their family members have allegedly been subjected to intimidation by local authorities in attempts to dissuade them from lodging complaints for criminal investigation into the incidents. No criminal case was opened into the applicants’ allegations by the domestic authorities, albeit for an inquiry which resulted in refusals to open a criminal case. On 18 December 2019 the applicants were granted anonymity pursuant to Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives were abducted and most probably killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter.

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that her son Magomed Gorchkhanov was abducted and killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she alleges that her son’s arrest and detention by State agents were unlawful and under Article 13 of the Convention, that she had no effective domestic remedies against the violations alleged under Article 2 of the Convention.

The applicants, Mr S.T. and Ms Y.B., are Russian nationals who were born in 2001 and 1999 respectively and live in Grozny (Chechen Republic, Russia). They are a couple. The case concerns an allegation of unlawful detention and ill-treatment of the first applicant, a moderator of an opposition channel known for criticising the Chechen authorities, by State agents in September 2020 in Chechnya, and the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation into the matter. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain that the first applicant was unlawfully detained and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by State agents.

The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the Republic of Ingushetia (Russia). They are close relatives of Magomed Khayauri, born in 1991, Islam Tachiyev, born in 1992, and Artur Karsamauli, born in 1986. The case concerns the killing by State agents of the three young men on a university campus in July 2012. The investigation into the incident was terminated, owing to the death of the suspects, and reopened by decision of the investigators’ superiors more than ten times. It is still pending. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants allege that State agents killed their relatives in a botched security operation and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter effectively. Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain that they had no effective remedy at their disposal.

The case regards the events, described in the case Khayauri and others v. Russia. Mr Artur Karsamauli was one the the persons killed together with Mr Khayauri  on 28 July 2012 on the premises of the Ingushetia State University. The applicant (Artur's father) complain under Article 2 of the Convention that his son was killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter.

"In the evening on 28 July 2012 Mr Khayauri (the son and the brother of the applicants) was sitting on a bench with his friends Mr Artur Karsamauli and Mr I.T. on the premises of the Ingushetia State University awaiting the time to go to the mosque. At about 10 p.m. the FSB officers opened gunfire at the three young men and killed all of them. The criminal case was opened against three men on suspect of an unlawful possession of firearms and an attempt on the life of a law-enforcement officer. According to the investigators, the three men belonged to an illegal armed group and that day had a meeting with a certain Mr M. Dzh. who had been wanted by the authorities. To date no criminal case has been opened into the killing of Magomed Khayauri, Artur Karsamauli and Mr I.T. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative was killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter. Under Article 13 they allege that they had no effective domestic remedies against the violation alleged.
"

In the period of March 2013 the special military operation “Barrier 2013” took place at the administrative border of Ingushetia and Chechnya. It was aimed at arresting members of illegal armed groups hiding in the forests in the area. According to the applicants (parents of Usman Gaysultanov), they were never informed about the operation. On 10 March 2013 the applicants’ sons Usman and Mayrbek Gaysultanov, the third applicant and eleven other residents of Achkhoy-Martan boarded a URAL lorry to go to Bamut village to pick ramsons. On the way to the forest the lorry passed through a military checkpoint without being stopped. Moreover, there were no warnings signs or markings around the area and no information concerning a special operation in the vicinity of the forest. While picking up ramsons, the three men were subjected to a half-hour of mortar fire. Usman Gaysultanov was severely wounded by one of the projectiles and both of his legs were torn off. The third applicant received serious injuries to the lower part of his body. As soon as the pickers were able to leave the forest, they went to Bamut village, from where Usman Gaysultanov was taken to a hospital in Grozny and the third applicant to a hospital in Urus-Martan.On the following day, Mr Gaysultanov died in the hospital. The applicants complain under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to safeguard the right to life of Mr Usman Gaysultanov and the third applicant by failing to warn them about the special operation. They also allege that the authorities failed to comply with the negative obligation under Article 2 as the men had been subjected to mortar fire aimed at them by State agents. In addition, under the procedural limb of Article 2  the applicants complain that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter.

The applicants complain under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to safeguard the right to life of their four killed relatives and that of the fifth applicant and the disappeared Mr Vakhayev by failing to warn them about the special operation. Furthermore, the applicants allege that the authorities also failed to comply with the negative obligation of that provision as their four relatives and the fifth applicant had been shot intentionally by State agents and Mr Vakhayev had been abducted by them during the special operation. The applicants complain under the procedural limb of Article 2 that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the fourth and seventh applicants complain of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their brother Mayr-Ali Vakhayev. Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a lack of effective remedies in respect of the above-mentioned complaints

Allegedly, in early April 2010 Gilani Tsechoyev was stopped by unspecified law-enforcement officers, who spoke Chechen and Russian without an accent. As these officers were attempting to force him into a car, Officer Kha. ordered them to let him go.
On 24 June 2010 two people fired gun shots at the victim causing his death. Two of the applicant’s friends, Ch. and B., were eye-witnesses to the events. On the same day, an investigator carried out a crime-scene inspection. On 25 June 2010 a criminal case was opened.

The applicant was a sister of Ms Natalia Estemirova, now deceased, a prominent human rights activist and campaigner in Russia working in the North Caucasus, including documenting cases of human rights violations in the Chechen Republic. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention of the murder of her sister and the authorities’ failure to thoroughly, effectively and speedily investigate her death.

Muslim Zulkarnayev is currently serving a term of imprisonment in correctional colony IK-4 in the Mariy-El Republic. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to repeated ill-treatment and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into it. He further submits that he was held in unacknowledged detention between 15 and 25 April 2006, in breach of all guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.

