003-3357166-3759072

issued by the Registrar of the Court     02.12.2010   Russia condemned for continued failure to investigate   indiscriminate bombardment of a Chechen village   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Abuyeva and Others v. Russia (application   no. 27065/05), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been a:   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in   respect of the applicants and their 24 relatives who were killed;   Violation of Article 2 (right to life: lack of effective investigation into the use of   lethal force by State agents)   Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with   Article 2   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that 24 of their relatives died during the   bombardment on their village in February 2000. Some of the applicants also complained   about injuries they had sustained during the attack.   The Court found in particular that, despite its finding in a previous judgment (Isayeva v.   Russia of 24 February 20052) concerning the same events, the ensuing new   investigation into the bombardment had been plagued by exactly the same defects and   invited the Committee of Ministers, the executive arm of the Council of Europe, which   supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments, to address the issue.   Principal facts   The applicants are 29 Russian nationals. In February 2000 they resided in the village of   Katyr-Yurt (Achkhoy-Martan district, Chechnya), which, from the beginning of military   operations by the Russian military and security forces in Chechnya in the autumn of   1999, was treated as a “safe zone”. In February 2000, up to 25,000 people lived there.   The case concerned the attack by the Russian military forces between 4 and 7 February   on the village of Katyr-Yurt following its capture by a large group of Chechen   fighters who had escaped from Grozny. The assault, during which the Russian forces   used heavy free-falling aviation bombs, missiles and other arsenal, resulted in the   deaths of 24 of the applicants’ close relatives (including minor children and elderly   parents), all mostly sheltering in basements during the attacks. Ten of the applicants   were wounded, mainly by shrapnel and had to have surgery; one of them had to have   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   As a result of the February 2002 bombardment, Zara Isayeva’s son and three nieces were killed.       his left leg amputated as a result of gangrene developed from a shell wound. The   applicants alleged that they had difficulty escaping from the shelling as the military had   controlled the two exits leading out of the village.   A criminal investigation was launched by the Russian authorities into the incident and in   2000-2001 most of the applicants or members of their families, as well as other people   who had been in Katyr-Yurt at the time, were apparently interviewed. The applicants   submitted that during the interviews they had been assured that the authorities would   keep them informed of the progress of the investigation and that they would be granted   compensation. The investigation was closed in March 2002, as the actions of the military   were found to have been legitimate in the circumstances, as a large group of illegal   fighters had occupied the village and refused to surrender.   The applicants complained about that decision and in March 2006 the courts decided to   send the investigation back to the military prosecutor’s office. In the meantime,   however, the investigation had already been resumed in November 2005 following the   conclusions of the Court in the Isayeva case, where the applicant was a party to the   same set of domestic proceedings as the applicants in the present case. During this   second set of proceedings a number of additional witnesses were interviewed, including   ten of the applicants and some of their relatives. In June 2007 the investigation was   closed, with the same conclusions as in March 2002. In particular, the decision referred   to an additional military expert report – not submitted to the Court – which upheld the   experts’ findings during the first investigation: namely that civilians’ evacuation had   been properly organised but obstructed by Chechen rebels and that weapons – localised   fire – had been correctly chosen.   The Government argued that the attack and its consequences, motivated by the active   resistance of illegal armed groups, had been absolutely necessary for the protection of   the population of Katyr-Yurt. The organised civilian exit corridors had been sabotaged by   the Chechen fighters who had used the residents as a “human shield” to prevent defeat   and capture. They further argued that the investigation had been carried out by an   independent body – the military prosecutor’s office. It had interviewed and granted   victim status to 95 people, interviewed over 50 witnesses, and called for several expert   reports. The second set of proceedings had collected an important body of additional   evidence which had allowed the circumstances of the events that took place between 4   and 7 February 2000 in Katyr-Yurt to be further clarified. An additional expert report had   been carried out by the Military Academy of the Armed Forces.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants argued, with direct reference to the   Isayeva judgment, that their dead relatives’ right to life as well as their own – given the   level of danger to which they had been exposed – had been breached. Relying on Article   (right to an effective remedy), they further submitted that the investigation into the   attack had been ineffective – both prior to the resumption of proceedings in 2006 and   after that date –, in particular that the military prosecutor’s office had failed to address   numerous omissions noted by the Court and to inform them of the most important   developments.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 July 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President,   Anatoly Kovler (Russia),   Elisabeth Steiner (Austria),   Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg),   Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway),   Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland),   George Nicolaou (Cyprus), Judges,   and also André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The Court had accepted in the Isayeva case that the operation in Katyr-Yurt on 4 to 7   February had pursued a legitimate aim, but found that it had not been planned and   executed with the requisite care for the lives of the civilian population, in violation of   Article 2.   Having examined the submissions of the parties in the present case, the Court found no   reasons to depart from the findings made in the Isayeva judgment. As no copy of the   additional expert report cited in the decision of 2007 to terminate the investigation had   been submitted to the Court, there were no documents to uphold the earlier   Government’s conclusions about the proper organisation of the civilians’ evacuation, the   correct choice of weapons and the responsibility of the fighters for the failures of the   “humanitarian corridor”.   While the operation in Katyr Yurt between 4 and 7 February 2000 pursued a legitimate   aim, it was not planned and executed with requisite care for the lives of the civilian   population. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Russia’s obligation to protect the   right to life of the applicants and their relatives who died or who were wounded during   the operation.   Investigation   In the Isayeva judgment the Court concluded that the domestic investigation had been   inefficient. It criticised a delay of seven months before the opening of the investigation,   the lack of crucial information about the “safe passage”, about the persons responsible   for the safety of the evacuation and about the instructions given to the soldiers. The   Court further criticised the failure to examine the allegation by certain high-ranking   servicemen that the inhabitants of Katyr-Yurt had been “punished” for what was   perceived as a lack of cooperation with the military and to comprehensively assess   human losses. Those who had victim status had also not been notified of the most   important procedural decision taken in the criminal proceedings. Lastly, the Court found   that the expert report of February 2002 – on the basis of which the investigation had   been closed – did not appear to tally with the documents contained in the case file.   On the basis of the documents reviewed, the Court concluded that all the major flaws of   the investigation indicated in 2005 had persisted throughout the second set of   proceedings, in particular concerning the crucial issues of responsibility for the safety of   the civilians’ evacuation and of the “reprisal” character of the operation against the   population of Katyr-Yurt. No additional questions about these aspects were posed to   persons involved at ground level and no one was charged with any crime. Furthermore,   the decisions to terminate the proceedings by the military prosecutor’s office, on the   basis of the expert reports prepared by army officers, raised serious doubts about the   independence of the investigation. The Court noted again the surprising failure, even   after seven years, to compile an exhaustive list of victims and to communicate   information to the applicants during the proceedings.   To sum up, the investigation carried out after the adoption of the Isayeva judgment had   suffered from exactly the same defects as those identified in respect of the first set of   proceedings, which, aside from the issues under Article 2, raised a matter under Article   of the Convention (see below).   The Court therefore concluded that no effective investigation has been carried out to   date into the circumstances of the attack on Katyr-Yurt between 4 and 7 February 2000,   in breach of the procedural aspect of Article 2.   Article 13   As the criminal investigation into the bombardment had been ineffective and the   effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed, including civil remedies   suggested by the Government, had consequently been undermined, the Court concluded   that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.   Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Russia was to   pay the applicants a total of 1,720,000 euros (EUR) – sums ranging from EUR 30,000 to   EUR 120,000 – in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,266 in respect of costs   and expenses.   Article 46   In carrying out the investigation in the present case, Russia manifestly disregarded the   specific findings of the binding judgment Isayeva v. Russia of 24 February 2005   concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation. The Court emphasised in this respect   that any measures adopted within the execution process must be compatible with the   conclusions set out in the Court’s judgment.   On the practical side, the investigation compiled a large amount of data about the   events. Individual omissions appeared to be easily rectifiable on the basis of the existing   documents. However, to this day, no independent study of the proportionality and   necessity of the use of lethal force or investigation by an independent – preferably   judicial – body to establish individual responsibility for the death of the victims had been   carried out.   While the Court found that it fell to the Committee of Ministers, acting under Article 46 of   the Convention, to address the issue of what – in practical terms – may be required of   the Russian Government by way of compliance, it considered it inevitable that a new and   independent investigation should take place, which would bear due regard to the   conclusions in respect of the failures of the investigation carried out to date.   Separate opinion   Judge Malinverni, joined by judges Rozakis and Spielmann, expressed a concurring   opinion. This opinion is annexed to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   5