Communicated on 1 September 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 21194/09 Ruslan Alviyevich KHADZHIMURADOV against Russia and 16 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of applicants, their personal details and summary of the main complaints are set out in the Annex.

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

A. Summary

The applicants allege, principally, that their twenty-one close relatives (spouses, children, brothers and uncle) have been killed on 5 February 2000 in the Novye Aldy settlement at the outskirts of Grozny by the State servicemen.

A criminal investigation into the murders and looting of property was opened on 5 March 2000 by the Grozny Town Prosecutor ’ s Office. The applicants, or close members of their families, have been granted victim status in the proceedings. It appears that these proceedings are still pending.

It appears that only one applicant – Olga Soltykhanova (application no. 22304/10) had been in Novye Aldy at the time of the events; other applicants had been out of the district, or out of Chechnya, due to heavy fighting in the preceding months.

In support of their claims, the applicants submitted copies of the death certificates issued in respect of their relatives, copies of some documents from the criminal investigation file, decisions to grant them or their close relatives the status of victims in the criminal proceedings, statements produced by them and by several persons who had witnessed the killings, press and NGO reports about the events. Several applicants also submitted documents issued in 2000 by the local administration or “neighbourhood committees” confirming that the houses where they had lived had been destroyed or damaged in 2000.

B. Information from the Musayev and Others case, nos. 57941/00, 58699/00 and 60403/00

The facts of the present case are connected to the case Musayev and Others v. Russia , nos. 57941/00, 58699/00 and 60403/00, 26 July 2007 , in so far as the applicants claim that their relatives were killed by the same persons and in the same circumstances as the relatives of the applicants in the Musayev and Others case.

The applicants in the Musayev and Others complained of killings of eleven their relatives by unidentified servicemen on 5 February 2000 in Novye Aldy . The first applicant witnessed the deaths of his seven distant relatives (cousins, nephews). Other applicants in the Musayev and Others were more closely connected to the victims, who were their husband, sister and brothers. The first applicant has been granted victim status in the domestic criminal proceedings and has participated in these proceedings (see Musayev and Others , cited above, §§ 68, 81, 94). As it appears, in the domestic criminal proceedings the degree of relations between the victims and the deceased has not been vigorously pursued, and, as noted in the Musayev and Others judgment, no single list had existed of the victims and of the persons who had been granted victim status in the proceedings ( ibid., §§ 74, 80, 162). The Government did not challenge the first applicant ’ s victim status under Article 2.

On the basis of the parties ’ submissions and inferences drawn by the Court, it has been established that on 5 February 2000 eleven relatives of the applicants had been killed by the State servicemen in the Novye Aldy settlement at the outskirts of Grozny, during a special operation (“sweeping” operation) carried out by, inter alia, the servicemen of the special police forces (OMON) from St. Petersburg.

According to the documents examined by the Court, more than fifty persons had been killed on that day in Novye Aldy by unidentified servicemen wearing camouflaged uniforms and using automatic weapons, equipped with portable radio sets, APCs and military Ural trucks. The same servicemen had also looted and burnt a number of houses in the settlement.

By April 2006, when the parties had exchanged observations in Musayev and Others , the criminal investigation remained pending. Although the investigation file reflected some attempts to identify the servicemen of the OMON from St. Petersburg, there was no information that anyone had been charged with the crimes.

The Court concluded that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the deaths. In addition, the first applicant who had witnessed the deaths of his seven distant relatives and had himself been threatened and held at gunpoint, was found to be a victim of inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3. Finally, a breach of Article 13 was found, since the criminal investigation into the deaths had been inefficient, rendering any other remedy equally futile.

C. Information about the investigation after 2007

The applicants submitted that prior to the adoption of the Musayev and Others judgment in July 2007 they had not been aware that another group of victims had applied to the Court. They also submitted that prior to that date they had had no reasons to doubt the effectiveness of the domestic investigation, even if no regular updates had been forthcoming from the prosecutor ’ s office. Some of the applicants also referred to their previous contacts with the lawyers whom they had instructed to apply to the Court, but their instructions had not been complied with or the applicants had not kept any written proof of it.

Among the eleven persons whose deaths were found to be in breach of Article 2 in the Musayev and Others judgment, there are five persons whose relatives submit the present complaint (see Annex). While in the Musayev and Others case the first applicant was cousin and nephew of the deceased, the applicants in the present group are the deceased ’ spouses, children and brothers.

The applicants in the present case (or their close relatives) were granted the status of victims in criminal investigation file no. 12011 at various dates between March 2000 and June 2008 (see Annex). In particular, it appears from the documents submitted by the applicants that on 19 April 2004 the investigator of the Chechnya Prosecutor ’ s Office granted the request made by lawyer Mr A. Khamzayev to grant victim status to 32 persons. The list included eight applicants in the present case, some of whom later received and countersigned proper individual notifications.

As to the investigation, as it follows from the decision of 10 April 2006 to adjourn investigation (and subsequent similar documents), in May 2005 the investigation had identified Mr S.B. as a suspect and charged him with aggravated murder and robbery. In February 2000 Mr S.B. had been a police technician of the sappers ’ battalion of the St. Petersburg OMON. The charges stated that on 5 February 2000 he, along with three other unidentified persons, had killed Mr Sultan Dzhabrailov (husband of Mrs Yakhita Dzhabrailova , case no. 32992/09) by shooting at him from a Kalashnikov machine gun; he had also robbed money and jewellery from two other persons, A.M and B.M. In October 2005 Mr S.B. escaped to Belarus and his name was put on the international wanted list. In February 2006 the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny ruled to arrest Mr S.B., in absentia. The decision of 10 April 2006 contained a note that the investigator had informed the victims of this decision (it appears that a copy of that decision was sent to the victims on 14 November 2007).

On 5 December 2007 the investigation of the criminal case file no. 12011 into the events of 5 February 2000 was resumed and the victims were informed accordingly.

On 5 January 2008 the investigation was adjourned.

It was then resumed, and on 18 August 2008 was again adjourned and the applicants were informed accordingly.

It was then resumed, and adjourned again on 24 November 2008 (the letter informing the victims of this development was dated 24 October 2008).

It appears that the investigation was again reopened and then adjourned on 11 January 2009.

On 9 February 2009 Mrs Birlant Beterakhmadova (applicant in application no. 24693/09) complained to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny about the decision of 24 November 2008 and the prosecutor ’ s failure to conduct an efficient investigation into the murders.

On 3 April 2009 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court noted that the decision of 24 November 2009 had been already quashed on 15 March 2009 by the Chechnya Investigative Committee and dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint.

On 16 April 2009 the investigation was again adjourned.

It does not appear that the applicants were informed of any other developments or sought further information from the investigation authorities.

Several applicants complain that their state of health has deteriorated due to the stress and anguish suffered by them in the aftermath of the Novye Aldy killings and, in particular, in view of the inadequate and callous response of the authorities to their plight.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain about the deaths of their relatives at the hands of the State servicemen and the failure by the Russian authorities to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into these murders. They refer to Article 2 of the Convention.

2. The applicants argue that they had no effective remedies against the violations alleged under Article 2, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

3. Several applicants (see Annex) complain about the unlawful interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of property, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Are the complaints raised by the applicants under Articles 2 (substantive and procedural aspects), 13 of the Convention admissible?

In particular, have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of each of the complaints made?

Are the complaints brought by the applicants in cases nos. 21200/09, 24693/09 and 30538/09 under Article 2 (substantive and procedural aspects) substantially the same as the matter that has already been resolved by the Court in the case Musayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 57941/00, 58699/00 and 60403/00, 26 July 2007?

2. Has the right to life of the applicants ’ twenty-one relatives (see Annex), ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

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?

3. Have the applicants in applications nos. 21200/09, 24693/09, 30578/09, 32855/09 and 32862/09 complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

Were effective domestic remedies available to these applicants in respect of the alleged violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions? Did the applicants exhaust those remedies? Has there been a violation of these applicants ’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as a result of the events in Novye Aldy on 5 February 2000?

4. Both parties are requested to submit copies of the documents to which they refer in the answers to the above questions. The Government are requested, in particular, to submit copies of the documents from criminal investigation file no. 12011 produced after March 2006.

Appendix

Details of the applications

Application no.

Case details

Date of introduction

Applicants ’ details

(date of birth, place of residence)

Person killed (date of birth, family relationship)

Victim Status granted

Complaints on Article(s)

21194/09

KHADZHIMURADOV v. Russia

Lodged on 31/03/2009;

represented by Dokka Itslayev

Ruslan KHADZHIMURADOV, 1970, Grozny

Alvy KHADZHIMURADOV , 1942 (father)

24/03/2000

2, 13

21200/09

MUSAYEVY v. Russia

Lodged on 26/03/2009; no representative

(1) Ibragim MUSAYEV, 1938, Groznyy

(2) Zoya MUSAYEVA, 1946, Grozny

Suleyman MUSAYEV , 1965 (son) (see Musayev and Others judgment)

(1 ) u nknown

(probably 19/04/2004 )

(2) 29/12/2007

2, 13, P1A1

24693/09 BETERAKHMADOVA v. Russia

Lodged on

21/04/2009;

r epresented by Uvays S aid Khasiyev

Birlant BETERAKHMADOVA, 1952, Hasselt, Belgium

Abdrakhman M USAYEV , 1949 (spouse) (see Musayev and Others judgment)

30/03/2000

1, 2, 13, P1A1

24700/09

KHIRIKHANOVA v. Russia

Lodged on

21/04/2009;

no representative

Alpatu KHIRIKHANOVA, 1953, Grozny

Salman KHIRIKHANOV , 1949 (spouse)

u nknown

(probably 19/04/2004 )

2, 13

27063/09

GERIKHANOV v. Russia

Lodged on

23/04/2009;

no representative

Rashid GERIKHANOV, 1945, Grozny

Koka GERIKHANOVA , 1958 (spouse)

11/05/2004

34 (?), no indication to Art 2 or 13 in the application form

27064/09

TASUYEVA v. Russia

Lodged on

13/04/2009;

no representative

Birland TASUYEVA, 1953, Grozny

Sultan TASUYEV , 1950 (spouse)

17/03/2005

2, 13

27159/09

SHAMSATOVA v. Russia

Lodged on

08/04/2009;

no representative

Baret SHAMSATOVA, 1958, Grozny

Mussa KHASBULATOV , 1953 (spouse)

unknown

2

27259/09

SUGAIPOVA v. Russia

Lodged on 18/04/2009;

no representative

Manshura SUGAIPOVA, 1955, Grozny

Avalu SUGAIPOV , 1950 (spouse)

11/05/2004

2, 13

30531/09 KHAYDAYEV v. Russia

Lodged on 04/05/2009;

no representative

Abulkhasan KHAYDAYEV, 1954, Grozny

Gula KHAYDAYEV, 1928 (father)

26/06/2008

2, 13

30538/09

DZHAM O LDAYEVA and others v. Russia

Lodged on 05/05/2009;

no representative

(1) Madina DZHAM O LDAYEVA, 1977, Grozny

(2) Elina UMARKHADZHIYEVA, 1972, Grozny

(3) Malika GANAYEVA, 1941, Grozny

(1) Aslanbek GANAYEV , 1965 (spouse)

(2) Salambek GANAYEV , 1969 (spouse)

(3) Aslanbek GANAYEV , 1965, Salambek GANAYEV , 1969 (sons), Alvy GANAYEV , 1938 (spouse)

(see Musayev and Other s judgment)

(1) date unclear, probably 19/04/2004 or 04/07/2012

(2) unknown, probably 19/04/2004

(3) date unclear, probably 23/03/2000, 19/04/2004 or 03/07/2012

2, 13

30578/09

KUDOZOV v. Russia

Lodged on 30/04/2009;

no representative

Osman KUDOZOV, 1954, Grozny

Gana KUDOZOV , 1941 and Omar Kudozov , 1951 (brothers)

13/04/2000

1, 2, 13, P1A1

32851/09

KHAKIMOVA v. Russia

Lodged on 16/04/2009;

no representative

Aset KHAKIMOVA, 1957, Grozny

Vakha KHAKIMOV , 1953 (spouse)

u nknown, probably 19/04/2004

2, 13

32855/09

BISHAYEVA v. Russia

Lodged on 08/04/2009;

no representative

Yakhita BISHAYEVA, 1949, Grozny

Salaman BISHAYEV , 1946 (spouse),

Amkhad BISHAYEV , 1972 (son)

u nknown, probably 03/04/2000 or 19/04/2004

2, 13, P1A1

32862/09

MUSOSTOVA v. Russia

Lodged on 08/04/2009;

no representative

Ayset MUSOSTOVA, 1959, Rotselaar , Belgium

Rakat KHAMURADOVA , 1930 (mother), Isa AKHMADOV , 1964 (brother)

d ate unclear, probably 19/04/2004 or 10/05/2004

2, 13, P1A1

32992/09

DZHABRAILOVA v. Russia

Lodged on 06/05/2009; no representative

Yakhita DZHABRAILOVA, 1951, Grozny

Sultan DZHABRAILOV , 1947 (spouse)

d ate unclear, probably 19/04/2004 or 23/04/2004

2

18777/10

GOYTAYEV v. Russia

Lodged on 09/03/2010; no representative

Khalid GOYTAYEV, 1974, Grozny

Magamed GOYTAYEV , 1929 (uncle)

g ranted on 22/12/2007, following death of his father Vakha Goytayev who had been granted victim status on 05/04/2000

2, 13

22304/10

SOLTYKHANOVA v. Russia

Lodged on 26/03/2010; no representative

Olga SOLTYKHANOVA, 1960, Grozny

Rezvan UMKHAYEV , 1933 (father)

04/04/2000

2, 13