003-5075322-6248289

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 147 (2015)   30.04.2015   Judgments and decisions of 30 April 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 13 judgments1 and 37 decisions2:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below; for two others, in the cases of Kapetanios and   Others v. Greece (applications nos. 3453/12, 42941/12 and 9028/13) and Mitrinovski v. “The former   Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 6899/12), separate press releases have been issued;   eight Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   and the 37 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Islamova v. Russia (application no. 5713/11)   The applicant, Zulay Islamova, is a Russian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Urus-Martan,   the Chechen Republic (Russia). The case concerned her complaint that her two sons had been   abducted by State servicemen in 2000.   Ms Islamova’s sons, Apti and Said-Emi Islamov, born in 1976 and 1981 respectively, worked as   policemen at a district department of the interior in Grozny. On 14 October 2000, they were driving   from Grozny to Urus-Martan with two colleagues when they were arrested at a checkpoint near the   outskirts of Grozny, staffed by police officers from a special task unit. Later on the same day, several   vehicles with a group of armed servicemen wearing masks arrived at the checkpoint. Ms Islamova’s   sons have gone missing since.   Three days after the incident, the Groznya town administration complained to the Grozny   prosecutor on Ms Islamova’s behalf about the abduction of her sons by State servicemen. A few days   later the prosecutor interviewed a number of officers who had manned the checkpoint on the day in   question. On 22 December 2000 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation   into the abduction. Ms Islamova was granted victim status in May 2003. The investigation was   subsequently suspended and reopened on several occasions, and it remains pending.   In their submissions to the European Court of Human Rights, the Russian Government have not   disputed the circumstances of the abduction as presented by Ms Islamova, but according to them it   was not possible to establish whether her sons had been detained by law-enforcement agencies in   violation of the relevant procedure or whether physical force had been used.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Islamova   complained that her sons had been abducted and killed by State officials and that the Russian   authorities had failed to carry out effective investigations into those matters. Relying on Article 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she further complained of the mental suffering caused to   her by the disappearance of her sons, of the unlawfulness of their detention, and of the fact that she   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s 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. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   had not had a legal remedy available at national level in respect of her complaints, in particular   under Articles 2 and 3.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) – in respect of Mr Apti Islamov and Mr Said-Emi Islamov   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Violation of Article 3 – in respect of Ms Islamova, on account of her sons’ disappearance and the   authorities’ response to her suffering   Violation of Article 5 –- in respect of Mr Apti Islamov and Mr Said-Emi Islamov   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3   Just satisfaction: 20,000 euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage), EUR 120,000 (non-pecuniary damage),   and EUR 2,553 (costs and expenses)   Shamardakov v. Russia (no. 13810/04)*   The applicant, Mr Pavel Shamardakov is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in   Vladikavkaz.   The case concerned allegations of inhuman and degrading treatment on the part of the police and of   an unfair trial leading to the applicant’s conviction.   Suspected of murdering a young woman, Mr Shamardakov was arrested on 21 May 2003 and taken   to the Zaterechniy police station in the city of Vladikavkaz where, according to him, he was severely   beaten by police officers to make him confess. He did not confess but gave a detailed account of his   day to the officers. Subsequently, assisted by a lawyer, he chose to remain silent.   On 30 May 2003 Mr Shamardakov filed a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office about the   alleged ill-treatment. After preliminary and additional investigations, the complaint was dropped   and the discontinuance of proceedings was confirmed by the domestic courts, ultimately by the   Supreme Court of North Ossetia-Alania on 22 September 2004.   In a judgment of 30 December 2004 the Supreme Court of North Ossetia-Alania, based on   circumstantial evidence and the initial statements given by Mr Shamardakov to the police after his   arrest, found him guilty of voluntary homicide and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. Two   reviews of the applicant’s case, on 15 October 2009 and 30 December 2010, after notice of the   application had been given to the Government, led to his conviction being upheld. Although those   judgments no longer contained any express reference to the applicant’s initial statements, they   reiterated that the applicant had not been subjected to any ill-treatment.   The applicant alleged that following his arrest he had been subjected to treatment that had been   incompatible with Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and that the authorities   had not carried out an effective investigation in this connection. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a   fair trial) and Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to the assistance of a lawyer), he argued that he had been   deprived of a fair trial on account of the use, for the purposes of his conviction, of statements   obtained by means of ill-treatment, and the absence of a lawyer when he had been held in police   custody.   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 c)   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 EUR (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,400 (costs and expenses)   Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 66338/09)   The applicant, Oleksandr Yaremenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and is currently   serving a life sentence in Zhytomyr Prison (Ukraine). The case concerned a review of his criminal   case by the Supreme Court of Ukraine following a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights   in a previous case concerning his conviction (Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 32092/02)).   Mr Yaremenko was convicted of two counts of murder, allegedly committed in 1998 and 2001, and   sentenced to life imprisonment in a judgment eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of Ukraine in   April 2002. In his previous case before the European Court of Human Rights, he complained in   particular: that he had been ill-treated in police custody and that his complaints in that regard had   not been given due consideration; that he had been deprived of legal assistance of his own choosing   during part of the proceedings; and that he had been forced to incriminate himself. In its Chamber   judgment of 12 June 2008, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment – obligation to conduct an effective investigation)   on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into   Mr Yaremenko’s allegations that he had been ill-treated by the police. It also found a violation of   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and to legal assistance), in particular on account of the fact   that his lawyer had been dismissed from the case by the investigator after having advised   Mr Yaremenko to remain silent and not to testify against himself; on account of the fact that there   had been no adequate investigation into his allegations that the statement had been obtained by   illicit means; and taking into consideration that his conviction for the 1998 crime had been based   mainly on his confession, which had been obtained by the investigators in the absence of a lawyer   and which he had retracted the very next day.   In December 2008 Mr Yaremenko requested an extraordinary review of his criminal case before the   Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined his case in July 2009 in his absence but in the   presence of his lawyer. It found that his written confession of the 1998 crime had been obtained in   violation of the requirements of criminal procedure law and thus should be excluded from the   evidence. However, that exclusion did not change the conclusions of the court, as there were other   pieces of evidence to prove his guilt. It was therefore not necessary to quash the judgment in his   case.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial / right to legal assistance), Mr Yaremenko   complained that the Supreme Court, instead of referring the case to a trial court for fresh   consideration, had reassessed the facts and evidence in his case, despite having no jurisdiction to do   so. He further complained that his right to remain silent and his right to defence had been violated   again, given that the Supreme Court – while excluding part of the evidence obtained in breach of   these rights – had relied on other pieces of evidence obtained in the same manner. Finally, he   complained that the retrial had been conducted in his absence; and that he had not had adequate   facilities to prepare his defence as he had not been informed of the evidence on which the   prosecution had intended to rely in view of his initial confessions being excluded.   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)   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 here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   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.   4