Communicated on 16 November 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 42705/11 Svetlana Khusainovna ESTEMIROVA against Russia lodged on 21 June 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Svetlana Khusainovna Estemirova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Ekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region. She is represented before the Court by Mr P. Leach, Mr B. Bowring, Ms J. Evans, Ms A. Razhikova, Ms A. Sobko, Ms T. Chernikova and Mr R. Karpinskiy, lawyers practising in the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom. A number of these lawyers also work for the Memorial Human Rights Centre.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. General information about Ms Natalia Estemirova

The applicant was a sister of Ms Natalia Estemirova, now deceased, a prominent human rights activist and campaigner in Russia working in the North Caucasus, including documenting cases of human rights violations in the Chechen Republic.

Since 2000 Ms Natalia Estemirova had been working for the Memorial Human Rights Centre (hereinafter “the Memorial HRC”), a Russian non ‑ governmental organisation. She was charged by the organisation with, among other tasks, the investigation of cases of alleged kidnappings, torture and extrajudicial killings committed in the course of counter-terrorist operations between1999 and 2009 by state servicemen in Chechnya.

A number of cases in which Ms Natalia Estemirova had taken part as an investigator were brought before the European Court and have led to judgments finding the Russian Federation in breach of the Convention (for example, the cases of Musayeva and Others v. Russia , no. 74239/01, 26 July 2007; Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia , no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007; and Makayeva v. Russia, no. 37287/09 , 18 September 2014) .

The evidence of human rights violations in Chechnya obtained by Ms Natalia Estemirova through her monitoring work provided the basis for multiple reports published by the Memorial HRC (for example, the FIDH/Memorial Report ‘‘ Torture in Chechnya: ‘ Stabilisation ’ of the Nightmare” of November 2006). She also wrote a number of articles for Russian newspapers, including for the Novaya Gazeta (articles include “Thousands of executioners walk free” ( Тысяча палачей гуляют на свободе ) of 21 January 2009; “Chechnya: war of generations” ( Чечня : война поколений ) of 14 January 2009; “ Autumn of mass killings” ( Расстрельная осень ) of 15 December 2008; “All of Ramzan rejoices and celebrates” ( Веселится и ликует весь Рамзан ) of 20 October 2008; and “Chechnya: relatives of young men leaving for the mountains will be subject to reprisals” ( Чечня . Родственники ушедших в горы молодых людей будут подвергаться репрессиям ) of 30 November 2007). She also collaborated with various international human rights non-governmental organisations , including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Ms Natalia Estemirova ’ s work was recognised both at home and internationally through numerous awards, including the Robert Schuman medal (awarded by the European People ’ s Party in the European Parliament in 2005) and the Rights Livelihood Award (the so-called “Alternative Nobel Peace Prize”, awarded in Sweden in 2004). She was also the first recipient of the Anna Politkovskaya Award in 2007.

Jointly with Human Rights Watch, she investigated several cases of disappearance and torture. She received the Human Rights Watch Defender Award in 2007.

2. Abduction and murder of Ms Natalia Estemirova. Criminal investigation into these events

On 9 July 2009 Ms Natalia Estemirova gave an interview to the website Kavkazskiy Uzel in which she revealed that merely two days before that interview several unidentified armed men, believed to be officers of the Kurchaloevskiy district police department, had abducted Mr A. and his son Aziz in the village of Akhkinchu-Borzoi, Chechnya. The armed men in camouflage had paraded Aziz in his underpants in a village square. They had asked him whether he had helped insurgents; then, after he had denied his involvement, they had shot him. The armed men had then warned observers that they would do the same to anyone who assisted insurgents. The applicant argued that the interview had caused disquiet among the Chechen authorities.

On 15 July 2009, at approximately 8.30 a.m., Ms Natalia Estemirova left her home in Grozny, Chechnya, to attend a number of meetings, including one with the head of the investigation committee of the Russian Prosecutor General ’ s Office in the Chechen Republic. She was kidnapped near her apartment complex.

