Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Bucharest.

From 1 August 2004 to 6 August 2007, he was employed by a private company (“the employer”) as an engineer in charge of sales. At his employer’s request, he created a Yahoo Messenger account for the purpose of responding to clients’ enquiries.

On 13 July 2007 the employer informed the applicant that his Yahoo Messenger communications had been monitored from 5 to 13 July 2007 and that the records showed that he had used the Internet for personal purposes, contrary to internal regulations. The applicant replied in writing that he had only used Yahoo Messenger for professional purposes. When presented with a forty-five-page transcript of his communications on Yahoo Messenger, the applicant notified his employer that, by violating his correspondence, they were accountable under the Criminal Code. The fortyfive pages contained transcripts of all the messages that the applicant had exchanged with his fiancée and his brother during the period when his communications had been monitored; they related to personal matters involving the applicant. The transcript also contained five short messages that the applicant had exchanged with his fiancée on 12 July 2007 using a personal Yahoo Messenger account; these messages did not disclose any intimate information.

On 1 August 2007 the employer terminated the applicant’s employment contract for breach of the company’s internal regulations which stated, inter alia:

“It is strictly forbidden to disturb order and discipline within the company’s premises and especially ... to use computers, photocopiers, telephones, telex and fax machines for personal purposes.”

The applicant challenged his employer’s decision before the Bucharest County Court (“the County Court”). He complained that this decision had been null and void since, by accessing his communications, his employer had violated his right to correspondence protected by the Romanian Constitution and the Criminal Code.

In a judgment of 7 December 2007, the County Court dismissed his complaint on the grounds that the employer had complied with the dismissal proceedings provided for by the Labour Code and noted that the applicant had been duly informed of the employer’s regulations that prohibited the use of company resources for personal purposes. The County Court’s judgment reads, in its relevant parts:

“The court takes the view that the monitoring of the [applicant]’s Yahoo Messenger communications from the company’s computer ... during working hours – regardless of whether the employer’s actions were or were not illegal (îmbracă sau nu forma ilicitului penal) – cannot affect the validity of the disciplinary proceedings in the instant case...

However, since the [applicant] claimed during the disciplinary proceedings that he had not used Yahoo Messenger for personal purposes but rather for advising clients on the products offered by his employer, the court finds that checking the content of the [applicant]’s communications was the only method for the employer to verify the [applicant]’s line of defence.

The employer’s right to monitor their employees’ use of the company’s computers in the workplace falls within the broad scope of the right to check the manner in which professional tasks are complete.

As long as the employees’ attention ... had been drawn to the fact that, not long before the applicant had received a disciplinary sanction, another colleague had been dismissed for having used the Internet, the telephone and the photocopiers for personal purposes and they had been warned that their activity was under surveillance (see notice no 2316 of 3 July 2007 that the applicant had signed ...) it cannot be held against the employer that he had not proven transparency and that he had not been open with regard to his activities in monitoring the use of the computers by its employees.

The Internet in the workplace must remain a tool at the employee’s disposal. It was granted by the employer for professional use and it is indisputable that the employer, by virtue of the right to monitor the employees’ activities, has the prerogative to keep personal use of the Internet monitored.

Some of the reasons that make the employer’s checks necessary are the possibilities that through use of the Internet employees could damage the company’s IT systems, or engage in illicit activities in the company’s name, or reveal the company’s commercial secrets.”

The applicant appealed against this judgment. He claimed that emails were also protected by Article 8 of the Convention as pertaining to “private life” and “correspondence”. He also complained that the County Court had not allowed him to call witnesses to prove that the employer had not suffered as a result of his actions.

In a final decision of 17 June 2008, the Bucharest Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed his appeal and upheld the judgment rendered by the County Court. Relying on EU Directive 95/46/EC, the Court of Appeal ruled that the employer’s conduct had been reasonable and that the monitoring of the applicant’s communications had been the only method of establishing if there had been a disciplinary breach. With regard to his procedural rights, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s arguments, stating that the evidence already before it was sufficient. The Court of Appeal’s decision reads, in its relevant parts:

“In view of the fact that the employer has the right and the obligation to ensure the functioning of the company and, to this end, [the right] to check the manner in which its employees complete their professional tasks, and of the fact that [the employer] holds the disciplinary power of which it can legitimately dispose and which [entitled it] to monitor and to transcribe the communications on Yahoo Messenger that the employee denied having had for personal purposes, after having been, together with his other colleagues, warned against using the company’s resources for personal purposes, it cannot be held that the violation of his correspondence (violarea secretului corespondenţei) was not the only manner to achieve this legitimate aim and that the proper balance between the need to protect his private life and the right of the employer to supervise the functioning of its business was not struck.”


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicants are all Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. They obtained binding judicial decisions ordering the State authorities to provide them with housing or various services in kind, but the enforcement of those judgments was considerably delayed. Some of the judgments remain unenforced to date. The applicants’ individual circumstances are detailed below.

The applicant, Mr Mikhail Yefimovich Gerasimov, was born on 30 June 1927 and lived in Vladivostok, Primorskiy Region.

On 3 September 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok ordered the town administration to conclude a contract for utilities with the applicant before 1 December 2002, and to repair the basement of the building he lived in in accordance with the sanitary regulations before the cold season. The judgment became final on 14 September 2002.

On 14 March and 17 May 2005 a commission composed of several members of the housing maintenance authority and residents inspected the basement and found it up to standard.

On the 27 July 2005 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment, finding that the basement had been repaired as required.

On 19 July 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok clarified the judgment of 3 September 2002 with regard to the utilities to be supplied. The court specified that the applicant’s apartment had to be provided with heating, hot and cold water, wastewater services and a cleaning service for the communal area. The enforcement proceedings were resumed.

On an unspecified date, the town administration provided the applicant with a draft contract for the utilities but the applicant refused to sign it without giving a reason.

Considering their obligations under the judgment of 3 September 2002 to be fulfilled, the town administration requested that the enforcement proceedings be closed. The bailiffs refused.

On 17 October 2007 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok dismissed the administration’s complaint against the bailiffs’ refusal to close the enforcement proceedings.

On 11 December 2007 the Primorskiy Regional Court granted the administration’s appeal, finding that the latter had taken all possible measures to comply with the judgment of 3 September 2002.

The bailiffs accordingly closed the enforcement proceedings on 21 January 2008.

The applicant, Mr Andrey Gennadyevich Shmakov, was born on 30 October 1960 and lives in Yakutsk, Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).

On 10 January 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court ordered the town administration to provide the applicant and his family with appropriate housing in Yakutsk, in accordance with the law, in lieu of his house, which had been demolished by the authorities in 2001. The judgment became final on 21 January 2002.

As the judgment had still not been enforced, in 2004 the applicant unsuccessfully sought a court order for the seizure of an apartment in a new block which had been built on the plot of land on which his former house had stood.

On 7 July 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court specified that the judgment had to be enforced by the mayor’s office of Yakutsk.

On 3 March 2010 the Yakutsk Town Court modified the method of enforcement, specifying that the judgment could be enforced by the payment of 1,653,264 Russian roubles (RUB) by the town administration. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment and received the monetary award on 1 July 2010.

The applicant, Ms Lyubov Mikaylovna Baranova, was born on 17 April 1960 and lives in Bazarniy Syzgan, Ulyanovsk Region.

On 14 April 2009 the Bazarnosyzganskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region ordered the municipal administration to provide heating supply to her flat. On 26 May 2009 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. In a judgment of 16 July 2009 the Inzenskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region specified possible ways of enforcing the judgment of 14 April 2009, namely, by ensuring either a hot water or natural gas supply for heating purposes.

On 23 March 2010 an individual gas heating device was installed in the applicant’s flat.

On 14 July 2010 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the respondent authority had properly complied with the judgment of 14 April 2009.

The applicant, Ms Tatyana Salikhzanovna Kostyleva, was born on 13 September 1960 and lives in Syktyvkar, Republic of Komi.

On 2 October 2000 the Syktyvkar Town Court ordered the town administration to renovate the building in which the applicant held a flat under a social tenancy agreement. The judgment became final on 10 November 2000 (“the first judgment”).

On 1 December 2000 the bailiffs commenced the enforcement proceedings. The building has at times been included in the town’s plans to renovate municipal housing but the repairs have never been carried out owing to a lack of funds and a shortage of temporary housing facilities where residents could be relocated during the renovation.

On 20 July 2009 the Syktyvkar Town Court found that the applicant was still living in unsuitable conditions and ordered the town administration to provide her and her family with comfortable housing of at least 40.8 sq. m. On 5 August 2009 the judgment became final (“the second judgment”) and on 12 August 2009 the bailiffs started the enforcement proceedings.

On 10 February 2010 the Syktyvkar Town Court dismissed the authorities’ request for a stay on the enforcement of the second judgment, considering that such a course of action would endanger the applicant’s and her family’s life and health. The bailiffs’ made repeated, albeit unsuccessful attempts to secure the enforcement of the judgment by the town administration, including by warning the head of administration of his criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code.

Neither the first nor the second judgment in the applicant’s favour has been enforced to date. According to the latest information received by the Court, she was still living in the same building. On the evening of 14 May 2012 there was an electrical short circuit in the communal area on the first floor, provoking a smoke emission in the building.

Meanwhile, the competent authorities continued the enforcement proceedings. After the communication of the present application to the Russian Government, the bailiffs requested the Syktyvkar Town Court on 23 May 2012 to provide them with a duplicate of the writ of execution in respect of the first judgment, which had been lost shortly after its delivery. On 27 June 2012 the court ordered a duplicate of the writ of execution to be delivered and the bailiffs resumed the enforcement proceedings on 13 September 2012. On that date the bailiff of the Inter-District Division for Special Enforcement Procedures in the Komi Republic (Межрайонный отдел судебных приставов по особым исполнительным производствам Управления Федеральной службы судебных приставов по Республике Коми) decided as follows:

“1. To initiate enforcement proceedings no. 10594/12/22/11 [in respect of the Syktyvkar Town Administration].

To set a time-limit of five days for the debtor’s voluntary compliance with the requirements provided for in the writ of execution (section 30(12) of the Federal Law ‘On enforcement proceedings’).

To warn the debtor that it will be liable to pay an enforcement fee of RUB 5,000 in the event of non-compliance within the time-limit set and failure to produce evidence that enforcement is impossible on account of extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances. In the event of extraordinary and objectively unavoidable circumstances and other unexpected and insurmountable obstacles making voluntary enforcement impossible, the debtor is requested to inform the bailiff accordingly within the time-limit set for voluntary compliance.

To warn the debtor that under section 6 of Federal Law no. 229-FZ of 2 October 2007 on enforcement proceedings the requirements of the bailiff are binding on all State authorities, local authorities, individuals and organisations and must be rigorously complied with throughout the territory of the Russian Federation.

To warn the debtor that under section 105(2) of Federal Law no. 229-FZ of 2 October 2007 on enforcement proceedings the bailiff may impose a fine provided for by Article 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences on a debtor who does not fulfil, within a new time-limit, the requirements set out in the writ of execution.

To warn the debtor that under sections 116 and 117 of Federal Law no. 229-FZ of 2 October 2007 on enforcement proceedings the expenses related to the enforcement proceedings are to be paid back by the debtor to the federal budget, the creditor and anyone else who incurred those expenses.

To warn the debtor that State officials may be prosecuted under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for non-enforcement of a judicial decision.

On 2 August 2012 the bailiff was informed by the Town Administration that the enforcement of the judgment was impossible owing to a lack of available flats.

On 10 October 2012 the bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the second judgment were still pending along with 309 other similar judgments against the town administration. The bailiff noted that the delay in enforcement could be explained, in particular, by the high number of judgments to be enforced, the lack of available flats and insufficient funding allocated for the building of new flats. The enforcement proceedings referred to by the bailiffs in the applicant’s case included compulsory requests for the allocation of flats, the inclusion of additional funds in the budget, the identification of available housing and the seizure of available flats with a view to their allocation in accordance with the waiting list. The bailiff also informed the applicant that she was no. 39 on the waiting list.

On 11 January 2013 the bailiff warned the head of the town administration about criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code for non-enforcement of a judgment.

According to the latest information, the applicant had moved up to no. 27 on the waiting list.

The applicant, Mr Yuriy Vasilyevich Starostenkov, was born on 8 June 1954 and lives in Smolensk. A retired police officer, he was assigned to life-long disability category two in 1993 on account of injuries sustained during his service.

On 3 July 2008 the Velizhskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region upheld the applicant’s right to be provided with a car for rehabilitation purposes and ordered the Department for Social Development of the Smolensk Region to ensure he was provided with one. This judgment became final on 18 July 2008.

On 2 September 2008 the court supplemented the judgment of 3 July 2008, specifying that the applicant’s right to a car might be secured either at the expense of the regional budget or by informing the Federal Health Agency of his needs. However, the judgment was not enforced.

After the communication of the present application to the Russian Government, on 19 June 2012 the bailiff imposed a fine of RUB 30,000 on the debtor authority in accordance with Article 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences. On 7 August 2012 the bailiff’s decision was quashed by the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk on the ground that the debtor authority’s act did not amount to an administrative offence.

On 2 October 2012 the bailiff warned the head of the debtor authority about criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code for non-enforcement of a judgment.

On 23 November 2012 the Governor of the Smolensk Region issued Order no. 1695-р/адм allocating RUB 354,900 for the purchase of a car for the applicant. According to an estimate issued on 18 October 2012 by the Department for Social Development those funds would cover the purchase of a car (a Lada Kalina 11173 (RUB 298,900)) and special hand control equipment (RUB 56,000).

On 24 December 2012 the applicant received a Lada 212140 without any special hand control equipment. On 26 December 2012 the enforcement proceedings were closed.

The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Arturovich Zakharchenko, was born on 4 September 1966 and lives in Saint Petersburg.

The applicant is a military serviceman. On 30 November 2006 the Pushkin Garrison Military Court ordered the Commandant of military unit no. 3526 to provide, as a matter of priority, the applicant and his family with housing in the geographical area of his military service in accordance with the law in force. The judgment became final on 16 December 2006 but was not enforced.

After the communication of the present application to the Russian Government on 14 September 2012, the Housing Commission allocated a flat located in the Saint-Petersburg suburbs to the applicant. On 1 October 2012 the applicant was provided with that flat and on 1 February 2013 concluded a social tenancy contract with the authorities.

The applicant, Ms Marina Yevgenyevna Troshina, was born on 14 July 1961 and lives in Moscow.

