European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF KHADZHIMURADOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 21194/09 and 16 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

 

10 October 2017

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

 




In the case of Khadzhimuradov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

          Branko Lubarda, President,
          Luis López Guerra,
          Helen Keller,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Alena Poláčková,
          Georgios A. Serghides,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 September 2017,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in seventeen applications (no. 21194/09 and sixteen others) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty Russian nationals. A list of the applicants, their personal details and a summary of the main complaints are set out in the Appendix.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

3.  The applicants alleged that their twenty-one relatives had been killed in February 2000 in Grozny in violation of Article 2 of the Convention, that there had been no effective investigation into those killings, and that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been breached.

4.  On 5 September 2015 the applications were communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A.  Summary

5.  The applicants alleged principally that their twenty-one relatives (spouses, children, brothers and an uncle) had been killed by State servicemen on 5 February 2000 in the Novye Aldy settlement on the outskirts of Grozny (see Appendix for details).

6.  A criminal investigation into the murders was opened on 5 March 2000 by the Grozny town prosecutor’s office. Over the years, the applicants or close members of their families were granted victim status in the proceedings. Those proceedings are still ongoing.

7.  The documents indicate that only one applicant, Olga Soltykhanova (application no. 22304/10), was in the Novye Aldy at the time of the events; the other applicants were out of the district or out of Chechnya, owing to heavy fighting in the preceding months.

8.  In support of their claims, the applicants submitted copies of the death certificates issued in respect of their relatives, copies of some documents from the criminal investigation file, decisions granting them or their close relatives victim status in the criminal proceedings, statements which they had made, statements from witnesses to the events, and press and NGO reports. Several applicants also submitted documents issued in 2000 and 2001 by the local administration or “neighbourhood committees” confirming that the houses in which they had lived had been destroyed or damaged in 2000.

9.  Some applicants complained that their state of health had deteriorated due to the stress and anguish which they had suffered in the aftermath of the Novye Aldy killings, and particularly in view of the inadequate and callous response of the authorities to their plight.

B.  Information from Musayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 57941/00, 58699/00 and 60403/00

10.  The facts of the present case are connected to the case of Musayev and Others v. Russia (nos. 57941/00 and 2 others, 26 July 2007) in so far as the applicants claimed that their relatives had been killed by the same people and in the same circumstances as the relatives of the applicants in that case.

11.  The applicants in Musayev and Others complained that eleven of their relatives had been killed by unidentified servicemen on 5 February 2000 in the Novye Aldy. The first applicant had witnessed the deaths of his seven distant relatives (cousins and nephews). Other applicants in Musayev and Others were more closely connected to the victims, and were their husband, sister or brothers. The first applicant had been granted victim status in the domestic criminal proceedings and had participated in those proceedings (see Musayev and Others, cited above, §§ 68, 81, 94). It appeared that in the domestic criminal proceedings the proximity of the relationships between the victims and the deceased had not been fully ascertained, and, as noted in the Musayev and Others judgment, no single list existed of the victims and the people who had been granted victim status in the proceedings (ibid., §§ 74, 80, 162). The Government did not challenge the first applicant’s victim status under Article 2 of the Convention.

12.  On the basis of the parties’ submissions and inferences drawn by the Court, it was established that on 5 February 2000 eleven relatives of the applicants had been killed by State servicemen in the Novye Aldy settlement on the outskirts of Grozny, during a special operation (a “sweeping” operation) carried out by, amongst others, servicemen from the Police Special Task Unit (Отдел милиции особого назначения (ОМОН)) from St Petersburg (hereinafter the St Petersburg OMON).

13.  According to the documents examined by the Court, more than fifty people had been killed on that day in the Novye Aldy by unidentified servicemen wearing camouflaged uniforms and using automatic weapons, equipped with portable radio sets, armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and military Ural trucks. The same servicemen had also looted and burnt down a number of houses.

14.  In April 2006, when the parties exchanged observations in Musayev and Others, the criminal investigation was still ongoing. Although the investigation file reflected some attempts to identify the servicemen involved, there was no information that anyone had been charged with the crimes. The Court concluded that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the deaths.

15.  In addition, the first applicant, who had witnessed the deaths of his relatives and had himself been held at gunpoint, was found to be a victim of inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Lastly, a breach of Article 13 of the Convention was found, since the criminal investigation into the deaths had been inefficient, rendering any other remedy equally futile.

C.  Information about the investigation after 2007

16.  On 5 March 2000 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal investigation no. 12011 into the murder of several inhabitants of the Novye Aldy settlement in Grozny by “unidentified men armed with guns” under Article 105 § 2 of the Criminal Code (the murder of two or more persons with aggravating circumstances); the decision also referred to the looting of residents’ property. In response to the Court’s request in the present case, the Government submitted copies of eight volumes of documents from criminal case no. 12011, produced after the judgment issued in Musayev and Others. Those documents can be summarised as follows.

1.  The applicants’ involvement

17.  The applicants submitted that, prior to the Musayev and Others judgment in July 2007, they had not been aware that another group of victims had applied to the Court. They also submitted that, prior to that date, they had had no reasons to doubt the effectiveness of the domestic investigation, even if no regular updates from the prosecutor’s office had been forthcoming. Some of the applicants also referred to their previous contact with lawyers whom they had instructed to apply to the Court in 2005, but one lawyer had died, and either their instructions to other lawyers had not been complied with or the applicants had not kept any written proof of those instructions. As the documents in the Court’s possession indicate, in March 2005 thirty-one families of victims of the Aldy events sent a letter to the Court stating their intention to apply to the Court. That letter included at least ten applicants in the present case. The signatories failed to submit proper applications or otherwise pursue that complaint, which was eventually discontinued.

18.  The deaths of eleven people were found to be in breach of Article 2 of the Convention in the Musayev and Others judgment (cited above), and the family members of five of those people are applicants in the present complaint (see Appendix). While the first applicant in the Musayev and Others case was a cousin and a nephew of the deceased, the applicants in the present group are the deceased’s spouses, children and brothers.

19.  The applicants in the present case (or their close relatives) were granted victim status in criminal investigation file no. 12011 on various dates between March 2000 and June 2012 (see Appendix). Eight applicants were questioned and received victim status in March and April 2000. Six were granted victim status in April and May 2004, and one in March 2005. The other five received such status between December 2007 and July 2012. On 19 April 2004 the investigator of the Chechnya prosecutor’s office granted an application made by a lawyer, Mr A. Khamzayev. The application was for thirty-two people to have victim status. The list included fourteen applicants in the present case, twelve of whom later obtained and countersigned proper individual decisions as indicated above. There is no information that any other procedural acts involving the applicants’ participation occurred between April 2000 and December 2007 (see the following paragraph).

20.  The investigation was adjourned and resumed a number of times (see subsection 5.  Various procedural steps below); on 5 December 2007 the investigation was resumed. As of 2008 the applicants in the present case and in Musayev and Others and their close relatives were regularly questioned about the events of 5 February 2000. Thus, in December 2008 the following applicants were questioned: Zoya Musayeva (no. 21200/09), Malika Ganayeva (no. 30538/09), Ruslan Khadzhimuradov (no. 21194/09), Birland Tasuyeva (no. 27064/09), Ibragim Musayev (no. 21200/09), Aset Khakimova (no. 32851/09), Osman Kudozov (no. 30578/09), Manshura Sugaipova (no. 27259/09), Birlant Beterakhmadova (no. 24693/09), Baret Shamsatova (no. 27159/09), Abulkhasan Khaydayev (no. 30531/09), Alpatu Khirikhanova (no. 24700/09), Yakhita Bishayeva (no. 32855/09), and Yakhita Dzhabrailova (no. 32992/09). In November 2012 the investigators questioned Elina Umarkhadzhiyeva and Madina Dzhamaldayeva (no. 30538/09); in December 2013 they questioned Rashid Gerikhanov (no. 27063/09), Aysest Musostova (no. 32862/09), Abulkhasan Khaydayev (no. 30531/09), and Birlant Beterakhmadova (no. 24693/09). During questioning, the investigators informed the applicants about forensic expert reports on the bodies that had been carried out in 2000. The applicants were also asked questions about the loss of property and were asked to estimate the pecuniary damage which they had sustained. While they provided some estimates, no documents were provided, and all applicants stated that they intended to seek pecuniary damages as civil parties during the trial.

21.  Additional questioning of the applicants, their relatives and other local residents continued into 2009 and the years which followed. New victims of the events were identified as late as 2014, and their relatives were granted victim status in the proceedings. The questioning of other local residents continued until 2014, when they were granted victim status in the proceedings, notably in respect of the loss of property.

22.  On 9 February 2009 Mrs Birlant Beterakhmadova (application no. 24693/09) complained to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny regarding the decision of 24 November 2008 to adjourn the investigation and the prosecutor’s failure to conduct an efficient investigation into the murders.

23.  On 3 April 2009 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court noted that the decision of 24 November 2008 had been quashed on 15 March 2009 by the Chechnya Investigative Committee, and dismissed Mrs Beterakhmadova’s complaint. She did not appeal against that decision.

2.  The identification and charging of S.B.

24.  The decision of 10 April 2006 to adjourn the investigation (and subsequent similar documents) indicates that in May 2005 the investigation identified S.B. as a suspect. He was charged with aggravated murder and robbery. In February 2000 S.B. had been a police technician with the sapper battalion of the St Petersburg OMON. The charges stated that on 5 February 2000 he, along with three other unidentified persons, had killed Mr Sultan Dzhabrailov (the husband of Mrs Yakhita Dzhabrailova, applicant in case no. 32992/09) by shooting him with a Kalashnikov machine gun. S.B. was also charged with robbing two other people of money and jewellery, A.M and B.M. In October 2005 S.B. escaped to Belarus and his name was put on the international wanted list. In February 2006 the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny ruled that S.B. should be arrested. The decision of 10 April 2006 states that the investigator informed the victims of that decision, but the case file contains no relevant correspondence. Copies of letters submitted by the parties indicate that a copy of that decision was sent to the victims on 14 November 2007.

25.  In April 2011 the investigators asked the prosecutor’s office in St Petersburg to question S.B.’s civil partner about his whereabouts. In November 2012 she stated that she had had no information about S.B.’s whereabouts since 2006, although she had seen him in 2008 in St Petersburg.

26.  In November 2012 the investigators examined a social network page belonging to S.B. and noted that the latest photographs on it had been uploaded in 2007. In May 2013 the investigators sought to obtain additional information about S.B.’s whereabouts by questioning his other relatives, locating his mobile phone, and so on.

3.  Identification of other servicemen

27.  During the questioning of victims and witnesses the investigators collected additional information about the suspects. Thus, in February 2009 Mr Ibragim Musayev (application no. 21200/09) referred to servicemen from the 245th motorised rifle regiment, the commander of that regiment, and the commander of company no. 6 (see Musayev and Others, cited above, § 107) as possible suspects.

28.  In April 2010 the investigation produced a list of over 170 servicemen of the St Petersburg OMON who had been posted in Chechnya in February 2000, and asked for verification of whether one of them had a tattoo in the shape of a snake on his neck, mentioned by one of the witnesses. Dozens of servicemen were inspected, but no one with a snake-shaped tattoo was identified. When questioned in February 2011, the servicemen, in brief statements, confirmed that they had served in Chechnya in February 2000 but had no knowledge of the civilians killed in the Novye Aldy.

29.  In April 2010 the investigators sent a letter asking the prosecutor of the Northern Caucasus military circuit to identify and question the servicemen and commanders of the 245th motorised rifle regiment (see Musayev and Others, cited above, §§ 105-07). The letter contained detailed information and questions about the events of 5 February 2000, and asked the prosecutor to identify and question the people who had used known radio call signs and to identify the commanders of the operation. In June 2010 an officer of the military unit concerned stated, as a witness, that all details about the use of radio equipment and the assignment of calls were stored as secret information for five years. Several reminders followed in 2011 asking, in particular, for the former commander of the 245th regiment, Major-General S.L., to be questioned.

30.  In June 2010 the investigator in charge sought similar information from another military unit (the 15th motorised rifle regiment), including the names of the unit commanders who had taken part in the operation on 5 February 2000. In particular, the letter referred to the commander of company no. 6 of the regiment, who, the investigators suggested, had written a note left by the servicemen for the local residents.

31.  In May 2011 the investigators asked the military investigators to submit information about the commanders of the 245th motorised rifle regiment and to ask them a number of specific questions about the events of 5 February 2000.

32.  In April 2011 the investigators asked the investigator of St Petersburg to carry out additional ballistic reports on 357 guns used by the St Petersburg OMON in February 2000.

33.  In May 2011 the investigator in charge informed the military prosecutor of the Southern military circuit that the special operation on 5 February 2000 in the south of Grozny had been under the command of Colonel Ye.K., the head of the operative headquarters of the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior. He reminded the military prosecutors of his previous requests for the commanders of that operation to be identified and questioned. It does not appear that any progress was achieved in this respect.

4.  Issues relating to property

34.  During additional questioning in the period 2009-2013, local residents were asked about the damage to their property caused in 2000. They explained that many houses had been burnt down by the servicemen, and that those who had stayed in the district had been forced to give up their jewellery and valuables as a result of threats. Others estimated the amount of pecuniary damage caused (see Appendix). No one was granted victim status in relation to any property offence and no additional documents were requested from the residents. The victims stated that they would seek damages in the course of a criminal trial, as civil parties.

