Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.09.2009 «Дело Магомадова и другие (magomadova and others) против России» [англ.]

Город принятия

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF MAGOMADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 33933/05)
JUDGMENT*
(Strasbourg, 17.IX.2009)
____________________________
*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 Magomadova 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,

Elisabeth Steiner,

Khanlar Hajiyev,

Giorgio Malinverni,

George Nicolaou, judges,

and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 27 August 2009,

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

PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 33933/05) 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 five Russian nationals, listed below ("the applicants"), on 20 September 2005.

2. The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative ("SRJI"), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr A. Savenkov, First Deputy Minister of Justice, and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

3. On 17 March 2008 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. The President of the Chamber acceded to the Government's request not to make publicly accessible the documents from the criminal investigation file deposited with the Registry in connection with the application (Rule 33 of the Rules of Court).

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 Koku (also spelled as Koka) Magomadova, born in 1942,

2) Ms Ayshat Magomadova (also known as Taymuskhanova), born in 1976,

3) Ms Eset (also spelled as Aset) Magomadova, born in 1995,

4) Mr Baudin Magomadov, born in 1997,

5) Ms Ayzan Muradova, born in 1965.

The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. The first applicant is the mother of Ruslan Magomadov, who was born in 1966. The second applicant is his wife; the third and the fourth applicants are his daughter and son; the fifth applicant is his sister.

6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

A. Disappearance of Ruslan Magomadov
and the subsequent events
1. The applicants' account
7. At the material time Ruslan Magomadov was working as a senior officer at the investigations department in the Shatoy district department of the interior in Chechnya (the Shatoy ROVD). He had been doing this since 2000.

8. On the night of 9 February 2003 the applicants, with Ruslan Magomadov and other relatives, were at home at 179 Kluchevaya Street, in Grozny, Chechnya. The household consisted of three dwellings; one of them was occupied by the first applicant, another by Ruslan Magomadov and his family and the third by his brother and his family. The applicants' house was near a Russian military checkpoint.

9. At about 4.30 a.m. a group of about thirty armed men in camouflage uniform rushed into the applicants' yard. They broke into two groups. One group went into the first applicant's part of the house and the other one went into the part occupied by Ruslan Magomadov and his family.

10. Those intruders who were not wearing masks had a Slavic appearance. The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen.

11. The servicemen pointed their guns at the applicants and ordered them not to move. About ten of the intruders went into Ruslan Magomadov's part of the house. They shouted and swore at the applicants and ordered everyone not to move. When the second applicant asked them what was going on, she and her children were forced to go into another room, where some of the servicemen put their guns to the applicants' heads and ordered them to lie on the floor.

12. The rest of the servicemen threw Ruslan Magomadov on to the floor, bound his hands, placed a pillowcase over his head, bound it with adhesive tape and took him outside. Ruslan Magomadov was barefoot and in his underwear.

13. The servicemen did not ask for Ruslan Magomadov's identity documents. They searched the house and took his service gun, a hunting rifle and a folder with official papers which he had brought home from work.

14. After that the servicemen placed Ruslan Magomadov in one of the two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) which were parked next to the applicants' house and took him away.

15. According to the applicants, some time later the local military commander told them that representatives of the Main Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior (the MVD) and the Federal Security Service (the FSB) had requested to be provided with unopposed passage through the checkpoint near the applicants' house on the night of 9 February 2003.

16. The applicants have had no news of Ruslan Magomadov since 9 February 2003.

17. In support of their statements the applicants submitted the following: an account by the second applicant given on 13 April 2005, an account by the applicants' neighbour Ms I. given on 15 April 2005, an account by the first applicant given on 16 April 2005, an account given by the applicants' neighbour Mr N. on 13 September 2005 and a character reference for Ruslan Magomadov by the Chechnya MVD, dated 19 February 2004.

2. Information submitted by the Government
18. The Government did not challenge most of the account given by the applicants. According to their submission, between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. on 9 February 2003 a group of about thirty unidentified persons armed with automatic weapons and with the support of two APCs unlawfully broke into the household situated at 179 Kluchevaya Street, Grozny, Chechnya; there, using violent threats, they abducted R. Magomadov and departed to an unknown destination.

B. The search for Ruslan Magomadov and the investigation
1. The applicants' account
19. On 9 February 2003 the applicants started their search for Ruslan Magomadov. They contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the President of the Russian Federation, the Chechen administration, military commanders' offices and prosecutors' offices at different levels, describing in detail the circumstances of their relative's abduction and asking for assistance in establishing his whereabouts. The applicants retained copies of a number of those letters and submitted them to the Court.

20. On 9 February 2003 the Grozny prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Ruslan Magomadov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 50010. Some time later the investigation of the criminal case was transferred to the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor's office of Grozny (the district prosecutor's office).

21. On 4 February 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the fifth applicant that they had not established the identity of the perpetrators of her brother's abduction.

22. On 11 February, 27 March 2004 and 19 April 2005 the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (the prosecutor's office of the UGA) forwarded the first applicant's requests for assistance in the search for her son to the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102.

23. On 19 February 2004 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 forwarded the first applicant's request to the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20116.

24. On 25 February 2004 the information centre of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior informed the first applicant that no information was available about her son's detention.

25. On 3 March 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that her request for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Ruslan Magomadov had been included in the criminal case file.

26. On 4 March and 12 April 2004 the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit forwarded the first applicant's requests to its operational search division in Grozny and the Chechnya prosecutor's office respectively.

27. On 5 March, 22 April and 1 June 2004 and 9 June 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's requests to the district prosecutor's office.

28. On 31 March 2004 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20116 informed the first applicant that at her request they had examined the theory of the possible involvement of Russian military servicemen in the abduction of her son and that this theory had not been confirmed.

29. On 23 April 2004 detention centre No. 2 of the Department of Corrections of the Ministry of Justice in the Stavropol region informed the fifth applicant that Ruslan Magomadov was not listed among their detainees.

30. On 26 April 2004 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20116 informed a number of State authorities, including the Chechnya prosecutor's office, that the involvement of Russian military forces in the disappearance of Ruslan Magomadov had not been confirmed.

31. On 26 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on 29 March 2003 and that it had been suspended on 9 April 2003 for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators.

32. On 7 May 2004 the Chechnya military commander forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the Chechnya prosecutor's office. According to the letter, the first applicant complained about the abduction and stated that the abductors had arrived in APCs and that they had taken away Ruslan Magomadov's service weapon and hunting rifle.

33. On 4 June 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on 9 February 2003 the district prosecutor's office had instituted an investigation into the abduction of Ruslan Magomadov.

34. On 5 June 2004 the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit informed the first applicant that its Department of Counterterrorist Operations had not abducted Ruslan Magomadov.

35. On 17 June 2004 the military prosecutor's office of the UGA informed the first applicant that information concerning the investigation into the abduction of Ruslan Magomadov was available at the Chechnya prosecutor's office.

36. On 2 July 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on an unspecified date they had resumed the investigation in the criminal case.

37. On 5 July 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that information about the criminal investigation was available at the district prosecutor's office.

38. In July 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on an unspecified date they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case.

39. On 10 August 2004 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 informed a number of State authorities, including the Chechnya prosecutor's office, that the theory of the involvement of Russian military forces in the abduction of Ruslan Magomadov had not been confirmed.

40. On 31 August 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the district prosecutor's office.

41. On 30 September 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that her request had been included in the criminal case file materials and that they were taking operational search measures to establish the identity of the perpetrators.

42. On 1 February 2005 the first applicant wrote to the Chechnya military commander. She complained about her son's abduction and stated that the intruders had taken his service weapon, a hunting rifle and a folder of official papers. She also pointed out that although the criminal investigation into the abduction had been instituted on 9 February 2003, for two years the authorities had failed to establish the whereabouts of Ruslan Magomadov.

43. On 16 February 2005 the fifth applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to inform her about the progress in the investigation of criminal case No. 50010.

44. On 18 February 2005 the fifth applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to resume the investigation in the criminal case.

45. On 24 February 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the fifth applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on 22 February 2005.

46. On 22 April 2005 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 informed the first applicant that the theory of the involvement of Russian military forces in the abduction of Ruslan Magomadov had not been confirmed.

47. On 18 May 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the district prosecutor's office was conducting an investigation into her son's disappearance.

48. On 20 May 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the fifth applicant that the investigation in criminal case No. 50010 had been resumed on 22 February 2005.

49. On an unspecified date the second applicant was granted victim status in criminal case No. 50010.

2. Information submitted by the Government
50. The Government submitted that on 9 February 2003, upon a complaint by the second applicant about the abduction of Ruslan Magomadov, the Grozny prosecutor's office had instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal