I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in GASANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2023-01-10
• Communication date: 2020-06-12
• Application number(s): 45900/19
• Country:   RUS
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 2, 2-1, 3, 13
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life
  Article 2-2 - Use of force) (Substantive aspect)
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment
  Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
  Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.870501
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

A list of the applicants, all of whom are Russian nationals, is set out in the appendix.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
(a) The abduction on 28 September 2016 At about 7.30 p.m. on 28 September 2016 Mr Islam Magomedov, who was born in 1988, Mr Gashim (in the documents submitted also referred to as Magomedgadi) Uzdanov, who was born in 1993 and Mr Pakhrudin Makhayev, who was born in 1993, drove from Khasavyurt in Mr Uzdanov’s minibus “Gazel” with registration number H714HB05 to the town of Kaspiysk.
Mr Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov, who was born in 1992, met them there in his Toyota Land Cruiser car with registration number B777CC05.
Then the four men went to pick-up construction materials at a construction supplies store in the town of Manas.
Between 10 and 11 p.m. that evening each of the four men telephoned their wives.
Each of them said that they would return home as soon as they had unloaded the purchase.
However, they never returned home.
According to the applicants, Mr Islam Magomedov, Mr Gashim Uzdanov and Mr Pakhrudin Makhayev were registered by the police as followers of an “extremist religious movement”.
According to applicant 1, in the days following her son’s disappearance, she was able to find out, through the system of cell-tower location for mobile telephone calls, that at about 1 a.m. on 29 September 2016 her son, Islam Magomedov, had been with his mobile telephone next to the building of the Counterterrorism Centre of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior (the CTC) in Shamilya Street in Makhachkala.
(b) Investigation into the abduction Between 30 September and 4 October 2016 applicants 1, 6, 8 and 11 complained to the Sovetskiy district police station in Makhachkala about the disappearance of Pakhrudin Makhayev, Islam Magomedov, Gashim Uzdanov and Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov.
On 7 October 2016 the Kaspiysk investigations department of the Dagestan investigative committee (the investigators) opened criminal case no.
629269 into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives Pakhrudin Makhayev, Islam Magomedov, Magomedgadi Uzdanov and Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction).
On 8 October 2016 the investigators questioned applicant 11 who stated, amongst other things, that according to the information on the connections made from mobile telephones to the nearest cell towers, after the abduction, the mobile telephone of his son Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov had been located in the vicinity of the CTC building in Shamilya Street in Makhachkala.
On the same date, the investigators questioned the parents of Islam Magomedov, Mr Z.N., and applicant 1, both of whom stated that they had started searching for their missing son on 29 September 2016 and that they had been able to find out that the mobile telephone of Islam Magomedov had been located in the vicinity of the CTC building in Shamilya Street in Makhachkala.
They stated that, in their opinion, their son Islam and his friends had been abducted by the police and that the police were refusing to inform them about the abducted men’s whereabouts.
Applicants 8 and 6, the fathers of Pakhrudin Makhayev and Gashim Uzdanov respectively, were questioned on the same date and both alleged that the police had been responsible for their sons’ abduction.
On 16 October 2016 the investigators ordered the DNA forensic examination of the burnt remains of eight individuals from the scene of the shooting on 8 October 2016 (see below).
On 20 December 2016 the examination concluded that applicant 12 was the mother of the man whose remains were in envelope seven, that is of Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov; applicant 7 was the mother of the man whose remains were in envelope five, that is of Gashim Uzdanov, and applicant 1 was the mother of the man whose remains were in envelope three, that is of Islam Magomedov.
It is unclear whether the applicants were informed of the results of the DNA match.
On 18 January 2017 the investigators questioned applicant 1, who reaffirmed her previous statements.
On 25 September 2017 lawyer Sh.I.
requested on behalf of the applicants that the investigators allowed him to familiarise himself with the contents of the criminal case file.
No reply was given to his request.
On 28 September 2017 the investigators ordered that samples of the applicants’ and their relatives’ blood be taken for the DNA analysis and the identification of the corpses found at the scene of the shooting on the night between 8 and 9 October 2016.
On 29 January 2018 the experts matched the blood samples and the burnt remains of the persons found at the scene.
They identified the burnt persons as the applicants’ relatives Islam Magomedov, Gashim Uzdanov, Pakhrudin Makhayev and Shamil D. Dzhamalutdinov.
It is unclear whether the applicants were informed of those results.
On 5 March 2018 lawyer Sh.I.
reiterated his request for access to the contents of the criminal case file.
On 22 March 2018 the investigators allowed him to familiarise himself with partial contents of the file.
(c) The applicants’ complaints about the investigation On 24 November 2016 applicants 1, 7 and 9 complained to the investigators that they were not given any information about the progress in the proceedings, in spite of having been granted victim status in the criminal case and asked to be informed of the developments.
No reply followed.
The applicants complained of the lack of access to the investigation file to the Karabudakhkentskiy District Court.
On 13 April 2017 the court decided to leave their complaint without examination, as prior to the hearing the investigation had agreed to provide the applicants with information on the progress in the criminal case.
On 20 November 2018 lawyer S.Sh.
requested on behalf of the applicants that the investigators allowed him to access the criminal case file and make copies of its contents, as well as to take active steps to verify the applicants’ theory of the involvement of State agents in the abduction.
On 29 November 2018 the investigators refused to grant the request.
On an unspecified date in the beginning of January 2019, lawyer S.Sh.
complained to the Sovetskiy District Court in Makhachkala that the investigation was ineffective, protracted and fell below the Convention standards.
He requested that the investigators be obliged to provide him with access to the criminal case file.
On 11 January 2019 the Sovetskiy District Court rejected his complaint as unsubstantiated and on 5 March 2019 the Dagestan Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.
(a) The abduction on 4 October 2016 On 4 October 2016 the applicants’ relatives Mr Klych Klychev, who was born in 1991, Mr Kamil Dzhamalutdinov, who was born in 1991, and Mr Gosen Gosenov (in the documents submitted also referred to as Gosen Sharabdinov), who was born in 1993, arrived in Mr Klychev’s VAZ-2114 car with registration number HO14HE05 at a car service station in Khasavyurt.
At about 4 p.m. a group of five to six armed men in camouflage uniforms and civilian clothing, all in balaclavas, arrived at the station in a Toyota Land Cruiser car with registration number H161PY05.
Threatening the applicants’ relatives with firearms, they forced the three men into their vehicle and drove off with them, having also taken along Mr Klychev’s car.
According to the applicants, Mr Klych Klychev was registered by the police as a follower of an “extremist religious movement”.
After the abduction, the mother of Mr Klychev, Ms L.K., was able to find and copy a recording from a CCTV camera located across the street from the service station, which depicted the abductors’ arrival and the actual abduction.
She submitted this footage to the investigators of the criminal case no.
610538 opened into the abduction of the three men (see below).
On 5 October 2016 the police officers A.Ch and I.D.
from the Khasavyurt town police station arrived at Ms L.K.’s home and told her that her son Klych was detained in Makhachkala and for his release she needed to provide them with several of his documents.
On 7 October 2016 Ms L.K.
arrived at the Khasavyurt town police station and left the requested documents with officer A.I., who signed an acknowledgement of their receipt in the presence of applicant 21 and Ms S.Sh.
(b) Investigation into the abduction On 5 October 2016 the mother of Klych Klychev, Ms L.K., and applicant 19 complained of the abduction of Klych Klychev and Kamil Dzhamalutdinov.
On 6 October 2016 the investigators from the Khasavyurt interdistrict investigations department of the Dagestan investigative committee (the investigators) questioned Ms L.K.
who described the circumstances of her son’s abduction similarly to the applicants’ submission to the Court.
She also stated that she had learnt of her son’s abduction at about 9 p.m. on 4 October 2016 from a young man who had arrived at her house and told her about the incident.
Later that evening, she had also learnt that two other men had been abducted with her son.
On 6 October 2016 the investigators questioned applicant 19, who stated that he had learnt of the abduction of his son Kamil Dzhamalutdinov with two other men from eye-witnesses to the incident.
His description of the circumstances of the incident was similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court.
The applicant also stated that his son and his two friends had been “arrested” by the abductors and then detained in Makhachkala.
He further stated that his nephew Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov had also gone missing.
On 6 October 2016 the investigators questioned applicant 21 who stated that in the evening on 4 October 2016 her mother-in-law had informed her of the abduction of her son Gosen Gosenov with two other men from the car service station.
On 7 October 2016 the investigators opened criminal case no.
610538 into the abduction of the applicant’s relatives Klych Klychev, Kamil Dzhamalutdinov and Gosen Gosenov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction).
On the following day, 8 October 2016, they examined the crime scene, but did not collect any evidence.
On 9 October 2016 the investigators again questioned Ms L.K., applicant 19 and applicant 21, as well as applicants 25 and 27.
All of them described the circumstances of the abduction known to them and stated that, in their opinion, the police had abducted their relatives and that the abducted men were detained at a law‐enforcement agency in Makhachkala.
On 12 October 2016 the investigators ordered the DNA examination of the burnt remains of eight persons from the place of the shooting on the night of 8-9 October 2016 (see below).
On 20 December 2016 the examination concluded that applicant 19 was the father of the man whose remains were in envelope two, that is of Kamil Dzhamalutdinov; Ms L.K.
was the mother of the man whose remains were in envelope one, that is of Klych Klychev, and applicant 21 was the mother of the man whose remains were in envelope four, that is of Gosen Gosenov.
It is unclear whether the applicants were informed of the results of the examination.
On 26 October 2916 the investigators questioned an employee of the car service station, Mr S.N.
He stated that on the date of the abduction he had not witnessed the actual incident, but the events shortly thereafter.
He had seen three armed men in balaclavas, whom he had thought had been police officers, next to a Toyota Land Cruiser vehicle.
The three men had tried to start and move a VAZ-2114 car and had been able to do it only after having jump-started it.
Then one of them had driven off in the VAZ-2114 car and the other two in the Toyota Land Cruiser.
On 25 September 2017, lawyer Sh.I.
requested on behalf of the applicants that the investigators allow him to familiarise himself with the contents of the criminal case file.
No reply was given to his request and on 5 March 2018 he reiterated it.
On 22 March 2018 the investigators allowed him to familiarise himself with partial contents of the file.
On 20 December 2018 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
The applicants were not informed thereof.
(c) The applicants’ complaints about the investigation On 12 December 2016 applicants 20 and 26 complained to the Head of the Russian Federal Security Service (the FSB) that their sons and their friends had been abducted by representatives of law-enforcement agencies and that the police were not taking steps to have the crime resolved.
Moreover, it was the police who was directly responsible for the abductions of their sons Kamil Dzhamalutdinov and Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov.
The applicants stated that the authorities had opened a criminal case, but no real steps were being taken to elucidate the circumstances of the crime.
The investigators’ consistent failure to take active steps showed their attempts to have the perpetrators absolved from prosecution.
The applicants requested that urgent steps be taken to investigate the crime effectively and asked that the investigation be carried out not by the investigators from Khasavyurt, but by investigators from the Dagestan investigations committee in order to have the abductors who were “from law-enforcement agencies” prosecuted.
On 5 July 2017 applicants 19 and 21, as well as Ms L.K., complained to the investigators that the investigation was not taking a number of important steps to identify the perpetrators.
They stated, in particular, that despite the court authorisation, the investigators had not obtained information on the telephone calls made to and from the abducted men’s mobile telephones during and after the abduction.
Furthermore, the footage from the CCTV cameras located at the café next to the car service station and at the station itself had neither been collected nor examined.
The applicants’ relatives had obtained footage of the abduction from a CCTV camera located across the street from the car service station – that evidence had been handed over by Ms L.K.
to the investigator M. on 20 March 2017.
However, no steps were taken to either examine the footage and question the persons who had obtained it or to identify and question the owners of the cars on it, who had also witnessed the abduction.
None of the salespersons from the shops located in the vicinity of the service station had been questioned.
In addition, the police officer who on 5 October 2016 had told Ms L.K.
that her son had been detained in Makhachkala and requested documents from her, had never been questioned.
Finally, the investigators failed to obtain footage from the CCTV traffic cameras located in the neighbourhood where the abduction had taken place and the footage from the premises of the Khasavyurt police station.
The owner of the Toyota Land Cruiser car with registration number H161PY05РУС used by the abductors had not been established either.
On 20 November 2018 lawyer S.Sh.
requested on behalf of the applicants that the investigators allowed him to access the criminal case file and make copies of its contents.
He also requested that the investigators took steps to verify the involvement of State agents in the abduction.
On 29 November 2018 his request was rejected.
(a) The abduction on 4 October 2016 At about 9 p.m. on 4 October 2016 the applicants’ relative Mr Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov, who was born in 1990, and was a cousin of Mr Mr Kamil Dzhamalutdinov, told his relatives that he would drive off for about fifteen minutes and left in his VAZ-2107 car with registration number H190XM05.
According to the applicants, Mr Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov was registered by the police as a follower of an “extremist religious movement”.
According to an eyewitness, near his home, Mr Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov’s car was blocked by a Toyota Land Cruiser and a Lada Priora car.
Several armed men in balaclavas rushed out, forced Mr Dzhamalutdinov into one of their vehicles and drove off along with his car.
Later on, on 4 or 5 October 2016, an unidentified man called the 27th applicant and told her that her husband Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov had been abducted.
(b) Investigation into the abduction On 5 October 2016 applicant 25 complained of his son’s abduction by unidentified armed men to the Khasavyurt prosecutor’s office.
On 6 October 2016 applicant 25 was questioned.
He described the circumstances of the abduction similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court and stated that he had learnt about them from relatives of the other men who had been abducted on the same date.
On 7 October 2016 the Khasavyurt investigative committee (the investigators) opened criminal case no.
610539 into the abduction of Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov.
On 28 October 2016 applicant 27 stated to the investigators that she had learnt about the details of her husband’s abduction from an eye-witness, Ms D.S., and that her husband had been “arrested” by the abductors in the presence of other eye-witnesses.
On the same date, applicant 26, the mother of Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov, was granted victim status in the criminal case.
On 12 November 2016 the investigators ordered the DNA examination of the burnt remains of the eight persons from the scene of the shooting on 8-9 October 2016 (see below).
On 14 February 2017 the examination concluded that applicant 25 was the father of the man whose remains were in envelope eight, that is of Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov.
It is unclear whether the applicants were informed thereof.
On 1 February 2017 the crime scene was examined, but no evidence was collected.
On 18 April 2017 the investigators questioned Ms D.S.
who had witnessed the abduction.
Her statement was similar to the applicants’ statement on the circumstances of the incident before the Court.
In addition, she stated that she had recognised Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov during the abduction as she had met him before.
She also stated that a salesperson from a store located next to the crime scene had also witnessed the incident.
On 7 July 2017 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators and on 8 August 2017 that decision was overruled as premature following the superiors’ criticism.
Subsequently, between September 2017 and 20 November 2018 the investigation was resumed and suspended on at least six occasions as the Khasavyurt prosecutor overruled each of the suspensions as unlawful.
On 20 November 2018 lawyer S.Sh.
requested on behalf of applicant 25 that the investigators allow him to access the case file and make copies of its contents.
He also requested that the investigators take steps to verify the involvement of State agents in the abduction.
On 20 December 2018 the investigation was suspended again and then again resumed on 28 December 2018 following the Khasavyurt prosecutor’s criticism.
The applicant was not informed thereof.
On 13 June 2019, the investigation was suspended again.
(a) The circumstances of the shooting On 9 October 2016 the Chechnya investigations committee (the investigators) opened criminal case no.
31428.
According to that decision: “... at about 8 p.m. on 8 October 2016, in order to verify operational information from the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior, between settlements of Gersel and Engel‐Yurt, mobile operational groups were put in place.
The groups, which consisted of officers from the Gudermes district police station, the Kadyrov battalion, Chechnya Counterterrorism Centre, Dagestan Counterterrorism Centre, operational-search unit of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior and Special Response Unit “Terek”, were to check the passing transport and run identification of the passengers.
At about 11.55 p.m. on 8 October 2016, in the above mentioned stretch of the road, ... two cars, VAZ -2107 and VAZ-2114, were moving in the direction of Engel-Yurt.
Unidentified persons in those cars had opened gunfire from automatic weapons aiming at the police personnel.
As a result of the clash and the return fire, eight unidentified persons had been eliminated.
Due to the fire, both vehicles had been destroyed ...” (b) Investigation into the shooting On 31 October, 15 November and then on 23 December 2016 the Chechnya Forensics Bureau (the Bureau) examined the remains of the eight men who had been burnt during the shooting on the night between 8 and 9 October 2016.
