Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 11.02.2010 «Дело Гулуева и другие (guluyeva and others) против России» [англ.]


EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF GULUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 1675/07)
JUDGMENT*
(Strasbourg, 11.II.2010)
____________________________
*This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Guluyeva and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,

Nina {Vajic}*,

____________________________
*Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,

Khanlar Hajiyev,

Dean Spielmann,

Giorgio Malinverni,

George Nicolaou, judges,

and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 January 2010,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 1675/07) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by three Russian nationals listed below ("the applicants"), on 30 April 2004.

2. The applicants, who were granted legal aid, were represented by lawyers of the International Protection Centre, an NGO based in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

3. On 5 June 2007 the Court decided to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application and to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

4. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
5. The applicants are:

1. Ms Nuri Guluyeva, born in 1942,

2. Ms Raisa Guluyeva, born in 1961, and
3. Ms Roza Guluyeva, born in 1965.

6. The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Grozny.

7. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ramzan Guluyev, born in 1967, and of the second and third applicants. At the material time they lived at 1 Mariupolskaya Street, Staropromyslovskiy District, Grozny, in the Chechen Republic. Their household comprised two neighbouring houses with a common courtyard.

A. Abduction of Mr Ramzan Guluyev
1. The applicants' account
8. Between 12 and 13 July 2002 the Guluyev family were at home: the applicants spent the night in one of the houses at 1 Mariupolskaya Street, while Mr Ramzan Guluyev and Sh., his seven-year-old cousin, were in the other. At about 11 p.m. they heard two gunshots apparently coming from the courtyard of an abandoned neighbouring house. Mr Ramzan Guluyev stepped outside to look around but noticed nothing suspicious; the family went to bed.

9. At about 2 a.m. the first applicant was awakened by some noise; she looked out of the window and saw in the courtyard a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms. Some of them rushed to the house in which Mr Ramzan Guluyev slept.

10. The first applicant screamed and woke her daughters. The applicants tried to get out of the house but the door appeared to be blocked. A few minutes later the door opened and two armed men entered; they smelled of alcohol. They wore no masks, had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian; the first applicant believed that they belonged to the Russian military. Shouting and swearing, the two servicemen ordered the applicants to keep quiet.

11. The second applicant eventually slipped into the courtyard and went towards Mr Ramzan Guluyev's house; she heard screams coming from it. Then she was seized by several servicemen. She asked them what was happening; they replied that they had received a call from the police and were carrying out a check; they promised to release Mr Ramzan Guluyev once the check was over. Then they hit the second applicant with gun butts. The first and third applicants rushed into the courtyard and tried to protect the second applicant, but the servicemen started beating them as well. The first applicant, who had been suffering from breast cancer, received a particularly severe blow and lost consciousness. Coming to her senses a few minutes later she saw the servicemen taking Mr Ramzan Guluyev out of the courtyard.

12. There were around twenty-five servicemen; two or three of them wore masks. The servicemen appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. They took Mr Ramzan Guluyev to the street where several khaki UAZ vehicles and a grey all-terrain UAZ vehicle ("таблетка") were parked. Some vehicles had no registration numbers while those of the others were covered with mud. The servicemen put Mr Ramzan Guluyev in one of the vehicles and drove away.

13. Later Sh. told the applicants that the servicemen had demanded money and gold from Mr Ramzan Guluyev.

14. Apart from their own statements the applicants submitted to the Court a statement by their neighbour, Mr V.Ya. According to Mr V.Ya., at approximately 2 a.m. on 13 July 2002 he heard screaming and went outside his house. He saw several UAZ vehicles and about thirty armed men in the street. They were taking Mr Ramzan Guluyev, who was not dressed, from his house. Mr V.Ya. tried to intervene, but the armed men ordered him to get back inside, threatening him with their weapons. He obeyed. When the cars left, he went to see the applicants. The three women had been severely beaten. They did not know who the abductors were or where Mr Ramzan Guluyev had been taken.

15. The applicants also enclosed a copy of a complaint from over 100 residents of the village of Katayama, Staropromyslovskiy District, to the administration of the Chechen Republic, submitted on an unspecified date in 2002. The residents complained that their fellow villagers had been disappearing and referred in particular to the abduction of Mr Ramzan Guluyev. It was stated, inter alia, that the applicants had been beaten by the abductors.

2. The Government's account
16. On 13 July 2002 at approximately 1.40 a.m. unidentified men in camouflage uniforms with firearms abducted Mr Ramzan Guluyev from the house at No. 1 Mariupolskaya Street, Katayama village, Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny, having used violence against the applicants.

B. Injuries inflicted on the applicants
17. Following their relative's abduction, the three applicants discovered that each of them had numerous bruises. According to them, the first applicant had three fingers on the left hand broken while the third applicant had broken ribs. The applicants complained about their injuries to the prosecutor's office.

18. Shortly after the events of 13 July 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor's Office ordered a medical examination of the applicants to be carried out.

19. Between 15 and 18 July 2002 an expert of the forensics bureau of the Chechen Republic examined the third applicant. According to the expert examination report, the third applicant had bruises on her face, left shoulder and right shin, inflicted by a solid blunt object. The expert confirmed that those injuries might have been caused on 13 July 2002 and noted that they did not lead to the loss of capacity to work and thus could not be considered significant injuries.

