BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Turluyeva v. Russia - 63638/09 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 715 (20 June 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/715.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 715 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 164
June 2013
Turluyeva v. Russia - 63638/09
Judgment 20.6.2013 See: [2013] ECHR 566 [Section I]
Article 2
Positive obligations
Article 2-1
Effective investigation
Authorities’ failure to protect life of a detainee who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances: violation
Facts - In October 2009 the applicant’s son was detained in Grozny by the police following an armed skirmish. He was last seen by his uncle at the police headquarters with signs of beatings on his face. The family have had no news of him since. The applicant lodged a complaint, but it was not until some weeks later that proceedings were opened by a district investigative committee in Grozny on suspicion of murder and the proceedings were still pending at the date of the Court’s judgment. Although the Government confirmed that the applicant’s son had been taken to the police headquarters they said that he had been released a few hours later. No records of the son’s detention, questioning or release were drawn up. According to the applicant, the boy’s uncle was harassed and threatened by the local head of police after she lodged her complaint.
Law - Article 2
(a) Presumption of and responsibility for the death of the applicant’s son: On the basis of the parties’ submissions and the documents before it, the Court found it sufficiently established that the applicant’s son had been taken by servicemen to the police headquarters in Grozny in the late evening of 21 October 2009. Although the police had alleged that he had subsequently been released, he had not been seen since and his family had not received any news. The criminal investigation had not acquired any evidence of his alleged release. In view of the passage of time and the life-threatening nature of such unrecorded detention in the region, the applicant’s son could now be presumed dead. The State was responsible for his death, as the Government had failed to provide any plausible explanation of what had happened to him following his detention and disappearance more than three years previously.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(b) Positive obligation to protect life: Given the Court’s numerous previous judgments and international reports on the subject, the Russian authorities had been sufficiently aware of the problem of enforced disappearances in the North Caucasus and its life-threatening implications for detained individuals. As the Government had informed the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, in order to comply with the Court’s judgments, they had lately taken a number of specific actions to make investigations into this type of crime more efficient, in particular by creating a special unit within the Investigating Committee of the Chechen Republic.
The authorities had become aware no later than December 2009 that the applicant’s son had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty in a life-threatening situation. However, key measures which could have been expected in such circumstances had not been taken. In particular, there had been no immediate inspection of the police headquarters or efforts to collect perishable traces or video records from CCTV cameras. Such omissions were particularly regrettable given that the exact location of the suspected crime was known to the authorities. The fact that the suspects were police officers did not relieve the investigating authorities of their obligations. In conclusion, by not acting rapidly and decisively, the authorities had failed to take appropriate measures to protect the applicant’s son’s life.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(c) Effectiveness of the investigation: The investigation had been plagued by numerous delays. In particular, the investigators had not taken statements from the police officers until months later, thus increasing the risk of collusion. The CCTV records at the police headquarters had been lost. Furthermore, the investigation had not had any impact on the police officers’ continued service and their ability to put pressure on other actors of the investigation, including witnesses. Of particular concern were the lack of cooperation with the investigators and the allegations of threats to the uncle. In sum, the investigation had not been effective.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court further found a violation of Article 3, on account of the distress and anguish suffered by the applicant, a violation of Article 5 on account of the unacknowledged detention, and a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 on account of the lack of legal remedies.
Article 41: EUR 60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06 et al., 18 December 2012, Information Note no. 158)
