003-3731373-4256551

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 232 (2011)   08.11.2011   A young man abducted and disappeared in Chechnya   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Sambiyeva v. Russia (application   no. 20205/07), 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   concerning the disappearance of Said-Emin Sambiyev;   A violation of Article 2 concerning the inadequate investigation into his disappearance;   A violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)   concerning the mental suffering of the young man’s mother;   A violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the unacknowledged   detention of Said-Emin Sambiyev; and,   A violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.   The case concerned the applicant’s allegations that her son had been abducted and killed   by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation in Chechnya and that   the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into her   complaints.   Principal facts   The applicant, Gizhan Sambiyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in   Grozny (Russia). She is the mother of Said-Emin Sambiyev, who was born in 1978 and   has not been seen since August 2003. At the time of the events, Ms Sambiyeva lived in   Tevzan; she currently lives in Grozny, Chechnya.   In 2003, Said-Emin Sambiyev worked for the Security Service of the Chechen President.   On 13 August 2003, he and a colleague of his were in a taxi going from the village of Ulus-   Kert to the village of Makkhety. Their vehicle was stopped in the village of Tevzan, in the   Vedeno district, at a checkpoint manned by servicemen of military unit no. 28337-A. They   were detained at the checkpoint by the servicemen and taken to the 45th Airborne Forces   Regiment in the village of Khatuni, in the Vedeno district of Chechnya. Their abduction   was witnessed by a person whose car was also stopped at that checkpoint and who was   told by the servicemen that the two young men would be taken for an identity check to   the 45th regiment’s base, in the military base in Khatuni.   On 25 August 2003, Said-Emin’s colleague, with whom he travelled on 13 August, was   released from detention in Khatuni. According to him, both he and Said-Emin had been   detained in separate pits in the ground which had been filled with water. Said-Emin had   been beaten up and could barely speak at the time when he had seen him, shortly before   his release. The abductors had told him that Said-Emin would be released on the following   day.   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   The Russian Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicant. They   accepted that Said-Emin had been travelling together with someone else in a car from   Ulus-Kert in the Shatoi district to Makhkety in the Vedeno district on 13 August 2003 and   that they had been stopped by military servicemen in armoured vehicles. After that, the   two men had been taken to the military unit stationed in Khatuni. Eleven days later, Said-   Emin’s companion had been released while Said-Emin’s fate had remained unclear.   Said-Emin’s mother applied in person and in writing to various authorities asking for help   in finding her son. While an investigation was opened into her son’s disappearance on the   same day when she complained to the prosecution about it, the file had been mostly   forwarded from one law-enforcement office to another without success. The investigation   had also been suspended and restarted numerous times, and she had received almost no   information about its progress.   The Government submitted that following the opening of the investigation, they had   questioned many witnesses, including Said-Emin’s mother, his colleague with whom he   had been travelling on the day of his abduction and his director at the Security Service of   the Chechen President. The investigation had been suspended several times for failure to   identify the perpetrators, yet it had been resumed after each suspension and the applicant   had been informed accordingly. The investigation was still on-going; it had established   that no special operations had been carried out on the day of Said-Emin’s disappearance   and that law-enforcement authorities had never arrested him on any charges.   Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose most of the   contents of the investigation file in the criminal case into Said-Emin’s abduction referring   to the incompatibility of such a step with domestic criminal procedure legislation.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 2, 3, 5, and 13, the applicant complained that her son had been   abducted and killed by Russian servicemen, that no effective investigation had been   carried out into her related complaints, that she had suffered as a result of Said-Emin’s   disappearance, that he had been detained unlawfully and that she had not had an   effective remedy in respect of her complaints.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 April 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President,   Anatoly Kovler (Russia),   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),   Elisabeth Steiner (Austria),   Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),   Erik Møse (Norway), Judges,   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Right to life (Article 2)   The Court observed that despite its requests for copies of documents related to the   investigative steps taken in connection with Said-Emin’s disappearance, the Russian   Government had produced only some of the documents from the case file.   The applicant’s allegations had been supported by the witness statements collected by the   investigation which had accepted the factual assumptions presented by Said-Emin’s   mother. The authorities had concluded that military servicemen had detained him and   taken him to the military unit in Khatuni. The fact that they could not find any evidence   showing that State agents had abducted Said-Amin did not absolve them from the   responsibility to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in   question had occurred.   The Court examined the documents submitted by the parties and, drawing inferences from   the Government’s failure to submit the remaining documents which were in its exclusive   possession, or to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question, the   Court concluded that Said-Emin Sambiyev had been arrested on 13 August 2003 by State   servicemen, following which he had disappeared. Given that there had been no reliable   news from Said-Emin since the day of his abduction, the Court concluded that he had to   be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen.   Consequently, in the absence of any justification for his disappearance and death, the   Court held that the Russian Government had been responsible for Said-Emin’s presumed   death, in violation of Article 2.   Investigation (Article 2)   The Court noted that the abduction of Said-Emin had been investigated. However, most of   the documents related to the investigation had not been disclosed to the Court. In   addition, a number of essential investigative steps had not been taken at all and Ms   Sambiyeva had not been kept properly informed of the investigation’s progress.   The investigation had been suspended at least six times and there had been lengthy   periods of inactivity which had led to unnecessary protraction. Due to the time which had   elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative measures which should have   been carried out could no longer be usefully conducted. Ms Sambiyeva, who had not had   access to the case file and had not been properly informed of the progress of the   investigation, could not effectively challenge the acts or omissions of the investigative   authorities before a court.   Consequently, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the   circumstances surrounding Said-Emin’s disappearance, in violation of Article. 2.   Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3)   The Court noted that Ms Sambiyeva was the mother of the disappeared man. For more   than six years she had not had news from him. Despite her attempts, she had never   received any plausible explanation or information about what had happened to her son.   The replies she had received had mostly denied State responsibility for her son’s arrest or   simply informed her that the investigation had been ongoing.   There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 3 in respect of Ms Sambiyeva.   Deprivation of liberty (Article 5)   The Court held that as Ms Sambiyeva’s son had been held in unacknowledged detention   without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, that represented a particularly grave   violation of the right to liberty and security.   Effective remedy (Article 13)   The criminal investigations into the disappearance and death of Ms Sambiyeva’s son had   been ineffective, and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed had   consequently been undermined. Russia had therefore failed in its obligation under Article   and there had, therefore, been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Russia was to pay Ms Sambiyeva euros (EUR) 12,000 in respect of   pecuniary damage, EUR 50,000 in respect of non pecuniary damage and EUR 4,815 for   costs and expenses.   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   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Petra Leppee-Fraize (tel: + 33 3 90 21 29 07)   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.   4