issued by the Registrar of the Court  
no. 039  
20.01.2011  
Young man abducted and tortured by State agents in Chechnya  
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Gisayev v. Russia (application no. 14811/04),  
which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there  
had been:  
Two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading  
treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;  
Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security);  
Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Aricle 3);  
No violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition).  
The case concerned the abduction, unacknowledged detention and torture of Akhmed  
Gisayev in the fall of 2003 and the lack of effective investigation into that.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, Akhmed Gisayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in  
Grozny in the Chechen Republic of Russia.  
According to Akhmed, he was abducted from his home at about 7 a.m. on 23 October  
2003 by a group of twenty to thirty men wearing camouflage uniforms with a sign on the  
forearm saying “Armed Forces of Russia”, black masks, sub-machine guns, bullet-proof  
jackets and helmets. They spoke unaccented Russian and were very well coordinated.  
After searching his house, the men put him on a vehicle and drove away placing a shirt  
over his head.  
He was taken consecutively to three different places, unknown to him, where he was  
beaten and tortured, throughout the period until his release on 8 November 2003, in an  
attempt to find out whether he knew anything about the Chechen rebels and weapon  
hoards. In particular, his abductors ran electricity through his body, beat him all over the  
body, hung him by his arms, stepped on him and kicked him, made him lie on a floor  
covered with water, put a gas-mask on his face and made him inhale suffocating smells,  
repeatedly threatened to kill him and his family, and forced him to drink alcohol and  
smoke cigarettes to check whether he was not a radical Islamic fundamentalist.  
While he did not know the exact buildings in which he was held, he recognised the places  
to be near the premises of the operational-search bureau ORB-2, the FSB (Federal  
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month  
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the  
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further  
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral  
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for  
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:  
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
 
Security Service), the Organised Crime Unit (“the UBOP”), the military commander’s  
office and the government of the Chechen Republic.  
On 8 November 2003, Akhmed’s abductors told him to leave Chechnya or else they  
would kill him and his family, following which they took him to a relative of his working  
for the law-enforcement authorities. Akhmed saw his relative give something to two  
servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms with the Russian military sign on the sleeves.  
Alkhmed discovered later that his relatives had paid a ransom of about 1,500 US dollars  
for his release. He did not disclose the identity of the relative who brought him home as  
he feared for his life.  
After his return home, Akhmed suffered from major health problems, including severe  
brain contusion, recurring hypertensive-hydrocephalic crises, recurring vestibular crises,  
strongly pronounced astheno-neurotic syndrome. He could hardly walk, trembled, could  
not sleep, had severe head-aches, at times lost his coordination and memory of current  
events, ached strongly in various places and felt dizziness and weakness. He submitted  
medical certificates evidencing the above complaints.  
An investigation into Akhmed’s abduction was opened on 1 November 2003 and is still  
pending. Some witnesses were interviewed, however, the Russian Government did not  
disclose any material related to the investigation referring to the incompatibility of such  
a step with Russian legislation.  
Akhmed also complained that he was intimidated on several occasions after his release  
by several people - including prosecutors, investigators and police officers - who  
threatened him and told him he was lucky to be alive and should better agree to the  
closing of the investigation.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Articles 3, 5, 13 and 34, Akhmed complained that he had been abducted,  
detained and tortured, and there had been no effective investigation into it, that he had  
been intimidated by the Russian authorities in relation to his complaint to the Court and  
he did not have an effective remedy for his complaints.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 April 2004.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:  
Christos Rozakis (Greece), President,  
Nina Vajić (Croatia),  
Anatoly Kovler (Russia),  
Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg),  
Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway),  
Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland),  
George Nicolaou (Cyprus), Judges,  
and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Article 3  
Investigation  
2
The Court recalled that an obligation to investigate was not an obligation of result but an  
obligation of means: not every investigation could necessarily be successful or come to  
the conclusion advanced by the claimant. However, investigations should, in principle, be  
capable to lead to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations  
proved to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible. In addition,  
to be effective, investigations had to be thorough and prompt.  
The Russian Government had not disclosed any documents from the investigation into  
Akhmed’s abduction. In the light of that, it had been impossible for the Court to establish  
what investigative measures had been taken, how promptly, and - even - whether they  
had been taken at all. Referring to the investigative steps which the Government  
asserted had been carried out, the Court noted that the following crucial steps appeared  
to have never been carried out: no police officers had been interviewed, no attempt had  
been made to verify Akhmed’s submission that he had been detained on the premises of  
ORB-2, no forensic examination had been made of the clothes in which he had been  
detained and his relatives had not been questioned after his release. Accordingly, the  
effectiveness of the investigation had been critically undermined. Given that it had been  
pending for many years without any tangible result, the Court found that the Russian  
authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into Akhmed’s allegations of  
ill-treatment. There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 3.  
Torture  
The Court was satisfied that Akhmed had presented a very detailed, coherent and  
convincing picture of his abduction, detention and alleged ill-treatment. The Government  
had refused to produce any documents related to the investigation and the Court could  
thus draw inferences from it in respect of Akhmed’s allegations. In addition, Akhmed had  
submitted medical documentation attesting to injuries and illnesses he had complained  
had been the result of his ill-treatment in detention. In the absence of any explanation  
by the Government about how Akhmed’s abduction, detention and injuries had occurred,  
the Court found that Akhmed had been kidnapped and held in unacknowledged detention  
by the Russian authorities, who ill-treated him as he had described. Given the level of  
pain and permanent anxiety caused to him by the on-going ill-treatment, the grave  
after-effects described by him and attested in the medical certificates, the Court  
concluded that Akhmed had been tortured, in violation of Article 3.  
Article 5  
Having regard to its above finding that Akhmed had been detained by the authorities on  
23 October 2003 and the fact that the Government had not given any satisfactory  
explanation about his detention from that date until his release on 8 November 2003,  
the Court held that during that period Akhmed had been held in unacknowledged  
detention in complete disregard of the safeguards in Article 5. That had been a  
particularly grave violation of his right to liberty and security and there had, therefore,  
been a violation of Article 5.  
Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3  
Given that the investigation into the events had been inadequate, any other remedy  
available to Akhmed, including a claim for damages, had had limited chances of success.  
Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.  
Article 34  
The Court was unable to establish whether the alleged occasions of pressure put on  
Akhmed and his relatives had been connected to his application before it. Likewise, the  
Court could not establish that they had taken placed at all, given that no evidence, such  
3
as statements by Akhmed’s relatives had been presented to confirm his allegations.  
Finally, Akhmed had only raised his complaint about pressure put on him two years after  
the lodging of his application before the Court. Accordingly, the alleged breach of Article  
34 had not been established.  
Article 41  
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Russia was to  
pay Akhmed 55,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,957 in  
respect of costs and expenses.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.  
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its  
Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS  
feeds.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)  
Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)  
Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of  
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
4