I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in BISULTANOVY v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2022-06-21
  • Communication date: 2020-06-29
  • Application number(s): 48608/19
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 2, 2-1, 3, 5, 5-1, 5-4, 13
  • Conclusion:
    No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)
    Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.668757
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicants, Ms Seda Bisultanova and Ms Fatima Bisultanova, are Russian nationals, who were born in 1956 and 1983 respectively and live in Argun and Grozny, Chechnya.
They are represented before the Court by Ms A. Khatsiyeva, a lawyer from the NGO “Materi Chechni”.
The first applicant is the mother and the second applicant is the wife of Mr Abu Bisultanov, who was born in 1982.
He and the second applicant had two children.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A.
The circumstances of the case At about 7.30 p.m. on 1 September 2009 in Kirova Street in Khasavyurt, Dagestan, a group of armed men who drove around in two VAZ-2010 cars forced the applicant’s relative Mr Abu Bisultanov and his acquaintance Mr T.Ch.
into their vehicles and drove off.
From the documents submitted it follows that in 2014 unidentified persons contacted Mr T.Ch.’s wife Ms R.D.
suggesting that her husband T.Ch.
could be returned in exchange for money.
Ms R.D.
informed the investigators in the criminal case about that demand.
It is unclear whether the applicants were aware of those developments.
On an unspecified date between 1 and 3 September 2009 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Khasavyurt interdistrict investigations department (the investigators).
On 8 September 2009 the investigators opened criminal case no.
910347 into the disappearance under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction).
On 23 October 2013 the first applicant complained to the head of the Chechnya investigations department describing the circumstances of the abduction, stating that the investigators from Khasavyurt were not “finding” the abducted men and asking for assistance in the search for them.
It is unclear whether any reply was given.
On 29 July 2014 the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case.
On 17 August 2014 the investigation was suspended and the first applicant was informed thereof.
On 17 June 2015 a local NGO wrote to the Russian Prosecutor General and the Chief Military Prosecutor on behalf of the applicants asking for assistance in the investigation of Abu Bisultanov’s abduction.
No reply was given.
On 19 June 2015 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on 10 June 2015.
Then on 10 July 2015 the investigation was suspended again.
On 4 February 2016 the first applicant complained to the head of the investigators stating, among other things, that the investigation was protracted and requested to be informed of steps taken by the investigators.
No reply was given.
Then, on 19 March 2016 the investigation was suspended again.
The applicant was informed thereof.
On 11 August 2016 the interim Khasavyurt prosecutor overruled the suspension of 19 March 2016 as unlawful and premature and ordered that the investigation be resumed.
He pointed out that the investigators had failed to request information on the mobile phone connections made from the abducted men’s mobile telephones after their disappearance.
Furthermore, the investigators had failed to follow up on the ransom remand made in 2014 in respect of Mr T.Ch.
despite the fact that his wife Ms R.D.
had informed them about it.
On 19 February 2018 the investigation was resumed again and then on 19 March 2018 it was suspended yet again.
On 19 June 2019 the first applicant complained to the head of the investigators stating that the investigation into her son’s disappearance was protracted and that she was not duly informed of its progress.
She asked to be informed of the steps taken and be provided with a copy of the last decision to suspend the proceedings.
Then, on 20 June 2019 the investigation was resumed.
It appears that it is still pending.
It appears that between September 2009 and June 2019 neither of the applicants was questioned by the investigators.
On 27 May 2015 the first applicant complained to the Khasavyurt Town Court (the Town Court) that the investigation was ineffective and that it had been unlawfully and prematurely suspended on 17 August 2015, without all of the possible steps having been taken.
On 11 June 2015 the court left the complaint without examination as on 10 June 2015 the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed.
On 17 May 2016 the first applicant again complained to the Town Court that the investigation into her son’s disappearance was ineffective and requested that the decision to suspend the proceedings of 19 March 2016 be overruled.
No reply was given.
On 1 March 2017 the first applicant again wrote to the Town Court and asked about the progress in the examination of her complaint of 17 May 2016.
No reply was given to that request.
On an unspecified date in March 2018 the first applicant again complained to the Town Court requesting that the court overruled the suspension of 19 March 2016 and ordered that the investigation in the criminal case be resumed.
On 13 April 2018 the court again left the complaint without examination as on 19 February 2018 the investigation had been resumed.
On 20 June 2019 the first applicant lodged fourth complaint with the Town Court stating that the investigation was ineffective and requesting that the suspension of the proceedings of 19 March 2018 be overruled as unlawful.
On 4 July 2019 the court rejected that complaint as manifestly ill‐founded.
It stated, in particular, that no meaningful evidence capable of identifying the perpetrators had been found and, therefore, the suspension of the proceedings was substantiated.
On 8 July 2019 the first applicant appealed against the above decision to the Dagestan Supreme Court.
On 6 August 2019 the latter left the appeal without examination, having stated that the investigation had been resumed on 20 June 2019.
B.
Relevant domestic law 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 relative Mr Abu Bisultanov, who has gone missing since and that the domestic authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter.
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they suffer severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of Mr Abu Bisultanov and the failure to conduct an effective investigation into his disappearance.
Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complain that Mr Abu Bisultanov was subjected to unacknowledged detention by his abductors.
Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain that no effective remedy was available in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BISULTANOVY v. RUSSIA
(Application no.
48608/19)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
21 June 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bisultanovy v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Georgios A. Serghides, President, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Peeter Roosma, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no.
48608/19) 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”) on 29 August 2019 by two Russian nationals, Ms Seda Bisultanova and Ms Fatima Bisultanova, born in 1956 and 1983 respectively and living in Argun and Grozny (“the applicants”) who were represented by NGO Materi Chechni in Grozny;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”), initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in this office, Mr M. Vinogradov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 31 May 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1.
The case concerns the abduction and subsequent disappearance of the applicants’ relative Mr Abu Bisultanov in Khasavyurt, Dagestan in 2009 and the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation into the matter. 2. On 1 September 2009 a group of armed men abducted Mr Bisultanov, who was born in 1982, and his colleague Mr Timur Chaplayev from a street in Khasavyurt, Dagestan. The Court examined the abduction of Mr Chaplayev in the case of Indirbayeva and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 54931/18, §§ 5-8, 9 March 2021, and the relevant factual circumstances are outlined therein. 3. On 8 September 2009, upon the applicants’ complaint of the abduction lodged on 2 September 2009, the Khasavyurt Department of the Investigative Committee opened criminal case no. 910347. For details of the investigation see Indirbayeva and Others, cited above, §§ 12-25. In addition, on at least four occasions between May 2015 and June 2019, the applicants complained to the Khasavyurt Town Court about unjustified suspensions of the investigation in the criminal case and the lack of information about its progress. Each of their complaints was left without examination as the investigators had just resumed the proceedings. 4. It appears that the investigation is still pending. The whereabouts of Mr Bisultanov have not been established to date. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
5.
The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 6. The relevant principles concerning the substantive and procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention have been summarized in Sultygov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 393-96 and § 444, 9 October 2014. 7. The Court was unable to conclude in Indirbayeva and Others, cited above, § 44, that State agents were responsible for Mr Chaplayev’s abduction and subsequent disappearance. Considering that Mr Bisultanov was abducted together with Mr Chaplayev by the same group of perpetrators under the same circumstances, the Court cannot but come to the same conclusion in respect of Mr Bisultanov. 8. In such circumstances the Court finds no violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Abu Bisultanov. 9. As to the investigation into the disappearance of Mr Bisultanov, it was carried out within the framework of the same criminal case as that of Mr Chaplayev (see Indirbayeva and Others, cited above, §§ 46-48). Therefore, the Court’s findings concerning ineffectiveness of the investigation in that case apply equally to the case at hand. 10. There has therefore been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect. 11. The applicants also raised complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The Court has examined that part of the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention. 12. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13.
The applicants claimed 98,149 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,477 in respect of costs and expenses. 14. According to the Government, the claims were unsubstantiated. 15. Having regard to the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 16. The Court rejects the claim for pecuniary damage for the lack of the causal link between the violation found and the alleged damage. It rejects the claim for costs and expenses, given that the applicants failed to show that they had paid or were under a legal obligation to pay the fees billed by their representatives or the expenses incurred by them (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 327, 28 November 2017). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 June 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Georgios A. Serghides Deputy Registrar President

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BISULTANOVY v. RUSSIA
(Application no.
48608/19)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
21 June 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bisultanovy v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Georgios A. Serghides, President, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Peeter Roosma, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no.
48608/19) 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”) on 29 August 2019 by two Russian nationals, Ms Seda Bisultanova and Ms Fatima Bisultanova, born in 1956 and 1983 respectively and living in Argun and Grozny (“the applicants”) who were represented by NGO Materi Chechni in Grozny;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”), initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in this office, Mr M. Vinogradov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 31 May 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1.
The case concerns the abduction and subsequent disappearance of the applicants’ relative Mr Abu Bisultanov in Khasavyurt, Dagestan in 2009 and the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation into the matter. 2. On 1 September 2009 a group of armed men abducted Mr Bisultanov, who was born in 1982, and his colleague Mr Timur Chaplayev from a street in Khasavyurt, Dagestan. The Court examined the abduction of Mr Chaplayev in the case of Indirbayeva and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 54931/18, §§ 5-8, 9 March 2021, and the relevant factual circumstances are outlined therein. 3. On 8 September 2009, upon the applicants’ complaint of the abduction lodged on 2 September 2009, the Khasavyurt Department of the Investigative Committee opened criminal case no. 910347. For details of the investigation see Indirbayeva and Others, cited above, §§ 12-25. In addition, on at least four occasions between May 2015 and June 2019, the applicants complained to the Khasavyurt Town Court about unjustified suspensions of the investigation in the criminal case and the lack of information about its progress. Each of their complaints was left without examination as the investigators had just resumed the proceedings. 4. It appears that the investigation is still pending. The whereabouts of Mr Bisultanov have not been established to date. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
5.
The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 6. The relevant principles concerning the substantive and procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention have been summarized in Sultygov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 393-96 and § 444, 9 October 2014. 7. The Court was unable to conclude in Indirbayeva and Others, cited above, § 44, that State agents were responsible for Mr Chaplayev’s abduction and subsequent disappearance. Considering that Mr Bisultanov was abducted together with Mr Chaplayev by the same group of perpetrators under the same circumstances, the Court cannot but come to the same conclusion in respect of Mr Bisultanov. 8. In such circumstances the Court finds no violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Abu Bisultanov. 9. As to the investigation into the disappearance of Mr Bisultanov, it was carried out within the framework of the same criminal case as that of Mr Chaplayev (see Indirbayeva and Others, cited above, §§ 46-48). Therefore, the Court’s findings concerning ineffectiveness of the investigation in that case apply equally to the case at hand. 10. There has therefore been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect. 11. The applicants also raised complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The Court has examined that part of the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention. 12. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13.
The applicants claimed 98,149 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,477 in respect of costs and expenses. 14. According to the Government, the claims were unsubstantiated. 15. Having regard to the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 16. The Court rejects the claim for pecuniary damage for the lack of the causal link between the violation found and the alleged damage. It rejects the claim for costs and expenses, given that the applicants failed to show that they had paid or were under a legal obligation to pay the fees billed by their representatives or the expenses incurred by them (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 327, 28 November 2017). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 June 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Georgios A. Serghides Deputy Registrar President