35.  On 18 January 2014 the investigator ruled that no criminal proceedings should be opened in connection to the crimes relating to property, due to the expiration of the statutory limits for those crimes. It does not appear that that decision was challenged. In December 2014 decisions according civil party status in criminal proceedings with regard to property claims were issued in respect of the following applicants: Ayset Musostova (no. 32862/090), Birlant Beterakhmadova (no. 24693) and Zoya Musayeva (no. 21200/09). Osman Kudozov (application no. 30578/09) submitted documents which indicated that the house for which he claimed compensation had been owned by M.K., his sister. In his written statement to the Court he stated that at some point M.K. had received compensation from the State for the lost property, but he submitted no relevant documents.

5.  Various procedural steps

36.  On 5 December 2007 the investigation of criminal case file no. 12011 into the events of 5 February 2000 was resumed, and the victims were informed accordingly.

37.  On 5 January 2008 the investigation was adjourned.

38.  The investigation was then resumed, but on 18 August 2008 was adjourned again, and the applicants were informed accordingly.

39.  The investigation was then resumed, but adjourned again on 24 November 2008. A letter informing the victims of the adjournment was dated 24 October 2008.

40.  It appears that the investigation was reopened and then adjourned again on 11 January 2009.

41.  It was then reopened in March 20009, and on 16 April 2009 adjourned again, for similar reasons as those stated in the decision of 10 April 2006 (see paragraph 24 above).

42.  On 22 March 2010 the Chechnya Investigative Committee gave an order for an investigating group to be set up which would include investigators from the military prosecutor’s office, in view of information about the possible implication of military servicemen in the crimes.

43.  In June 2010 the investigators watched a video filmed in the Novye Aldy on 9 February 2000 (see Musayev and Others, cited above, § 25) and produced the video’s transcript for the file.

44.  In November 2012 the investigators compiled a table of people who had been killed on 5 February 2000, indicating their places of burial, the next-of-kin granted victim status in the proceedings, and the dates of such decisions. The table contains information about forty-seven deaths, including the deaths of twenty people about which the applicants in the present case complain; the one exception is Isa Akhmadov, born in 1964 (the brother of Aysest Musostova, application no. 32862/09). At the same time, the table contains information about the death of a certain Isa Akhmatov, born in 1959, in respect of whose death another person (his brother) was questioned and granted victim status in June 2012.

45.  In December 2014 the investigation recognised civil party status of three applicants in connection with the destruction and theft of property during the events of 5 February 2000.

46.  It does not appear that the applicants were informed of any other developments, or that they sought further information from the investigating authorities.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

47.  Until 1 July 2002 criminal-law matters were governed by the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federalist Socialist Republic. From 1 July 2002 onwards the old Code was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (the CCP).

III.  INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXECUTION OF THE MUSAYEV AND OTHERS JUDGMENT

48.  Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)292 of 2 December 2011 on “Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 154 cases against the Russian Federation concerning actions of the security forces in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation” stated, in so far as relevant:

“The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the Convention”) ...

Acknowledging that the violations found in these judgments took place in the difficult context of the fight against terrorism as well as the practical difficulties arising out of conducting investigations into past events, which inevitably limit the possibilities open to the investigators;

Noting with interest the efforts reported by the Russian authorities with a view to remedying the shortcomings of the initial investigations, establishing the facts as well as the identities of those responsible, including servicemen and other representatives of federal forces who might have been involved in the events described in the judgments;

Noting further that these efforts have resulted in the identification of particular servicemen in a number of cases and in the arrest of one of the perpetrators in the Sadykov case;

Noting however with concern that despite the efforts made by the Investigative Committee and by other competent authorities, more than six years after the first judgments of the Court, in the vast majority of cases, it has not yet been possible to achieve conclusive results and to identify and to ensure the accountability of those responsible, even in cases where key elements have been established with sufficient clarity in the course of domestic investigations, including evidence implicating particular servicemen or military units in the events;

Underlining therefore the need to ensure that the investigating authorities make full and effective use of all means and powers at their disposal as well as to reflect on whether any other additional measures are still required, bearing in mind the difficulties inherent in investigations conducted into the consequences of a large-scale antiterrorist operation such as that at issue;

Stressing in addition that the necessary action in this respect should be taken as a matter of priority since with the passage of time, the risk of loss of evidence increases and even if they are eventually identified, the prosecution of those responsible may become impossible given the expiry of the time-limits in the statutes of limitation ...”

49.  Subsequent documents of the Committee of Ministers did not contain any relevant information about the progress in the investigation of the Musayev and Others case. In December 2016 the Committee of Ministers reiterated the following (document CM/Notes/1273/H46-25, 9 December 2016, Notes on the Agenda):

“General conclusion:

It is recalled that the Committee has followed the progress of the criminal investigations in the individual cases in this group since 2005, not only as a matter of individual measures, but also in order to assess the effectiveness of the general measures reported.

...

Developments have been followed since, as reflected in numerous decisions by the Committee. In this context, the Committee has notably emphasised the need for priority and comprehensive action in order to increase the effectiveness of domestic investigations, bearing in mind the risk that with further delay, the criminal liability of those responsible may become time barred.

The general conclusion today, in the light of the information provided by the Russian authorities as to the state of investigations (as detailed in table 2), some 10-15 years after the events at issue in these judgments, is that results continue to be largely absent.

In face of this situation, further action has to be taken. It is first important that investigations continue and that action to counter the problems observed with respect to their effectiveness, in particular the effects of prescription, is taken to prevent impunity. In addition, other avenues should be explored, “aimed at learning lessons and ensuring the non-repetition of similar occurrences in the future”, including through non-judicial mechanisms. It is recalled that this issue was addressed in the same spirit in the Abakarova judgment.”

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

50.  Given that the applications concern similar complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

51.  The applicants complained that their relatives had been killed and that no effective investigation had followed, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“1.  Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2.  Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a)  in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b)  in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c)  in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

52.  The Government contested that argument.

A.  Admissibility

53.  The Government put forward a number of objections to the admissibility of the applications. In particular, they challenged the dates indicated as being the dates on which some of the applications had been lodged, and consequently compliance with the six-month time-limit.

1.  Dates applications lodged

54.  The Government challenged the dates on which applications numbers 27259/09, 32851/09 and 22304/10 had been lodged. They observed that in each of those applications the application forms received in April 2009 and April 2010 had not been signed by the applicants. Duly signed application forms had reached the Court in September and August 2009 and October 2011. In the Government’s opinion, the latter dates should be taken as the dates on which the applications had been lodged, since incomplete and unsigned application forms could not constitute letters of introduction. The delay in making the applications had been so long that they should not be considered, under the Practice Directions on the institution of proceedings, appended to Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court and issued by the President of the Court in accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules of Court on 1 November 2003 (as amended on 24 June 2009).

