Communicated on 15 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 10829/11 Omar Shalayevich MAGOMAYEV against Russia lodged on 15 February 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Omar Shalayevich Magomayev , is a Russian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Makhachkala, the Republic of Dagestan. He is represented before the Court by Mr D.S. Itslayev , a lawyer practising in Grozny, the Republic of Chechnya.

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

On 11 January 2010 at around 1 p.m. the applicant ’ s son, Mr G.M., and the son ’ s acquaintance Mr K. drove in a car in the centre of Makhachkala. According to the applicant, at some point they stopped the car and came under intense fire from three law enforcement agents, who had been waiting for them in an ambush. Both were killed on the spot.

It appears that the events took place in a crowded spot with plenty of eyewitnesses, who, according to the applicant, confirmed that Mr G.M. and Mr K. were unarmed.

According to a news report broadcast on a local TV channel, Mr G.M. and Mr K. offered armed resistance to law enforcement officers and were “destroyed” by the return fire.

The applicant alleges that the special operation of 11 January 2010 was pre-planned as one day before it some of the local residents met the law enforcement agents who were making preparations.

The authorities brought criminal proceedings (criminal case no. 00222) in respect of the armed resistance offered by Mr G. M. and Mr K. on the same day. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown.

No separate criminal proceedings were brought in respect of Mr G.M. or Mr K. ’ s death, despite the applicant ’ s multiple complaints.

The applicant ’ s appeals in this connection were dismissed by the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala on 9 July 2010.

The first instance decision was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan on 16 August 2010.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention about the death of his son Mr G.M. He submits, in particular, that the killing was an outcome of a pre-planned, not a spontaneous operation, that his son and Mr K. were unarmed and that the weapon was planted in the car after their death. The applicant complains that the authorities had murdered his son intentionally and then covered this up as a shootout. He deplores the poor quality of investigation, which allegedly failed to elucidate the relevant circumstances of the incident, including the background of the operation and the exact conduct of his son and police officers during the events. He also complains about his inability to participate in these proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 2 of the Convention complied with in the present case? In particular, was the killing of the applicant ’ s son “absolutely necessary” in pursuance of one of the aims listed in that provision? In particular, the respondent Government are requested to provide detailed information on the background of the operation of 11 January 2010. What was the exact aim of the operation? What police department did the officers involved belong to? What was the exact information available to the authorities in respect of the applicant? In case the operation was pre-planned, the Government are requested to explain whether the operation had been planned in such a way as to minimise risk to the applicant ’ s son ’ s life.

2. Did the authorities comply with the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention? Did they conduct an effective and prompt investigation into the circumstances of death of the applicant ’ s son? Reference is being made in particular to the applicant ’ s allegation that the authorities had failed to elucidate the relevant circumstances of the incident, including the background of the operation and the exact conduct of his son and police officers during the events.