20. Between 18 and 22 July 2002 the same expert carried out an examination of the second applicant and established that she had a bruise and a graze on the elbows and a bruise on the back inflicted by a solid blunt object, probably on 13 July 2002. The expert found that those injuries were not to be regarded as significant.

21. According to the Government, on 17 July 2002 the investigator ordered a medical examination of the first applicant, However, she did not turn up and the examination was not conducted. The Government did not enclose any documents to corroborate their submissions.

C. Official investigation into Mr Ramzan Guluyev's
disappearance
22. In attempts to find their missing relative the applicants repeatedly contacted both in person and in writing numerous State officials, such as the prosecutors' offices at different levels, the Russian State Duma, the Chechen Administration, the Ministry of Finance of the Chechen Republic and the Russian President. In a number of written complaints they mentioned that they had been beaten by the perpetrators.

23. On 16 July 2002 an investigation into Mr Ramzan Guluyev's disappearance was opened under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 54043. On the same date the Grozny Prosecutor's Office granted the three applicants victim status in the proceedings in case No. 53043, stating that each of them had suffered both physical and emotional damage.

24. On 12 August 2002 the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicants' complaint to the Grozny Prosecutor's Office.

25. On 19 August 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor's Office informed the second applicant that her complaint had been included in the investigation file in case No. 54043.

26. On 21 August 2002 the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic informed the second applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the Grozny Prosecutor's Office.

27. On 27 August 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor's Office informed the second applicant that her complaint had been included in the investigation file in case No. 54043.

28. On 17 September 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor's Office informed the second applicant that the investigation into Mr Ramzan Guluyev's kidnapping in case No. 54043 had been stayed for failure to identify those responsible.

29. On 17 January 2003 the Grozny Prosecutor's Office informed the second applicant that that they had resumed the investigation in case No. 54043. On 24 January 2003 they informed her that the investigation had been suspended for failure to identify those responsible.

30. On 23 April 2003 the special task force unit of the department of the interior of the Astrakhan Region informed the first applicant that they had not participated in any special operations in Grozny on 13 July 2002.

31. On 9 June 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny ("the district prosecutor's office") informed the applicants that they had suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators.

32. On 4 November 2003 the first applicant requested the deputy prosecutor of the Chechen Republic to assist her in the search for her son.

33. On 14 November 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to allow her access to the investigation file in case No. 54043.

34. On 19 November 2003 the department of the interior of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the search for her kidnapped son was under way and investigative measures were being taken to find the perpetrators.

35. On 5 February 2004 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to update her on the progress in the investigation into her son's kidnapping.

36. On 1 March 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case No. 54043 had been stayed for failure to identify those responsible.

37. On 9 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office summoned the first applicant to participate in certain investigative measures on 19 April 2004. On the same date they informed her that the investigation in case No. 54043 had been stayed.

38. On 20 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that they had resumed the investigation into her son's kidnapping.

39. On 23 April 2004 Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son's kidnapping was under way.

40. On 5 July 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the second applicant that the investigation into Mr Ramzan Guluyev's kidnapping had been resumed.

41. On 1 March 2007 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son's kidnapping had been stayed and that investigative measures were being taken to find him and establish the perpetrators.

42. According to the Government, in the course of the investigation the crime scene was inspected and the applicants were questioned on unspecified dates. The second applicant allegedly submitted, inter alia, that the abductors of Mr Ramzan Guluyev had arrived in new UAZ cars and, since the local police department had no new vehicles she had concluded that they were from the Federal Security Service (FSB). The third applicant allegedly stated that some of them understood Chechen and the second applicant stated that one of the abductors had an accent. The first applicant allegedly submitted in the course of questioning that the abductors were armed and that they were wearing camouflage uniforms and sport shoes. Also, according to the Government, on unspecified dates the investigating authorities questioned Sh., Mr V.Ya. and five other neighbours of the applicants. The neighbours allegedly stated that they had not witnessed the abduction and had learned about it the next morning from other residents. The Government did not provide copies either of transcripts of the interviews or of other procedural documents in this respect.

43. Furthermore, according to the Government, requests for information had been sent to the operational search bureau of the Ministry of the Interior, United Alignment of the Interior Troops, Organised Crime Unit of the ministry of the interior and the FBS. According to the responses received, officers of the Ministry of the Interior had not detained Mr Ramzan Guluyev and had no information about his whereabouts. The FSB had no information about him either. Furthermore, Mr Ramzan Guluyev was not detained in a remand prison in the territory of the Chechen Republic. According to the information received in the course of the investigation, no special operations had been conducted on 13 July 2002. The Government provided neither copies of the requests and responses nor information on their dates.

D. Judicial proceedings against the investigators
44. On 10 March 2004 the first applicant complained to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny ("the district court") that

3 Comments

John Doe

March 27, 2018 at 8:00 am Reply

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

John Doe

March 27, 2018 at 8:00 am Reply

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

John Doe

March 27, 2018 at 8:00 am Reply

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Leave a reply

your email address will not be published. required fields are marked *

Name *
Email *
Website