Communicated on 9 February 2016

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos. 21882/09 and 6189/10 Sharpuddi ISRAILOV against Russia lodged on 14 April 2009 and 20 January 2010 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background information

The applicant is originally from the Chechen Republic (Chechnya). Prior to the events described below, he and his family lived in Mesker-Yurt, the Shali district, Chechnya. The applicant withholds his current whereabouts for security reasons. He is married to Mrs Shovda V. and has three children in this marriage (born in 1991, 1996 and 1997).

From his first marriage the applicant had a son, Mr Umar (also known as Alikhan) Israilov, born in 1981. Mr Israilov lived in Mesker-Yurt with his mother, the applicant ’ s first wife, until she died in 1995. Umar married Malizha S. (born in 1981) and the couple had four children – the last child was born after Mr Umar Israilov ’ s death. Mr Umar Israilov was killed in Vienna, Austria, on 13 January 2009.

The applicant ’ s account is supported by various documents: his own testimonies; copies of his and his son ’ s applications to the domestic authorities with sketches of the places referred to; documents issued by various Russian law-enforcement authorities; affidavits produced by the family members in 2006 and 2007; articles from the press and reports by human rights groups; documents issued by the Austrian police and asylum authorities; and forensic and medical documentation.

2. Mr Umar Israilov ’ s detention and release in 2003

(a) Mr Umar Israilov ’ s detention and captivity

According to the applicant, around 2001 his son, Mr Umar Israilov, joined an illegal armed group that was active in Mesker-Yurt, Chechnya. At first, he gathered information about the location of security officers, but later he took up arms and participated in combat actions.

On 15 April 2003 Mr Israilov and two other members of the group went to the village of Belgotoy, Chechnya. They were detained by servicemen from the so-called “oil regiment”, which later became the external guards regiment of the Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya ( полк милиции Управления Вневедомственной охраны МВД Чечни) . It was commonly referred to as the “oil regiment”, as one of its main tasks was to secure oil pipelines and installations. Mr Israilov and the other two men were tied up, put into the boot of a car and taken first to a post belonging to the “oil regiment” located between Mesker-Yurt and Belgotoy, and then to the town of Argun.

In Argun, Mr Israilov was held for a day in the basement of a large private house used by security-service officers as their “base”. He was beaten and questioned by a man whom he identified as “commander Musa from the village of Benoy”.

On the following day Mr Israilov and the two other detainees were taken to the town of Gudermes. At the local boxing club they were shown to a person whom Umar Israilov identified as Mr Ramzan Kadyrov, who ordered that they be taken to his native village of Tsentoroy in the Grozny district.

Mr Israilov spent the next three months on the premises used as a base by Mr Ramzan Kadyrov ’ s security service. The base had a separate building with two secured rooms, which served as a prison. The number of detainees held in the two rooms varied, sometimes going up to thirty persons. The conditions of detention were very poor. The detainees suffered from overcrowding and lack of fresh air and exercise, and were not allowed to wash or to change their clothes. They had no communication with the outside world, the food was very basic and they received no medical aid.

While at the base, Mr Israilov was regularly subjected to torture and beatings. According to his subsequent statements, including to the prosecution service, the commanders of the security services took part in torturing the prisoners. Mr Israilov named Mr Vakhid Us., nicknamed “Dzhikhad”; Mr Adam Delimkhanov, a commander of the “oil regiment”; Mr Alvi U. from Tsotsin-Yurt, nicknamed “Oskar”; Mr Ramzan Kadyrov and his brother Mr Zelimkhan Kadyrov. The ill-treatment sometimes occurred in the cells and the corridor, but most often the prisoners were taken to a gym located at the base, where the above-mentioned persons tortured and interrogated them.

On one occasion the guards pierced the lower parts of Mr Israilov ’ s legs and feet with a heated metal rod; the scars of that torture persisted and were later recorded in Austria, where he sought asylum.