When Ms Natalia Estemirova did not show up for either of the meetings, her colleagues from the Grozny office of the Memorial HRC departed for her apartment complex to check on her. According to the Memorial HRC staff in Grozny they found two witnesses who reported that they had seen Ms Natalia Estemirova being pushed into a white car (a VAZ-2107). She had shouted that she was being kidnapped.

The Memorial HRC immediately informed the Ministry of the Interior and the prosecutor ’ s office of the Chechnya Republic.

Ms Natalia Estemirova ’ s body was found hours later (at 4.30 p.m.) in a field adjacent to the Kavkaz federal motorway near the village of Gazi-Yurt in the neighbouring Republic of Ingushetia. She had been shot in the head and chest.

On the same day the criminal investigation into the abduction and murder of Ms Natalia Estemirova was initiated.

On 31 March 2010 the applicant ’ s lawyer, Mr. Karpinskiy, filed a motion with the chief investigative department of the investigative committee of the prosecutor ’ s office of the Southern Federal District of Russia to grant the applicant victim status, to admit him as the applicant ’ s counsel and to provide him with copies of the case file which, in accordance with the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, must be provided to the victim before the completion of the preliminary investigation, including: a copy of the decision to initiate criminal proceedings into the abduction and murder of the deceased; a copy of the decision to grant victim status to the applicant; copies of decisions to initiate forensic examinations (if there were such decisions); copies of the results of such forensic examinations and copies of other procedural documents in accordance with the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.

On 31 March 2010 the request for access to the documents was granted and the applicant ’ s lawyer was allowed access to criminal case file no. 09500038. He was also notified that the applicant had already been granted victim status on 18 July 2009 and thus this part of the motion was refused .

The senior investigator ’ s order issued on 31 March 2010 stated that it had been established that Mr B. (a member of an unlawful armed group led by Mr U.), and other unidentified persons, had been responsible for abducting and killing Ms Natalia Estemirova.

On 28 June 2010 the applicant ’ s lawyer lodged another application with the investigating authorities. In this application he asked the authorities to provide more detailed information on the theories concerning the abduction and killing investigated by them, the possible involvement of State officials in the events, connections between the threats received by Ms Natalia Estemirova shortly before her death and her murder, and so forth. The lawyer also asked that the investigative authorities again allow him access to the criminal case file .

Three days later a senior investigator partially granted the lawyer ’ s application. In particular, he informed the lawyer that several theories concerning the murder were being examined. The main theory was that a member of an illegal armed group, Mr B., together with other unidentified persons had abducted and murdered Ms Natalia Estemirova as revenge for her article about Mr B. ’ s recruitment of inhabitants of the village of Shalazhiin, Chechnya to join illegal armed groups, or in order to discredit the Chechen authorities and to demonstrate their failure to control the situation in the Republic.

At the same time, the senior investigator rejected the lawyer ’ s request for access to the entire criminal case file, noting that “tactical purposes” precluded provision of the file to the applicant before the completion of the investigation.

On 2 August 2010 the applicant appealed against the senior investigator ’ s decision to the Leninskiy District Court, Vladikavkaz, arguing that access to the requested parts of the criminal case file was crucial for securing her rights and interests. The applicant complained that the official investigation was focusing solely on the theory that Ms Natalia Estemirova had been murdered by members of illegal armed groups, and more specifically by Mr B. The applicant also noted that, according to the the press, Mr B. had been killed during a special operation on 13 November 2009. The applicant found it suspicious that the theory concerning the involvement of Mr B. in the abduction and murder of her sister only came to prominence in January 2010. The applicant was unhappy with the investigation ’ s exclusive focus on Mr B. and the resulting dismissal of other theories .

On 15 October 2010 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the complaint, stating that the investigation into Ms Natalia Estemirova ’ s murder was under the control of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, that a large amount of work had been carried out, that an investigative group composed of seven investigators had been created for the purposes of the investigation, and that the case had not been suspended on a single occasion. The court specifically stated that under the Code of the Criminal Procedure a victim was only able to have full access to a criminal case file upon the completion of the preliminary investigation. The District Court further reasoned that disclosing certain information in the criminal case file to the public could have had a detrimental effect on the investigation .

