THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5725/11 Eliza Khamidovna DASHUYEVA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 May 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Gilberto Felici , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar .

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2010,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Ms Eliza Dashuyeva , is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Pau, France. She was represented before the Court by Mr A. Sabinin , a lawyer practising in Stavropol.

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor, Mr M. Galperin .

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4 . The applicant is the sister of Mr Zelimkhan Dashuyev , who was born in 1983, and the daughter of Ms Khalisat Ayupova , who was born in 1950. At the material time the applicant resided in Grozny, Chechnya.

(a) Abduction of the applicant ’ s brother and discovery of his body

5 . At about 3 a.m. on 17 November 2005, two armed men in camouflage uniforms knocked at the window of the applicant ’ s house in the village of Prigorodnoye in the Grozny district. Saying in Russian that they were from the police, the men demanded that Zelimkhan Dashuyev open the door. After that, the men beat him and took him away in handcuffs, speaking Chechen between themselves.

6 . On 18 November 2005 the body of Mr Dashuyev , which had four gunshot wounds, including three to the head, and the mouth sealed with duct tape, was found near the village of Chechen- Aul in the Grozny district.

(b) Official investigation into the incident

7 . On 17 November 2005 Mr Dashuyev ’ s mother, Ms Khalisat Ayupova , went to the local police station (the Grozny district department of the interior) and complained of the abduction.

8 . On 18 November 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 44402.

9 . On 29 November 2005 the Grozny police informed the investigators from the prosecutor ’ s office (“the investigators”) that, according to their database, Mr Dashuyev had been suspected of belonging to illegal armed groups, and that he had been detained by the law ‑ enforcement agencies but released without charge. The main theory concerning the perpetrators of his killing was that it had been an act of revenge by members of illegal armed groups operating in the village of Prigorodnoye .

10 . On 5 December 2005 the investigators granted Ms Ayupova victim status in the criminal case and questioned her. Her statement was similar to the applicant ’ s submission before the Court.

11 . On 18 February 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

12 . As can be seen from the documents submitted, between February 2006 and the summer of 2010 no correspondence took place between either the applicant or Ms Ayupova and the investigating authorities.

13 . According to the applicant, on an unspecified date in the summer of 2010, she learnt of the decision of 18 February 2006 to suspend the investigation. Shortly thereafter, she appealed against that decision to the local court (see paragraphs 17-18 below).

14 . On 1 November 2010 the investigation was resumed and on 18 November 2010 it was suspended again.

15 . On 11 February 2019 the investigation was resumed upon the request of the applicant ’ s lawyer before being suspended again on an unspecified date. It appears that it is still pending.

16 . The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicant, but stated that she had been informed of the decision of 18 February 2006 to suspend the investigation on the same date. In support of their assertion, they submitted a copy of a letter, without an envelope, addressed to the applicant and dated 18 February 2006.

(c) The applicant ’ s complaint of inaction on the investigators ’ part

17 . On 26 August 2010 the applicant complained to the Grozny District Court that the investigation had been ineffective and requested that it be resumed.

18 . On 19 October 2010 the court refused to examine her complaint as on 18 October 2010 the investigators ’ superiors had overruled the suspension and ordered that the investigation be resumed.

(a) Killing of the applicant ’ s mother

19 . At about 9 p.m. on 14 October 2006, an unidentified person opened fire in Lesnaya Street near Ms Ayupova ’ s house and the house next door. As a result, Mr A.N., a local resident and Ms Ayupova ’ s neighbour, received a gunshot wound to his right arm and was taken to the 9th clinical hospital in Grozny for medical treatment. Ms Ayupova received a gunshot wound to the chest and died instantly.

(b) Official investigation into the incident

20 . On 14 October 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene at Ms Ayupova ’ s house.

21 . On 15 October 2006 the Grozny district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 54101.

22 . On 25 October 2006 the investigation in criminal case no. 54101 was joined with the one in criminal case no. 54102 − opened in connection with the wounding of Mr A.N. − under the joint number 54101 since it had been established that he and Ms Ayupova had both been shot with the same firearm.

23 . On an unspecified date between October and December 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

24 . On 20 or 25 October 2006 Mr A.N. identified Mr V.G. from a photograph as the person who had shot him on 14 October 2006.

25 . On 7 November 2006 V.G. was shot and died as a result of a special operation carried out by the Chechnya Federal Security Service (“the FSB”). During that operation, it was established (see paragraphs 26 and 28 below) that his accomplice, Mr R.A., had participated in the shooting at Ms Ayupova ’ s house on 14 October 2006 and had managed to escape. His name was put on the wanted list.

26 . On 13 November 2006 the investigators questioned an FSB officer, D.P. who stated that on 7 November 2006 he had participated in the special operation against V.G. The latter had been wounded and taken in a car for medical assistance. On the way to the hospital, prior to losing consciousness, he had confessed to killing Ms Ayupova on 14 October 2006. He had not been able to explain the motive for the attack, as he had died shortly afterwards.

27 . On 13 November 2006 the investigators also questioned Ms Ayupova ’ s husband, Mr Kh.D ., who stated that shortly before the killing, a young man had asked his daughter-in-law to see his wife. When Ms Ayupova had opened the door to talk to the man, the man had opened fire and Mr Kh.D . had found her bleeding at the entrance to the house.

28 . On 14 December 2006 the investigators terminated the investigation in criminal case no. 54102 owing to the death of the suspect, V.G. On the same date, they suspended the investigation in criminal case no. 54101, as the other suspect (R.A.) had absconded. According to the applicant, she was not informed of either decision.

29 . As can be seen from the documents submitted, between December 2006 and September 2010 no communication took place between the applicant and the investigating authorities.

30 . On an unspecified date in September or October 2010, the applicant learnt of the decision of 14 December 2006 to suspend the investigation. Following her complaint against the investigators ’ inaction (see paragraph 32 below), on 18 October 2010 the investigation was resumed and then on 18 November 2010 it was suspended again. The proceedings are still pending.

31 . The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicant, but stated that she had been informed in due time of the decision of 14 December 2006 to suspend the investigation. No documents substantiating that assertion were enclosed.

(c) The applicant ’ s appeal in respect of the investigators ’ inaction

32 . On an unspecified date in September or October 2010, the applicant complained to the Grozny District Court that the investigation in criminal case no. 54101 had been ineffective and requested that it be resumed. On 19 October 2010 her complaint was dismissed as the investigators had resumed the proceedings on 18 October 2010.

33 . For a summary of the relevant domestic regulations, see Kosumova v. Russia , no. 2527/09, §§ 66-72, 16 October 2014.

COMPLAINTS

34 . The applicant complained that her brother and then her mother had been killed by State agents in 2005 and 2006 respectively and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their deaths as required by Article 2 of the Convention.

THE LAW

35 . The applicant complained that her brother and then her mother had been killed by State agents and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into their deaths, contrary to Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“1. Everyone ’ s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

36 . The Government submitted that the complaint was inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit.

37 . The applicant submitted that she had lodged her application in time. She stated that the delay in lodging it had been reasonable, as the authorities had failed to inform her duly of the decisions to suspend the investigations. Given the gravity of the crimes perpetrated against her relatives, she had expected that the authorities would carry out proper investigations into the matter. She had lodged her application as soon as she had realised that the investigations in both criminal cases were ineffective.

38 . In cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court has held that, where a death has occurred, relatives who are applicants are expected to take steps to keep track of an investigation ’ s progress, or lack thereof, and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any appropriate redress, including effective criminal investigation (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 158, ECHR 2009, with further references).

39 . At the same time, the Court has refrained from indicating a specific time frame for establishing when an ongoing investigation has become ineffective for the purposes of the six-month period. The determination of such a period by the Court depends on the circumstances of each case and other factors such as the diligence and interest displayed by the applicants, as well as the adequacy of the investigation in question (see Elsanova v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005, and Narin v. Turkey , no. 18907/02, §§ 43 and 50, 15 December 2009). The Court has found that the ineffectiveness of an investigation will generally be more readily apparent in cases concerning violent deaths than in cases of disappearances, which are characterised by uncertainty and confusion; the requirement of expedition may require an applicant to bring cases concerning violent deaths to the Court within a matter of months, or, depending on the circumstances, a few years after the events at most (see Varnava and Others , cited above, § 162).

