Communicated on 17 September 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 71998/13 Khayshat Betalovna YEMKUZHEVA against Russia lodged on 21 October 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Khayshat Betalovna Yemkuzheva , is a Russian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Nalchik. She is represented before the Court by Mr E. Vesselink and Ms V. Kogan of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, lawyers practising in Utrecht and Moscow respectively.

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

The applicant ’ s son, Mr Aslan Amirbiyevich Yemkuzhev , born in 1987 resided in Nalchik.

The applicant submits that at around 5 pm on 15 March 2011 her son left home and never came back.

On 16 March 2011 the applicant received a call from her relatives who told her that there were reports on mass media about a special operation conducted by the FSB which resulted in the death of her son, who had allegedly resisted the arrest.

Subsequently the authorities did not investigate the death of the applicant ’ s son, but rather brought criminal proceedings against him for having attacked the policemen and carried firearms illegally.

During the investigation the authorities accused him of having resisted the arrest and attacked the policemen as well as of illegal arms possession.

The applicant ’ s son ’ s body was returned to the family carrying not only traces of bullet impacts, but also clear traces of handcuffs, burns and a broken nose.

The investigation concluded that during the attempt to apprehend the applicant ’ s son ’ s the officers were attacked by him with shotgun fire, had to return fire and, as a result, killed him. The applicant ’ s son was found to be in possession of a shotgun, a number of cartridges and a few grenades.

The applicant tried to initiate a criminal investigation into the exact circumstances of her son ’ s death, but to no avail. The authorities refused her multiple requests, in which she asked them to check if her son was not in fact apprehended, tortured and questioned first and then killed. The respective decisions were taken on various dates after multiple rounds of proceedings before the investigative authorities and courts of various levels.

The latest decision in this connection was taken by the investigator K. on 14 June 2013.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the authorities had apprehended her son, tortured and questioned him and then murdered him covering the whole operation as a shootout. She deplored the lack of investigation of any kind and also complained that the conducted preliminary check 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. She further complained about the unlawful arrest and ill-treatment of her son.

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 15-16 March 2011. What was the exact aim of the operation? What 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? The 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.

3. The respondent Government are also requested to comment on the applicant ’ s allegation that her son had been apprehended, tortured, questioned and then killed during the said operation? Can it be said that the evidence referred to by the applicant was properly taken into account during the investigation of the events?

4. Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s allegations and traces of handcuffs, burns and a broken nose on her son ’ s body?

5. Was there a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s allegations?