European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DANILINY v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 32400/12)

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

6 October 2020

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Daniliny v. Russia,

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

          Alena Poláčková, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 32400/12) 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 two Russian nationals, Ms Oksana Danilina and Ms Burliyat Danilina (“the applicants”), on 30 May 2012;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”);

the observations submitted by the applicants;

Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2020,

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

INTRODUCTION

1.  The present case concerns the alleged abduction and subsequent disappearance of the applicants’ relative in Dagestan in 2012, and the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation into the matter.

THE FACTS

2.  The applicants were born in 1976 and 1956 respectively and live in Makhachkala, Dagestan. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from Memorial Human Rights Centre, a non-governmental organisation in Moscow.

3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

I. Disappearance of Mr Timur Danilin

5.  The applicants are the wife and mother respectively of Mr Timur Danilin, who was born in 1977. At the material time, the applicants and Mr Danilin lived in Makhachkala, Dagestan.

6.  On the morning of 25 March 2012 Mr Danilin took the first applicant to work in his VAZ-2109 car. He was supposed to pick her up from work at 1 p.m. that day. However, he did not arrive. The first applicant tried calling him, but to no avail.

7.  In the evening, the first applicant and her relatives started searching for Mr Danilin. At about 10 p.m. the first applicant received a call from an unfamiliar number; it was Mr Danilin, who said that he had been beaten, his car and mobile phone had been taken from him and he needed help. Then another man who introduced himself as a police officer from the village of Novolak (also referred to as Novolakskoye in the documents submitted) told the applicant to bring 50,000 roubles (about 1,300 euros) to the police station in that village in exchange for Mr Danilin’s release. When later in the evening the first applicant with about a dozen of her relatives arrived there, the police officers at the police station denied any knowledge of Mr Danilin’s whereabouts and demanded that they return home or they would be “detained as well”.

8.  According to the applicants, several days later they were informed by the residents of Novolak of the following. At about 9.30 p.m. on 25 March 2012 Mr Danilin had been seen, severely beaten, in a courtyard in Lenina Street in Novolak. He had been speaking with Mr L.A. and the latter’s mother and elder brother. Then the neighbourhood police officer, G.A., who had been passing by, asked him what had happened. Mr Danilin had told him that he had been beaten, and that his car and his phone had been taken from him.

9.  Then Officer G.A. had called the police, who had arrived a few minutes later. Officer R.Kh. (also referred to as R.S. in the documents submitted) and two other police officers from the operational investigations unit (СОГ) had emerged from the police UAZ vehicle. When Mr Danilin had seen the officers, he had tried to run away, but they had fired shots in the air and threatened to shoot him. Then the officers had forced Mr Danilin into their vehicle and driven off to the Novolak police station. At some point later Mr Danilin had been transferred from the Novolak police station to the Khasavyurt Counterterrorism Centre.

10.  The Government neither contested the facts as submitted by the applicants nor advanced an alternative version of the events.

II. Official investigation into the abduction

11.  On 26 March 2012 the first applicant complained to the police and the Dagestan Department of the Federal Security Service (FSB) of Mr Danilin’s abduction by the police.

12.  Following a preliminary examination, on 12 April 2012 the Khasavyurt Department of the Investigative Committee opened a criminal case under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). The investigation of the criminal case can be summarised as follows.

13.  On 16 April 2012 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. In her statement to the investigators, she alleged the involvement of the police in the abduction of Mr Danilin.

14.  On 7 May 2012 the first applicant received a letter from the Internal Investigations Department of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior which stated that they “were verifying the potential involvement of the neighbourhood police officer G.A. in the disappearance of Mr Danilin”.

15.  On 17 May 2012 the head of the Dagestan Investigative Committee criticised the investigation of the criminal case as ineffective and “intentionally dragged out” and ordered that “in view of its publicity” it be transferred to the investigators at the headquarters of the Dagestan Investigative Committee.

16.  On 25 May 2012 the deputy head of the Dagestan Investigative Committee criticised the investigation as “carried out in an insufficiently professional manner” and issued orders to be carried out by the investigators in the criminal case. Those orders included obtaining the CCTV footage from the cameras installed along the perimeter of the Novolak police station and questioning of all of the police officers who were on duty at the Novolak police station on 25 and 26 March 2012.

17.  On 4 July 2012 the investigators seized one CCTV camera from the Novolak police station to examine its footage.

18.  On 5 July 2012 the investigators questioned Officer B.M., who stated that he had been the on-duty officer at the Novolak police station on the date of Mr Danilin’s disappearance. According to him, on the date of the disappearance, a group of four or five of Mr Danilin’s relatives had arrived at the Novolak police station. Two or three of them had seemed drunk and behaved aggressively. Mr Danilin’s relatives had not lodged any official complaints, but had demanded that he show them the log of the persons detained at the police station, as well as the cells where the detainees were kept. He had refused to do so. Given that no complaints of abduction had been lodged, he had not registered any. Officer B.M. also stated that the Novolak police station had sixteen CCTV cameras and their footage was stored for seven days, after which it was overwritten.

19.  Two police officers from the Novolak police station, R.Kh. and G.A., questioned by the investigators on 5 and 9 July 2012 respectively, confirmed that they had been at the police station on 25 March 2012, but denied in general terms having any information pertaining to the disappearance of Mr Danilin. They also stated that the police station had either fifteen or sixteen CCTV cameras on its premises and that the footage was regularly overwritten after several days.

20.  Between 9 and 16 July 2012 the investigators questioned five officers from the Novolak police station’s operational investigations unit. None of them could recall the events of 25 and 26 March 2012 owing to the passage of time. They denied having any information concerning the disappearance of Mr Danilin and had no idea why Mr Danilin’s relatives would think that the police had been involved in the incident.

21.  On 16 July 2012 (the date was also given as 16 June 2012 in the documents submitted), the investigators’ superiors from the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation reviewed the investigation file. As a result, they criticised the investigation as ineffective, protracted and “organised in an unacceptably poor manner”. They ordered that the investigators take a number of important steps without delay and report to them on a monthly basis on the progress made.

22.  On 7 August 2012 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. Her statement was similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court. In her opinion, officers from local law-enforcement agencies had been involved in the abduction and subsequent disappearance of her son.

23.  On various dates in September 2012 the investigators questioned several more officers from the Novolak police station, all of whom denied having any information concerning Mr Danilin’s disappearance.

24.  On 25 October 2012 the expert examination of the CCTV camera seized from the Novolak police station concluded that it did not contain any footage and that it was impossible to recover the footage from 25 and 26 March 2012.

25.  On 24 December 2012 the investigators’ superiors again criticised the investigation for failing to take basic steps, stating that it had been suspended prematurely and ordering that the proceedings be resumed.

26.  On 31 January 2013 the investigators questioned several officers from the Novolak police station, all of whom stated that they had no information as to whether any of their colleagues had officially registered any incidents on 25 and 26 March 2012, including the one relating to Mr Danilin’s disappearance.

27.  On 26 February 2013 the investigators’ superiors again criticised the investigation for failing to take basic steps, stating that it had been suspended unlawfully and prematurely and ordering that the proceedings be resumed. The document stated, in particular, the following:

“... it transpires from the complaint [that the second applicant lodged against the investigation] that the mother of police officer G.A., Ms R., had visited [the second applicant] at home and told her that on 25 March 2012 Timur Danilin had been beaten by police officers from the Novolak police station and placed in the temporary detention unit at the station. He had managed to escape and run into the street [where, in a courtyard,] he had encountered Mr L.A., whose telephone he had used to call [the first applicant] ... Then Officer G.A. had arrived and ... several minutes later a Lada‑Priora car without registration numbers had also arrived with the head of the Novolak police station, Officer R. Kh., and two other officers, Z.M. and S.A. The officers had fired several gunshots in the air to ensure that Mr Danilin would not run away. After that the officers had put Timur Danilin in their car and taken him to the Khasavyurt Counterterrorism Centre. The residents of the houses situated in the vicinity had witnessed the incident. On the morning of 26 March 2012 the head of the Novolak police station had returned to the scene and warned the local residents to keep silent about the incident.

To date, [the second applicant] has not been questioned about this incident; nor has Ms R., the mother of Officer G.A., been identified and questioned ...

To verify the information concerning the persons detained at the Novolak police station between 25 and 27 March 2012, it is necessary ... to question all of the individuals who, according to the station’s detention log, were detained there and who could therefore verify whether Mr Danilin had been taken there ...”

28.  On 4 April 2013 the investigators questioned the applicants about the complaint lodged by the second applicant with the investigators’ superiors. Their statements reaffirmed the information provided in the complaint (see the paragraph above).

29.  Between April 2013 and March 2014 the investigation was suspended on several more occasions and each time it was resumed as a result of criticism by the investigators’ superiors, who stated that the suspensions had been premature and unlawful. On 20 April 2014 the investigation was suspended for the last time; the documents submitted show that the orders given by the superiors were not complied with.

30.  It appears from the documents submitted that the investigation is still pending, the whereabouts of Mr Danilin have not been established and the perpetrators of his abduction have not been identified.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

31.  For a summary of the relevant domestic regulations, see Turluyeva v. Russia, no. 63638/09, §§ 56-64, 20 June 2013.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

32.  The applicants complained that their relative Timur Danilin had been abducted and killed by State agents and that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate the matter. They relied on 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.”

A.    Admissibility

33.  The Government did not submit any comments on the admissibility of the complaint.

34.  The applicants submitted that the complaint was admissible.

35.  The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.     Merits

1.    Alleged violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention

(a)    The parties’ submissions

36.  The applicants submitted that their relative Mr Danilin had to be presumed dead. They referred to the absence of any objection to the contrary from the Government, the fact that the criminal case to investigate his disappearance had been opened under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder) and the fact that there had been no reliable news of him since 25 March 2012. According to the applicants, the police were responsible for the disappearance and killing of Mr Danilin as he had last been seen being taken away by the police officers, who had fired shots in the air to threaten him and stop him from running away, then forced him into their car (see paragraphs 8-9 above). Given the lack of any explanation by the Government concerning the events in question, the applicants invited the Court to find that State agents were responsible for their relative’s abduction and subsequent death.

37.  The Government did not comment on the applicants’ submissions.

(b)    The Court’s assessment

38.  The Court observes that the Government did not deny that the applicants’ relative was detained by the police officers as alleged and then taken to the Novolak police station and the Khasavyurt Counterterrorism Centre. There is no evidence demonstrating that he was subsequently released or seen elsewhere. In such circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their relative was taken into police custody and has been missing since.

39.  Drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to provide a plausible explanation as to what happened to Mr Danilin after he was detained by the police, the Court finds that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was abducted by police officers in the circumstances alleged by the applicants.

40.  The Court finds that in a situation where a person is detained by State agents and then remains missing for a number of years, that situation can be regarded as life-threatening. The Court has made findings of the presumption of death in the absence of any reliable news about disappeared persons for periods ranging from four years (see, for example, Askhabova v. Russia, no. 54765/09, § 137, 18 April 2013). The lack of information concerning the fate of Mr Danilin for more than eight years after his detention by police officers supports this assumption.

41.  Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish to the requisite standard of proof that Mr Danilin is to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State agents.

42.  This being so, and in the absence of any justification put forward by the Government, the Court finds that the death of Mr Danilin can be attributed to the State.

43.  Therefore, there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Danilin.

2.    Alleged violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention

(a)    The parties’ submissions

44.  The applicants submitted that the investigation into Mr Danilin’s disappearance had been ineffective. The criminal case had been opened only eighteen days after his abduction and there had been no explanation as to why there had been such a delay; the CCTV camera footage had not been examined until months after the incident; each of the decisions to suspend the investigation had been overruled as unlawful and premature on account of the investigators’ failure to take necessary steps. Finally, the investigation into the disappearance had been carried out with the assistance of personnel from the very same police station in Novolak whose officers had been suspected of Mr Danilin’s abduction.

45.  The Government did not comment on the applicants’ submission.

(b)    The Court’s assessment

46.  For a summary of general principles reflecting the Court’s approach to the examination of allegations of a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey ([GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015) and Mazepa and Others v. Russia (no. 15086/07, §§ 69-70 and 74, 17 July 2018).

47.  The Court observes that from the very beginning of the investigation, the applicants and their relatives informed the police about the detention of Mr Danilin at the police station’s temporary detention unit and his subsequent apprehension in the street by the police officers, who had fired shots in the air to threaten and detain him (see paragraph 9 above). However, despite those statements, no tangible steps were taken to follow up on the information by either questioning the local residents who might have heard the gunshots or witnessed the abduction, or by questioning the persons who had been detained at the police station’s temporary detention unit on 25 and 26 March 2012.

48.  Moreover, it is noteworthy that out of fifteen or sixteen CCTV cameras located on the premises of the Novolak police station where Mr Danilin had allegedly been taken, the footage from only one CCTV camera was collected and examined by the investigators (see paragraphs 17‑19 above). It is also noteworthy that footage from this one camera was not collected as evidence until almost four months after the abduction, by which time the footage for 25 and 26 March 2012 had long been overwritten (see paragraphs 17 and 24 above).

49.  Furthermore, the Court observes that the investigation’s shortcomings - including the investigators’ persistent failure to take basic steps and their inexplicable failure to comply with the orders issued - were regularly criticised by their superiors and the supervising bodies (see paragraphs 15-16, 25, 27 and 29 above). However, the documents submitted show that despite the investigators’ clear unwillingness to comply with the instructions they had been given, no steps were taken by their superiors to ensure their compliance, other than reiterating the unexecuted orders once again.

50.  Given the shortcomings of the investigation indicated above, and the Government’s lack of comment on the matter, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Mr Danilin, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF mr dANILIN

51.  The applicants complained that their relative had been subjected to torture by the police officers who had detained him and that no investigation into that allegation had been carried out, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

A.    Admissibility

52.  The Government did not comment on either the admissibility or the merits of this complaint.

53.  The applicants submitted that the complaint was admissible.

54.  The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.     Merits

55.  The applicants submitted that the fact that the police officers had fired shots into the air to threaten Mr Danilin and ensure his capture showed that he must have been subsequently ill-treated by them, and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter.

56.  The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, § 161 in fine).

57.  The Court has established that Mr Danilin is to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention and that the responsibility for his death lies with the State authorities. However, in the absence of any relevant information or evidence the Court is unable to establish, to the necessary degree of proof, the exact way in which he died and whether he was subjected to ill-treatment while in detention (see, for example, Alpatu Israilova v. Russia, no. 15438/05, § 66, 14 March 2013).

58.  As to the applicants’ complaint about the failure to investigate this allegation properly, the Court notes that the substance of this complaint concerned Mr Danilin’s disappearance and that this matter has been examined by the Court under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraph 50 above).

59.  Against this background, the Court finds no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Danilin and lack of investigation by the State authorities in that regard.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3, 5 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

60.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of Mr Danilin.

61.  The applicants further complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of Mr Danilin’s detention.

62.  The applicants also alleged that they had no domestic remedies available to them in respect of their complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. The relevant provisions read as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 5 § 1

“Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ...”

Article 13

“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.”

63.  The Government did not comment on either the admissibility or the merits of these complaints.

64.  The applicants reiterated their submissions.

A.    Admissibility

65.  The Court notes that these complaints are neither manifestly ill‑founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B.     Merits

66.  The Court has found on many occasions that a situation of enforced disappearance gives rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the close relatives of the victim. The essence of such a violation lies not so much in the fact of the “disappearance” of the family member, but rather in the authorities’ reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)).

67.  The Court reiterates its findings regarding the State’s responsibility for the abduction of Mr Danilin, as well as the authorities’ failure to carry out a meaningful investigation into the incident. It finds that the applicants, who are the wife and mother of Mr Danilin, must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish they have suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of their inability to ascertain his fate, and of the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with. The Court therefore finds a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on this account.

68.  The Court further confirms that since it has been established that Mr Danilin was detained by the police, seemingly without any legal grounds or acknowledgment of such detention, this constitutes a particularly serious violation of the right to liberty and security of person enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Imakayeva, cited above, § 178, and Ireziyevy v. Russia, no. 21135/09, § 80, 2 April 2015). The Court accordingly finds a violation of this provision in respect of Mr Danilin on account of his unlawful detention. In view of this finding, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine the issue separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see Zhebrailova and Others v. Russia, no. 40166/07, § 84, 26 March 2015).

69.  The Court observes that the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention concerns the same issues as those examined above under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraph 50 above). Therefore, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine this issue separately under Article 13 (see Gaysanova v. Russia, no. 62235/09, § 142, 12 May 2016; Fanziyeva v. Russia, no. 41675/08, § 85, 18 June 2015; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 126, 24 April 2014; and Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 123, 14 February 2012).

70.  The Court considers that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3 concerning their mental suffering, in breach of Article 13.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

71.  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

72.  The first applicant, Mr Danilin’s wife, claimed 18,690 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. The second applicant, his mother, claimed EUR 22,320. The applicants based their calculations on the official minimum wage in Dagestan in 2017 and the average life expectancy for females in that region.

73.  The Government submitted that the claim for pecuniary damage should be rejected as unsubstantiated as there was no proof that Mr Danilin had been employed. In addition, there was a domestic mechanism in place to compensate for the loss of a family’s breadwinner.

74.  As for non-pecuniary damage, the applicants left the determination of its amount to the Court.

75.  The Government did not object to this part of the applicants’ claim.

76.  The Court awards EUR 10,000 to each of the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 80,000 to the applicants jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts.

B.     Costs and expenses

77.  The applicants claimed EUR 3,000 in respect of the costs and expenses incurred in relation to their legal representation before the Court by Ms T. Chernikova, which equated to thirty hours’ work at the rate of EUR 100 per hour. They requested that the award be paid into the bank account of their representatives as indicated in their submissions. The applicants enclosed the itemised invoice for the legal services rendered by Ms Chernikova.

78.  The Government did not make any comments under this head.

79.  Having regard to the details of the claim and the lack of the Government’s objections, and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicants EUR 2,000, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, the net award to be paid into the representatives’ bank account as indicated by the applicants.

C.    The applicants’ request for an investigation

80.  The applicants also requested that an independent investigation which complied with the requirements of the Convention be conducted into Mr Danilin’s disappearance.

81.  The Court notes that in numerous cases in comparable circumstances (see, among others, Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009 (extracts), and Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 176, 5 July 2011), it has decided that it was most appropriate to leave it to the respondent State to choose the means to be used in the domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention. The Court does not discern any exceptional circumstances which would lead it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

D.    Default interest

82.  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.      Declares the application admissible;

2.      Holds that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention on account of Mr Timur Danilin’s disappearance;

3.      Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Mr Danilin disappeared;

4.      Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of Mr Danilin’s alleged ill-treatment;

5.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ mental suffering;

6.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of Mr Danilin’s unlawful detention;

7.      Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention;

8.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3;

9.      Holds

(a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The award in respect of costs and expenses is to be paid directly into the representatives’ bank accounts as indicated by the applicants:

(i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to each of the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(iii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;

(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;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Olga Chernishova                                                                 Alena Poláčková
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President