* CONSEIL * COUNCIL DE UEUROPE * * * OF EUROPE

Transcription

1 * * * CONSEIL * COUNCIL DE UEUROPE * * * OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 25 April 2008 FIRST SECTION Application no /05 by Chovka Abdrakhmanovna SADULAYEVA against Russia lodged on 16 September 2005 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Chovka (also known as Aymani) Abdrakhmanovna Sadulayeva, is a Russian national who was bom in 1947 and lives in the village of Martan-Chu, in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by the lawyers of the Mémorial Human Rights Centre, an NGO registered in Moscow. The applicant is the mother of Aslan Sadulayev, bom in The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A. Abduction of Aslan Sadulayev At the material time the applicant's son Aslan Sadulayev lived in a village in the Naurskiy district of Chechnya while the applicant and his other relatives lived in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya. On 9 December 2002 Aslan Sadulayev arrived at the town of Urus- Martan to visit his relatives and to celebrate the Muslim holiday of Uraza Bairam. In Urus-Martan he met his acquaintance Mr Marat M. who agreed to give him a lift in his purple VAZ-2109 car to a nearby village of Alkhazurovo. In the early aftemoon of 9 December 2002, on their way back fi-om the village to Urus-Martan, Mr Marat M. also agreed to give a lift to his acquaintance Ms T. S. and a young man. Mr Marat M. together with Aslan Sadulayev, Ms. T. S. and the young man were driving in the car when they were stopped by the Russian military servicemen at the intersection of the road to the village of Komsomolskoye

2 and the road from Alkhazurovo to Urus-Martan. A mobile check point of the Russian military forces on two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) was conducting identity checks there that day. The servicemen let Ms T. S. go; she managed to get a lift with another car and left. At that time a bus going from Urus-Martan to Alkhazurovo was also stopped at the intersection. The bus had many passengers, including Ms. Khamila D., Ms Kaypa A. and Ms Tamara S. The servicemen checked the identity documents of two young men who were on the bus. Meanwhile, the bus passengers saw from the Windows that the servicemen were checking documents of the three men in the purple VAZ car. Ms Tamara S. and Ms Khamila D. recognized one of them as their acquaintance Aslan Sadulayev. The witnesses saw that the servicemen were not letting the three men go and that the APCs moved and surrounded the purple VAZ car. Ms Khamila D. tried to leave the bus to ask the officers why they were not letting Aslan Sadulayev go, but the servicemen ordered her to stay on the bus. The three women and other bus passengers saw that ail the vehicles, together with the VAZ car surrounded by the APCs, drove away in the direction of Urus-Martan. The description of the events of 9 December 2002 is based on the accounts provided to the applicant's représentatives: an account of the events by the applicant given on 1 August 2006; an account of the events by witness Ms Kh. E. given on 1 August 2006; an account of the events by witness Ms Kaypa A. given on 1 August 2006; an account of the events by witness Ms Khamila D. given on 1 August 2006 and an account of the events by witness Ms Tamara S. given on 1 August B. The applicant's search for her son and the officiai investigation into the abduction of Aslan Sadulayev 1. The applicant 's search for her son On 14 December 2002 a résident of the village of Martan-Chu, referred to by the applicant as "Rizvan", came to the applicant's house. He told her that Mr Marat M. had asked him to tell her that Aslan Sadulayev had been apprehended by Russian military servicemen. Mr Rizvan agreed to take the applicant on the fouowing day to the place of meeting with Mr Marat M. in Urus-Martan. In the moming of 15 December 2002 the applicant together with "Rizvan" arrived at Urus-Martan. At about 12 p.m. they met with Mr Marat M. who told the applicant about his ride with Aslan Sadulayev on 9 December He told her that their car had been stopped at the intersection by the Russian military servicemen. The servicemen had told the men in the car that they would take them for questioning to the military commander's office of the Urus-Martan district (the district military commander's office) and would release them afterwards. At the entrance to the office Mr Marat M. had met his acquaintance who had worked there and had arranged his immédiate release. Mr Marat M. told the applicant that the Russian servicemen had not retumed his purple VAZ car and he had not seen it since. Mr Marat M. told the applicant that he would arrange her son's

3 release in the evening and that she should wait for him at 5 p.m. at the local market in Urus-Martan. The applicant waited for Mr Marat M. at the agreed place from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., but he did not come. Three subséquent days the applicant waited for him at the place to no avail. The applicant searched for Mr Marat M. through "Rizvan". The latter introduced her to the sister of Mr Marat M., Ms Z., who told the applicant that she had heard about the appréhension of Aslan Sadulayev from her brother and that she had been unable to find Mr Marat M. for the past several days. In the search for Aslan Sadulayev the applicant also contacted, both in person and in writing, varions officiai bodies, such as the Envoy of the Président of the Russian Fédération for Ensuring Human Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, the Chechen administration, military commanders' offices and prosecutors' offices at différent levels, describing the circumstances of her son disappearance and asking for help in establishing his whereabouts. The applicant retained copies of a number of those complaints and submitted them to the Court. An officiai investigation was opened by the local prosecutor's office. The relevant information is summarised below. 2. The officiai investigation into the abduction of Aslan Sadulayev On 19 December 2002 the applicant complained about her son's abduction to a number of local law enforcement agencies, including the military commander's office, the prosecutor's office of the Urus-Martan district (the district prosecutor's office) and the department of the interior of the Urus-Martan district (the Urus-Martan ROVD). She described the circumstances of her son's appréhension by armed men at the check point of the Russian military forces and requested assistance in establishing his whereabouts. On 15 January 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the applicant's complaint about her son's abduction by armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms to the district prosecutor's office for examination. It appears that on 31 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Aslan Sadulayev under Article of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given number On 31 March 2003 the district prosecutor's office granted the applicant the status of a victim in criminal case no On 31 March 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation in criminal case no had been suspended. On 5 April 2003 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no forwarded the applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the district military commander's office for examination. On 30 May 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on 30 April 2003 they had resumed the investigation in criminal case no On 3 June 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the applicant's complaint about her son's abduction to the district prosecutor's office for examination.

4 On 5 June 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation in criminal case no had been suspended owing to the failure to establish the perpetrators. On 9 July 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the district prosecutor's office for examination. In addition, the district prosecutor's office was to inform them about the results of the criminal investigation and provide the reasons for its suspension. On 23 July 2003 the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (the military prosecutor's office of the UGA) forwarded the applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no for examination. On 27 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on 30 May 2003 the investigation in criminal case no had been suspended owing to the failure to establish the perpetrators. On 31 May 2004 the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor's office requesting to grant her the status of a civil plaintiff in the criminal case conceming her son's abduction. On 9 June 2004 the district prosecutor's office granted the applicant the status of a civil plaintiff in criminal case no On 10 June 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that she had been granted the status of a civil plaintiff in criminal case no On 27 October 2004 (it appears that the letter is dated incorrectly) the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on 28 October 2004 they had resumed the investigation in criminal case no It is unclear whether the investigation into the abduction of Aslan Sadulayev bas been completed to date. C. Court proceedings brought by the applicant On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant complained to the Urus- Martan town court of Chechnya. She sought a ruling obliging the district prosecutor's office to conduct an effective investigation in the criminal case conceming the abduction of Aslan Sadulayev and to provide her with access to the criminal case file materials. On 14 May 2004 the town court allowed her complaint in part. The court instructed the district prosecutor's office to conduct an effective and thorough investigation in criminal case no and question two witnesses of Aslan Sadulayev's abduction. The remainder of the complaint was rejected. On 3 March 2005 the applicant again complained to the Urus-Martan town court. She sought a ruling obliging the district prosecutor's office to conduct an effective investigation in the criminal case conceming the abduction of Aslan Sadulayev. In her complaint the applicant pointed out that the authorities had failed to comply with the court's décision of 14 March On 22 March 2005 the town court rejected the applicant's complaint. The court stated that the investigation had undertaken ail measures possible in

5 the absence of those to be charged with the crime. On 15 June 2005 the town court upheld the décision of 22 March 2005 on appeal. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant submits that the appréhension of her son Aslan Sadulayev and the absence of any news from him to date give rise to a strong presumption that he was killed by the Russian servicemen, in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. Shefiarthersubmits that the authorities failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation into the disappearance of her son, in violation of the procédural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. She also complains under Article 2 that Russia bas not complied with its positive obligation to protect the life of Aslan Sadulayev. 2. The applicant submits that the anguish and distress suffered by her as a resuit of her son's disappearance and the lack of an adéquate response on the part of the authorities also amounts to treatment in violation of Article The applicant complains that the provisions of Article 5 as a whole, relating to the lawfiilness of détention and guarantees against arbitrary détention, were violated in respect of Aslan Sadulayev. 4. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she had no effective domestic remédies in respect of the above violations of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. The Government are requested to inform the Court whether on 9 December 2002 a spécial opération was conducted in the Ums-Martan district of Chechnya. If so, hâve the persons who were in charge of and participated in the opération been identified and questioned in the context of the investigation into the abduction of Aslan Sadulayev? If such an opération was carried out, was the applicant's son detained? 2. Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of Aslan Sadulayev? Having regard to the procédural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no /93, 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? 3. Has the applicant's mental suffering caused by Aslan Sadulayev's disappearance been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant?

6 4. Was Aslan Sadulayev deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 1 of the Convention? If such détention took place, was it in compliance with the guarantees of Article of the Convention? 5. Has the applicant had at her disposai effective domestic remédies for the above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 6. The Government are requested to submit copies of the entire investigation file in criminal case no instituted in relation to the abduction of Aslan Sadulayev.