55.  Furthermore, the Government were of the opinion that the application form submitted in application no. 27063/09 was so perfunctory in respect of both the subject matter of the complaint and the exhaustion of domestic remedies that it did not qualify as a proper application to the Court.

56.  The Court observes at the outset that the applicants’ first letters constituted “the first communication from the applicant[s] setting out, even summarily, the subject matter of the application” (Rule 47 § 5 of the Rules of Court, as set out at the relevant time). It also notes that, in accordance with Rule 47 § 5, in force at the time, the date of a first communication was considered to be the date of lodging the application, thus interrupting the six-month time-limit set by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The Court takes note of the Government’s reference to the Practice Direction of 1 November 2003, which set a time-limit of six weeks for a completed application form to be returned to the Registry. However, that time-limit was indicative, rather than obligatory. It aimed to ensure that applicants pursued their applications “with reasonable expedition” (see Smertin v. Russia, no. 19027/07, §§ 26-28, 2 October 2014). The Court further notes that subsequently the applicants signed and submitted the forms in question.

57.  As to the application form submitted in application no. 27063/09, it outlined the circumstances of the applicant’s wife’s murder on 5 February 2000 and the state of the proceedings in criminal case no. 12011, and contained copies of some relevant documents. Even though the applicant did not refer to any Articles of the Convention, this qualified as a “first communication” for the purposes of the Rules of Court as set out at that time.

58.  For these reasons, the Court finds that the dates on which the applications were lodged should stand.

2.  Compliance with the six-month time-limit

(a)  The parties’ arguments

59.  The Government stressed that the applicants had failed to submit their complaints within the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They pointed out that the material events complained of had occurred in February 2000, and the Court’s judgment in Musayev and Others finding a violation of both substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 had been delivered on 26 July 2007. However, the complaints had only been lodged in 2009 and 2010.

60.  The applicants denied that there had been excessive and unexplained delays in the submission of their applications to the Court. After the criminal investigations had been instituted in 2000 they had had no reason to doubt their effectiveness. They argued that “their behaviour in respect of the investigation [had been] determined not by a belief that the remedy was ineffective, but by ... an expectation that the authorities would, on their own initiative, give them a due response to the serious complaints.” They also drew attention to their lack of legal knowledge, as they had not had the means to hire a lawyer, and Russian legislation did not provide victims of crime with the right to free legal assistance. On several occasions some applicants had had contact with lawyers who could assist them with lodging a complaint, but this help had mostly been limited to pursuing the domestic remedies. Mr Khamzayev, a lawyer acting on their instructions, had lodged an application for victim status to be granted to thirty-two people. The application had been granted in April 2004, but the lawyer had died in June 2004. Either their contact with other lawyers had been unsuccessful, or the lawyers had not complied with the instructions given. Their hopes for the investigation had been revived by the publication of the Musayev and Others judgment in July 2007. As soon as the applicants had realised that the investigation was ineffective owing to the delays, they had applied to the Court.

(b)  The Court’s assessment

(i)  General principles

61.  In cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court has held that, where a death has occurred, relatives who are applicants are expected take steps to keep track of an investigation’s progress, or lack thereof, and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any appropriate redress, including effective criminal investigation (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 158, ECHR 2009, with further reference therein).

62.  At the same time, the Court has refrained from indicating a specific period for establishing when an ongoing investigation has become ineffective for the purposes of the six-month period. The determination of such a period by the Court depends on the circumstances of each case and other factors, such as the diligence and interest displayed by the applicants as well as the adequacy of the investigation in question (see Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005, and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, §§ 43 and 50, 15 December 2009). The Court has found that the ineffectiveness of an investigation will generally be more readily apparent in cases concerning violent death than in cases of disappearances which are characterised by uncertainty and confusion; the requirement of expedition may require an applicant to bring such a case to the Court within a matter of months, or, depending on the circumstances, a few years after the events at most (see Varnava and Others cited above, § 158).

63.  Stricter expectations would apply in cases where there has been a complete absence of any investigation or progress in an investigation, or meaningful contact with the authorities. Where there is an investigation of sorts, even if plagued by problems, or where a criminal prosecution is being pursued, even by the relatives themselves, the Court accepts that applicants may reasonably wait longer for developments which could potentially resolve crucial factual or legal issues (ibid., § 166). It is in the interests of not only the applicant but also the efficacy of the Convention system that the domestic authorities, which are best placed to do so, act to put right any alleged breaches of the Convention.

64.  To sum up, the Court has imposed a duty of diligence and initiative on the families of victims wishing to complain of a delayed or ineffective investigation, and they cannot wait indefinitely before bringing such complaints to the Court. However, the Court has held that as long as there is some meaningful contact between relatives and authorities concerning complaints and requests for information, or some indication, or realistic possibility, of progress in the investigative measures, considerations of undue delay by the applicants will not generally arise (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 269, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). Failure to comply with the duty of diligence may, however, result in an applicant losing his or her right to have the merits of an application examined (see, among recent authorities, Opačić and Godić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 38882/13, §§ 27-30, 26 January 2016, with further references).

65.  In Abuyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 27065/05, 2 December 2010), where the applicants had applied to the Court five years after the events in question, and where there had been a three-and-a-half year gap in communication between the applicants and the investigating authorities, the Court found:

“179. The Court considers it of paramount importance in the present case that the applicants complained not of an isolated incident, but rather of a major military action which had caused dozens of deaths and injuries among the civilian population. The applicants resided in the same village and were aware that the investigators had interviewed numerous witnesses and had taken other steps further to the collection of evidence, such as conducting on-site examinations and collecting medical records and death certificates. It is also relevant that the applicants exchanged information among themselves and therefore knew that nobody who had been interviewed and granted victim status was contacted in relation to the investigation. It is reasonable to assume that they expected that the authorities’ response would be proportionate to the gravity of their complaints and the number of victims. In such circumstances, it is understandable that they might have waited longer for the results of the investigation without themselves taking the initiative and seeking information about the proceedings. Applying the test as formulated in Varnava and Others (cited above, § 162), the Court finds that the applicants indeed applied to Strasbourg ‘within a matter of very few years’ after the events.”

66.  In 2014 the Court considered that, in instances of violent death, periods lasting between one year and eight months and seven years between the final relevant procedural step on the part of national authorities and the lodging of applications with the Court were too lengthy to comply with the admissibility criterion in question (see Orić v. Croatia, (dec.), no. 50203/12, § 38, 13 May 2014).

