003-4034606-4709504

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 319 (2012)   31.07.2012   Russia failed to account for disappearance of husband and father   of five in Chechnya   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Umarova and Others v. Russia (application   no. 25654/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,   that there had been:   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights   concerning the disappearance of Khamzat Umarov;   Violation of Article 2 of the Convention concerning the inadequate investigation into   Khamzat Umarov’s disappearance;   Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning   the mental suffering of Khamzat Umarov’s wife and children;   Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the unacknowledged   detention of Khamzat Umarov; and a   Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.   The case concerned the disappearance of a man, husband and father of five, and the   inadequate investigation into the events surrounding it.   Principal facts   The applicants are six Russian nationals who were born between 1959 and 1991   respectively and live in Achkhoy-Martan, the Chechen Republic, (Russia). They are the wife   and five children of Khamzat Umarov who was born in 1956.   They alleged that Khamzat Umarov was abducted from his home during the night of   July 2001 when a group of about 15 men in camouflage uniforms rushed into their   house at around 4 a.m. All intruders were armed with automatic weapons and spoke   unaccented Russian. Some of them were wearing masks, and those who did not were of   Slavic appearance. They took Khamzat Umarov outside and put him into one of the two   vehicles parked in the street. Immediately afterwards, both cars drove away in the   direction where the District Department of the Interior and the Federal Security Service   were situated at the time.   Khamzat Umarov’s wife reported the abduction to the authorities on the day it occurred   and subsequently complained to a number of State bodies. An official investigation was   opened in January 2002. It was subsequently suspended and reopened numerous times.   The investigating steps comprised mostly of questioning witnesses who generally   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   confirmed that Khamzat had been abducted by armed masked men in July 2001. On a   number of occasions, the supervising prosecutors criticised the investigation as incomplete   and ordered its resumption. The investigation has not been completed to date. Although   she was given victim’s status, Khamzat Umarov’s wife has not been informed of the   investigation’s progress other than of its suspension or reopening. There has been no news   of Khamzat Umarov since his abduction in 30 July 2001.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants alleged that Russian servicemen had been responsible for their husband’s   and father’s disappearances, and that the investigation into their allegations had been   inadequate. They relied in particular on Article 2, Article 3, Article 5 and Article 13.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 April 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President,   Anatoly Kovler (Russia),   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),   Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),   Julia Laffranque (Estonia),   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 (disappearance)   The Court stated that when an individual was detained by unidentified servicemen, without   any subsequent knowledge of the detention, and was then missing for several years, the   situation could be regarded as life-threatening. It concluded that Khamzat Umarov had to   be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State agents. In the   absence of any justification by the Russian Government, his death could be attributed to   the State. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Khamzat Umarov.   Article 2 (investigation)   The Court also found that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal   investigation into the circumstances surrounding Khamzat’s disappearance, in particular for   the following reasons. The investigation had been started only about six months after the   authorities were put on notice about the abduction. Furthermore, the investigators had   neither examined the crime scene at the place of arrest, not had they checked the   registration log of detainees held by the military unit who had allegedly taken Khamzat. In   addition, the investigation had been prematurely suspended, which undermined the   investigators’ ability to identify and punish the perpetrators. Also, despite that the   supervising prosecutors had criticised the investigators for failure to take important   actions, the omissions had not been remedied. The applicants had not been kept properly   informed of the investigation’s progress and had thus not been able to challenge acts or   omissions of the investigative authorities. In the absence of any explanation for the above   shortcomings, the Court concluded that the authorities had failed to demonstrate diligence   and promptness during the investigation, in violation of Article 2.   Article 3   The Court found a violation of Article 3 in respect of the mental suffering endured by   Khamzat’s wife and children as a result of his disappearance and the authorities’ failure to   investigate it properly. Khamzat’s relatives had not had any news of him for more than 10   years and, despite their attempts, they had never received any plausible explanation or   information about what happened to him after his apprehension.   Article 5   The Court found that Khamzat Umarov had been held in unacknowledged detention without   any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which represented a particularly grave   violation of the right to liberty and security.   Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2   The criminal investigation into Khamzat’s disappearance had been ineffective, and the   effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed had consequently been   undermined. The State had therefore failed in its obligation under Article 13. As a result,   there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Russia was to pay 2,000 euros (EUR) to each of the children and wife   of Khamzat Umarov, as well as EUR 60,000 jointly to them in respect of non-pecuniary   damage, and EUR 1,260 for costs and expenses to the applicants’ representative.   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   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   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.   3