40 . Stricter expectations would apply in cases where there has been a complete absence of any investigation or progress in an investigation, or meaningful contact with the authorities. The Court has imposed a duty of diligence and initiative on the families of victims wishing to complain of a delayed or ineffective investigation, who should not wait indefinitely before bringing such complaints to the Court. However, the Court has held that as long as there is some meaningful contact between relatives and authorities concerning complaints and requests for information, or some indication, or realistic possibility, of progress in the investigative measures, considerations of undue delay by the applicants will not generally arise (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 269, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). Failure to comply with the duty of diligence may, however, result in an applicant losing his or her right to have the merits of an application examined (see Opačić and Godić v. Croatia ( dec. ), no. 38882/13, §§ 27-30, 26 January 2016, with further references).

41 . The Court has found that, in cases of violent death, periods lasting between one year and eight months and seven years between the final relevant procedural step on the part of national authorities and the lodging of applications with the Court were too lengthy to comply with the admissibility criterion in question (see Orić v. Croatia ( dec. ), no. 50203/12, § 38, 13 May 2014).

42 . However, the Court considers that in some cases information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a killing may come into the public domain at a later stage. The issue then arises as to whether, and in what form, the procedural obligation to investigate is revived. To that end, the Court found in its judgment in Brecknell v. the United Kingdom (no. 32457/04, § 71, 27 November 2007) that, where there was a plausible, or credible, allegation, piece of evidence or item of information relevant to the identification and eventual prosecution or punishment of the perpetrator of an unlawful killing, the authorities were under an obligation to take further measures. New developments which occur after a lull of several years and amount to no more than a mere formality, or do not lead to any noticeable progress in the investigation, will not be accepted as providing a new starting-point for the purposes of calculating the six-month time-limit (see Dzhamaldayev v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 39768/06, § 35, 22 January 2013, and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 58055/10, § 47, 31 May 2016).

43 . With regard to the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the deaths of her relatives, the Court notes that more than five years and four years elapsed between the respective killings of her brother and her mother and the lodging of her application with the Court.

44 . The investigation into her brother ’ s death was opened on 18 November 2005 and the one into her mother ’ s on 15 October 2006. The applicant ’ s mother, Ms Ayupova , was granted victim status in the criminal case concerning the killing of Mr Dashuyev in December 2005 and then, in the case concerning Ms Ayupova ’ s death, the applicant was granted victim status in December 2006. Even assuming that in the criminal case concerning the killing of Mr Dashuyev , it was the applicant ’ s mother who maintained contact with the authorities, it is clear that after Ms Ayupova ’ s death, the applicant, who had been granted victim status, was a party to both investigations.

45 . The Court observes, however, that the applicant submitted no information concerning her involvement in the investigation. There is no evidence showing that in either of the criminal cases she maintained any official contact with the investigating authorities, however sporadic, nor is there any other indication of her attempts to acquaint herself with the state of the proceedings or challenge their progress, other than applying to the domestic courts shortly before lodging her application with the Court.

46 . By the time of the beginning of the investigation into her mother ’ s murder, the investigation into her brother ’ s killing had been suspended for more than eight months, having achieved no results. The investigation into Ms Ayupova ’ s death was then suspended two months after its commencement because the suspect in that case had absconded (see paragraphs 21 and 28 above). The applicant appealed against that decision to the domestic courts almost four years after it had been taken (see paragraph 32 above).

49 . In view of the above, it follows that the Government ’ s objection as to the admissibility of the complaint under Article 2 of the Convention on the basis of the expiry of the six-month time-limit should be upheld, and the application should be declared inadmissible.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 June 2020 .

             Olga Chernishova Alena Poláčková              Deputy Registrar President