Communicated on 10 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 41521/14 Leyla Mayrbekovna GADUYEVA and others against Russia lodged on 15 May 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are:

The first applicant is the wife and the other applicants are the children of Salambek Barayevich Yakayev who died in 2009 in Urus-Martan , Republic of Chechnya. The applicants are Russian nationals and live in Urus-Martan . They are represented before the Court by A. Taramova , a lawyer from the NGO Materi Chechni .

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

A . The death of Mr Salambek Yakayev and the ensuing investigation

On 23 June 2009 Salambek Yakayev and his two friends were in a car going in the direction of Urus-Martan . At around 5 pm the car exploded on the side of a rural road not far away from the village of Alkhan -Yurt. Mr Salambek Yakayev was seriously injured and died on the way to the Urus ‑ Martan District hospital. His body was transported to that hospital.

On the same date the investigating authorities inspected the incident scene. They took photographs and collected the evidence. The Head of the local department of Interior informed the Minister of Interior of the Chechen Republic about that incident.

On 24 June 2009 the investigator with the Achkhoy-Martan Interdistrict Investigating Department instituted criminal proceedings into the death of Mr Salambek Yakayev . The case file was given number 73031.

On the same date the investigator in charge of the case and the hospital surgeon examined the body of Mr Salambek Yakayev and drawn up a record of that examination. The record stated that after the examination the body had been handed over to the relatives of Mr Yakayev for burial. It appears that Mr Yakayev was buried shortly afterwards.

On the same date the investigator appointed a comprehensive forensic expert examination. In particular, the expert was asked to analyse various fragments collected at the place of explosion and determine whether they belonged to a weapon or to a hand-made explosive device and how that device had been activated. The applicant did not provide a copy of the corresponding expert report.

On 25 June 2009 the investigator ordered an expert examination in order to determine the cause of Mr Yakayev ’ s death. However, it follows from the expert report issued on the same date that the expert did not examine the body of Mr Yakayev . Instead he was provided with the record of examination of his body carried out on 24 June 2009 by the investigator and the hospital surgeon. The expert report stated that most probably Mr Salambek Yakayev had died as a result of a penetrating wound of the abdominal space caused by the fragments of an explosive device.

Between July and August 2009 the investigating authorities questioned relatives of the victims.

On 24 August 2009 the investigation was suspended for the failure to identify those responsible.

On 25 September 2009 the investigation was resumed.

On 26 October 2009 the investigation was suspended again for the same reasons.

On 14 September 2011 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She sta ted that she suffered very much from the death of her husband. She further stated that she did not wish to familiarise herself with expert studies appointed in the criminal case and expert reports.

On 15 September 2011 the investigation was suspended again on the same grounds as before. On the same date the investigator informed the first applicant of the decision to suspend the proceedings and of the procedure for lodging an appeal against it.

B . Chechen Ombudsman ’ s request to clear minefields on the territory of the Chechen Republic

On 25 November 2011 the Ombudsman of the Chechen Republic applied to the Ministry of Defence with a request to clear minefields on the territory of the Chechen Republic.

On 3 February 2012 the Deputy Minister of Defence replied, referring to the information provided by the Government of the Chechen Republic, that the area which had to be cleared from mines amounted to 14 386 hectares and that the Ministry had planned to start the clearing operation in spring 2012.

C . Proceedings for damages

In 2013 th e first applicant sought compensation of non-pecuniary damage from authorities in civil proceedings. She claimed that the explosion in which died her husband had taken place on the territory where had been deployed federal military forces during the military operation in the Chechen Republic. She therefore considered that her husband had died because of the fault and criminal negligence of the federal military forces.

On 25 June 2013 the Urus-Martan Town Court, Republic of Chechnya, dismissed the first applicant ’ s claims on the grounds that she had not provided any evidence in support of her allegations.

On 29 August 2013 the Supr eme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld that judgment.

D . Appeal against the decision to suspend the criminal proceedings and reopening of the investigation

On 16 December 2013 the first applicant complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court about the decision of 15 September 2011 to suspend the investigation. She submitted that the investigating authorities had failed to effectively investigate the death of her husband.

On the same date the investigation was resumed. The applicant did not provide the Court with a copy of the decision to resume the investigation.

On 28 January 2014 the Urus-Martan Town Court discontinued the proceedings on the applicant ’ s complaint on the grounds that on 16 December 2013 the investigation had been resumed.

On 4 March 2014 the Supr eme Court of the Republic of Chechnya upheld that decision .

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative Mr Salambek Yakayev died as a result of unlawful actions of Russian servicemen. In particular, the applicants submit that the explosion had taken place on the territory where had been deployed federal troops during the military operation in Chechnya and which had not been cleared from mines after their departure.

They further complain under Article 2 that the authorities did not carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death of their relative.

They complain under Article 13 that they did not have effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants compl y with the six-month requirement of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, when the applicants were or should have beco me aware of the alleged ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies?

2 . Has the right to life of Mr Salambek Yakayev , ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

3. Did the authorities comply with their positive obligations to protect the life of Mr Salambek Yakayev (see Osman v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1998, § § 115 ‑ 16 , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII , and Albekov and Others v. Russia , no. 68216/01, § § 80-90, 9 October 2008 )?

4. 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 in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

5. Did the applicant s have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in criminal case no. 73031 instituted in connection with the death of Mr Salambek Yakayev .