Communicated on 30 October 2020 Published on 16 November 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 40125/20 S.T. and Y.B. against Russia lodged on 11 September 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr S. T. and Ms Y. B., are Russian nationals, who were born in 2001 and 1999 respectively and live in Grozny. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from NGO Committee Against Torture in Nizhniy Novgorod.

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

(a) Background information

The applicants are a family, who cohabited in Grozny after concluding their marriage in a Muslim ceremony in March 2020.

The first applicant, Mr S.T. originates from Chechnya. At the time of the events in question he worked in a restaurant in the town of Gelendzhik in the Krasnodar Region. Mr S.T. is a moderator of an opposition channel in Telegram “1ADAT”, known for criticising the Chechen authorities. The administrators of the channel keep their identities secret.

(b) Abduction of Mr S.T.

At about 3.45 p.m. on 5 September 2020 (in the documents submitted the date was also stated as 6 September 2020) Mr S.T. was at work at the hotel, when two men in black uniforms of the Chechen police arrived there. A third police officer waited for them on the other side of the street. The two officers, who went into the hotel, grabbed Mr S.T. and forced him outside. When the hotel ’ s guards asked the men why and where they were taking Mr S.T., one of them used physical force against the guard, whereas another one showed the Chechen police service card. Then the abductors forced Mr S.T. in one of two black Toyota Camry cars with Chechnya registration plates and drove off. Mr S.T. has gone missing since.

A part of the abduction of Mr S.T., which had taken place outside the hotel, was depicted by the CCTV, and the recording was submitted by the applicants ’ representatives to the Court.

(c) The video of ill-treatment

On 7 September 2020 a video recording of Mr S.T. completely naked on his knees next to a glass bottle was published on "1ADAT" channel. On the video, posted from the account of a participant named “Hunter” Mr S.T. confirmed that he was one of the administrators of the channel and that he repented for the “shameful things” which had been published by the “dirty group” of the channel administrators. At the end of the video Mr S.T. said that he would “punish himself for behaviour inappropriate for a Chechen and would pass the baton on to other ADAT administrators”. Then he took the bottle and tried to sit on it, his face became distorted with pain and then the recording interrupted.

(d) Complaints about the abduction, ill-treatment and unlawful detention of Mr S.T. and relevant information

The documents submitted show that between 8 and 14 September 2020 the applicants ’ representatives and NGO Memorial Human Rights Centre lodged official complaints of Mr S.T. ’ s abduction, torture and unlawful detention with the police in Chechnya and Gelendzhik , the Krasnodar Region, respectively.

On 10 September 2020 Ms Dunja Mijatović , the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, called on the Russian authorities to take immediate action to ensure safety of Mr S.T. stating that “the abduction of Mr S.T. in Krasnodar [Region] in the Russian Federation on 5 September is a serious human rights violation that cannot go unpunished” (see https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/the-authorities-of-the-russian-federation-must-ensure-the-safety-of-salman-tepsurkaev-abducted-subjected-to-torture-in-chechnya ).

On an unspecified date between 8 and 30 September 2020 the father of Mr S.T. gave a public statement broadcasted by a Chechen TV station saying that he had disowned his son S.T. and that his son ’ s “humiliation” depicted on the video was a “family matter”.

(e) The second applicant ’ s search for Mr S.T.

According to the second applicant, she tried to establish her husband ’ s whereabouts using his mobile telephone. The information concerning the last signal from his telephone at 4 p.m. on 7 September 2020 indicated that Mr S.T. had been taken from Gelendzhik to Chechnya (about 800 km away). The telephone was then located on the premises of the post and patrol service regiment named after A. Kadyrov , formerly known as post and patrol service regiment no. 2 ( Полк ППС имени Героя РФ А.Кадырова , бывший ПППС-2 ) in Grozny.

At about 6.30 p.m. on 7 September 2020 the second applicant and Mr S.T. ’ s mother arrived at the regiment station, where a group of five officers in black uniforms expressed their indignation with the second applicant ’ s successful attempt to trace her husband ’ s whereabouts through his telephone. The officers denied that Mr S.T. was detained there and after posing numerous questions to the second applicant, let both women go.

On 14 September 2020 the second applicant lodged an official detailed complaint of Mr S.T. ’ s abduction, torture and unlawful detention with the police in Chechnya.

(a) The second applicant ’ s request to the Court

On 14 September 2020, referring to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the second applicant lodged request for interim measure under Rule 39 of Rules of Court asking the Court to indicate to the Russian Government to take urgent and effective steps to protect Mr S.T. from the risk of enforced disappearance, ill-treatment and unlawful detention by State agents in Chechnya.

The Court decided to suspend the application of the interim measure and requested that the parties provide additional information on the matter by 16 September 2020.

On 16 September 2020 the Russian Government informed the Court that earlier that day, 16 September 2020, the Chechnya Investigative Committee had initiated a preliminary inquiry into the allegations of the abduction and ill-treatment of Mr S.T. No other information was provided.

(b) Preliminary inquiry opened by the domestic authorities

According to the Government ’ s submission of 30 September 2020, between 16 and 30 September 2020 the preliminary inquiry had taken several steps to elucidate the circumstances of the incident: the father of Mr S.T. had been interviewed and provided no new information. Requests for assistance in the search for Mr S.T. had been forwarded to a number of police stations in Chechnya. On 25 September 2020 the police had been requested to carry out the crime scene examination of the premises of the alleged place of Mr S.T. ’ s unlawful detention at the post and patrol service regiment, the results of which were unknown. None of the steps taken yielded any information on possible whereabouts of Mr S.T. or his fate following the abduction.

On 7 October 2020 the applicants ’ representatives lodged a request with the Chechnya Investigative Committee asking them to take steps to verify information on the involvement of two police officers from the post and patrol service regiment, Mr I. T. (the commander of the 3rd battalion of the regiment), and Mr Dzh . Yu. ( the deputy commander of the 3rd battalion of the regiment), who had been identified by them from the footage of the CCTV depicting Mr S.T. ’ s abduction. Moreover, the applicants ’ representatives had been able to identify the police officers from the same regiment, who could have been involved in the alleged abduction, unlawful detention and ill-treatment of Mr S.T. on the premises of that regiment and who had spoken with the second applicant on 7 September 2020 when she had arrived there looking for the first applicant. The applicants ’ representatives enclosed photographs of all of the police officers obtained by them from the officers ’ social media accounts. It is unclear whether any reply was given to that request.

According to the second applicant, neither she, nor her representatives have been provided with any information from the investigating authorities on either the progress or results of the inquiry.

In the light of the above, on 15 October 2020 the Court requested that the Government provide by 20 October 2020 further information concerning the results of the inquiry which had been initiated on 16 September 2020 and could have lasted up to 30 days, that is until 16 October 2020. However, no such further information has been received to date.

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Turluyeva v. Russia , no. 63638/09, §§ 56-64, 20 June 2013.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention of the first applicant ’ s abduction, ill-treatment and unlawful detention by State agents in Chechnya and the authorities ’ failure to take steps to protect his physical integrity and to investigate the matter effectively.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. ( a ) Has Mr S.T. been subjected to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention?

(b) Has the Respondent State complied with its positive obligation to protect Mr S.T. from ill-treatment (compare with Turluyeva v. Russia , no. 63638/09, §§ 90-101, 20 June 2013)?

(c) Did the authorities examine promptly and effectively the allegation that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by State agents (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 314-26, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?

2. Was Mr S.T. deprived of his liberty by State agents within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention? If so, was such deprivation compatible with the guarantees of that Article?

3. Has the Respondent State complied with its positive obligation to protect Mr S.T. from ill-treatment by private individuals? ( see , mutatis mutandis , Amadayev v. Russia , no. 18114/06, §§ 68-72, 3 July 2014)? What steps have been taken by the authorities to comply with that obligation once the matter was brought to their attention?

4. The Government are requested to provide a copy of the entire contents of the preliminary inquiry ’ s file opened into the alleged ill ‑ treatment and unlawful detention of Mr S.T., as well as a chronological list of steps taken by the investigating authorities within the framework of that inquiry.

5. The Government are requested to inform the Court whether a criminal case has been opened upon the results of the inquiry. They are requested to provide a copy of the entire contents of the criminal case file with a chronological list of steps taken by the investigation, or, alternatively, a copy of the refusal to open a criminal case with relevant documents (such as the procedural decisions taken, crime scene examination and forensic reports, witness statements, etc.).