67.  However, the Court considers that in some cases information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a killing may come into the public domain at a later stage. The issue then arises as to whether, and in what form, the procedural obligation to investigate is revived. To that end, the Court considered in its judgment in the case of Brecknell v. the United Kingdom (no. 32457/04, § 71, 27 November 2007) that, where there is a plausible, or credible, allegation, piece of evidence or item of information relevant to the identification and eventual prosecution or punishment of the perpetrator of an unlawful killing, the authorities are under an obligation to take further measures. Such an investigation may in some cases reasonably be restricted to verifying the credibility of the source, or of the purported new evidence. The steps which it would be reasonable to take will vary considerably according to the facts of the situation. The lapse of time will, inevitably, be an obstacle as regards, for example, the location of witnesses and the ability of witnesses to recall events reliably (for a recent application of this principle, see Cerf v. Turkey, no. 12938/07, §§ 65-67, 3 May 2016). New developments, occurring after a lull of several years, and which amount to no more than a mere formality, or do not produce any noticeable developments in the investigation, will not be accepted as providing a new starting point for the purposes of calculating the six-month time-limit (see Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011; Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; Dzhamaldayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 39768/06, § 35, 22 January 2013; and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, § 47).

(ii)  Application to the present case

68.  In so far as the applicants complained about the deaths of their relatives, the Court notes that between nine and ten years passed between the murders and the lodging of the complaints with the Court. In line with the above-cited case-law, such a long period in itself is bound to raise questions of compliance with the six-month time-limit. The Court will also need to examine whether, in the meantime, the applicants maintained meaningful, even if sporadic, contact with the investigation, which could indicate that they had reasonable faith in the effectiveness of the domestic remedies and thus explain the delay in the submission of their complaints.

69.  The investigation into the Novye Aldy murders was opened in March 2000. In March and April 2000 seven applicants in the present case were questioned and granted victim status (see Appendix). The first group of victims applied to the Court in May and June 2000, complaining about the inefficiency of the investigation (see Musayev and Others, cited above, § 1). In September and December 2000 an organisation made up of victims, the “Aldy Committee”, made public statements deploring the lack of an efficient investigation and the absence of communication with the relatives (ibid, §§ 65-67). In 2001 and 2004 public statements strongly condemned the lack of an effective investigation into the murders (ibid, §§ 118 and 125).

70.  The Court attaches particular significance to the fact that in 2005 many applicants in the present case made an attempt to bring a complaint to the Court (see paragraphs 17 and 58 above). This clearly indicates that at that time the victims’ families were already aware of the inefficiency of the domestic investigation and wished to have their complaints examined by an international human rights mechanism. However, those efforts were not pursued and did not result in the submission of an individual application within the meaning of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

71.  In July 2007 the Musayev and Others judgment was pronounced. The judgment found that the investigation into the events of 5 February 2000 had been “astonishingly ineffective”, and that “no meaningful result whatsoever [had] been achieved in the task of identifying and prosecuting the individuals who had committed the crimes” (see Musayev and Others, cited above, § 164). The Court also found that the victims had not been duly informed of the progress of the investigation, and the only information occasionally communicated to them had concerned the adjournment and reopening of the proceedings (ibid., § 163). While the applicants in the present case learnt of the Musayev and Others judgment at the time of its pronouncement, no explanation has been provided as to why no complaint was submitted at that time.

72.  The Court next notes that, in response to a specific question about compliance with the six-month time-limit, virtually no information has been submitted by the applicants about their involvement with the investigation prior to the end of 2007. As indicated by the documents submitted in the Musayev and Others case and the present case, eight applicants were questioned and received victim status in 2000. Seven applicants received victim status in 2004 and 2005, and the five remaining applicants received such status after December 2007 (see paragraph 19 above and the Appendix). With the exception of seven decisions to grant victim status in response to the lawyer’s letter, there is no evidence that between the middle of 2000 and November 2007 the applicants maintained any contact with the investigating authorities, however sporadic, nor is there any other indication of their attempts to acquaint themselves with the state of the proceedings or challenge their progress. In this respect, the Court is not convinced that there are any differences in the applicants’ individual situations depending on when they were granted victim status, since those acts were not accompanied by any attempts to clarify the state of the proceedings or influence their progress. In November 2007 the applicants were informed that S.B. had been charged with the crime (see paragraph 24 above).

73.  The Court reiterates that, in situations such as the present one, it is difficult to indicate a specific date when applicants should have become aware of the ineffectiveness of an investigation. It is also conscious of the extreme gravity of the crime in question and the applicants’ understandable expectations of an adequate response by the authorities. Nevertheless, it is difficult to reconcile the nearly total absence of communication between the victims and the investigating authorities for seven years with the applicants’ assertion that they continued to view the investigation as effective during all those years. The inefficiency of the investigation was publically deplored by the victims and human rights organisations from 2000 onwards, and it appears unlikely that such a thought had not occurred to the applicants in the present case at an earlier date. The Court notes that they found themselves in the same situation as other victims, with very little or no information about the progress of the investigation from about the middle of 2000 onwards. It reiterates its conclusions in the Musayev and Others judgment about the obvious inefficiency of the criminal procedure. The Court’s conclusion in this respect is reinforced by the majority of the applicants’ attempt to submit an application in 2005, an application which they failed to pursue.

74.  Against this background, the Court finds that the absence of an effective domestic investigation must have been apparent to the applicants in the present case long before they applied to the Court, and before November 2007 when they were informed of the charges brought against S.B.

75.  As the documents of the case file indicate, on 10 April 2006, for the first time, the investigator referred in his decision to an important new development - the identification of a suspect, a former policeman from St Petersburg, S.B. (see paragraph 24 above). The same decision referred to the charges brought against S.B. and his escape from justice. However, this information was not available to the Court at the time observations between the parties were exchanged and the Musayev and Others judgment was issued. Nor does it appear that it was available to the victims in the criminal case, including those applicants who had victim status by that date. The applicants in the present case were informed of those developments by letters dated 14 November 2007 (see paragraph 24 above).

76.  The Court considers that the information concerning the charges brought against S.B. and the related proceedings constituted an important new development in the investigation. The development directly concerned the identification and possible prosecution or punishment of a perpetrator, and required the authorities to take further investigative measures (see Cerf, cited above, § 67). It was of such nature that it could, effectively, put the authorities under an obligation to take further measures. The applicants were informed of this development no later than November 2007, following which, it could be argued, their hopes for the effective outcome of the domestic criminal investigation were justifiably revived. The documents submitted by the parties in the present case almost exclusively concern the period after November 2007. All this supports the conclusion that their involvement with the investigation in this later period constituted genuine efforts to cooperate with the authorities, and to acquaint themselves with and influence the progress of the investigation.

77.  It follows that the Government’s objection as to the admissibility of the complaints under Article 2 of the Convention on the basis of the expiry of the six-month time-limit should be upheld in respect of the events that preceded November 2007, and this part of the complaint should be declared inadmissible. The objection should be dismissed in so far as it concerns the effectiveness of the investigation carried out after November 2007.

3.  Other challenges to admissibility

78.  In their additional observations of 14 July 2014 the Government pointed out that the applicants in applications nos. 21200/09 and 24693/09 had complained about the deaths of their five relatives. These deaths had already been the subject of the Court’s findings of violations of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention in the Musayev and Others judgment (see paragraph 18 above and the Appendix). The Government submitted that the Russian Federation had already been found liable in respect of these deaths and in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the people had died. In the Government’s opinion, “awarding ... compensation to the present applicants would lead to double jeopardy, which is inconsistent with the principles of international law”.

79.  The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, the Court shall not deal with any application that

“... is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new information.”

It finds that the Government’s argument in this respect amounts to a challenge as to the admissibility of applications nos. 21200/09 and 24693/09, in so far as the applicants complained regarding the deaths of their five relatives and the lack of an investigation into the deaths. These matters had already been the subject of the Court’s examination in the Musayev and Others case.

80.  The Court has identified the following criteria concerning Article 35 § 2 (b), by which an application is to be declared inadmissible if it “is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court ... and contains no relevant new information”: (i) an application is considered as being “substantially the same” where the parties, the complaints and the facts are identical; (ii) the concept of complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on; and (iii) where the applicant submits new information, the application will not be essentially the same as a previous application (see Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 2) (dec.), no. 28727/11, 17 February 2015; and Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 42, 15 June 2017, with further references).

81.  The Court notes firstly that there is no dispute as to whether the applications in question were lodged by the same people. It further notes that it has found above that the applications are only admissible in respect of facts and developments occurring after November 2007, that is, after the judgment in Musayev and Others (cited above). Accordingly it finds that the applications are not substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court, and rejects the Government’s objection in this respect.

4.  Conclusion on admissibility

82.  Accordingly, the complaints concerning the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention and the failure to investigate prior to November 2007 were lodged out of time, and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

83.  The Court further notes that the complaint concerning the effectiveness of the investigation after November 2007 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

84.  The applicants argued that the investigation had been ineffective, and that the people responsible for the deaths of their family members had not been identified and brought to justice.

85.  The Government submitted no observations on the merits, since, in their view, the case was inadmissible.

86.  The Court has stated on many occasions that Article 2 of the Convention contains a positive obligation of a procedural character: it requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by the authorities (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 161, Series A no. 324). The relevant principles applicable to the effective investigation have been summarised by the Court on many occasions (for a recent authoritative summary, see Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 229-39, ECHR 2016).

87.  The Court reiterates that, in the Musayev and Others judgment, it criticised the following aspects of the investigation: serious and unexplained delays and failures to act once the investigation had been opened; a lack of efforts to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the servicemen’s statements collected at the end of 2000 and other information indicating that they were the possible perpetrators of the murders; a failure to produce an overview of the security operations conducted in the relevant districts of Grozny at the time; the absence of a complete picture of the circumstances of the killings, including a single list of those who had been killed and the people with victim status in the proceedings, a plan of the district indicating the locations of the bodies and important evidence, and a list of the local residents who had been in the district at that time (ibid., §§ 160-63). It concluded:

“164. The Court considers that in the present case the investigation body faced a task that could by no means be considered impossible. ... Despite all that, and notwithstanding the domestic and international public outcry caused by the cold-blooded execution of more than 50 civilians, almost six years after the tragic events in the Novye Aldy no meaningful result whatsoever has been achieved in the task of identifying and prosecuting the individuals who had committed the crimes. In the Court’s view, the astonishing ineffectiveness of the prosecuting authorities in this case can only be qualified as acquiescence in the events.”

88.  The Court has noted above that the subsequent identification of one suspect and the bringing of charges against him constituted an important and positive development in the proceedings. The Court also notes the attempts by the investigation to identify other culprits, including the questioning of dozens of OMON servicemen in order to find the person described by one of the witnesses (see paragraph 28 above). Some commanders of the army and police units involved in the operations concerned were identified. The investigation took certain steps to question them (see paragraphs 27, 29-31, and 33 above).

89.  Nevertheless, no real progress was achieved in identifying and questioning any other suspect apart from S.B. By 2014 no commander had been questioned. No one from the 245th regiment, whose presence on the ground had been strongly indicated, was identified or questioned. The case file contains no reference to the results of ballistic expert reports to match the weapons used by security personnel with the bullets found. There appears to be no convincing explanation for those failures.

90.  Many key aspects of the events remain unclear. The investigation produced no coherent narrative of the incident, for example by indicating the sequence of events on the day in question, marking the exact location of the bodies on a map, or compiling a list of eyewitnesses. Only in November 2012 did the investigators put together a table of those who had been killed and their relatives who were taking part in the proceedings. Even that document appears to be incomplete, as illustrated by the absence of reference to one of the victims, the brother of the applicant in application no. 32862/09 (see paragraph 44 above).

91.  The Court thus concludes that, despite some positive developments connected to the identification and bringing of charges against one suspect, the main faults of the investigation as set out in the Musayev and Others judgment persisted beyond 2007. The investigation remains ongoing, yet no coherent picture of the events has been produced, the culprits have not been identified, and there have been no real advances in terms of bringing them to justice.

92.  Overall, the Court cannot but conclude that the inadequacy of the investigation into the deaths of the applicants’ family members was not the result of objective difficulties that can be attributed to the passage of time or the loss of evidence, but rather the result of the investigating authorities’ unwillingness to establish the truth and punish those responsible (see Benzer and Others v. Turkey, no. 23502/06, § 187, 12 November 2013, and Abakarova v. Russia, no. 16664/07, § 98, 15 October 2015).

93.  There has accordingly been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, in respect of the proceedings occurring after November 2007.

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

94.  Six applicants complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention with regard to the events of 5 February 2000 (see Appendix). In so far as relevant, that provision reads:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. ...”

95.  The Government were of the opinion that the applications were inadmissible, for the same reasons as those advanced in respect of the complaint under Article 2 of the Convention.

96.  In previous cases where residents of Chechnya had raised allegations of the unlawful destruction of their property by State agents in the context of security operations, the Court found that a potentially effective domestic remedy would be an adequate criminal investigation (see Khamzayev and Others v. Russia, no. 1503/02, § 154, 3 May 2011, and Salamov v. Russia, no. 5063/05, § 37, 12 January 2016).

97.  The Court observes that the original decision of 5 March 2000 opening a criminal investigation only concerned the offence of murder, although it referred to the looting of property (see paragraph 16 above). No one was granted victim status in criminal proceedings in relation to the loss of property. In December 2008 Ibragim Musayev (no. 21200/09) was the first out of six applicants to be questioned about the property losses, and others were questioned in 2009 and up until 2014. In relation to the investigation, there is no indication that the applicants presented any additional documents to support their claims, took any other steps to acquaint themselves with the investigation in this respect, or challenged its inaction. In January 2014 the investigators ruled that no criminal investigation into the property losses should be opened, in view of the expiry of the statute of limitations for those crimes. No appeal was lodged against that decision.