The applicant, Rizvan Abdulkhanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Grozny (Russia). The case concerns the serious wounding of the applicant by the police and their allegedly obstructing him from receiving medical treatment for his injuries. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was seriously wounded as the result of excessive use of force by the police, that the authorities prevented him from receiving necessary medical treatment and failed to investigate the matter effectively.

The applicant is a national of Belarus. Ten days after the birth of her daughter in 2018, her husband abducted the baby and took her to his native village in Chechnya. His family prevented the applicant from seeing her daughter outside their house. The husband beat the applicant on 22/02/18, 17/03/18 and 15/05/18, including when she was breastfeeding the baby. On 22/05/18 the applicant reported the beatings to the police (refusal to investigate on 16/07/18; quashed on 08/05/19, one day before examination of an application for judicial review; refusal to investigate on 19/06/19; quashed on 18/10/20, on the day of examination of an application for judicial review).

The applicants are 29 Russian nationals who were living in village Borozdinovka inhabited mostly by ethnic Avarians and few Chechen and Russian families. On 4 June 2005 a military convoy, later identified by villagers as soldiers from the Vostoc battalion (formed of ethnic Chechens and headed by Sulim Yamadayev), entered the village. Armed men in camouflage proceeded to passport check of all male inhabitants of the village, and searched several houses. About 200 men over the age of fifteen were taken to local school and there were beaten and humiliated by the men in military uniform during several hours. Following the personal identification of all villagers, eleven men, one Russian and ten Avars – Kamil Magomedov, Abakar Aliyev, Said Magomedov, Ahmed Abdurakhmanovich Magomedov, Ahmed Payzulayevich Magomedov, Eduard Lachkov, Shakhban Magomedov, Murtuz Umarov, Magomed Isayev, Ahmed Kurbanaliyev, and Magomed Kurbanaliyev - were taken with the armed forces when those left the village, and never seen again alive. Chechen villagers were released. On the same day, Magomazi Magomazov was found burnt with a gun shot wound. Also, before leaving the armed men had set on fire the houses of Said Magomedov and Kamil Magomedov. Within two following days, burnt human remains were found at the site of two houses. In total, four houses were burnt. Soon after start of investigation, the villagers left for Republic of Dagestan requesting authorities to grant them with refugee status and compensate for property losses. Some applicants were compensated of RUR 200,000 (EUR 5,035) by the authorities of the Shelkovskoy district in exchange for the transfer of their houses to Chechens. In July 2005, internet media reported about the document confirming the special operation of Vostok battalion with names of the arrested men coincided with the names of disappeared. It also mentioned death of Magomazi Magomadov. On 27 July 2005 the military prosecutor of the United Group of Forces instituted the criminal proceedings against the commander of the Vostoc battalion, Mr Aziev. Later, Grozny Garrison Court found Mr Aziev guilty of exceeding official powers and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, with one year suspended term. The families of the victims were not notified in advance about the forthcoming trial and could not, therefore, challenge the judgment. The investigation into the special operation of 4 July 2005 is still pending. The applicants, some of whom had been granted victim status, were not properly informed about the progress of the investigation, including results of forensic examination of the human remains from the two burnt houses.

In the beginning of January 2010 Mariya Malayeva went to the investigators of the Leninskiy Inter-District Investigations Department in Grozny who told her that on 5 January 2010 her son Aslambek Saidakhmadov had been brought to them for questioning and then released. They also told her that on 7 January 2010 Aslambek Saidakhmadov had bought a train ticket to Rostov. The applicant learned from her neighbour, Ms I.T., that her relative, Mr M., an officer of the OMON, had been arrested after the applicant’s son had absconded from the OMON headquarters. According to the neighbour, the abductors believed that Mr M. had helped Aslambek to run away and held him in detention on their premises until Aslambek Saidakhmadov had been abducted in Astrakhan and taken back to them.

The applicant refers to the death of her husband Timur Dzankhotovich Gatsalov who died in the result of the events of 13-14 October 2005 in Nalchik. According to those who took part in identification of the bodies, during several days following the events of 13 and 14 October 2005 the corpses were kept in the morgue and in a few other locations in wholly unsatisfactory conditions. On several occasions the applicant requested various officials, including the prosecutors, to return the bodies of her husband for burial. The requests either remained unanswered or were refused. The applicant complains under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention that the State authorities unnecessarily interfered with her right to family and private life and freedom of religion by denying her access to the body of her killed relative for religious burial according to Islam traditions and customs.

Safar Dayfurovich Laypanov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Karachayevsk. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police officers to obtain confession, that the authorities had failed to investigate these episodes, that the domestic courts had breached his presumption of innocence by convicting him on the basis of the evidence obtained under torture.

Roman Magomedovich Gastemirov, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in the town of Groznyy, the Chechen Republic The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police officers to obtain confession, that the authorities had failed to investigate these episodes, that the domestic courts had breached his presumption of innocence by convicting him on the basis of the evidence obtained under torture.

The applicants, Mr Umar Bagaudinovich Khadziyev, Mr Alikhan Magomedovich Ozdoyev and Mr Rustam Yunusovich Tsurov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1984, 1977 and 1980 respectively and live in the village of Kartsa of the Republic of the North Ossetia-Alania. It appears that at present they are serving a sentence of imprisonment in a penitentiary establishment in Russia. The applicants complained under Articles 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention that they had been ill-treated by the police officers to obtain confession, that the authorities had failed to investigate these episodes, that the domestic courts had breached their presumption of innocence by convicting them on the basis of the evidence obtained under torture, that the criminal proceedings against them had been generally unfair and discriminatory on account of their Ingush ethnicity.