On another occasion a guard called “Pakhruddi” fired a pistol at Mr Israilov ’ s feet and missed, but the bullet ricocheted and hit his upper lip. A medic was called to the room and stitched his lip without anesthetics; the scar from that operation remained and it, too, was noted later by forensic experts in Austria.

Mr Israilov ’ s detention in Tsentoroy was not officially documented. His family was not aware of it until, at the end of April 2003, they received a message secretly passed by one of his former co-detainees. At that time the applicant and his family were living in another region, as they were afraid to remain in Mesker-Yurt where they could be targeted because of Mr Israilov ’ s affiliation with illegal armed groups.

Having learnt of his son ’ s detention, the applicant returned to Chechnya. In June 2003 he talked to two former co-detainees who confirmed that Mr Israilov had been detained in Tsentoroy. No official complaints were made by the family and no investigation was launched; their understanding was that it would only lead to further repercussions.

(b) Service in the security forces

At some point in July 2003 Mr Israilov was taken to meet Mr Ramzan Kadyrov, who invited him to join his security service. Mr Israilov submitted that he had been made to understand that he had no real choice in the matter. He was released from detention and given a uniform, but he remained at the base in Tsentoroy and was not allowed to leave it. His job was to guard the entrance to the base. The applicant rarely saw his son; notably, he saw him once when the latter accompanied Mr Kadyrov to the boxing club in Gudermes.

In April 2004 Mr Kadyrov ordered Mr Israilov to take charge of the security situation in Mesker-Yurt. As a former member of illegal armed groups in that district, he was expected to pursue and eradicate their activities. For that purpose, about thirty persons and a base at a former hospital in the centre of the village were put at his disposal. The exact affiliation of that security service is not clear. According to Mr Israilov ’ s later statements, they did not follow any formalities associated with detention and criminal charges. Anyone suspected of illegal activities was delivered to a base in Argun.

In summer 2004 the unit in which Mr Israilov served was transformed into police unit PPSM-2 ( патрульно - постовая служба милиции ) under the command of Mr Said-Emin I. Mr Israilov was transferred to Shali, where he commanded a platoon. As of that time, the platoon ’ s work became subject to routine police regulations, including reporting and recording detentions.

3. Mr Umar Israilov ’ s departure from Chechnya and the applicant ’ s detention

(a) Mr Umar Israilov ’ s departure from Chechnya

In August 2004 Mr Israilov had a car accident, which resulted in a serious head injury. He spent a month in hospital, some more time in a sanatorium in Kislovodsk and then convalesced at home. At that time he took the opportunity to organise his and his family ’ s departure from Chechnya.

In early November 2004 Mr Israilov and his family arrived in Poland.

(b) Detention of the applicant and other family members

On 27 November 2004 officers of the security service of the President of Chechnya detained the applicant, his wife Mrs Shovda V. and Mr Israilov ’ s sister-in-law (his wife ’ s sister), Ms Elza (Sakhita) S.

The applicant was detained at about 2 p.m. by a group of armed men driving a Lada car and headed by someone the applicant identified as Said-Emin I., known by the nickname “Razvedhik” (intelligence officer). Mrs Shovda V. was already in the car because they had fetched her at their apartment. The men told the family that they were looking for Mr Israilov. According to the applicant and his family members, the same men had also searched both the applicant ’ s apartment and Mr Israilov ’ s apartment and seized a number of items there, including the applicant ’ s personal documents and a large amount of cash, allegedly from the sale of a plot of land. The search and seizure were not documented in any manner.

The three detainees were taken to the security base in Tsentoroy. Mrs Shovda V. was allowed to return home later the same day; she witnessed the applicant being beaten in the courtyard of the base.

