Lexploria

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 91

November 2006

Luluyev and Others v. Russia - 69480/01

Judgment 9.11.2006 [Section I]

Article 2

Article 2-2

Use of force

Abduction and killing of a civilian in Chechnya by agents of the Russian State, followed by inadequate criminal investigation: violation

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Anguish and distress resulting from the disappearance of the appl icants' relative and the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation: violation

Article 5

Article 5-1

Lawful arrest or detention

Unrecorded and unacknowledged detention in Chechnya: violation

Facts : All ten applicants are relatives of Nura Luluyeva. In June 2000 she went to the market place in the northern part of Grozny where she was detained together with two cousins and loaded into an armoured personnel carrier by a group of servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine gu ns. When the police appeared and tried to interfere, the military started shooting in the air with a machine gun and then drove away. The deputy chief of the district administration was also present at the scene and attempted to question the servicemen abo ut their mission at the market, but was told only that they were “lawfully carrying out a special operation”. Having received that explanation, the officials left the site. The applicants searched for her and her cousins, frequently contacting the authorit ies and prosecutors at various levels. They also personally visited detention centres and prisons in Chechnya and in the northern Caucasus. Nura Luluyeva's husband was granted victim status in the proceedings concerning her kidnapping. Between June 2000 an d the beginning of 2006 the investigation was adjourned and reopened at least eight times. In 2001 news came through that a mass grave with 47 bodies had been uncovered on the outskirts of Grozny, less than one kilometre from the headquarters of the Russia n military forces in Chechnya. Nura Luluyeva's relatives identified the three bodies as those of Nura Luluyeva and her two cousins by their earrings and clothes. An official medical death certificate was issued indicating that Nura Luluyeva was murdered in June 2000. A forensic report established that her death had been caused by a multiple skull fracture. The investigation continues, but the people or the military detachment responsible for the abduction and murder of Nura Luluyeva and others have not yet been identified, and no one has been charged.

Law : Article 2 – Failure to protect right to life – The Government denied that State servicemen were involved in killing Nura Luluyeva, but did not dispute any of the specific facts underlying the applicants' v ersion of her disappearance and death. There was no evidence to imply the involvement of illegal paramilitaries. The Court therefore considered it established that Nura Luluyeva was apprehended and detained by State servicemen in the course of conducting a special security operation. The link between her kidnapping and death had been assumed in all the domestic proceedings. The discovery of her body together with the bodies of the other people with whom she had been detained also strongly suggested that her death belonged to the same sequence of events as her arrest. The fact that the bodies were wearing the same clothes as those worn by the individuals in question on the day of their detention provided further support for that conclusion. Therefore, the bod y of evidence attained the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, which made it possible to hold the State authorities responsible for Nura Luluyeva's death.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Inadequacy of the investigation – The authorities were instantly aware of Nura Luluyeva's arrest because the police and a representative of the local administration happened to be present at the scene. They did not interfere because they believed that they were witnessing a lawful arres t by a competent law‑enforcement body, even though the servicemen refused to identify themselves or tell them on behalf of which agency they were acting. Accordingly, the very least the police could have been expected to do was to verify as rapidly as poss ible which authority, if any, had taken the women into custody and to open an investigation without further delay if no authority was found to be involved. However, despite the applicants' numerous requests, the first official enquiries were made only a fo rtnight after the events and the criminal investigation was opened only 20 days after. The Court saw no reasonable explanation for such long delays in a situation where prompt action was vital. Furthermore, the manner in which the criminal investigation wa s conducted was plagued with delays in taking even the most trivial steps and with repeated failure to comply with the prosecutor's instructions. Although the witnesses had indicated the hull number of the military vehicle, no attempt to track it down was made until this was demanded by the Court. No information had been submitted by the Government as to whether any investigative actions were taken following the discovery of the mass grave, apart from the identification and forensic examination of the bodie s. Finally, there had been a substantial delay in granting victim status to the applicants and even thereafter the information concerning the progress of the investigation was provided to them only occasionally and in an incomplete manner. Therefore, the a uthorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance and death of Nura Luluyeva.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 3 – Concerning Nura Lululyeva – The description of the injuries found on her body by the forensic experts did not permit the Court to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that she had been tortured or otherwise ill-treated prior to her death.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

Concerning the applicants – The news abo ut Nura Luluyeva's death had been preceded by a 10-month period when she was deemed disappeared and during which the investigation into her kidnapping was being conducted. There was therefore a distinct period during which the applicants sustained uncertai nty, anguish and distress characteristic to the specific phenomenon of disappearances, attested by their numerous efforts to prompt the authorities to act, as well as by their own attempts to search for her and her cousins. It was aggravated by their exclu sion from monitoring the progress of the investigation. The manner in which their complaints had been dealt with by the authorities constituted inhuman treatment.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 5 – It had been established that Nura Luluyeva w as detained in June 2000 by State authorities and had not been seen alive since. The Government submitted no explanation for her detention and provided no documents of substance from the domestic investigation into her arrest. She was a victim of unacknowl edged detention, in complete absence of the safeguards contained in Article 5, and the authorities failed to take prompt and effective measures to safeguard her against the risk of disappearance.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

The Court also found th at there had been a violation of Article 13 in connection with Article 2.

Article 41 – EUR 4,850 in respect of pecuniary damage, payable to Nura Luluyeva's son on behalf of all the applicants; EUR 12,000 to each of Nura Luluyeva's children in respect of no n-pecuniary damage; EUR 10,000 to Nura Luluyeva's parents in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 2,000 each to her brothers in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

For further details, see Press Release no. 675.

See also: Imakayeva v. Russia , no. 7615/02, jud gment of 9 November 2006 (under Article 8 “Home”) and Press Release no. 676.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes