issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 232 (2011)  
08.11.2011  
A young man abducted and disappeared in Chechnya  
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Sambiyeva v. Russia (application  
no. 20205/07), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,  
unanimously, that there had been:  
A violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights  
concerning the disappearance of Said-Emin Sambiyev;  
A violation of Article 2 concerning the inadequate investigation into his disappearance;  
A violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)  
concerning the mental suffering of the young man’s mother;  
A violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the unacknowledged  
detention of Said-Emin Sambiyev; and,  
A violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.  
The case concerned the applicant’s allegations that her son had been abducted and killed  
by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation in Chechnya and that  
the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into her  
complaints.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, Gizhan Sambiyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in  
Grozny (Russia). She is the mother of Said-Emin Sambiyev, who was born in 1978 and  
has not been seen since August 2003. At the time of the events, Ms Sambiyeva lived in  
Tevzan; she currently lives in Grozny, Chechnya.  
In 2003, Said-Emin Sambiyev worked for the Security Service of the Chechen President.  
On 13 August 2003, he and a colleague of his were in a taxi going from the village of Ulus-  
Kert to the village of Makkhety. Their vehicle was stopped in the village of Tevzan, in the  
Vedeno district, at a checkpoint manned by servicemen of military unit no. 28337-A. They  
were detained at the checkpoint by the servicemen and taken to the 45th Airborne Forces  
Regiment in the village of Khatuni, in the Vedeno district of Chechnya. Their abduction  
was witnessed by a person whose car was also stopped at that checkpoint and who was  
told by the servicemen that the two young men would be taken for an identity check to  
the 45th regiment’s base, in the military base in Khatuni.  
On 25 August 2003, Said-Emin’s colleague, with whom he travelled on 13 August, was  
released from detention in Khatuni. According to him, both he and Said-Emin had been  
detained in separate pits in the ground which had been filled with water. Said-Emin had  
been beaten up and could barely speak at the time when he had seen him, shortly before  
his release. The abductors had told him that Said-Emin would be released on the following  
day.  
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  
The Russian Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicant. They  
accepted that Said-Emin had been travelling together with someone else in a car from  
Ulus-Kert in the Shatoi district to Makhkety in the Vedeno district on 13 August 2003 and  
that they had been stopped by military servicemen in armoured vehicles. After that, the  
two men had been taken to the military unit stationed in Khatuni. Eleven days later, Said-  
Emin’s companion had been released while Said-Emin’s fate had remained unclear.  
Said-Emin’s mother applied in person and in writing to various authorities asking for help  
in finding her son. While an investigation was opened into her son’s disappearance on the  
same day when she complained to the prosecution about it, the file had been mostly  
forwarded from one law-enforcement office to another without success. The investigation  
had also been suspended and restarted numerous times, and she had received almost no  
information about its progress.  
The Government submitted that following the opening of the investigation, they had  
questioned many witnesses, including Said-Emin’s mother, his colleague with whom he  
had been travelling on the day of his abduction and his director at the Security Service of  
the Chechen President. The investigation had been suspended several times for failure to  
identify the perpetrators, yet it had been resumed after each suspension and the applicant  
had been informed accordingly. The investigation was still on-going; it had established  
that no special operations had been carried out on the day of Said-Emin’s disappearance  
and that law-enforcement authorities had never arrested him on any charges.  
Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose most of the  
contents of the investigation file in the criminal case into Said-Emin’s abduction referring  
to the incompatibility of such a step with domestic criminal procedure legislation.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Articles 2, 3, 5, and 13, the applicant complained that her son had been  
abducted and killed by Russian servicemen, that no effective investigation had been  
carried out into her related complaints, that she had suffered as a result of Said-Emin’s  
disappearance, that he had been detained unlawfully and that she had not had an  
effective remedy in respect of her complaints.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 April 2007.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:  
Nina Vajić (Croatia), President,  
Anatoly Kovler (Russia),  
Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),  
Elisabeth Steiner (Austria),  
Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),  
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),  
Erik Møse (Norway), Judges,  
and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Right to life (Article 2)  
The Court observed that despite its requests for copies of documents related to the  
investigative steps taken in connection with Said-Emin’s disappearance, the Russian  
Government had produced only some of the documents from the case file.  
2
The applicant’s allegations had been supported by the witness statements collected by the  
investigation which had accepted the factual assumptions presented by Said-Emin’s  
mother. The authorities had concluded that military servicemen had detained him and  
taken him to the military unit in Khatuni. The fact that they could not find any evidence  
showing that State agents had abducted Said-Amin did not absolve them from the  
responsibility to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in  
question had occurred.  
The Court examined the documents submitted by the parties and, drawing inferences from  
the Government’s failure to submit the remaining documents which were in its exclusive  
possession, or to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question, the  
Court concluded that Said-Emin Sambiyev had been arrested on 13 August 2003 by State  
servicemen, following which he had disappeared. Given that there had been no reliable  
news from Said-Emin since the day of his abduction, the Court concluded that he had to  
be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen.  
Consequently, in the absence of any justification for his disappearance and death, the  
Court held that the Russian Government had been responsible for Said-Emin’s presumed  
death, in violation of Article 2.  
Investigation (Article 2)  
The Court noted that the abduction of Said-Emin had been investigated. However, most of  
the documents related to the investigation had not been disclosed to the Court. In  
addition, a number of essential investigative steps had not been taken at all and Ms  
Sambiyeva had not been kept properly informed of the investigation’s progress.  
The investigation had been suspended at least six times and there had been lengthy  
periods of inactivity which had led to unnecessary protraction. Due to the time which had  
elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative measures which should have  
been carried out could no longer be usefully conducted. Ms Sambiyeva, who had not had  
access to the case file and had not been properly informed of the progress of the  
investigation, could not effectively challenge the acts or omissions of the investigative  
authorities before a court.  
Consequently, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the  
circumstances surrounding Said-Emin’s disappearance, in violation of Article. 2.  
Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3)  
The Court noted that Ms Sambiyeva was the mother of the disappeared man. For more  
than six years she had not had news from him. Despite her attempts, she had never  
received any plausible explanation or information about what had happened to her son.  
The replies she had received had mostly denied State responsibility for her son’s arrest or  
simply informed her that the investigation had been ongoing.  
There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 3 in respect of Ms Sambiyeva.  
Deprivation of liberty (Article 5)  
The Court held that as Ms Sambiyeva’s son had been held in unacknowledged detention  
without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, that represented a particularly grave  
violation of the right to liberty and security.  
Effective remedy (Article 13)  
The criminal investigations into the disappearance and death of Ms Sambiyeva’s son had  
been ineffective, and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed had  
3
consequently been undermined. Russia had therefore failed in its obligation under Article  
13 and there had, therefore, been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.  
Just satisfaction (Article 41)  
The Court held that Russia was to pay Ms Sambiyeva euros (EUR) 12,000 in respect of  
pecuniary damage, EUR 50,000 in respect of non pecuniary damage and EUR 4,815 for  
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  
www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s  
RSS feeds.  
Press contacts  
[email protected]e.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)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Petra Leppee-Fraize (tel: + 33 3 90 21 29 07)  
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