On 8 November 2011 the ECHR delivered three judgments in cases against Russia: Filatov v. Russia, Sambiyeva v. Russia and Yakubov v. Russia.[1] In all three cases the ECHR found violations of the Convention and ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary damage (in case of Sambiyeva), non-pecuniary damage (in cases of Filatov and Sambiyeva), and costs and expenses (in cases of Sambiyeva and Yakubov) totaling to 86,615 Euros.
Case of Filatov
The first case of Filatov v. Russia concerns ill-treatment in police custody and the lack of effective investigation into the incident. The applicant was charged with an aggravated murder and robbery and subsequently convicted of the mentioned crimes. He is currently serving an 18-year prison sentence.
In November 2002 the applicant was arrested and took to a police station for questioning. The applicant alleged that during his questioning policemen beat him, applied electric shock to him and put a bag over his head to suffocate him. Later, on the day of the questioning, a forensic medical expert found multiple bruises and abrasions on the body of the applicant. A few days later the applicant was released from detention and underwent hospital treatment for a brain concussion and other injuries. The applicant complained about the beatings to the regional prosecutor, but the investigative authorities had refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators several times.
Referring to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicant complained about ill-treatment in police custody and inadequate investigation into his complaint by domestic authorities. The Court sustained all the claims of the applicant and ordered the Russian Government to pay the applicant 18,000 Euros for non-pecuniary damage. The reasoning of the Court’s findings is very similar to the ones given in the previous cases concerning ill-treatment in Russian police custody. [For more information about such cases see my previous posts of 3 November 2011, 1 November 2011 and 22 October 2011.]
Case of Sambiyeva
The second case of Sambiyeva v. Russia concerns abduction, forced disappearance and unacknowledged detention in Chechnya. The applicant is a Russian citizen who lives in Chechnya. She has not seen her son since August 2003. At that time her son worked for the Security Service of the Chechen President. On 13 August 2003, he and his colleague were going by taxi to the village of Makkhety. On their way to this village their taxi was stopped at a checkpoint by military servicemen. After that they were detained and taken to the military unit in the village of Khatuni.
On 25 August 2003 the colleague of the applicant’s son was released from detention. He alleged that both he and the applicant’s son had been detained in pits in the ground filled with water. Shortly before his release he had seen the applicant’s son, who allegedly had been beaten and could barely speak. The military servicemen told the colleague of the applicant’s son, that the latter would be released on the following day.
The Russian Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicant and confirmed that both the applicant’s son and his colleague were stopped by the military servicemen and then taken to the military unit stationed in Khatuni. While the colleague of the applicant’s son had been released later, the fate of the applicant’s son remains unclear.
The applicant applied to different authorities in Chechnya to find out information about her son. Though the investigation into her son’s disappearance had been opened, the investigation had been suspended and restarted several times, and to date the applicant has not received any information on its progress.
The applicant alleged violations of Article 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. Particularly she complained that her son had been abducted, unlawfully arrested and eventually killed by Russian servicemen in Chechnya, that no effective investigations had been carried out into this matter, that she had suffered as result of her son’s disappearance, and that she had no effective remedy in respect of her complaint.
The ECHR sustained all the claims of the applicant and ordered the Russian Government to pay the applicant 12,000 Euros for pecuniary damage, 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage and 4,815 Euro for costs and expenses. The reasoning of the Court’s findings is very similar to the ones given in the previous cases concerning forced disappearances in Chechnya. [For more information about such cases see my previous posts of 3 October 2011 and 27 September 2011].
Case of Yakubov
The third case of Yakubov v. Russia concerns extradition of the applicant to Uzbekistan. The applicant is an Uzbek national. He is suspected of being a member of a banned transnational Islamic organization, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), and is on a wanted list in Uzbekistan. The applicant arrived in Russia in May 2009 and is currently residing in Ryazan City (Russia). Since his arrival to Russia he has had several extradition proceedings and has been refused asylum. In February 2010 an expulsion order was issued against him. After that the applicant applied to the ECHR. As an urgent interim measure the Court requested Russia, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, not to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan until further notice.
The applicant alleged in its complaint that, if extradited to Uzbekistan, he would be at real risk of ill-treatment, since he is suspected of being a member of HT. He claimed that there was “the widespread practice of the use of torture against detainees and persons suspected of membership of proscribed religious organizations” in Uzbekistan, confirming his allegations with independent reports of human rights organizations and the United Nations. The applicant referred to violation of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention.
The ECHR found no breach of Article 3 in the present case, since the applicant had not bee extradited yet. However, it held that the execution of the expulsion order against the applicant would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In this respect the Court advised the Russian Government not to expel the applicant until the present judgment becomes final or further order of the Court.
The Court found Russia responsible for violation of Article 13 of the Convention, since “the courts failed to rigorously scrutinize the applicant’s claims that there was a risk that he would be ill-treated in the event of his expulsion to Uzbekistan.”
As to the compensation, the ECHR ordered Russia to pay the applicant 1,800 Euros for costs and expenses.
According to Russian legal professionals the case of Yakubov is not the only one involving asylum seekers. Many other citizens of Uzbekistan arrive to Russia to seek asylum, since they are prosecuted in Uzbekistan for being members of proscribed religious organizations, such as HT. Human rights activists believe that prosecution of asylum seekers by Uzbekistan authorities, as well as their extradition by Russian authorities back to Uzbekistan is usually conducted as part of anti-terrorism and anti-extremism efforts. However, according to human rights advocates, this is only an imitation of such efforts, since most of the persons prosecuted for the membership in HT have nothing to do with this organization at all.
[1] The full text of these judgments can be found at the official site of the Court www.echr.coe.int in HUDOC database.
No comments:
Post a Comment