European Court finds Russia responsible for abduction and presumed death of Chechen man | Middlesex University London
Saved pages
0

    Close window

    Section navigation

    European Court finds Russia responsible for abduction and presumed death of Chechen man

    14/03/2013
    The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Avkhadov v Russia, that Russia was responsible for the abduction and presumed death of Chechen Vakhit Avkhadov, in violation of the right to life.

    The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Avkhadov v Russia (No. 47215/07) that Russia was responsible for the abduction and presumed death of Chechen Vakhit Avkhadov, in violation of the right to life (Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

    The applicants were represented by Middlesex University's European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and the Russian NGO Memorial and. The first applicant, Mr Avkhadov's mother, was awarded 45,000 EUR and the other applicants, his sisters, were awarded 15,000 EUR each in damages.

    On 24 April 2001, Mr Avkhadov and his family were at home in Urus-Martan, Chechnya, when several armed men entered the house. After searching the house, the men demanded his identity papers and proceeded to cover his head and lead him away. He was seen being driven off in a military vehicle, which was witnessed by several people. It emerged that several other men were also abducted on the same day. Nothing has been heard of Mr Avkhadov since.

    The applicants made numerous appeals to complain about the abduction of her son, including to the local Department of the Interior, the prosecutor's office and the local administration. Despite these appeals, investigators did not come to her home until two months after the incident. Numerous complaints about the abduction, inadequacies in the investigation process and lack of access to the case files went unanswered. The applicant applied for victim status in 2002 but it was only granted in 2006.

    The Government alleged that that applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies, that the investigation into Mr Avkhadov's disappearance was not yet complete, and that the necessary steps were being taken in relation to this incident. The Government said there was no evidence to prove that State agents were directly responsible for his abduction.

    Based on the evidence submitted by the applicants, and the fact that "when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening", the Court concluded that Vakhit Avkhadov must be presumed dead following unacknowledged detention by State agents, in violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention. A separate violation of Article 2 was found on account of the ineffectiveness of the investigation, as important witnesses were not questioned, the case was opened and closed several times, and necessary and urgent investigative steps were not taken.

    The Court also found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) on account of the psychological distress endured by the applicants, finding that "the essence of such a violation does not mainly lie in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather concerns the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation". A "particularly grave violation" of Article 5 (right to liberty) was found on account of his unacknowledged detention, and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) was held to have been violated, because of the absence of any effective domestic remedy.

    The Court also ruled today in the case of Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v Russia (Nos. 26261/05 and 26377/06). The applicants are members of the group 'Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami' and alleged that their conviction for being a member of this group was in violation of Article 7 (prohibition of retrospective criminalisation of acts) as the Supreme Court of Russia had convicted them before the decision to ban 'Hizb ut-Tahrir' had been publicised. A violation of Article 7 was found in respect of the second applicant. Further complaints that their freedom of expression and association were violated and of discrimination based on their religious beliefs were dismissed by the Court as the activities generally carried out by members of 'Hizb ut-Tahrir' are considered to be "contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention".

    Comments (0)


    Leave your comment

    In this section

    Back to top

    We use Cookies

    View our Privacy and Cookie policy

    Continue