On 13 April 2007 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the Moscow Regional Office of the Federal Real Estate Cadastral Agency (Управление Федерального агентства кадастра объектов недвижимости по Московской области) to consider a request by the applicant dated 29 December 2005 by which she had requested data from the land register in respect of a plot of land located in the village of Polushkino, Odintsovso District, Moscow Region (cadastral no. 50:20:13:7:2:13). The judgment became final on 4 May 2007 and the enforcement proceedings were brought on an unspecified date. However, the enforcement of the judgment was delayed.

On 8 February 2010 the Russian Ministry for Economic Development issued Order no. P/41 for the reorganisation of the defendant authority and its incorporation into the Moscow Regional Directorate of the Federal Registration Agency. The relevant powers were later conferred to the Federal State Agency “Cadastral Chamber” for the Moscow Region (Федеральное государственное учреждение «Кадастровая палата» по Московской области - “the Moscow Region Cadastral Chamber”).

On 22 March 2011 the Ostankinskiy District Court granted the applicant’s request for clarification on how the enforcement would be carried out. It specified that the judgment had to be executed by the Moscow Regional Directorate for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography (Управление Федеральной службы государственной регистрации, кадастра и картографии - “the Directorate”) as successor to the respondent authority under the judgment of 13 April 2007.

On 30 September 2011 the same court dismissed the Directorate’s request for appointment of the Moscow Cadastral Chamber as successor to the respondent authority under the judgment of 13 April 2007.

On 2 December 2011 the Directorate requested the Moscow Cadastral Chamber to provide the data required by the judgment. On 15 December 2011 the latter informed the Directorate that the register contained no information about the plot of land concerned and recommended that the applicant seek its registration by the competent authority of the Odintsovo district. On 23 December 2011 that information was sent to the applicant.

On 26 December 2011 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings. On 20 March 2012 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the bailiffs’ decision, considering that the judgment of 13 April 2007 had been fully enforced.

The applicant, Ms Natalya Vasilyevna Ilnitskaya, was born on 1 September 1961 and lives in Shikhany, Saratov Region. She is a former member of the Russian army.

On 24 November 2008 the Volsk District Court of the Saratov Region upheld her right to a housing voucher. The judgment became final on 9 December 2008 but was only enforced on 15 February 2011 when a housing voucher issued on 24 February 2010 (no. 672764) was processed with a view to purchasing a flat in Volsk, Saratov Region.

The applicant, Mr Aleksey Alekseyevich Grinko, was born on 25 July 1978 and lives in Vatutinki, Moscow Region. He is a military serviceman.

On 8 December 2006 the Naro-Fominskiy Garrison Military Court ordered the commandant of military unit no. 72064 to grant the applicant priority housing in accordance with the law in force. The judgment became final on 25 December 2006 but was not enforced.

The bailiffs brought the enforcement proceedings on 29 June 2009 but their repeated requests to the respondent authorities did not result in any action being taken.

On 22 February 2011 the Naro-Fominskiy Garrison Military Court supplemented the judgment, specifying that it had to be enforced by the Housing Department of the Russian Ministry of Defence (Департамент жилищного обеспечения Министерства обороны Российской Федерации – “the Housing Department”).

After the communication of the present application to the Russian Government, on 14 May 2012, the competent bailiff addressed the Minister of Defence with a view to bringing the officials responsible to administrative responsibility.

On 23 May 2012 the bailiff of the Inter-District Division for Special Enforcement Procedures in Moscow (Межрайонный отдел судебных приставов по особым исполнительным производствам Управления Федеральной службы судебных приставов по Mocкве) warned the head of the Housing Department that she could face criminal liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code for non-enforcement of a judgment. On 12 June, 12 July and 24 October 2012 the bailiffs again requested the debtor to comply with the judgment.

On 22 June 2012 the bailiffs of the Moscow Special Operational Division (Специализированный отдел оперативного дежурства УФССП России по Москве) appeared in person to summon the head of the Housing Department but the latter was not found at her place of residence.

On 28 June 2012 the bailiff handed a warning under Article 315 of the Criminal Code in person to the head of the Housing Department at her place of residence but the latter refused to acknowledge receipt.

On 6 July 2012 the Odintsovskiy Garrison Military Court found that the allocation of an apartment to the applicant in Balashikha, Moscow Region, had been unlawful.

On 10 December 2012 the bailiff suspended the State registration proceedings in respect of 327 apartments in Moscow in order to compel the respondent authority to comply with the judgment.

On 28 January 2013 the bailiff again summoned the head of the Housing Department to appear in person in order to explain the reasons for the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment.

According to the latest information received by the Court, the judgment in the applicant’s favour remained unenforced.

The applicant, Ms Svetlana Nikolayevna Antonova, was born on 10 September 1959 and lives in Lyubertsy, Moscow Region. She served in the Border Control Service of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (“the FSB”) and was entitled to housing.

On 5 April 2005 the Odintsovo Garrison Military Court ordered the relevant department of the FSB to provide the applicant and her family, as a matter of priority, with housing located in the geographic area of her service in accordance with the law in force.

That judgment became final on 22 April 2005 but was only enforced on 16 February 2012 when the applicant concluded a social tenancy agreement with military unit no. 55002 for a flat located in Lyubertsy, Moscow Region.

The applicant, Ms Yelena Aleksandrovna Tsvetkova, was born on 12 December 1951 and lives in Kostroma.

On 15 December 2008 the Ostrovskiy District Court of the Kostroma Region ordered the local administration to provide the applicant with comfortable social housing in accordance with the sanitary and technical regulations in force and located in Ostrovskoye, Kostroma Region. On 30 December 2008 that judgment became final but its enforcement was delayed.

On 1 September 2011 the district court granted the applicant’s application for a change in the method of enforcement and ordered the local administration to pay her RUB 442,368, that is, the market value of the housing to which she was entitled. On 3 October 2011 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Kostroma Regional Court. The award was paid to the applicant in six instalments between 31 January and 22 March 2012.

The six applicants mentioned below applied to the competent Russian courts with claims for compensation for delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour, relying on Federal Law no. 68-FZ of 30 April 2010, “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” (“the Compensation Act”).

The domestic courts consistently found those actions inadmissible. They held that the judgments at issue imposed on the authorities various obligations in kind, while the Compensation Act was only applicable to delayed enforcement of judgments establishing a monetary debt to be recovered from the State budgets. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed on appeal that the Compensation Act was only applicable to monetary judicial awards.

The domestic courts concerned and the dates of their decisions are detailed below.

Ms Kostyleva: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 30 July 2010 (upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 28 September 2010);

Mr Zakharchenko: Leningrad Circuit Military Court, 6 October 2010 (upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court on 2 December 2010);

Ms Ilnitskaya: Saratov Regional Court, 4 February 2011 (upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court on 12 April 2011);

Mr Grinko: Moscow Circuit Military Court, 26 October 2010 (upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court on 25 January 2011);

Ms Antonova: Moscow Circuit Military Court, 29 August 2011;

Ms Tsvetkova: Kostroma Regional Court, 21 June 2011 (upheld on appeal by the same court on 27 July 2011).

On 31 May 2011 the applicant Ms Kostyleva sued the town administration for failure to comply with the judgments in her favour (see paragraphs 29 and 31 above). Relying on Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure she asked the Syktyvkar Town Court to acknowledge the administration’s failings to be in breach of both the domestic law and the Convention.

On 2 June 2011 the court dismissed the complaint without considering the merits. It specified that such a complaint had to be considered in accordance with a special procedure provided for under Article 441 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 30 June 2011 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic granted the applicant’s appeal and quashed the judgment. It found that the applicant’s complaint should have been examined by the lower court under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 11 September 2011 the Syktyvkar Town Court reconsidered the applicant’s complaint and granted it in part. With reference to the Convention and the Court’s case-law, the Syktyvkar Town Court found the administration’s failings unlawful and held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the applicant’s case. It noted in particular that the first judgment of 2000 had not been enforced for at least eight and a half years, that is, until the delivery of the second judgment in 2009. At the same time the court rejected the applicant’s request that the administration be ordered to comply with the first judgment by 31 December 2011, considering that the building she lived in was unsuitable for renovation and that the second judgment in the applicant’s favour had already ordered the town administration to provide her with other housing.

On 7 November 2011 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic dismissed the administration’s appeal against the judgment of 11 September 2011.

On 13 January 2012 the Syktyvkar Town Court partially granted Ms Kostyleva’s civil action against the town administration and awarded her RUB 150,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the administration’s failure to comply with the first judgment in her favour for at least eight and a half years, that is, until the delivery of the judgment of 20 July 2009. The court relied in particular on Article 151 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention.

On 20 February 2012 the applicant brought an appeal against that judgment. She argued that the monetary award had not adequately compensated for the serious non-pecuniary damage she had sustained and was not comparable to the amounts that the Court would have granted in such circumstances (Zolotareva and Others v. Russia, nos. 14667/05 et al., 12 April 2011).

The applicant’s complaint was dismissed and the judgment upheld on appeal and cassation on 19 April 2012 and 17 July 2012 respectively.


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation)

The applicants are:

Dzhamula Antayev, born in 1953;

Malket Antayeva, born in 1965;

Ayub Antayev, born in 1982;

Suleyman Antayev, born in 1987;

Islam Antayev, born in 1992;

Gelani Vashayev, born in 1936;

Nura Eshiyeva, born in 1948;

Ayub Vashayev, born in 1980;

Akraman Vashayev, born in 1984;

Maryan Vashayeva, born in 1978.

The applicants live in the Vargashinskiy District, Kurgan Region. They are members of two families originally from Chechnya: the first and second applicants are married and the third to fifth applicants are their children; the sixth to seventh applicants are married and the eighth to tenth applicants are their children. The Antayev family (the first to fifth applicants; the first applicant family) have lived in the Kurgan Region since 1979; the Vashayev family (the sixth to tenth applicants; the second applicant family) have lived in the Kurgan Region since 1998.

The applicants submitted that attitudes towards the Chechen minority had worsened after 2000, when the second armed conflict in Chechnya had started.

On 8 March 2006 the third and eighth applicants had a fight with Mr A.B. in the settlement of Prosekovo. The third applicant was injured in the hand and Mr A.B. took him to the hospital. On 27 March 2006 the Kurgan regional forensic bureau noted knife wounds on the third applicant’s hand, which were classified as passing damage to health. According to the applicants, both parties to the conflict decided not to contact the authorities in this regard. As is apparent from subsequent questioning, the Antayev family had asked Mr A.B. to pay them 50,000 roubles (RUB) by way of compensation for their expenses, while Mr A.B. offered RUB 10,000.

In March 2006 the Vargashinskiy District Department of the Interior (ROVD) questioned Mr A.B. about threats to his life by the third and eighth applicants and opened criminal investigation file no. 388644 under Article 119, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (threat to life or health). It does not appear that anyone was charged or found guilty within this set of proceedings. In May 2007 Mr A.B. submitted a statement to the Court alleging that the police had used threats to force him to lodge a complaint against the first applicant family.

On 24 March 2006 the investigator in charge of the case issued urgent search warrants at both applicants’ families’ homes, referring to the possible presence of firearms. On 25 March 2006 that decision was found lawful by the district court.

On 24 March 2006 the first applicant family were at home at 4 Zarechnaya Street, in the Verkhnesuyerskoye settlement in the Vargashinskiy District. At about 1 p.m. three vehicles – a Gazel minibus, a black Volga and a VAZ-99 – arrived at their house. According to the applicants, about 20 men from various law-enforcement agencies got out of the vehicles. Some of them were wearing military uniforms and masks, others were dressed in civilian clothes. The applicants later identified Mr E.K. and Mr V.G. from the Regional Police Department for Combating Organised Crime (RUBOP), Mr. A.K., deputy head of the Vargashinskiy ROVD, Mr. N.P. and Mr U. from the Vargashinskiy ROVD. The RUBOP servicemen carried automatic weapons and hand pistols. Mr N.P. was in charge of carrying out the search.

According to the applicants, no search warrant or other document was produced by the police. The fourth and fifth applicants were in the courtyard; the policemen beat them there and said “Why don’t you go to Chechnya, to fight us there?”

The servicemen wearing masks and Mr E.K. entered the house. Mr E.K. grabbed the second applicant by the hand and pushed her towards the sofa in order to handcuff her; she fell to the floor and felt severe pain in her back. The first applicant was also punched in his back and legs by Mr E.K.

The third applicant was in the house. He had his sweater pulled over his head and was handcuffed. The servicemen beat him inside the house, then pulled him to the yard and beat him there in front of his brothers and then took him to the barn. According to the applicants, the third applicant’s pants were removed and he was threatened that his genitals would be “pulled off with a wire”; he was then thrown into manure and beaten.

According to the applicants’ statements, the servicemen mocked the third, fourth and fifth applicants saying that they would not be able to “beget more Chechens”. They also forced them to shout humiliating comments. They referred to the events in the village of Chastoozerye, where in 2002 two local residents of Chechen origin had been injured by unidentified persons (see application no. 18114/06, Amadayev v. Russia).

The second applicant saw that the fourth applicant, who suffered from epilepsy, had been brought into the house and was lying on the floor; he was very pale. The second applicant was not allowed to give him medicine.

The search of the Antayevs’ house lasted for about two hours. At some point Mr E.K. announced that he had found a cartridge from a gun. The second applicant alleged that she had seen him taking it out of his pocket.

The search record of 24 March 2006 drawn up by the ROVD officers mentioned two attesting witnesses and bore their signatures, as well as signatures by the third applicant indicating that he had been informed of his rights and obligations prior to the search and after it had been completed. No remarks or objections were noted in the record. The record listed one 7.62 mm calibre cartridge for an automatic gun which had been found in a drawer in the kitchen, 36 videotapes and eight items of printed material in a foreign language. The copy of the record is partly illegible, but it appears that after the discovery of the cartridge the third applicant, in the presence of two witnesses, stated that he had no knowledge of it.

As is apparent from subsequent documents, in April 2006 eleven videotapes were returned to the first applicant.

After the search, the first and third applicants were taken by the police to the offices of the local administration, where they were questioned separately for about one hour in relation to the criminal investigation concerning threats to Mr A.B. They then returned home.

A relative of the Vashayevs’ arrived from Kurgan and took the second, third and fourth applicants to hospital.

According to the certificates issued by the Vargashinskiy district hospital in September 2007, the second applicant remained at the hospital from 24 March to 11 April 2006. She was diagnosed with “acute osteochondrosis [degenerative disc disease], two-sided lumbar-sacral radiculitis, post-traumatic coxalgia, hypertension of the second degree and stress”. The third applicant remained at the hospital from 24 March to 1 April 2006. He was diagnosed with “contusion of soft tissue in the thoracic-lumbar area”. The fourth applicant was examined on 24 March and left the hospital on 25 March 2006. He suffered from “contusion of soft tissue in the abdomen”.