On 23 October 2010 the applicant appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.

On 22 December 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, fully endorsing the District Court ’ s reasoning. It also reiterated that the applicant ’ s lawyer had been granted partial access to the criminal case file and that allowing him access to the part he had specifically requested could have undermined the investigation.

The applicant did not provide the Court with an update on the state of the criminal investigation. However, it appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending.

3. The applicant ’ s version of Ms Natalia Estemirova ’ s murder

The applicant argued that state agents had been involved in the abduction and murder of her sister. In particular, she submitted that the Chechen Republic at the time of the murder had been firmly under the control of the authorities. It had been impossible to freely pass into the neighbouring Republic of Ingushetia, where Ms Natalia Estemirova ’ s body had been found as there had been government controlled road checkpoints in that area. Moreover, in the first half of July 2009 the authorities had performed a series of large-scale special operations against members of illegal armed groups in the Sunzhenskiy district of Ingushetia, which borders Chechnya, thus further reinforcing their control over the area in question.

The applicant further noted that in the period leading up to the murder, the authorities had publicly denounced the work of human rights organisations in the Chechen Republic and that her sister had been personally threatened by state agents. She also cited a systematic practice of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and ill-treatment committed by the security forces in the Chechen Republic and other North-Caucasian Republics since 1999, as confirmed by the findings of the European Court in a number of cases against Russia.

The applicant stressed that the investigating authorities had fully concentrated on the theory that Mr B. had been implicated in the murder of her sister and had not looked into the possible involvement of State agents, despite the fact that there was a strong possibility of such involvement.

In particular, the applicant pointed to an interview given by her sister on 9 July 2009 and the authorities ’ response to it. She stressed that on the day following the interview the head of the Memorial HRC office in Grozny, Mr Akbulatov, was invited to a meeting with the Ombudsman of the Chechen Republican, Mr Nukhazhiev. The applicant supported her account of the meeting with a statement by Mr Akbulatov published on the website devoted to human rights in Russia ( www.hro.org ) on 19 September 2009.

According to Mr Akbulatov, during the meeting the Ombudsman informed him that shortly after the publication of Ms Natalia Estemirova ’ s interview the Ombudsman had received a phone call from the President of the Chechen Republic, Mr Kadyrov, who had “promised that he would personally investigate every event [described by Ms Natalia Estemirova in the interview on 9 July 2009] and demanded that the Ombudsman and the head of the Memorial HRC office in Grozny provide him with evidence confirming the events in question”. In addition, during the meeting, Mr Nukhazhiev also told Mr Akbulatov that one should be more careful in such turbulent times. He also mentioned Anna Politkovskaya, suggesting that if she had been more careful and flexible she would have still been alive.

The applicant further outlined occasions on which her sister had allegedly received threats from the Chechen authorities. For instance, on 31 March 2008 Ms Natalia Estemirova met with the President of the Chechen Republic, Mr Kadyrov, at the Grozny Palace of Youth. The latter had allegedly severely criticised her for the interview she had given to the Russian channel Ren-TV in which she had expressed her firm negative attitude towards Mr Kadyrov ’ s new order that all women in Chechnya should wear headscarves in public places. The applicant ’ s sister had publicly condemned his order and the practice of intervention by the state into people ’ s private lives. Mr Kadyrov responded that Memorial HRC was spreading unsupported information defaming the Republic ’ s leadership and that he himself saw no positive results of the government ’ s cooperation with human rights organisations. Ms Natalia Estemirova had later complained to her colleagues at the Memorial HRC that during the meeting Mr Kadyrov had insulted her and had told her that “he [had had] blood on his hands and that he had killed before and would continue killing bad people and that he [had not been] ashamed of it”. She also noted that Mr Kadyrov had enquired about her daughter Lana. On the same day the applicant ’ s sister was dismissed from her position of the head of the Grozny Public Human Rights Council.

The applicant argued that her sister had interpreted that conversation as a direct threat and had fled Grozny, together with her daughter Lana, and then lived in London for several months.

Citing various interviews with high-ranking Chechen authorities in the local and national media, the applicant further argued that the authorities had considered work by human rights activists, such as her sister, as posing a risk to the established order in the Chechen Republic and even as provision of direct assistance to illegal armed groups. The applicant insisted that certain officials, including those very close to Mr Kadyrov, had made direct threats against human rights activists in those interviews, by calling them “criminals”, “accomplices to terrorists” who “mentally [would be] eliminated”. One of those interviews directly accusing human rights activists as providing assistance to armed terrorist groups and calling for their “mental elimination” had been given less than a week before Mr Natalia Estemirova ’ s death.

Lastly, the applicant reiterated that the overall situation of impunity in Chechnya had allowed state agents to commit crimes without fear of punishment. She cited a report “Rule without law: human rights violations in the North Caucasus” issued in July 2009 by Amnesty International which insofar as relevant read as follows:

“... there has been an almost total failure of political will to uphold the rule of law and address impunity for present and past abuses of human rights in the region. Those responsible for abuses walk free while victims and their families have no redress through the Russian judicial system”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention of the murder of her sister and the authorities ’ failure to thoroughly, effectively and speedily investigate her death.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Regard being had to the applicant ’ s allegation that State authorities were responsible for the death of her sister, Ms Natalia Estemirova :

(a) At the material time was the area between Grozny, in the Chechen Republic, and the Republic of Ingushetia, including the Kavkaz federal motorway, secured by federal checkpoints? In particular, could the alleged perpetrators have passed through any such checkpoints on their way to and from Ms Natalia Estemirova ’ s house in Grozny (where she was kidnapped) to the area where her body was found, near the village of Gazi-Yurt in the Republic of Ingushetia? Was there a system of logging cars passing through the federal checkpoints in the area? If so, did any white VAZ (model 2107) passed through any of those checkpoints on 15 July 2009?

(b) Did law-enforcement and/or military authorities carry out a series of large-scale special operations against members of illegal armed groups in the Sunzhenskiy district of Ingushetia, bordering the Chechen Republic, between 1 and 20 July 2009? If so, does this fact imply the reinforcement of the road checks and other security measures in the Chechen Republic, including in Grozny; in the area near the Kavkaz motorway and the village of Gazi-Yurt in the Republic of Ingushetia, thus further reinforcing control over the area in question? Which law-enforcement or military body performed that special operation and how long did it last?

(c) When were the authorities (police) notified of Ms Natalia Estemirova ’ s abduction? In particular, did they receive calls from eyewitnesses? If so, what measures were taken to apprehend the perpetrators?

(d) How long would it have taken, at the material time, to drive a car from Grozny to the place where Ms Natalia Estemirova ’ s body was found? Would it have been possible at that time to avoid direct routes, including possible checkpoints, and if so, how would that have affected the duration of the trip?

(e) Did the car used to kidnap Ms Natalia Estemirova have registration plates? If so, were the authorities made aware of the registration number? What investigative steps were taken to find the car? Was a search for a white VAZ (model 2107) carried out in the aftermath of the abduction and murder?

(f) Were the authorities aware of threats made against Ms Natalia Estemirova prior to her death? If so, what was the official response to such threats?

(g) Did the investigating authorities examine the applicant ’ s theory that State agents had been involved in her sister ’ s murder? If so, were eyewitnesses to Ms Natalia Estemirova ’ s abduction asked to provide detailed descriptions of the perpetrators? Were facial composite sketches of the perpetrators prepared from witness descriptions? If so, were the sketches disseminated among the local population, police officers and the Russian military personnel stationed in the area? Were the sketches compared to photographs in the employment files of the police officers and servicemen working in the area, including the officers of the Kurchaloevskiy district police department ?

(h) What other theories, apart from the suspicion that the applicant ’ s sister had been killed by Mr B., were examined by the investigating authorities? What was the evidentiary basis in support of those theories?

(i) What forensic evidence was collected from the crime scene?

2. Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of Ms Natalia Estemirova ? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities sufficient to meet their obligations to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

3. The Government are asked to produce a copy of the investigation file into the case of abduction and murder of Ms Natalia Estemirova.