Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 128

March 2010

Finogenov and Others v. Russia (dec.) - 18299/03 and 27311/03

Decision 18.3.2010 [Section I]

Article 2

Article 2-2

Use of force

Use of potentially lethal gas in an operation to rescue over 900 hostages: admissible

In October 2002 a group of terrorists belonging to a Chechen separatist movement took about 900 hostages in a Moscow theatre and held them at gunpoint for three days. With a view to rescuing the hostages, the Russian security forces dispersed an unknown gas through the theatre’s ventilation system. When the terrorists lost consciousness, the security forces stormed the building. The applicants, who were either surviving hostages or relatives of deceased hostages, alleged that the subsequent evacuation of the hostages was chaotic: they had been left lying outside on the ground in temperatures of 1.8°C and many had died through negligence, having b een left lying on their backs before suffocating on their vomit. There had not been enough ambulances or medical staff to accompany the victims to hospital, so they had had to be transported in ordinary buses. According to official information, 129 hostage s died on the spot, 21 in the course of the evacuation and transportation to hospital and 6 in hospital. Many of those who survived continue to suffer from serious health problems. The prosecutor started a criminal investigation into the events. The applic ants as injured parties enjoyed access to the materials in the case file, but were not allowed to make photocopies, disclose the information to third parties or contact the medical experts who had examined the bodies. Concluding that there had been no dire ct link between the gas used in the rescue operation and the death of the hostages, the prosecutor eventually refused to initiate a criminal investigation into the actions of the State authorities during the crisis although he continued the investigation i n respect of the presumed terrorists. The applicants’ repeated requests for the investigation to be reopened were to no avail. Some filed civil actions against the State, but their claims were dismissed.

Conclusion : admissible under Articles 2, 3, 6 § 1 an d 13 of the Convention (majority).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes