Communicated on 16 February 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 19650/11 Malika Khasaynovna DAGALAYEVA against Russia lodged on 15 March 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Malika Khasaynovna Dagalayeva , is a Russian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in the Gudermes District of Chechnya.

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

On 1 April 2006 the applicant ’ s husband M. was killed.

According to statements by two eye-witnesses Z. and Yu., on that day they were fishing in a lake near Sary-Sy village together with M. and D., their neighbours. Z. Yu. and D. went to the other side of the lake, while M. remained near the car. Late in the evening Z., S. and Yu. heard gun fire in the direction of the car. They saw six or seven people in camouflage around their car and heard Russian speech. They recognised the uniform of the federal military forces. They hid themselves in the bushes. They saw the servicemen first attempt to push the car into the lake and, when that attempt failed, set fire to it. Z., S. and Yu. ran to Sary-Sy village and warned the police. They then returned to the lake accompanied by the police. They found M. ’ s burned body in the car. At about the same time three cars and two armoured personnel carrier vehicles belonging to the federal military forces arrived to the scene. The servicemen told the police that they were carrying out a special operation in the area. Yu. said to the police that he would be able to recognise the servicemen who had killed M. On the same day Z., S. and Yu. were brought to the prosecutors ’ office and questioned.

On 2 April 2006 the Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal proceedings into M. ’ s murder. The case file was given the number 61010. M. ’ s brother was granted victim status in the proceedings.

On 3 July 2009 the applicant wrote to the Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office requesting for information about the developments in the criminal proceedings. She complained that the family had not been kept informed about the progress of the investigation and that she had not been granted victim status or questioned.

On 9 July 2009 the applicant sent a similar letter to the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office.

On 5 October 2009 Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicant that the criminal proceedings in case no. 61010 had been suspended on 2 June 2006 because it was impossible to establish the perpetrators. The prosecutor ’ s office then allowed the applicant ’ s complaint, finding that investigation had been ineffective. It ordered that the decision of 2 June 2006 be annulled and the investigation resumed.

On 10 and 13 December 2009 the applicant again wrote to the Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office and the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office requesting for information about the progress of the investigation and complaining that she had not been kept informed about its advancement.

On 21 December 2009 the Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed on 2 October 2009.

On 15 January 2010 the Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicant that the investigation had been suspended on 7 November 2009.

On 1 and 6 March 2010 the applicant complained to the Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office and the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation about ineffective investigation and the failure to keep her informed about its progress.

On 26 March 2010 the Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicant that her complaint had been rejected because criminal case no. 61010 had been transferred to the Southern Federal Circuit Investigations Committee.

On 7 June 2010 the applicant again complained to the Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office about ineffective investigation.

On 30 June 2010 the Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicant that the decision of 7 November 2009 to suspend the investigation had been declared unlawful and that the applicant would be informed of any further decision taken.

On 7 July 2010 Z. and Yu. sent written affidavits describing the events of 1 April 2006 to the investigator.

The applicant, acting on her own behalf and on behalf of her four minor children, sued the Government, the Ministry of Finance and the Treasury for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damaged cause by the killing of her husband by the federal military forces.

On 22 December 2010 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow rejected her claims, finding that she had not proved that the Government had breached her rights.

The applicant appealed.

On 3 July 2013 she wrote to the President of the Presnenskiy District Court requesting information about the appeal proceedings.

On the same day the applicant also sent a request for information about the progress of the investigation in case no. 61010 to the Shelkovskiy District prosecutor ’ s office.

It appears that her letters of 3 July 2013 remained without reply.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention about the killing of her husband by the federal military forces and the lack of an effective investigation into that killing.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicant ’ s husband M. ?

2. Was the investigation into M. ’ s death thorough and effective, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

3. Has the applicant had at her disposal effective domestic remedies in relation to the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

4. The Government are requested to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in criminal case no. 61010 instituted in relation to the killing of the applicant ’ s husband M. They are also requested to submit a copy of the appeal judgment examining the applicant ’ s appeal against the judgment of 22 December 2010 by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow.