issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 147 (2015)

30.04.2015

Judgments and decisions of 30 April 2015

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 13 judgments¹and 37 decisions²:

three Chamber judgments are summarised below; for two others, in the cases of Kapetanios and

Others v. Greece (applications nos. 3453/12, 42941/12 and 9028/13) and Mitrinovski v. “The former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 6899/12), separate press releases have been issued;

eight Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,

and the 37 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Islamova v. Russia (application no. 5713/11)

The applicant, Zulay Islamova, is a Russian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Urus-Martan,

the Chechen Republic (Russia). The case concerned her complaint that her two sons had been

abducted by State servicemen in 2000.

Ms Islamova’s sons, Apti and Said-Emi Islamov, born in 1976 and 1981 respectively, worked as

policemen at a district department of the interior in Grozny. On 14 October 2000, they were driving

from Grozny to Urus-Martan with two colleagues when they were arrested at a checkpoint near the

outskirts of Grozny, staffed by police officers from a special task unit. Later on the same day, several

vehicles with a group of armed servicemen wearing masks arrived at the checkpoint. Ms Islamova’s

sons have gone missing since.

Three days after the incident, the Groznya town administration complained to the Grozny

prosecutor on Ms Islamova’s behalf about the abduction of her sons by State servicemen. A few days

later the prosecutor interviewed a number of officers who had manned the checkpoint on the day in

question. On 22 December 2000 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation

into the abduction. Ms Islamova was granted victim status in May 2003. The investigation was

subsequently suspended and reopened on several occasions, and it remains pending.

In their submissions to the European Court of Human Rights, the Russian Government have not

disputed the circumstances of the abduction as presented by Ms Islamova, but according to them it

was not possible to establish whether her sons had been detained by law-enforcement agencies in

violation of the relevant procedure or whether physical force had been used.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Islamova

complained that her sons had been abducted and killed by State officials and that the Russian

authorities had failed to carry out effective investigations into those matters. Relying on Article 3

(prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and

Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she further complained of the mental suffering caused to

her by the disappearance of her sons, of the unlawfulness of their detention, and of the fact that she

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber

judgment’s 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. Under Article 28 of the

Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.

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

²Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.

had not had a legal remedy available at national level in respect of her complaints, in particular

under Articles 2 and 3.

Violation of Article 2 (right to life) – in respect of Mr Apti Islamov and Mr Said-Emi Islamov

Violation of Article 2 (investigation)

Violation of Article 3 – in respect of Ms Islamova, on account of her sons’ disappearance and the

authorities’ response to her suffering

Violation of Article 5 –- in respect of Mr Apti Islamov and Mr Said-Emi Islamov

Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3

Just satisfaction: 20,000 euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage), EUR 120,000 (non-pecuniary damage),

and EUR 2,553 (costs and expenses)

Shamardakov v. Russia (no. 13810/04)*

The applicant, Mr Pavel Shamardakov is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in

Vladikavkaz.

The case concerned allegations of inhuman and degrading treatment on the part of the police and of

an unfair trial leading to the applicant’s conviction.

Suspected of murdering a young woman, Mr Shamardakov was arrested on 21 May 2003 and taken

to the Zaterechniy police station in the city of Vladikavkaz where, according to him, he was severely

beaten by police officers to make him confess. He did not confess but gave a detailed account of his

day to the officers. Subsequently, assisted by a lawyer, he chose to remain silent.

On 30 May 2003 Mr Shamardakov filed a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office about the

alleged ill-treatment. After preliminary and additional investigations, the complaint was dropped

and the discontinuance of proceedings was confirmed by the domestic courts, ultimately by the

Supreme Court of North Ossetia-Alania on 22 September 2004.

In a judgment of 30 December 2004 the Supreme Court of North Ossetia-Alania, based on

circumstantial evidence and the initial statements given by Mr Shamardakov to the police after his

arrest, found him guilty of voluntary homicide and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. Two

reviews of the applicant’s case, on 15 October 2009 and 30 December 2010, after notice of the

application had been given to the Government, led to his conviction being upheld. Although those

judgments no longer contained any express reference to the applicant’s initial statements, they

reiterated that the applicant had not been subjected to any ill-treatment.

The applicant alleged that following his arrest he had been subjected to treatment that had been

incompatible with Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and that the authorities

had not carried out an effective investigation in this connection. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a

fair trial) and Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to the assistance of a lawyer), he argued that he had been

deprived of a fair trial on account of the use, for the purposes of his conviction, of statements

obtained by means of ill-treatment, and the absence of a lawyer when he had been held in police

custody.

Violation of Article 3 (investigation)

Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 c)

Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 EUR (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,400 (costs and expenses)

Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 66338/09)

The applicant, Oleksandr Yaremenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and is currently

serving a life sentence in Zhytomyr Prison (Ukraine). The case concerned a review of his criminal

case by the Supreme Court of Ukraine following a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights

in a previous case concerning his conviction (Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 32092/02)).

Mr Yaremenko was convicted of two counts of murder, allegedly committed in 1998 and 2001, and

sentenced to life imprisonment in a judgment eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of Ukraine in

April 2002. In his previous case before the European Court of Human Rights, he complained in

particular: that he had been ill-treated in police custody and that his complaints in that regard had

not been given due consideration; that he had been deprived of legal assistance of his own choosing

during part of the proceedings; and that he had been forced to incriminate himself. In its Chamber

judgment of 12 June 2008, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 3

(prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment – obligation to conduct an effective investigation)

on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into

Mr Yaremenko’s allegations that he had been ill-treated by the police. It also found a violation of

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and to legal assistance), in particular on account of the fact

that his lawyer had been dismissed from the case by the investigator after having advised

Mr Yaremenko to remain silent and not to testify against himself; on account of the fact that there

had been no adequate investigation into his allegations that the statement had been obtained by

illicit means; and taking into consideration that his conviction for the 1998 crime had been based

mainly on his confession, which had been obtained by the investigators in the absence of a lawyer

and which he had retracted the very next day.

In December 2008 Mr Yaremenko requested an extraordinary review of his criminal case before the

Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined his case in July 2009 in his absence but in the

presence of his lawyer. It found that his written confession of the 1998 crime had been obtained in

violation of the requirements of criminal procedure law and thus should be excluded from the

evidence. However, that exclusion did not change the conclusions of the court, as there were other

pieces of evidence to prove his guilt. It was therefore not necessary to quash the judgment in his

case.

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial / right to legal assistance), Mr Yaremenko

complained that the Supreme Court, instead of referring the case to a trial court for fresh

consideration, had reassessed the facts and evidence in his case, despite having no jurisdiction to do

so. He further complained that his right to remain silent and his right to defence had been violated

again, given that the Supreme Court – while excluding part of the evidence obtained in breach of

these rights – had relied on other pieces of evidence obtained in the same manner. Finally, he

complained that the retrial had been conducted in his absence; and that he had not had adequate

facilities to prepare his defence as he had not been informed of the evidence on which the

prosecution had intended to rely in view of his initial confessions being excluded.

Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3

Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)

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 here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter

@ECHR_Press.

Press contacts