Communicated on 23 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 70438/14 Amnat TASHUYEVA against Russia lodged on 17 October 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is Ms Amnat Tashuyeva (in the documents submitted also spelled as Aminat , Annat and Aynat Tushuyeva ), who was born in 1981 and lives in Argun , Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by Mr Musa Khadisov , a lawyer practising in Balashikha , Moscow Region.

The applicant is the wife of Mr Bekmagomed (also spelled as Bek ‑ Magamed ) Daniyev , who was born in 1975.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Abduction of Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev

On 6 January 2005 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 28 January 2005) the applicant and Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev were at home in their flat at 109 Shosseynaya Street in Argun when at about 6 a.m. a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at their block of flats in three cars, one of which was a white Gazel minivan. The men spoke Chechen and Russian; some of them were wearing balaclavas. They broke into the applicant ’ s flat, forced Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev outside, put him in one of their vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination.

The white Gazel minivan was subsequently seen exiting from the premises of the office of the Argun military commander ( комендатура г . Аргун ) . It is unclear whether the applicant provided this information to the investigators.

The whereabouts of Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev have remained unknown ever since.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

On 24 January 2005 the applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and asked for assistance in the search for her husband.

Between 1 and 15 February 2005 the Argun prosecutor ’ s office ( Прокуратура г . Аргун Чеченской Республики ) requested that a number of law-enforcement agencies provide information on whether they had conducted any special operation on 6 January 2005 or detained Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev , and whether any information existed on the latter ’ s suspected involvement in illegal armed groups . The Argun prosecutor ’ s office also asked those law-enforcement agencies whether they had ever used a white Gazel minivan. No reply in the affirmative was received.

On 5 February 2005 the investigators inspected the crime scene. Nothing was seized as evidence.

On 7 February 2005 the Argun prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 58005 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 8 February 2005 the investigators decided to pursue four main theories in respect of the abduction, namely that Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev had been abducted by servicemen of either federal or local law ‑ enforcement agencies because of his suspected terrorist activities; by members of illegal armed groups; or for the purpose of obtaining a ransom.

On 8 February 2005 the applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She submitted that at about 6 a.m. on 6 January 2005 a group of about ten armed men in camouflage military uniforms and balaclavas had broken into her flat in Argun , apprehended her husband, seized his passport and had taken him away to an unknown destination. The men, who spoke Chechen and Russian, were in a white Gazel minivan and a VAZ 21099 car.

Between 8 February and 19 April 2005 the investigators questioned some of the applicant ’ s neighbours. All of them submitted that they had learned about the abduction shortly after the event from other neighbours. None of them had directly witnessed the incident.

In March, May 2005 and in August 2007 the investigators ordered that a number of operational search measures be taken in respect of the case to establish the circumstances of and locate eyewitnesses to the abduction.

On 7 May 2005 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 3 August 2007 that decision was quashed by the supervising authorities and the investigation was resumed. It was again suspended on 3 September 2007.

On 18 June 2007 and 4 December 2008 the applicant complained to the supervising authorities about the inefficiency of the investigation and requested that the investigation be resumed. The outcome of these requests is unknown.

On 29 August 2007 the investigators questioned the applicant and some members of her family about the circumstances preceding Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev ’ s abduction.

On 21 August 2007 the deputy head of the Argun department of the interior ( О тдел внутренних дел по г . Аргун ( ОВД )) informed the investigators, in particular, that operational information gathered with respect to Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev suggested that he had been involved in illegal armed groups operating in the region.

On 7 April 2009 the mother of Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev (Ms R.G.) complained to the Chechnya Regional Ombudsman ( Уполномоченный по правам человека в Чеченской Республике ) about the abduction. In reply, the commissioner requested that the investigators take measures to establish Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev ’ s whereabouts.

On 18 August 2011 the applicant again requested that the investigators resume the investigation in respect of the criminal case. The request was rejected.

3. Proceedings before domestic courts

On 12 October 2012 the applicant lodged a claim against the Government of Russia for compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged abduction of her husband by law ‑ enforcement agencies.

On 22 April 2013 the Presnenskiy District Court in Moscow dismissed the claim as unfounded. On 22 April 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld this ruling on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains of a violation of Mr Bekmagomed Daniyev ’ s right to life and submits that the circumstances of his abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicant further complains that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to:

- the Court ’ s numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 of the Convention were found in respect of both the disappearances of the applicants ’ relatives as a result of their detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia , nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50 184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012 , and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014); and;

- the similarity of the present application to the cases cited above, as can be seen from the applicant ’ s submissions and the interim results of the investigation,

(a) Has the applicant made out a prima facie case that her relative was arrested by State servicemen in the course of a security operation?

(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in respect of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicant ’ s relative ’ s abduction and ensuing disappearance (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 181-84, ECHR 2009, and Tanış and Others v. Turkey , no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005–VIII) ) ? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicant ’ s submissions that State agents were involved in the abduction by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the event?

(c) Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicant ’ s missing relative?

(d) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearance of the applicant ’ s missing relative sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

2. In accordance with the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information:

(a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicant ’ s allegations that her missing relative was abducted by State servicemen;

and , in any event,

(b) a complete list (in chronological order) of all investigative steps taken in connection with the applicant ’ s complaints about the disappearance of her missing relative, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings;

as well as:

(c) copies of those documents in the investigation file that are necessary for establishing the factual circumstances of the allegations and evaluating the effectiveness of the criminal investigation.