Published on 21 November 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 46393/15 Refat Midatovich AMETOV against Russia and Ukraine and 8 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 October 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the Russian Federation asserted jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014. They concern, in particular, allegations of unlawful killings as well as allegations of abductions and enforced disappearances of the applicants’ relatives.

In application no. 46393/15, on 3 March 2014 the applicant’s brother, Mr Reshat Ametov, a Crimean Tatar, disappeared after he had last been seen at a pro-Ukrainian rally in the centre of Simferopol. His body, bearing signs of serious ill-treatment and with his head bound with duct tape and his legs shackled, was found on 15 March 2014 in the village of Zemlyanichnoye in Crimea. The applicant alleges that his brother was allegedly abducted, tortured and summarily executed by persons believed to be members of the Crimean self-defence forces. Separate investigations conducted by Ukrainian and Russian authorities did not yield any results so as to clarify the circumstances surrounding the abduction, ill-treatment, killing, or to establish the identities of those responsible.

In application no. 23777/17 the applicant’s husband Mr Stanislav Karachevskiy, who was a Ukrainian naval officer, was killed on 6 April 2014 by a Russian serviceman in a dormitory in Novofedorivka, Crimea. The perpetrator was subsequently identified and found guilty of causing the death by using excessive lethal force and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. On appeal by the defendant the prison term was commuted to a fine and a decision was taken to absolve him from paying the fine.

In application no. 51616/20 the applicant’s mother Mrs Vedzhiye Kashka, an 83-year-old Crimean Tatar activist, was arrested by police officers on suspicion of having committed the offence of extortion on 23 November 2017. Immediately after her arrest she suffered a cardiac arrest and the police officers stopped a passing ambulance. The applicant alleges that, while the paramedics were treating his mother in the ambulance the police officers proceeded to seize a sum of money from her mother as part of their investigation and, in doing so, prevented the paramedics from taking her to the hospital. After they seized the money the police officers allowed the ambulance to take the applicant’s mother to the hospital but she died on the way. A number of official complaints made by the applicant against the police officers for causing her death were rejected by the authorities.

In applications nos. 1495/16, 72739/17, 42287/20, 19155/21, 27728/21 and 29474/21 the applicant’s relatives, Timur Shaymardanov, Islyam Dzhepparov, Dzhevdet Islyamov, Ervin Ibragimov, Arlen Terekhov, Ruslan Ganiyev, Mukhtar Arislanov and Seyran Zinedinov, all Crimean Tatars (some of whom were pro-Ukrainian activists in Crimea), disappeared between 2014 and 2016. The applicants allege that some of their relatives had been threatened by Russian authorities prior to their disappearances and that some of them had disappeared after having been abducted by people in uniform. They allege that nothing has been heard from any of their relatives since their disappearances. The Russian and Ukrainian authorities opened criminal investigations but they were all suspended as the alleged perpetrators were no longer in Crimea and/or the authorities were unable to identify and find the perpetrators.

QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT CONCERNING APPLICATIONS NOS. 51616/20 AND 19155/21

1. Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. As regards application no. 51616/20, has the right to life of the applicant’s mother, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated as a result of the actions or omissions of the police officers who arrested her?

3. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), were the investigations conducted by the authorities in these two cases capable of satisfying the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention?

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES IN APPLICATIONS NOS. 46393/15, 1495/16, 23777/17, 72739/17, 42287/20, 27728/21 AND 29474/21

1. Have the applicants in these applications complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. As regards application no. 23777/17, have the national authorities provided adequate redress, capable of discharging their substantive and procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention for the killing of the applicant’s husband? To that end, was a deterrent punishment imposed on the perpetrator corresponding to the seriousness of the offence committed by him?

3. As regards application no. 23777/17, has there been a breach of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 on account of the applicant’s husband’s nationality and/or ethnic origin?

4. As regards applications nos. 46393/15, 1495/16, 72739/17, 42287/20, 27728/21 and 29474/21, have the applicants’ relatives’ right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention been violated?

5. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII), were the investigations in the above six cases in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

6. As regards applications nos. 46393/15, 1495/16, 42287/20, 27728/21 and 29474/21, have the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect, as well as their alleged failure to conduct effective investigations into the disappearances, been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?

7. As regards applications nos. 46393/15, 1495/16, 23777/17, 72739/17, 42287/20 and 29474/2, did the applicants have effective remedies at their disposal in respect of their Convention complaints under Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

46393/15

Ametov v. Russia and Ukraine

10/09/2015

Refat Midatovich AMETOV 1964 Ukraynka Ukrainian

Mikhail Aleksandrovich TARAKHKALO

2.

1495/16

Shaymardanova v. Russia and Ukraine

29/12/2015

Larisa Aleksandrovna SHAYMARDANOVA 1958 Strilkove Ukrainian

Anastasiya Romanovna MARTYNOVSKAYA

3.

23777/17

Karachevska v. Russia and Ukraine

18/03/2017

Olga Yuriyivna KARACHEVSKA 1981 Mykolayiv Ukrainian

Borys Volodymyrovych BABIN

4.

72739/17

Dzhepparov v. Russia and Ukraine

03/10/2017

Abdureshit Sherfedimovich DZHEPPAROV 1959 Belogorsk Russian,Ukrainian

Egbert WESSELINK

5.

42287/20

Ibragimov v. Russia and Ukraine

31/08/2020

Umar Osmanovich IBRAGIMOV 1960 Bakhchysaray Russian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

6.

51616/20

Kashka v. Russia

15/11/2020

Ibram Ebikirovich KASHKA 1960 Novoklenovo Ukrainian

Roman Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY

7.

19155/21

Adzhyasanova and Ganiyeva v. Russia

02/04/2021

Zemfira Andriyivna ADZHYASANOVA 1965 Voykovo Ukrainian Ediye GANIYEVA 1943 Glazivka Ukrainian

Olga Mykolayivna KURYSHKO

8.

27728/21

Karakash v. Russia and Ukraine

12/05/2021

Nufriya Rustemovna KARAKASH 1982 Ana-Yurt Ukrainian

Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA

9.

29474/21

Zinedinov v. Russia and Ukraine

31/05/2021

Setmer Aliyevich ZINEDINOV 1957 Simferopol Ukrainian

Olga Mykolayivna KURYSHKO