New decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with respect to the North Caucasus

New decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with respect to the North Caucasus

24. 
    
    
25. 
    Beksultanova versus Russia (Beksultanova v. Russia, Complaint No. 31564/07, the decision was taken on 27 September, 2011)
    
26. 
    In the morning of 2 October 2004, an officer of the Special Designation Police Detachment came to the house of Aminat Beksultanova, the Declarant, and ordered her son, Timur Beksultanov, born in 1980 to go along with him in order to check some information concerning his connection with insurgents. At the time, Timur wason remand. He was incriminated according to items 208; 222 and 317 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with his being suspected of an attack on police officers in Achhoi-Martan on 6 July 2003. He was to appear for an interrogation on 7 October 2004 and according to the Declarant he intended to deny all the charges. Timur left with the officer of the Special Designation Police Detachment. Subsequently, some witnesses informed that they had seen Timur and that officer at a block post, and that there had been some cars, armoured troop-carriers and a big group of agents of national security in the same place. After checking Timur’s certificate of identity, they beat him, shot his hip and shoulder through, shoved him into one of the armoured troop-carriers and drove away. Since then, nobody has seen Timur any more. The Declarant constantly applied to the authorities and asked them to carry out an investigation into the disappearance of her son, but no separate criminal case regarding his abduction was ever initiated.
    

During the first war in the Chechen Republic, Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev, born in 1970, worked as a driver of an “Ural” fuel tank truck. On 9 February 1996, he was driving through the village of Berkat-Yurt. Not far from a check-point of the Russian federal forces, his truck was stopped by a group of servicemen of the 205-th Separate Motortised Rifle Brigade (Military Unit No.74614) under command of Major Aleksander Zavgorodny. After that, Elbek disappeared. Subsequently, his burnt-up fuel tank truck was found in the suburbs of the village of Berkat-Yurt.

27. 
    This is the first decision and now, obviously, the first test-case judgement of ECHR in the matter concerning the events of the armed conflict in the North Caucasus when an infringement was committed before 5 May 1998, i.e. the date of the entry of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms into force with regard to the Russian Federation. In this connection, the decision could not be taken on the very crime of forcible abduction: the Court was not in the position to ascertain the responsibility of the state for the deprivation of Tashukhadzhiyev of his right to life. It could only decree in connection with the failure to unvestigate this offence. The Court, thus, continues to extend its jurisdiction to crimes against the humanity, which obviously do not have any limitation period. A year before (on 29 November 2010), the Court made an important remark (in its decision on the case “Amuyeva and others versus Russia”, Paragraph 70) regarding the observance of the six-month term between entering the last appeal to national authorities and lodging a complaint with the Strasbourg Court. In point of fact, an exception was made for complaints under Article 2 (the right to life) of the Convention, “especially in the context of war crimes and offences against humanity”. ECHR decided that “public interest in prosecution and condemnation of guilty persons should be unconditionally recognised” regarding such cases and that even “many years later after events” it has no good grounds to be too strict” to applicants.
    
28. 
    
    

29. 
    The European Court considered the Russian authorities to be responsible for an infringement of