The applicant was beaten upon arrival at the base. He was then taken to the gym and remained there for some time. In the gym he was beaten again, with his hands and feet tied and fixed between an exercise machine and a billiard table. He was also subjected to bouts of electric shock with the use of a machine resembling a field telephone with a rotating handle. When the applicant lost consciousness he had cold water poured over him and the beatings then continued. At some point the applicant was beaten and interrogated by a man whom he later identified as Mr Ramzan Kadyrov, who told him that he had called Mr Israilov in Poland – the applicant ’ s mobile phone contained his son ’ s number in Poland. During the ill-treatment, the applicant was repeatedly asked where his son was and whether he could force him to return.

The applicant submits that he was held at the gym in Tsentorory for about four days. He produced a detailed description of the premises and the treatment to which he was subjected. He named some of the individuals he had recognised among both the officers and the other detainees whose ill-treatment he had witnessed. The applicant recognised individuals whose kidnappings and, in one case, death were later reported by the NGO Memorial Human Rights Centre. He suffered a number of injuries: several teeth were knocked out; deep wounds were inflicted on his legs by the wires with which they had been tied while he was tortured by electricity; and his ribs were bruised. Those injuries were later noted by forensic experts (see below). Mrs Elza S., Mr Israilov ’ s sister-in-law, submitted a detailed statement corroborating the applicant ’ s description and confirming that during her stay at the base in Tsentorory she had seen the applicant being ill-treated.

After about four days all of the detainees held at the Tsentorory base were transferred to the security service headquarters located in Gudermes. The applicant ’ s detention there lasted for more than 300 days. This base (known as “Vega”) was located next to the boxing club and the applicant submitted a detailed description of the premises and of the treatment to which he had been subjected there.

The detainees were kept in three cells located in the cellar of a building. While in detention there, the applicant saw more than 100 people who were then transferred elsewhere or released. Some of the detainees were security officers who had misbehaved in some way. The majority of them were released; many were beaten and tortured. The applicant was not beaten but he witnessed the ill-treatment of others. For example, he submitted that he had been detained for several months together with three brothers whose kidnapping, allegedly by the “oil regiment”, had been reported by Memorial. He also witnessed the detention of a 70-year-old man, the father of a rebel leader, whose kidnapping and subsequent secret detention were widely reported.

The applicant ’ s cell measured less than ten square metres, and as at times there were as many as ten detainees in it, it was difficult even to breath or sleep. The conditions were appalling: the cell was damp and cold; the applicant was taken to a bath only twice during his stay; he was rarely allowed to wash himself under a tap or to change his clothes; the food was basic and no medical aid was available. The applicant had no official contacts with the outside world, but a few weeks into his detention he managed to pass a message to his wife. As from March 2006 the applicant ’ s wife regularly went to the base and took him clean clothes and toiletries, which were sometimes accepted by the guards. Through the assistance of the guards they also managed to have two brief meetings.

Mrs Elza S. spent two months at the same base. She described her stay there as “terrible”. She spent the whole time in a small cell, which she shared with several other women. The cell was located in the cellar, so the walls were damp. There were no blankets or mattresses, only wooden benches. The toilet was outside and the guards took the women there three times a day. They had hardly any opportunity to wash themselves or to change their clothes. While at the base Mrs Elza S. did not see the applicant, but was aware of his presence from other detainees. She was released some time in January 2005.

During the applicant ’ s detention he and his family members did not lodge any complaints with the authorities for fear of further reprisals.

(c) Contacts with Mr Umar Israilov

In November 2004 while in Poland Mr Israilov received a call on his mobile phone from the person whom he had identified as Mr Ramzan Kadyrov. The caller asked him to inform Mr Alikhan (the first name which Mr Umar Israilov had used) that he had captured his father and his wife and his wife ’ s sister, and that he would kill them if he did not return to Chechnya. Mr Israilov identified himself and replied that the caller could do whatever he wanted to his relatives but he would not come back. He later received a second call from the same person. Mr Israilov and his family then left Poland because they feared for their safety.

(d) The applicant ’ s release and departure from Chechnya

The applicant was released on 4 October 2005, on the first day of the Ramadan fast. As he was being released, one of the commanders told him that he should not tell anyone where he had been or what he had seen. He said that the applicant ’ s detention had never officially happened and that there were no traces or paperwork to confirm it.

Following his release, the applicant ’ s relatives described him as sick, pale and having lost a lot of weight.

For some time the applicant tried to get back the documents and money seized from his house in November 2004 by applying to the base commanders in person. He also lodged complaints with various authorities, although no copies of any such documents have been kept.

In February 2006 the applicant was summoned to the Shali prosecutor ’ s office. There he found out that his case had been mentioned in a letter sent by Mr Rudolf Bindig, Rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council or Europe, to Russia ’ s Prosecutor General (see below). A request for information had been sent to the Shali prosecutor ’ s office. During the meeting the prosecutor suggested to the applicant that he sign a prepared statement that he had been away from his wife with a lover for eleven months and that he had made up the story about kidnapping to hide the deception. The applicant understood that if he refused to sign the statement, he would suffer further reprisals. He therefore signed it. On 9 February 2006 the Shali prosecutor ’ s office ruled not to open a criminal investigation into the applicant ’ s alleged kidnapping in November 2004.

Subsequently, the applicant decided to leave Russia. He obtained passports for himself and his family and left the country.

In August 2006 a forensic medical expert in Norway examined the applicant and noted that he had sustained injuries to his teeth, legs and feet. The expert concluded that the story told by the applicant of the violence to which he had been subjected in November 2004 was consistent with the physical injuries and symptoms he had identified.

Ms Elza S. also left Russia in September 2006.

4. The applicant ’ s and Mr Umar Israilov ’ s complaints to the Russian authorities

As from November 2006 the applicant and his son sent a number of complaints to the prosecutors in Russia. They gave detailed accounts of their detention and ill-treatment, indicated the dates, places and names of persons they had identified, and asked them to open a criminal investigation into their allegations. The applicant, in particular, mentioned that during the unrecorded search carried out on 27 November 2004, a bag containing 178,000 Russian roubles (RUB) had been taken, along with some personal documents.

In February 2007 the applicant received a letter from the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office informing him that the Shali prosecutor ’ s decision of 9 February 2006 had been quashed.

On 2 February 2007 an investigator from the Shali prosecutor ’ s office ruled not to open a criminal investigation into Mr Israilov ’ s allegations of unlawful detention and ill-treatment in 2003. The document stated that three officers from the police unit where he had served before his departure from Chechnya had been questioned about the circumstances of his alleged detention. They had confirmed that Mr Israilov ’ s had served in that unit but denied that he had ever been detained or ill-treated. It also transpires from the document that the investigator questioned Mr Israilov ’ s aunt, who denied having any information about his alleged kidnapping or ill-treatment. The investigator further established that as of December 2006 Mr Israilov had been put on the list of wanted persons on charges of several serious crimes. This decision was overruled by the deputy prosecutor of the Shali district on 22 February 2007. On 22 May 2007 a similar decision was issued by the Shali district prosecutor.

The applicant was informed that on 12 March 2007 the Leninskiy district prosecutor ’ s office in Grozny had opened criminal investigation file no. 10021 into his alleged kidnapping. The applicant received no procedural documents pertaining to the investigation.

It appears from the documents in the case file that on 19 March 2007 an investigator from that prosecutor ’ s office ruled that the applicant should be granted the status of victim of a crime. However, the applicant did not receive a copy of that decision.

On 19 June 2009 an investigator from the Gudermes district investigative commitee quashed the decision concerning the applicant ’ s victim status. The investigator referred to the explanation given by the applicant ’ s sister that her brother had spent time with a Russian woman in another region and had invented the story of unlawful detention in order to cover it up. This version was confirmed by the applicant ’ s own statement made in 2006 and the report of the investigator from the Shali prosecution service who had questioned the applicant at the time. One of the persons named by the applicant as his co-detainee in May 2005 was also questioned and denied that he had been unlawfully detained at that time, or any other time, or that he had known the applicant. Three other individuals who knew the applicant stated that they were not aware of any unlawful acts committed against him. According to the medical services, the applicant had not sought medical assistance in relation to the alleged injuries. The photographs submitted by the applicant had been sent to forensic experts, who concluded that they were insufficient for an expert examination. The investigator considered that there was enough information to establish that no crime had been committed against the applicant.

In January 2010 the applicant wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor asking for an investigation into Mr Israilov ’ s illegal detention and torture in 2003. He received no reply to that letter.

On 26 July 2010 the applicant wrote to the Gudermes district prosecutor asking to be informed of the progress of the investigation into his allegations of torture, illegal detention and seizure of money and documents. He repeated his request in November 2010, but received no reply.

In July 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali District Court about the inaction of the prosecution service. On 27 October 2010 the Shali District Court considered the claim. It noted that the latest decision not to open a criminal investigation into the alleged detention and ill-treatment had been taken on 19 March 2010 by an investigator from the Shali district investigative committee. The court concluded that the above decision was still valid and that there were no reasons to quash it. The applicant appealed and on 25 May 2011 the Supreme Court of Chechnya partially quashed that decision and sent it for new consideration to the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny.

On 21 June 2011 the Zavodskjoy District Court decided to close the proceedings in so far as no criminal investigation had been opened into the alleged violation of the rights of the applicant and his son.

In July 2013 the Shali prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicant that the investigation of his complaint had been resumed.

On 16 December 2014 the applicant asked the Shali department of the investigative committee to inform him of any progress and to take the necessary steps in order to investigate the alleged ill-treatment.

In February 2015 the Gudermes department of the investigative committee informed the applicant that he or his representative could come in person to the department in order to acquaint himself with file no. 10021.

In his numerous letters to the authorities the applicant asked them to question him as a victim and to question his wife and Ms Elza S. about the circumstances of their detention. This was never done.

The applicant also submits that over time he has approached several NGOs and lawyers in Russia and Chechnya looking for a representative. However, when they learn that his case directly implicates Mr Ramzan Kadyrov, they decline to work on the case, citing fear for their security.

5. Mr Umar Israilov ’ s murder, and the investigation and trial in Austria

(a) Threats to Mr Umar Israilov and the Austrian police ’ s actions

In February 2007 Mr Ramzan Kadyrov became the President of Chechnya.

In early June 2008 a man of Chechen origin (Artur K.) approached Mr Israilov in Austria and said that he had been sent by Mr Ramzan Kadyrov. The man tried to persuade Mr Israilov to return to Chechnya, arguing that he could seek a pardon from Mr Kadyrov if he withdrew his allegations against him. The applicant was not sure whether the man was referring to the application he had lodged with the European Court or the complaints he had lodged with the Russian prosecution service. The man indicated that he knew somebody in Bratislava who would be happy to take revenge if Mr Israilov persisted. The same man informed Mr Israilov that an extradition request had been made by Russia to Austria and that he would undoubtedly be handed over to Russia. It later transpired that Russia had indeed sought Mr Israilov ’ s extradition in July 2007 but that the request had been rejected in September 2007.

Mr Israilov reported the encounter to the Austrian police. Mr Artur K. was remanded in custody briefly, and in a statement to the police made on 10 June 2008 said that he worked for Mr Kadyrov and that his immediate superior was a man called Timur, nicknamed “Lord”. Mr Artur K. alleged that he worked at a special department within the administration of the President of Chechnya responsible for repatriating Chechen exiles. It concerned individuals who had been in trouble with the law in Chechnya. In spring 2008 Mr Kadyrov had given Mr Artur K. the assignment of finding Mr Israilov and bringing him home. In order to carry out the assignment Mr Artur K. had travelled first to Slovakia and then to Austria where he had met Mr Israilov about five times. At first the latter did not want to go back to Chechnya but then he agreed to go, provided that he was promised security for himself and his family. However, in June 2008 Mr Artur K. received a call from President Kadyrov who told him that the situation had changed and that Mr Israilov was no longer needed in Chechnya. Mr Artur K. could do what he wanted so long as he “solved the problem” of Mr Israilov , which he understood could involve having him murdered. Mr Artur K. stated to the police that he was a teacher of German and English by profession, not a killer, and that his family would be at risk if he returned to Chechnya without fulfilling the order. He therefore asked the police to assist him and ensure his safety. Mr Artur K. further alleged that he had seen a list containing several thousand names compiled personally by Mr Kadyrov, of whom 300 were marked as persons who should be killed. Several dozens of those individuals lived in Austria and, Mr Arthur K. alleged, were in great danger.

Mr Israilov was also questioned by the Austrian police on 10 June 2008. He knew Mr Artur K. by the name of “Arbi”. He confirmed that he had met with him several times under the pretext that he had owed money to someone, but that the real purpose of their conversations was to know whether he would agree to return to Chechnya if his problems with President Kadyrov were resolved and whether he would agree to withdraw his complaint before the Court.

Because of those threats, Mr Israilov and his family temporarily left their place of residence in Vienna and travelled to another federal state because they were afraid that illegal acts might be perpetrated against them.

It appears from the police documents that on 10 June 2008 Mr Artur K. returned to Bratislava where he had previously applied for asylum.

(b) The murder

In December 2008 Mr Israilov started noticing a Chechen man following him in the streets near his apartment. According to the applicant, he had informed the Austrian security police, wh o had failed to take action. On 13 January 2009 Mr Umar Israilov was shot dead in the street near his apartment in Vienna. The ambush involved at least four men and two cars.

In the aftermath of the killing the Austrian police detained several people.

Reports published by the New York Times in January and February 2009 alleged that the applicant and his son had corroborated with the New York Times during the preceding months. The newspaper was preparing a large article based on Mr Israilov ’ s allegations. In early January 2009 the New York Times had notified Russian officials and sought interviews in relation to his allegations, which were ready to be publicised. The newspaper did not receive any detailed comments in response to the allegations.

(c) The investigation and trial

In November 2010 the trial of three suspects started in the Vienna Criminal Court. It was widely covered by the international press and by human rights organisations. A coalition of seven human rights groups from Austria, Russia, Norway and the Czech Republic monitored the trial and regularly reported on its progress.

Three men of Chechen origin, Mr Otto K. (born Ramzan E.), Mr Suleyman (alias Muslim) D. and Mr Turpal-Ali Y. were charged with participation in the murder, which had followed an aborted attempt to kidnap Mr Israilov in order to “hand him over to a foreign power”.

The court heard dozens of witness testimonies, including from three high-level experts: Mr Dick Marty, Rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; Lord Judd, Rapporteur for the British Parliament; and Dr Aude Merlin, Professor at the Brussels Free University. Those expert witnesses added their personal impressions of recent visits to Chechnya and spoke of the climate of fear and repression, and the impunity for perpetrators of serious human rights abuses.

A witness stated that the alleged direct perpetrator of Mr Israilov ’ s murder, Lecha B., had returned to Chechnya and had been promoted within the local police. In January 2011 a police officer by the same name as the suspected murderer, Lecha B., was reported injured during an attempt on the life of a senior police commander in Chechnya.

During the trial, requests were made to Russia for legal aid, with a view to questioning five witnesses, including via video conference. Those witnesses included Mr Artur K., who had in the meantime returned to Chechnya, Lecha B. and the President of Chechnya, Mr Ramzan Kadyrov. Despite the requests, none of those witnesses were questioned in Russia or in Austria.

The applicant, who received protection from the Austrian police, was present throughout the entire trial.

In June 2011 the jury pronounced a unanimous guilty verdict in respect of the three accused. Mr Otto K. was sentenced to life imprisonment, and his co-accused to sixteen and nineteen years in prison.

In June 2011 the coalition of human rights organisations monitoring the trial issued a public statement emphasising the importance of this case and expressing its regret at the absence of cooperation by the Russian Federation with the Austrian justice. They regretted that “the Russian Federation [wa]s unwilling and, as it seems, unable to investigate the crimes conducted in recent years in the ‘ pacified Chechnya ’ , or influenced from there”.

(d) Proceedings in Russia

The applicant complained to the Russian prosecution service about his son ’ s murder; at the same time he continued to pursue complaints about his son ’ s detention and ill-treatment and his own ill-treatment (see above).

In August 2009 the applicant wrote to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation asking him to open a criminal investigation into Mr Israilov ’ s murder. He submitted that three Russian citizens had been detained in Austria on murder charges; the person who had, in all probability, committed the murder also held a Russian passport and had escaped there. He asked the Prosecutor General to cooperate with the Austrian authorities, to find and question Mr Artur K. and to check whether his son ’ s murder had been connected to the previous threats made against him.

In December 2009 the Chechnya Department of the Investigative Committee (“the Chechnya investigative committee”) informed the applicant that they had prepared a request to Austria in order to obtain legal aid in the investigation of that crime.

In July 2010 the applicant repeated his request. After the sentencing of the three persons in Vienna in June 2011, the applicant again wrote to the Prosecutor General ’ s office. He argued that the sentencing decision supported the version that his son ’ s murder had been committed with the involvement of a person holding an official position in Chechnya. The applicant stressed that he had no information about the investigative steps taken by the prosecutors in Chechnya. In September 2011 the Chechnya Prosecutor ’ s Office replied to the applicant as follows:

“Please be informed that in order to check the information which you submitted earlier..., the Chechnya investigative committee sought legal assistance from the relevant Austrian authorities, asking them to produce a number of documents, including those establishing the identity of Mr Umar Israilov, and some others.

The requested documents arrived at the Chechnya investigative committee. However they contained only a copy of the forensic expert report, which is not sufficient to conclusively identify the person killed as Mr Umar Israilov, whose name had been put on the international wanted list by the Russian Federation.

The Austrian side has not submitted any documents which would suggest that the crime was organized by persons currently residing in Russia.

Thus, the request for legal assistance was executed only partially by the Austrian side, and the documents submitted cannot justify the criminal prosecution of anyone in the Russian Federation. Copies of the documents submitted by you do not constitute such grounds either. In such circumstances, the Russian law-enforcement authorities did not open a criminal investigation in respect of Mr Umar Israilov ’ s murder.

On 9 August 2011 the Chechnya investigative committee sent a second request for legal assistance to Austria, asking for additional documents. This request has not been executed to date.”

On 13 March 2014 the Chechnya investigative committee forwarded the same information to the applicant.

The applicant complained to a court about the inaction of the Chechnya Prosecutor ’ s Office. On 16 December 2011 the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny examined the complaint about the non-investigation of Mr Umar Israilov ’ s murder. It took note of the actions of the investigative committee as described above and ordered the committee to reply to the applicant ’ s queries. The request to open a criminal investigation was refused.

In April 2014 the applicant wrote to the Zavodskoy District Court seeking to obtain access to the preliminary material which had served as the basis for the decision not to open a criminal investigation into his son ’ s murder.

B. Relevant Council of Europe documents

On 25 January 2006 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted Resolution 1479 (2006) entitled Human rights violations in the Chechen Republic: the Committee of Ministers ’ responsibility vis-à-vis the Assembly ’ s concerns . The PACE stressed, inter alia :

“11. ... in order to prevent future serious human rights violations, all law enforcement agencies active in the Chechen Republic should receive additional orders from the highest authorities to respect basic human rights in the course of the operations. This is particularly true for certain Chechen security forces.”

The Resolution was based on an eponymous report prepared by Mr Rudolf Bindig, rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights ( Doc. 10774, 21 December 2005 ). The report contained the following passages:

“ 2.2.2. Hostage-takings

22. Another frightening trend in Chechnya is that of hostage-taking of relatives of suspected rebel fighters in order to force them to give themselves up by threatening their relatives with murder and torture. Since the end of 2004, a growing number of arbitrary detentions, ‘ disappearances ’ and abductions of family members of suspected rebel fighters has been reported by NGOs. ...

26. Such methods are totally unacceptable criminal acts which must be stamped out by the Federal and Chechen authorities. ... The taking of hostages by any person, terrorist or serviceman cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.”

Appended to the report was a letter of 12 October 2005 from Mr Bindig to Mr Vladimir Ustinov, Russia ’ s Prosecutor General. The letter informed the Prosecutor General about the preparation of the report and asked him to provide the rapporteur with information on the state of investigations in a number of individual cases. Under the heading “Alleged hostage-taking”, the letter included the following entry:

“91. On 27 November 2004, in the village of Mesker-Yurt, the personnel of an unidentified power agency kidnapped Mr Sherpuddi Israilov (b. 1956). Reportedly, the father was taken in order to force his son to surrender. (From the Conflict Zone, Memorial, 17.03.2005).”

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains of a number of violations in respect of his son, Mr Umar Israilov. In particular, he complains that his son was subjected to ill-treatment while in detention in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, that his detention was in violation of Article 5 of the Convention and that he had no effective remedies under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of those violations.

2. The applicant alleges that there is an arguable claim that his son ’ s murder was organised with the connivance of the Russian State authorities, namely the President of Chechnya or people under his direct command. The Russian Government were thus in breach of their obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to investigate those allegations.

3. In respect of his own situation, the applicant complains of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the ill-treatment to which he was subjected during the first days of his detention, which amounted to torture. He further complains that the conditions of his detention in the course of eleven months amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. The applicant further alleges that the Russian Government failed to conduct an investigation into his credible allegations of torture and ill-treatment. In addition, the applicant complains that his unlawful detention violated Article 5 as a whole.

4. The applicant alleges that the search carried out at his apartment in Grozny on the day of his detention was unlawful and did not follow the procedure prescribed by law, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. He further alleges that in the course of that search he was deprived of his property in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that his attempts to get his money and documents back were futile.

5. The applicant claimed that he had no effective remedies against the above violations, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has a criminal investigation or inquiry been opened in Russia in relation to Mr Umar Israilov ’ s murder in Vienna on 13 January 2009? Has Austria asked the Russian Federation for legal assistance in connection with the investigation of the murder and with the trial of the three co-accused, which concluded with their conviction in June 2011 in Austria? Pursuant to such requests, or on any other grounds, have any witnesses been identified and/or questioned, or any other procedural actions taken in Russia, in connection with the murder?

Having regard to the procedural obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention , including by rendering any assistance within its competence and means sought under a legal assistance request (see Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia , no. 25965/04, § 245, ECHR 2010 (extracts)), have the steps taken by the Russian Federation in connection with Mr Umar Israilov ’ s murder in Austria complied with this obligation?

2. Was the applicant detained between 27 November 2004 and 4 October 2005 in the circumstances as described by him? If so, was such detention compatible with the guarantees against arbitrary detention contained in Article 5 of the Convention?

During his detention, was the applicant subjected to torture and inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as alleged by him?

3. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and arbitrary detention, was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the applicant ’ s allegations in compliance with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention (see El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 193 and 242, ECHR 2012 )?

4. Did the search and seizure of property, as described by the applicant, occur at his flat on 27 November 2004?

If so, did this disclose violations of the applicant ’ s rights to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, and his property, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

Have the competent domestic authorities investigated this allegation within the scope of criminal investigation file no. 10021? If so, what steps were taken in order to establish the circumstances of this complaint, and what was the outcome of those proceedings?

5. The parties are requested to submit copies of any documents which would be relevant to the above questions, including copies of procedural documents issued in the context of the criminal investigations or inquiries, copies of legal assistance requests exchanged in connection with the investigation of Mr Umar Israilov ’ s murder, witness statements, and so on.