98.  The absence of any steps by the six applicants concerned to bring their complaints regarding the loss of property to the attention of the investigation, or to otherwise remain involved regarding this aspect of the proceedings, leads the Court to the conclusion that they considered that remedy ineffective. They therefore failed to pursue the remedy long before lodging their complaints with the Court (see Abuyeva and Others, cited above, § 225).

99.  As to the questioning that occurred from December 2008 onwards, the relevant statements, made many years after the events in question, could not on their own fill in the gaps to establish important facts, since the witnesses’ recollections were no longer fresh and many material traces of the crimes had been lost. The applicants confirmed their intentions to bring civil claims in the course of a criminal trial, should such a trial take place, but without additional evidence their statements could not substitute a proper assessment of questions concerning property ownership and pecuniary losses sustained (see, for example, paragraph 35 above, in fine, for the situation of the applicant Osman Kudozov). In January 2014 the investigators ruled not to open a criminal investigation into the property losses, owing to the expiration of statutory limits, and the applicants did not appeal against that decision. In such circumstances, the Court does not consider that these later developments could alter its conclusion about the applicants’ perception of the ineffectiveness of the remedy in question; and it does not find it necessary to take these developments into account in determining the applicants’ compliance with the six-month rule in respect of the complaint concerning the interference with their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

100.  In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that this part of the application was lodged by the six applicants concerned outside of the six-month time-limit, and must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

IV.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

101.  The applicants submitted that they had no effective remedies in respect of the violations alleged, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. This Article reads:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

102.  The Court observes that the complaint made by the applicants under this Article has been examined in the context of the procedural obligation arising under Article 2 of the Convention. Having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect (see paragraph 92 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 is admissible, there is no need for a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008, and Nakayev v. Russia, no. 29846/05, § 90, 21 June 2011).

V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

103.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A.  Damage

1.  Pecuniary damage

104.  Four applicants claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary damage in relation to the property losses sustained (see Appendix).

105.  In view of its above finding of inadmissibility in relation to the complaint brought under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court rejects this claim.

2.  Non-pecuniary damage

106.  Each applicant claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage in relation to the violations alleged. They sought 100,000 euros (EUR) for the death of each of their family members and the failure to investigate these events.

107.  In their observations of 7 June 2015 twelve applicants stated that they had received compensation from the State in relation to the deaths of their relatives, and asked for this to be taken into account with regard to determining the final amounts of just satisfaction. This compensation ranged from 1,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to RUB 1,400,000. The applicants did not submit any relevant documents or indicate the type of procedure which had led to those awards, or the dates on which the compensation had been paid. There is no explanation as to the difference in the amounts or whether those payments were made only to them or jointly with other family members of the deceased. The names of the deceased and the proximity of their relationship to them were also not indicated. There is also no indication as to why the other applicants did not receive such compensation. The sums as stated by the applicants are indicated in the Appendix below.

108.  The Government submitted no comments on the issue of compensation being paid to twelve applicants. On the other hand, they agreed that, should the Court find violations of Article 2 of the Convention in the present case, the applicants could be awarded just satisfaction, with the exception of the applicants in complaints nos. 21200/09 and 24693/09. These two complaints concerned deaths which had already been the subject of findings and awards in Musayev and Others, cited above.

109.  The Court first remarks that the information submitted by twelve applicants in June 2015 relates to the deaths of their relatives. This part of their complaint has been declared inadmissible. This information is therefore irrelevant to the violation found in the present case, which concerns the lack of an effective investigation after November 2007. For the same reasons, the Court does not find that its findings in the Musayev and Others judgment should have any bearing on the awards to the applicants in the present case, since these awards concern new developments not covered by that judgment (see paragraph 81 above).

110.  The Court has found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of all applicants. It considers that an award should be made to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Each has suffered anguish and frustration on account of the failures of the investigation to elucidate the circumstances of the crimes committed against their close relatives. Considering the applicants’ situations, the Court awards them the sums indicated in the Appendix.

B.  Costs and expenses

111.  The applicants also claimed a total of EUR 5,123 for costs and expenses incurred before the Court. They were represented by D. Itslayev, and the claim covered the drafting of legal documents, translation services, and administrative and postal costs.

112.  In accordance with the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 2,500 to cover costs under all heads for the proceedings before the Court. The award is to be paid into the representative’s bank account, as identified by the applicants.

C.  Default interest

113.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Declares the complaints concerning the effectiveness of the investigation after November 2007 admissible, and the remaining parts of the applications inadmissible;

 

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives after November 2007;

 

4.  Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;

 

5.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  the amounts specified in the Appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representative’s bank account, as identified by the applicants;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

 

6.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 October 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

  Stephen Phillips                                                                   Branko Lubarda
       Registrar                                                                              President

 




APPENDIX

Details of the applications

 

No.	Application number, title, date of introduction	Represented by, supporting documents	Applicant’s name, date of birth, place of residence	Person killed on 5 February 2000, date of birth, family relationship	Victim status granted in criminal proceedings/ compensation received as per the applicants’ letter of 7 June 2015	Complaints on Article(s)/ claims for pecuniary damage	Article 41 non-pecuniary award
1.	21194/09 Khadzhimuradov v. Russia   31/03/2009	Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Ruslan Khadzhimuradov, 1970, Grozny	Alvy Khadzhimuradov, 1942, father	24/03/2000 (also mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004). / -	2, 13	EUR 15,000
2.	21200/09 Musayevy v. Russia   26/03/2009	Initially no representative; (2) Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 21 April 2015	(1) Ibragim Musayev, 1938, Grozny (2) Zoya Musayeva, 1946, Grozny	Suleyman Musayev, 1965, son (see Musayev and Others judgment)	(1) Probably 29/03/2000 (no documents submitted, but mentioned in the case documents and in the decision of 19/04/2004). On 10 December 2008 questioned in relation to property lost: house, car and belongings, estimated by the applicant at RUB 5,000,000. / - (2) 29/12/2007. On 15 December 2014 recognised civil party in criminal proceedings in relation to property lost: house, car and belongings, estimated by applicant at RUB 20,350,000. / -	2, 13, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 / (2) RUB 20,350,000	EUR 15,000 jointly
3.	24693/09 Beterakhmadova v. Russia   21/04/2009	Represented initiatlly by Mr Uvays Said Khasiyev; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Birlant Beterakhmadova, 1952, Hasselt, Belgium	Abdrakhman Musayev, 1949, spouse (see Musayev and Others judgment)	30/03/2000. On 11 December 2008 stated that her house and property had been destroyed, estimated damage at RUB 10,000,000. On 10 January 2014 the applicant estimated the property lost at about RUB 20,000. On 22 December 2014 recognised civil party in criminal proceedings in relation to property: destruction of houses and property; damage estimated by applicant at RUB 8,000,000. / -	2, 13, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 / RUB 8,000,000	EUR 15,000
4.	24700/09 Khirikhanova v. Russia   21/04/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Alpatu Khirikhanova, 1953, Grozny	Salman Khirikhanov, 1949, spouse	Probably 11/05/2004 (no documents submitted, but mentioned in case-materials and in the decision of 19/04/2004). On 24 December 2008 stated that her house, property destroyed, would seek damages in court, estimated at RUB 8,000,000. / Compensation received RUB 1,000,000	2, 13	EUR 15,000
5.	27063/09 Gerikhanov v. Russia   23/04/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Rashid Gerikhanov, 1945, Grozny	Koka Gerikhanova, 1958, spouse	11/05/2004 (mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004). On 15 April 2009 stated that would like to bring civil claim in court, no estimate of damages for property damaged; on 23 December 2013 when questioned estimated damages at RUB 20,000. / Compensation received RUB 1,400,000	2	EUR 15,000
6.	27064/09 Tasuyeva v. Russia   13/04/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Birland Tasuyeva, 1953, Grozny	Sultan Tasuyev, 1950, spouse	17/03/2005 (mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004). / Compensation received RUB 1,400,000	2, 13	EUR 15,000
7.	27159/09 Shamsatova v. Russia   08/04/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Baret Shamsatova, 1958, Grozny	Mussa Khasbulatov, 1953, spouse	Probably 04/05/2004 (no documents submitted, but mentioned in the case-file). On 22 December 2008 stated that house and property destroyed, could not estimate, would claim damages in court. / Compensation received RUB 1,400,000	2	EUR 15,000
8.	27259/09 Sugaipova v. Russia   18/04/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Manshura Sugaipova, 1955, Grozny	Avalu Sugaipov, 1950 (spouse)	11/05/2004 (mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004). On 11 December 2008 stated that her husband’s parents’ house had been destroyed. / Compensation received RUB 1,400,000	2, 13	EUR 15,000
9.	30531/09 Khaydayev v. Russia   04/05/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Abulkhasan Khaydayev, 1954, Grozny	Gula Khaydayev, 1928, father	26/06/2008 (mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004). On 23 December 2008 stated that his house, property and car were destroyed, estimated damage at RUB 5,000,000. On 27 December 2013 estimated damages at RUB 3,000,000 for house and property and RUB 380,000 for the car. / Compensation received RUB 1,000,000	2, 13	EUR 15,000
10.	30538/09 Dzhamaldayeva and others v. Russia   05/05/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreements of 7 April 2015	(1) Madina Dzhamaldayeva, 1977, Grozny (2) Elina Umarkhadzhiyeva 1972, Grozny (3) Malika Ganayeva, 1941, Grozny	(1) Aslanbek Ganayev, 1965, spouse (2) Salambek Ganayev, 1969 spouse (3) Aslanbek Ganayev, 1965, Salambek Ganayev, 1969, sons, Alvy Ganayev, 1938, spouse (see Musayev and Others judgment)	(1) 04/07/2012 (also mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004); (2) 03/07/2012 (also mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004); (3) 23/03/2000 (also mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004). / -	2, 13	EUR 15,000 to each one of the three applicants
11.	30578/09 Kudozov v. Russia   30/04/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Osman Kudozov, 1954, Grozny	Gana Kudozov, 1941 and Omar Kudozov, 1951, brothers	13/04/2000. On 11 December 2008 stated that his house and property had been destroyed, estimated damage at RUB 3,000,000. / Compensation received RUB 2,000,000	1, 2, 13, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 / RUB 2,436,160	EUR 15,000
12.	32851/09 Khakimova v. Russia   16/04/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Aset Khakimova, 1957, Grozny	Vakha Khakimov, 1953, spouse	Probably 22/03/2000 (no documents submitted, but mentioned in case-materials and in the decision of 19/04/2004). On 10 December 2008 stated that her property in the house has been damaged, would like to seek damages and state the amount in court. / Compensation received RUB 1,400,000	2, 13	EUR 15,000
13.	32855/09 Bishayeva v. Russia   08/04/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Yakhita Bishayeva, 1949, Grozny	Salaman Bishayev, 1946, spouse; Amkhad Bishayev, 1972, son	03/04/2000 (mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004). On 24 December 2008 stated that her property in the house had been damaged, would seek damages in court, no estimate made. / Compensation received RUB 2,800,000	2, 13, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1	EUR 15,000
14.	32862/09 Musostova v. Russia   08/04/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 21 April 2015	Ayset Musostova, 1959, Rotselaar, Belgium	Rakat Khamuradova, 1930, mother; Isa Akhmadov, 1964, brother	10/05/2004 (mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004). On 3 April 2009 stated that her property had been destroyed and damaged: estimated EUR 500,000 and RUB 150,000. On 26 December 2013 questioned in relation to damage to property: houses and property burned; applicant’s estimate EUR 500,000 and RUB 154,000. On 18 December 2014 recognised civil party in criminal proceedings in respect of destruction of property; applicant’s estimate of damage EUR 500,000, USD 3,800 and RUB 200,000. / -	2, 13, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1/ EUR 500,000, USD 3,800 and RUB 200,000	EUR 15,000
15.	32992/09 Dzhabrailova v. Russia   06/05/2009	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Yakhita Dzhabrailova, 1951, Grozny	Sultan Dzhabrailov, 1947, spouse	23/04/2004 (the case-file also contains reference to decision of 12/04/2000; also mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004). On 24 December 2008 stated that her property and house destroyed/damaged in January 2000; estimate at RUB 500,000, would like to claim damages in court. In December 2013 stated that the cost of property lost/destroyed was estimated at RUB 2,000,000. / Compensation received RUB 1,400,000	2	EUR 15,000
16.	18777/10 Goytayev v. Russia   09/03/2010	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Khalid Goytayev, 1974, Grozny	Magamed Goytayev, 1929, uncle	Granted on 22/12/2007, following death of his father Vakha Goytayev who had been granted victim status on 05/04/2000 (also mentioned in the decision of 19/04/2004). / Compensation received RUB 1,400,000	2, 13	EUR 15,000
17.	22304/10 Soltykhanova v. Russia   26/03/2010	Initially no representative; Mr Dokka Itslayev; legal representation agreement of 7 April 2015	Olga Soltykhanova, 1960, Grozny	Rezvan Umkhayev, 1933, father	04/04/2000. / Compensation received RUB 1,400,000	2, 13	EUR 15,000