According to their conclusions, it was impossible to determine the cause of their death due to the “severe heat burn” of the remains.
On 14 November 2016 the investigators questioned applicant 1 who stated that the last known location of her son Islam Magomedov after the abduction had been the building of the CTC in Makhachkala.
On 29 November 2016, an investigator from the Staropromyslovskiy district investigations committee in Grozny, wrote to the head of the Chechnya Counterterrorism Centre.
He stated that the burnt bodies found at the scene of the shooting belonged to the eight men who had been abducted in Dagestan and in connection with whose abductions the three criminal cases had been opened.
On 8 June 2017 the investigators ordered forensic examination of the burnt VAZ-2107 and VAZ-2114 cars.
According to the examination’s conclusions of 17 June 2017, it was impossible to establish either the origin or the reason of the fire which had completely burnt down the vehicles.
On 22 November 2017 the Bureau examined the burnt VAZ-2114 car from the scene of the shooting and established that its engine identification number 2112602809601 remained intact.
It appears that no further steps were taken to verify whether that number had belonged to a car owned by any of the men whose bodies had been found at the crime scene.
On 20 November 2018 lawyer A.Sh.
requested the investigators in the criminal cases concerning the abduction of the applicants’ relatives to allow him to access the criminal case files.
His request was refused on 29 November 2018.
On 17 December 2018 lawyer A.Sh.
complained to the Sovetskiy District Court in Makhachkala that the investigation into the abductions was ineffective, protracted and fell below the Convention standards.
He requested that he be allowed to access the criminal case files and make copies of their contents.
He stated, amongst other things, that according to the applicants, their relatives had been abducted and killed by State agents and that the investigators had not taken any steps to verify that theory.
In violation of Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants were not informed of the progress in the proceedings and were deprived of access to the investigation, as the investigators would not allow them to access the contents of the criminal case files.
Moreover, it appeared that the investigators in charge of the criminal cases were not taking any meaningful steps and were just awaiting the termination of criminal case no.
31428 for the death of the suspects in order to terminate the investigation in each of the cases opened into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives.
On 24 December 2018 the court rejected his complaint as unsubstantiated and on 11 January 2019 the Supreme Court of Dagestan upheld that decision on appeal.
On 10 June 2019 lawyer Sh.I.
lodged a complaint with the Khasavyurt Town Court stating that the investigation into the abduction of Shamil M. Dzhamalutdinov and the other seven men was ineffective, that the most essential steps had not been taken, but the proceedings, nonetheless, had been suspended.
He requested that the investigators be obliged to resume the investigation and take necessary steps.
He pointed out, amongst other things, that the investigators should have verified the theory that the abduction of all eight men had been perpetrated by the same group as the abducted men had known each other and then had been killed together.
The CCTV footage of the abduction from the car service station had not been obtained and numerous witnesses to that incident had not been identified either.
The information obtained by the applicants and their relatives concerning the alleged detention of the abducted men on the premises of the CTC in Makhachkala had not been verified.
Moreover, there was no explanation for the letter of 29 November 2016 of a Chechen investigator stating that the eight burnt bodies had belonged to eight of the applicants’ relatives abducted in the neighbouring region, Dagestan - the information which had been improbable as the bodies at the time had not yet been subjected to the DNA examination.
No steps were taken to verify that the vehicles burnt at the scene had belonged to the applicants or the abducted men whereas after the abduction Klych Klychev’s VAZ‐2114 with registration number HO14HE05 had been seen in a repair shop in Khasavyurt.
Furthermore, no steps were taken to verify Ms L.K.’s allegation of the visit of two police officers, A.Ch.
and I.D., on 5 October 2016, who had told her that her son Klych Klychev had been detained in Makhachkala and then had requested from her some of his documents.
The CCTV cameras located in the streets leading to and from the abduction scenes were not examined, their footage had not been obtained.
No steps were taken to establish the owners of the abductors’ Toyota Land Cruiser with the registration number H161PY05.
On 13 June 2019 the Khasavyurt Town Court decided to leave the complaint without examination as on 28 December 2018 the investigation in criminal cases no.
610538 and 610539 had been resumed.
For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Turluyeva v. Russia, no.
63638/09, §§ 56-64, 20 June 2013.
COMPLAINTS 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.