Communicated on 15 June 2020 Published on 6 July 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 43146/15 Zhanna Borisovna NEMTSOVA against Russia lodged on 27 August 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Zhanna Borisovna Nemtsova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Moscow. She is represented before the Court by Ms O. Mikhaylova and Mr V. Prokhorov, lawyers practising in Moscow.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is a daughter of former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, a prominent Russian politician and opposition leader. He was known for public criticism of President Putin ’ s politics and his active role in the opposition movement.

On 27 February 2015 Boris Nemtsov was shot dead in the immediate vicinity of the Kremlin in Moscow.

On 28 February 2015 the Department for Investigation of Particularly Serious Crimes of the Chief Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation opened a criminal investigation into Mr Nemtsov ’ s murder.

According to the official version of the events, several persons were hired to kill B. Nemtsov for his support of the cartoons published in the Charlie Hebdo magazine. The group included D., the brothers A.G. and Sh.G ., B. and E. In early February 2015 they had organised surveillance of Boris Nemtsov and had bought a gun. On 27 February 2015 D. followed Boris Nemtsov and Dur . from the GUM store to the Big Moskvoretskiy Bridge where D. had fired six shots killing Boris Nemtsov instantly. A.G., Sh. and several other unidentified persons had been in the immediate vicinity on standby. After the assassination, D. had escaped in a getaway car.

In March 2015 D., A.G., Sh.G ., B. and E. were arrested and charged with B. Nemtsov ’ s murder and illegal possession of firearms. Sh. died during the arrest. M., another suspect, was not found. The persons who had commissioned and organised B. Nemtsov ’ s murder were not identified.

On 24 March 2015 senior investigator Kr. granted the applicant victim status. The relevant decision was communicated to her on 1 April 2015.

On an unspecified date in 2016 the investigation was completed and, on 30 June 2016, the case was transferred to the Moscow Circuit Military Court for trial. The applicant objected claiming serious deficiencies in the investigation (the motive of the crime was not established, a number of known suspects were not questioned or arrested, video recordings of the events of 27 February 2015 were not examined; the perpetrators ’ actions were not correctly classified as per the Criminal Code, etc.).

On 26 July 2016 the Military Court fixed the first hearing for 24 August 2016.

On 29 June 2017 the jury found the five defendants guilty as charged.

On 13 July 2017 the Military Court sentenced the defendants to terms of imprisonment varying from eleven to twenty years and a fine.

The applicant appealed arguing that the defendants ’ actions should have been classified as assassination of a public figure aimed at putting an end to his political activities or as a revenge for such activities.

On 10 October 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld, in substance, the defendants ’ conviction on appeal relieving them from paying the fine imposed by the trial court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that the investigation into Boris Nemtsov ’ s assassination was not effective.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII) and the relevant principles developed by the Court (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015), was the investigation into the killing of Mr Boris Nemtsov by the domestic authorities sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. The Government are requested to submit a copy of the complete investigation file.