issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 319 (2012)

31.07.2012

Russia failed to account for disappearance of husband and father

of five in Chechnya

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Umarova and Others v. Russia (application

no. 25654/08), which is not final¹, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,

that there had been:

Violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights

concerning the disappearance of Khamzat Umarov;

Violation of Article 2 of the Convention concerning the inadequate investigation into

Khamzat Umarov’s disappearance;

Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning

the mental suffering of Khamzat Umarov’s wife and children;

Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the unacknowledged

detention of Khamzat Umarov; and a

Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.

The case concerned the disappearance of a man, husband and father of five, and the

inadequate investigation into the events surrounding it.

Principal facts

The applicants are six Russian nationals who were born between 1959 and 1991

respectively and live in Achkhoy-Martan, the Chechen Republic, (Russia). They are the wife

and five children of Khamzat Umarov who was born in 1956.

They alleged that Khamzat Umarov was abducted from his home during the night of

30 July 2001 when a group of about 15 men in camouflage uniforms rushed into their

house at around 4 a.m. All intruders were armed with automatic weapons and spoke

unaccented Russian. Some of them were wearing masks, and those who did not were of

Slavic appearance. They took Khamzat Umarov outside and put him into one of the two

vehicles parked in the street. Immediately afterwards, both cars drove away in the

direction where the District Department of the Interior and the Federal Security Service

were situated at the time.

Khamzat Umarov’s wife reported the abduction to the authorities on the day it occurred

and subsequently complained to a number of State bodies. An official investigation was

opened in January 2002. It was subsequently suspended and reopened numerous times.

The investigating steps comprised mostly of questioning witnesses who generally

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

confirmed that Khamzat had been abducted by armed masked men in July 2001. On a

number of occasions, the supervising prosecutors criticised the investigation as incomplete

and ordered its resumption. The investigation has not been completed to date. Although

she was given victim’s status, Khamzat Umarov’s wife has not been informed of the

investigation’s progress other than of its suspension or reopening. There has been no news

of Khamzat Umarov since his abduction in 30 July 2001.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicants alleged that Russian servicemen had been responsible for their husband’s

and father’s disappearances, and that the investigation into their allegations had been

inadequate. They relied in particular on Article 2, Article 3, Article 5 and Article 13.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 April 2008.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Nina Vajić (Croatia), President,

Anatoly Kovler (Russia),

Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),

Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),

Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),

Julia Laffranque (Estonia),

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),

and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 2 (disappearance)

The Court stated that when an individual was detained by unidentified servicemen, without

any subsequent knowledge of the detention, and was then missing for several years, the

situation could be regarded as life-threatening. It concluded that Khamzat Umarov had to

be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State agents. In the

absence of any justification by the Russian Government, his death could be attributed to

the State. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Khamzat Umarov.

Article 2 (investigation)

The Court also found that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal

investigation into the circumstances surrounding Khamzat’s disappearance, in particular for

the following reasons. The investigation had been started only about six months after the

authorities were put on notice about the abduction. Furthermore, the investigators had

neither examined the crime scene at the place of arrest, not had they checked the

registration log of detainees held by the military unit who had allegedly taken Khamzat. In

addition, the investigation had been prematurely suspended, which undermined the

investigators’ ability to identify and punish the perpetrators. Also, despite that the

supervising prosecutors had criticised the investigators for failure to take important

actions, the omissions had not been remedied. The applicants had not been kept properly

informed of the investigation’s progress and had thus not been able to challenge acts or

omissions of the investigative authorities. In the absence of any explanation for the above

shortcomings, the Court concluded that the authorities had failed to demonstrate diligence

and promptness during the investigation, in violation of Article 2.

Article 3

The Court found a violation of Article 3 in respect of the mental suffering endured by

Khamzat’s wife and children as a result of his disappearance and the authorities’ failure to

investigate it properly. Khamzat’s relatives had not had any news of him for more than 10

years and, despite their attempts, they had never received any plausible explanation or

information about what happened to him after his apprehension.

Article 5

The Court found that Khamzat Umarov had been held in unacknowledged detention without

any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which represented a particularly grave

violation of the right to liberty and security.

Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2

The criminal investigation into Khamzat’s disappearance had been ineffective, and the

effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed had consequently been

undermined. The State had therefore failed in its obligation under Article 13. As a result,

there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The Court held that Russia was to pay 2,000 euros (EUR) to each of the children and wife

of Khamzat Umarov, as well as EUR 60,000 jointly to them in respect of non-pecuniary

damage, and EUR 1,260 for costs and expenses to the applicants’ representative.

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

www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.

Press contacts

[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

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.