The applicants argued that the extent of their injuries was more serious and that the first and fifth applicants had also suffered beatings. Further details of their injuries were recorded by the forensic experts in the course of the criminal investigation (see below).

According to the certificate issued by the Kurgan Medical Centre for spinal trauma correction, the second applicant was treated there between 15 June and 6 July 2006. She was diagnosed with a displaced fracture of the tail bone (coccyx), resulting from the fall on 24 March 2006. On 22 June 2006 the second applicant was successfully operated on her spine.

The applicants submitted their own statements to the Court dated August 2006 describing these events; they also referred to the documents submitted by them and collected during the criminal investigation. Gelani Vashayev’s son Mr Sh.V., who had taken the members of the first applicant family and then his own relatives to hospital on 24 and 25 March 2006, also submitted a statement dated May 2007. Two journalists, Mr A.D. and Ms G.P., the editor-in-chief of the district newspaper Mayak, submitted written statements dated April and May 2007, in which they described their futile attempts to obtain information from the police and the local hospital about the incident.

On 24 March 2006 at around 4 p.m., the eighth and ninth applicants were returning home. Outside their house situated at no. 102 Belovo settlement, they saw a Gazel minibus, a Volga and a grey VAZ 99. In the courtyard of their house they saw about five men, some of them wearing camouflage military uniform and masks and carrying automatic weapons. Other men were wearing civilian clothes and were armed with pistols. The men did not identify themselves or produce any papers.

The men ordered these two applicants to stand with their faces to the wall, pulled their caps over their eyes and beat them. According to the applicants, the men told them that they should go back to Chechnya and uttered other ethnically motivated insults.

The men entered the house, where the sixth, seventh and tenth applicants were waiting. The sixth applicant was handcuffed. The seventh applicant was told that she had given her sons a bad upbringing and that they should leave the village.

The search record of 24 March drawn up by the ROVD officers mentioned two attesting witnesses and bore their signatures, as well as signatures by the seventh applicant attesting that she had been informed of her rights and the reason for the search prior to its commencement and that she had no remarks or objections at the end of it. The record listed one hunting gun and seventeen cartridges. In relation to the gun and cartridges the seventh applicant explained that they belonged to her son Mr Sh.V., who had put them in his bedroom about five months earlier. In another bedroom an unloaded hand pistol was found. Two knives in cases, two penknives and two self-made knives were found amongst clothing. The seventh applicant offered no explanation regarding these items. Finally, fourteen videotapes were collected.

The eighth applicant was then put into the Gazel and taken to the Vargashinskiy ROVD. According to him, on the way there he was beaten in his groin with rifle butts and a rope was pulled around his neck. As a result of the strangulation attempt, the eighth applicant lost consciousness on several occasions. He was also insulted and told that he “would not be able to beget more Chechens”.

At the ROVD the eighth applicant was questioned and signed a statement about the events in Prosekovo (see paragraph 8 above), without access to medical or legal assistance.

He was released at around midnight. Mr Sh.V. took him to hospital (see below).

The applicants submitted written statements by the eighth and ninth applicants, produced in August 2006, and testimony by their neighbour Mrs Ye.L., who had witnessed the beatings and insults administered to the eighth and ninth applicants on 24 March 2006. They also referred to the statement by the sixth applicant’s son, Mr Sh.V., mentioned above (see paragraph 25).

On 28 March 2006 the applicants lodged seven individual complaints with the Vargashinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the district prosecutor’s office”). They alleged, in particular, that the policemen had beaten and humiliated them on 24 March 2006. On 7 April 2006 the investigator of the district prosecutor’s office refused to bring any charges under Article 286, paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code (abuse of authority), on account of lack of evidence of a criminal act. Referring to the results of the preliminary inquiry, the decision stated:

“On 24 March 2006, further to the complaint lodged by Mr A.B., the Vargashinskiy ROVD opened a criminal investigation under Article 119 of the Criminal Code [threat of murder]. Mr A.B. pointed out [the third applicant] as the person who had committed the crime... Pursuant to the internal instructions, on the same day the commanding officers of the ROVD transmitted this information to the RUBOP of the Kurgan Region, because the suspect was of Chechen ethnic origin. In order to provide security during the investigative measures and for operative support, servicemen of the RUBOP and special police force of the Regional Department of the Interior were sent to the Vargashinskiy district. The servicemen’s personal data is at present classified.

The commanding officers took immediate investigative measures in the Prosekovo settlement, at the scene of the crime. Immediately thereafter the investigator, with the agreement of the commanding officers of the ROVD, decided to proceed with the searches ... at the places of residence of [the third applicant] ... and [the eighth applicant].

... the commanding officers and servicemen of the ROVD, RUBOP and special police forces went to carry out the searches ... Mr [N.P.] from the ROVD was in charge of the searches.

During the search at the Antayevs’ house, after the policemen had shown them the search warrant and invited them to surrender unlawful items voluntarily, [the third and fourth applicants] mounted active resistance to the search and prevented examination of some pieces of furniture. For this reason, two servicemen of the special police force took them out into the courtyard and placed them near the VAZ 2101 car, together with [the fifth applicant]. The servicemen of the ROVD, special police force and attesting witnesses remained in the house and proceeded with the search, while the remaining special forces’ servicemen held positions around the house. No unlawful actions or acts of physical violence were perpetrated by the servicemen against any members of the Antayev family. Towards the end of the search all members of the family were moving around the house freely. All items collected during the search were duly noted and securely sealed.

The search of the Vashayevs’ house in Belovo followed the same pattern, in line with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [The sixth applicant], his wife [the seventh applicant] and daughter [the tenth applicant] were inside the house, while [the eighth and ninth applicants] were in the courtyard. ... No one from the Vashayev family was hurt by the police officers. ...

The applicants’ arguments alleging abuse of power by the police are therefore refuted by the information collected. This follows from the written explanations produced by the servicemen of the Vargashinskiy ROVD, including senior officers, servicemen of the RUBOP and the special police force. The servicemen’s explanations are consistent and non-contradictory. Each of them was questioned in relation to the actions of his colleagues which he had witnessed. None mentioned any abuses of power by their colleagues, while stressing the absence of justification for the alleged wrongdoing.

The witnesses who had been present during the searches also rebutted the applicants’ allegations about the abuse of power, including those who had stayed outside the Antayevs’ house. Both attesting witnesses had moved around the Antayevs’ house freely and, given the layout of the premises, must have seen and heard the events in the courtyard. However, as is apparent from the witnesses’ explanations, they did not notice any unlawful conduct by the policemen.

[The conclusions of the forensic report issued by the expert of the Kurgan Regional Forensic Bureau] were overturned by a commission of the [same office] ... The commission described [the eighth applicant’s] injuries recorded on 25 March 2006 as ‘not entailing consequences for [the applicant’s] health’.

Based on the above, and also on the explanations given by servicemen of the ROVD as to the absence on [the body of the eighth applicant] and other members of the Vashayev and Antayev families of injuries resulting from the policemen’s actions, the district prosecutor’s office looks critically upon the forensic reports ... about beatings recorded for [the first to fifth and eighth applicants]. The inquiry established with a sufficient degree of probability that the circumstances of these beatings were contradictory and no connection with the searches has been established.”

As a result of the applicants’ complaints against the above decision, on 5 May 2006 the deputy to the Kurgan Regional Prosecutor opened criminal investigation file no. 388743 under Article 286, paragraph 3 (a) of the Criminal Code (abuse of power committed with the use of violence or with a threat of use of violence). On the same date both applicant families were informed accordingly.

On 12 May 2006 the district prosecutor’s office was put in charge of the case. In response to a request from the Court, the Government submitted in July 2012 a copy of most of the documents from criminal investigation file no. 388743 (which comprised over 1,280 pages). The relevant documents may be summarised as follows.

It is apparent that in May 2006 eight applicants (the first to sixth, eighth and ninth applicants) were granted the status of victims in the proceedings.

In the course of the proceedings in 2006 and 2007 the applicants were questioned on numerous occasions, first as witnesses and then as victims. They confirmed their statements about the circumstances of the searches, the beatings and the humiliating treatment. In particular, the members of the Antayev family described that on 24 March 2006 a group of about ten men wearing civilian clothes and about six military men had arrived at their house. The “civilians” were armed with hand pistols, and the military men carried automatic guns and were wearing camouflage uniforms, bulletproof vests, helmets and masks. The men had ordered them to lie down on the floor, had handcuffed the men and had beaten and kicked them; the second applicant was pushed and fell backwards against a sofa; Mr N.P. had kicked the first applicant while the military men had taken the fourth and fifth applicants into the courtyard and beaten them there.

The members of the Vashayev family submitted that after 2 p.m. on 24 March 2006, the sixth, seventh and tenth applicants had been at home, while the eighth and ninth applicants were out foraging for hay. The members of the family who had stayed at home had been forced to lie on the floor by armed men wearing masks, but were then allowed to stand up by the men wearing civilian clothes who carried out the search. The sixth applicant had been handcuffed at first, but later his handcuffs were removed. The two sons of the sixth and seventh applicants, the eighth and ninth applicants, were stopped by armed men when they returned home and were made to stand with their legs and hands apart against the wall, with their hats pulled down over their eyes. Several “military men” wearing masks and civilian clothes had punched and kicked them and beaten them with their rifle butts. The sixth, seventh and tenth applicants went into the courtyard when the search in the house was over, and had witnessed the eighth and ninth applicants being beaten. Then the eighth applicant was put in a Gazel vehicle where he was again kicked and a rope placed around his neck and tightened, as a result of which he had lost consciousness.

The criminal investigation file contains several forensic expert reports issued by the Kurgan Regional Forensic expert bureau (“the forensic bureau”). The first one, expert report no. 2133 dated 25 March 2006, reported that the eighth applicant had suffered the following injuries: extensive bruising on the back of the head caused by a blunt object and not entailing consequences for the applicant’s health, and three circular bruises around the neck resulting from strangulation attempts. This had caused asphyxia resulting in temporary loss of consciousness and haemorrhages in the eyeballs, which constituted a serious injury. The report was issued upon the applicant’s request.

Other reports below were issued on 28 March 2006 in response to the investigator’s orders. They concluded that the injuries had been caused by blunt objects and did not entail lasting damage to the victims’ health.

Expert report no. 60 concluded that the fourth applicant had been hit in the abdomen, resulting in bruising.

Expert report no. 61 found that the third applicant had bruises over the lumbar area, on both sides.

Expert report no. 62 concluded that the eighth applicant had haematomas on the left side of his neck and the left side of the chest.

Expert report no. 63 described the second applicant’s injuries as bruising of the upper lip, right upper hand, left shoulder and left leg.

Expert report no. 64 found that the fifth applicant had contusions on the lower part of the left leg.

Expert report no. 65 noted that the first applicant had bruising over the left side of his chest.

In May 2006 the experts of the forensic bureau issued their formal conclusions that the injuries could have been received at the time and in the circumstances as alleged.

In addition, the experts examined the records of the Vargashinskiy district hospital. On the basis of the records, they concluded that the examination of the ninth applicant at the hospital on 24 March 2006 had not revealed any injuries (he had complained of pains in the chest area); the examination of the sixth applicant revealed bruises on the right side of his chest. As is apparent from the applicant’s signatures, they were made aware of these conclusions in January 2007.

In respect of the second applicant’s complaint about spinal trauma, on 15 November 2006 the experts also examined copies of her medical records from the hospitals. The documents showed that in May 2006 the second applicant had sought medical assistance in relation to a fracture of the tail bone (coccyx). She was operated upon in June 2006. The exact date of the fracture could not be established; this injury should be regarded as moderately serious.

By February 2007 the investigation had established the identities of the police officers who had taken part in the searches on 24 March 2006. According to the documents contained in the file, the group headed by Mr N.P. included three other Vargashinskiy ROVD officers, six officers from the Kurgan Regional RUBOP, including Mr E.K. and Mr V.G., and six officers from the regional special police force unit.

The case file contains five notes about the events of 24 March 2006 written by the special police force officers, in which they stated that, while providing assistance during the search of the Antayevs’ house in Verkhnesuyerskoye, they had had to physically restrain the inhabitants of the house, who had resisted the execution of the search and had refused to let the policemen enter and carry out their duties. Four men – the first, third, fourth and fifth applicants – had thus had to be restrained by force and handcuffs had had to be put on them.

All officers and servicemen who took part in the searches were questioned in the course of 2006. They denied that they had made the applicants lie on the floor, or pulled their clothes over their heads or beaten them.

In particular, Mr N.P. from the Vargashinskiy ROVD, who had been in charge of the searches, stated on 15 May 2006 that on 24 March 2006 Mr A.B. had lodged a complaint with the ROVD that the third and eighth applicants had threatened to murder him. On the same day, the criminal investigation under Article 119 of the Criminal Code had been opened. In response to internal instructions from the Ministry of the Interior, the local police had informed the Kurgan RUBOP about all criminal investigations involving ethnic Chechens. On the same day, officers from the Kurgan RUBOP arrived at the ROVD. They were accompanied by six members of the special police force, in order to ensure the safety and security of the search procedures. They had travelled together to Prosekovo, where the investigator issued two search orders, the first for the Antayevs’ family house in Verkhnesuyerskoye. During both searches, the members of the special police force had run into the house first. Mr N.P. had served the search order on the first applicant, who had signed and dated it. The first applicant’s wife and three sons had also been at home at the time. They were invited to surrender weapons and illegal objects, but they denied having any such items. Then the search had started, and the members of the family had tried to interfere. They shouted and prevented the police officers from entering the rooms. Because of this, the officers from the special police force had escorted the first and second applicants’ three sons – the third to fifth applicants – into the courtyard. No one had hit the applicants. The search ended with the finding of one cartridge for an automatic rifle, literature in a foreign language, and a number of videotapes. Mr N.P. had remained in the house the whole time and had thus not witnessed the events in the courtyard. The first and third applicants had then been taken by one of the police officers to meet the investigator at the village administration’s offices, while the rest of the group went to the Vashayevs’ family house. There Mr N.P. had shown the search order to the seventh applicant and invited her to surrender illegally stored items, such as weapons. When the applicants denied having any such things, the police had started the search. The proceedings were conducted in a correct and polite manner, and no one had been beaten or otherwise injured. The search resulted in the finding and seizure of a smoothbore rifle and cartridges for it, a handgun of foreign manufacture, home-made knives and knives with long blades, and fourteen pirated VHS tapes. During the search the witness had not seen the events in the courtyard, but when he walked out, no one had been using violence on the applicants. He also noted that during the searches both families had behaved emotionally, and had shouted and vowed to lodge complaints.

The head of the Vargashinskiy ROVD, Mr I.K., stated on 15 May 2006 that he had been informed on the evening of 24 March 2006 that both searches had taken place in a calm manner, without any problems. The head of the ROVD criminal department, Mr A.K., explained that he had participated in the search at the Antayevs’ house and had seen their three sons in the courtyard, guarded by the special police force near the police car. The servicemen explained that the sons had obstructed the execution of the search. The three had been put in handcuffs, which Mr. A.K. later removed, and he had remained with them outside. At some point the fourth applicant had felt unwell and the witness had asked Mr A.Sh. to take him into the house to get treatment. After that he had accompanied the first and third applicants to the offices of the local administration, where the questioning had taken place. The applicants had not displayed any signs of ill-treatment or beatings.

On 16 May 2006 the investigators questioned Mr A.Sh., a policeman with the Vargashinskiy ROVD. He stated that he had not participated in the search of the Antayevs’ house and had entered it only after one of the officers had told him to take the fourth applicant from the police Gazel vehicle into the house to treat him with medicine. Witness A.Sh. accompanied the fourth applicant into the house and then travelled by car to the offices of the local administration. About twenty minutes later he had returned to the Antayevs’ house and observed that the applicants were in good health, with no signs of ill-treatment. He had then accompanied the group to the Vashayevs’ house, which he likewise did not enter. He had remained by the fence, where he met the ninth applicant and talked to him until the search ended. The ninth applicant had appeared to be in good health and neither he nor any other family members had displayed signs of ill-treatment.

The police also questioned six officers from the Kurgan RUBOP, including Mr E.K. and Mr V.G. They stated that the searches had proceeded calmly, except when the first applicant’s two sons, the fourth and fifth applicants, had to be escorted out of the house because they objected to the search.

Six officers from the regional special police force confirmed their presence during the searches on 24 March 2006. Their involvement had been limited to ensuring the security of the investigative measures. At the Antayevs’ house they had escorted two young men, the first applicant’s sons, out of the house and put handcuffs on them because they had interfered with the search. At the Vashayevs’ family house they had not applied force to anyone, nor had they put handcuffs on anyone. Furthermore, they had not hit or used physical force on anyone, had not made anyone lie on the floor or covered anyone’s head with clothes or hats, and they had not noticed that any of the applicants had injuries.

On 16 May 2006 the attesting witness for both searches, Mrs O.P., stated that both had been initiated by a number of the special police force officers – who were wearing masks and were armed with automatic weapons – running into the houses. At the Vashayevs’ house the witness had seen one man being led out, with his pullover over his head, and being stood up against the police vehicle with his legs apart. When she had entered the house, the men of the house were lying on the floor face down, with their hands behind their heads, while the woman was sitting on the sofa. The men were then allowed to stand up; they walked around the house and, initially, they had voiced their objection to the search. The search at the Antayevs’ family home had proceeded in a similar manner. She had seen Mr A.Sh. and the ninth applicant talking by the fence; she had also seen the eighth applicant in the Gazel where he had been talking to a man dressed in civilian clothes. No one had been hit or hurt.

The other attesting witness, as well as several local residents questioned by the police, had not witnessed any ill-treatment of the applicants on 24 March 2006.

It is apparent from the list of documents in the criminal investigation file that in 2006, in the course of the investigation, over 30 face-to-face confrontations were conducted between the applicants and the officers of the Vargashinskiy ROVD and the RUBOP who had taken part in the searches. In addition, over a dozen identification sessions were carried out involving both the victims and the officers.

The case file contains records of the face-to-face confrontation on 5 June 2006 between the applicants and the police officers. On the one hand, the first, second, seventh and ninth applicants, and on the other hand Mr N.P. – who had been in charge of the operation – recounted their different and irreconcilable versions of events. The first applicant stated during the confrontation that Mr N.P. had kicked him once in the chest; the second applicant confirmed this statement. During another confrontation the first applicant insisted that Mr A.Sh. had beaten the fourth and the fifth applicants, while Mr. A.Sh. denied this. The fourth applicant also stated that he and his brother, the fifth applicant, had been beaten by Mr A.Sh. Other face-to-face confrontations with police officers contained similar statements.

On 9 August 2006 the first and fourth applicants identified one of the RUBOP officers, Mr A.O., as a person who had participated in the search in their house; the fourth applicant identified Mr V.G., also a RUBOP officer, as the person who had hit him during the searches.

Also on 9 August 2006, the first applicant stated, during questioning, that he disagreed with the way the face-to-face confrontations and identification parades had been carried out. The record of the questioning, which the first applicant refused to sign, contains his allegations that these events had been arranged so as to exclude the individuals who had beaten them, and that the members of both families refused to attend them in the future. The case file also contains the investigator’s reports of 9 August and 10 September 2006 and 24 April 2007 which record that the first applicant’s behaviour had been hostile and that he had stated his disagreement with the manner in which the investigation was being conducted.

On 15 August 2006 during a face-to-face confrontation, the fifth applicant identified Mr V.G. as the person who had beaten his brothers, the third and fourth applicants. Mr V.G. denied this. Also on 15 August 2006, the fourth applicant identified Mr E.K., a RUBOP officer, as the person who had hit him in the back and neck.

On 24 August 2006 during a face-to-face confrontation, the second applicant identified Mr E.K. as the person who had beaten her sons and husband and had pushed her onto the floor. Mr E.K. denied that he, or other officers, had used violence. He also denied that he had taken the gun cartridge out of his pocket, insisting that he had found it in a kitchen drawer. On 18 December 2006, after the confrontation with the second applicant, the applicants’ representative noted that the investigator had refused to put a number of questions to ROVD officer Mr U. and had failed to record in full the second applicant’s statements about her son’s beatings.

The applicants submitted that during the questioning they had been threatened by the investigators, openly or covertly. Moreover, the investigator had refused to record certain statements, especially ones relating to the ethnically motivated nature of the attacks.

On 5 July 2006 both applicant families wrote to the Kurgan Regional Prosecutor, seeking an update on the investigation into their complaints of racial insults and injuries.

On 17 August 2006 the first and second applicants complained to the Vargashinskiy prosecutor of bias on the part of the investigator. They referred to the threats made by him to the victims. They also argued that since the ROVD officers had been directly implicated in the alleged events, the victims were at risk of further abuse and asked for the suspects to be arrested. The first applicant stressed, in particular, that the investigator had refused to record the statements made during questioning about the ethnic insults directed at them, in particular at the third applicant and the eighth and ninth applicants, who had been told that they “would not be able to beget more Chechens”.

On 24 August 2006 the district prosecutor’s office dismissed a request by the applicants’ representative to obtain access to the criminal case file.

On 28 August 2006 the applicants’ complaint regarding the investigator was rejected by the district prosecutor.

On 6 November 2006 the applicants’ representative lodged a complaint with the Kurgan Regional Prosecutor concerning the failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the crime and to look into its ethnically motivated nature. The complaint stated that the face-to-face confrontations and the questioning of the victims had been used to exert pressure on the applicants and noted that the investigator had failed to react to the threats made to the victims by those conducting the search. On 23 November 2006 the district prosecutor’s office rejected this request as unfounded.

On 5 February 2007 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation for the first time owing to the failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. The eleven-page document summarised the steps taken so far and indicated that all the men who had taken part in the searches had been identified and questioned. At least some of them had been identified by the victims as the persons who had hit them. The document nevertheless concluded that –while certain evidence supported the applicants’ allegation of ill-treatment – it appeared impossible to reconcile the inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements with the results of the face-to-face confrontations and identification parades, which was necessary in order to identify the police officers to be charged. This decision was quashed on 6 April 2007, in response to a complaint by the applicants.

On 13 May 2007 the district prosecutor’s office again suspended the investigation owing to the failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. In this decision it was held that the applicants’ statements had been inconsistent and that they had refused to take part in additional identification parades and face-to-face confrontations. It concluded:

“The criminal file contains sufficient evidence that [the first to fifth, sixth and eighth applicants] were injured by police officers during the searches. ... The results of the forensic expert reports and the victims’ statements could serve as evidence [as to] where, how many times, by what means and by which officers the victims were hit on 24 March 2006 during the searches. However, the victim statements submitted during the questioning and the confrontations are mutually contradictory in part, and in parts are refuted by other evidence collected. ... [T]his gives rise to a critical attitude to these testimonies and undermines trust in [the victims]. In addition, the [special police force] officers were wearing masks, making it impossible to determine which of them hit which victim, where exactly and how many times. The special police officers deny that they beat the victims.

The above makes it impossible to determine levels of individual guilt and to bring charges against any members of the Vargashinskiy ROVD, the RUBOP or [the special police force].”

On 21 May 2007 that decision was set aside by the district prosecutor’s office in response to a complaint by the applicants. The investigation was resumed and several other police officers were questioned. On 28 June 2007 it was again suspended, for reasons similar to those quoted in the decision of 13 May 2007. The document concluded:

“The file contains sufficient evidence that [the first to fifth, sixth and eighth applicants] were injured by police officers during the searches. However, given the inconsistencies in their later testimonies, it could not be established with certitude that the injuries were indeed caused by any particular officer and in the circumstances as described by the victims”.

According to the information submitted by the Government along with their observations in July 2012, in June 2012 that decision was quashed and the investigation was resumed by the Kurgan Regional Directorate of the Investigative Committee. No documents relating to this latest stage of proceedings have been submitted and it does not appear that it has produced any results.

On 19 December 2006, pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants lodged a complaint concerning the actions of the district prosecutor’s office with the Vargashinskiy District Court. In their complaint the applicants alleged that the opening of the investigation had been delayed, that it had failed to take into account the ethnically motivated nature of the attack, despite the consistent testimonies to this effect, that the investigator had shown bias and threatened the victims, that their complaints to the district prosecutor’s office had been futile, that they had not been allowed access to most of the documents in the case file, that no one had been charged with any crime and that all servicemen implicated in the events had been questioned only as witnesses. The applicants requested that the prosecutor’s office be ordered to replace the investigator and to ensure proper supervision, in addition to reviewing the complaints about the ethnically motivated nature of the attack.

On 9 January 2007 the Vargashinskiy Distrct Court partly dismissed the applicants’ request and partly refused to consider it on the merits. In respect of the alleged failure to investigate the ethnically motivated nature of the crime and the investigator’s bias, the court found that these issues fell within the prosecutor’s professional discretion. The applicants appealed, referring in particular to the lack of investigation of the ethnically motivated nature of the crime.

On 27 March 2007 the Kurgan Regional Court upheld the decision of 9 January 2007.


No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Khachmaz.

The applicant’s son, Zakir Babayev (Z.B.), was born in 1991; on 3 July 2009 he was drafted into the army to perform his compulsory military service. From October 2009 he served as a sniper in Gadabay region in military unit no. 171.

On the morning of 14 November 2009 Z.B. was on guard duty with one other soldier (Q.S.) at a military post called “A” in Gadabay region. At around 11 a.m. he left his post and went into the nearby forest, where two peasants were cutting wood. Z.B. called the applicant using the telephone of one of the peasants and asked his father to provide him with some belongings. He also asked the applicant to send him a mobile telephone topup card worth ten Azerbaijani manats (AZN). During the telephone conversation he was in a good mood and did not complain about any problems. Z.B. also asked the applicant to tell his mother to leave her mobile telephone turned on as he would call her later. Following that conversation, the applicant bought mobile telephone top-up cards and sent their passwords to his son by a telephone message.

According to the material in the case file, following the telephone conversation with the applicant, Z.B. returned to his guard duty post. At around noon Q.S. left the post in order to change the guard and Z.B. remained alone. A few minutes later the soldiers heard a gunshot and went to the post, where they discovered Z.B.’s body.

On 14 November 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 125 (incitement to suicide) of the Criminal Code by the Gazakh Military Prosecutor.

On the same day a record of an inspection of the scene of the crime was drawn up and signed by the commander of military unit no. 171, Major A.F. It was also signed by two attesting witnesses, E.Q. and N.D., who were soldiers in the same military unit. The record states that the inspection began at 4.30 p.m. and ended at 6 p.m. According to the record, Z.B. had been wearing a shoe and four socks on his left foot; however, the shoe and the sock of his right foot had been taken off. His right shoe had been found next to his body. According to the record, one cartridge, a pen and a note written on a cigarette pack were found at the crime scene. Various photographs of Z.B.’s body, the cartridge, the pen and the note were taken. The note read as follows:

“I, Z.B., commit suicide and nobody is responsible for that. I commit suicide because I don’t want to be a burden to anyone. Mum and Dad, forgive me. Goodbye to everyone; goodbye to life. Signature. Z.B.”

On the same day a record of the examination was drawn up by the investigator in charge of the case, who examined Z.B.’s body at the headquarters of military unit no. 171 in Gadabay region. According to the record, the examination began at 9 p.m. and ended at 10 p.m. Various photographs of Z.B.’s body were taken.

On 15 November 2009 a record of the examination of the body was drawn up in the presence of a forensic expert in the city of Ganja.

On the same date a post-mortem examination of Z.B.’s body was carried out. Report no. 02 dated 15 November 2009 showed that death had resulted from one gunshot wound to the left part of the rib cage. The expert found that the seam of the left pocket of Z.B.’s uniform had become unstitched. The expert did not find any other injury on Z.B.’s body or uniform.

On 17 November 2009 the investigator questioned nine soldiers of the military unit in which Z.B. had served. The soldiers stated that Z.B. had never been ill-treated during his military service. One of the soldiers, Q.S., further stated that when they had been on guard duty on 14 November 2009, Z.B. had been in a bad mood and had told him about his family problems. In particular, according to Q.S., the applicant’s son told him that he had talked to his mother-in-law, who had said that his parents had gone to Russia and would not be visiting him. However, another soldier (N.D.) stated that on 14 November 2009 Z.B. had been in a good mood and had told him that he had talked to his mother-in-law by telephone.

On 17 November 2009 the investigator also took signature and writing samples from the soldiers of the military unit in order to identify the author of the written note found at the crime scene.

On 19 November 2009 the investigator requested the Khachmaz District Department of Education to provide the investigation with the signature and samples of the applicant’s son’s writing.

On 24 November 2009 the investigator also sent an operational request (əməliyyat tapşırığı) to the head of the military counterintelligence department of military unit no. 171, asking him to investigate whether Z.B. had been subjected to unlawful actions during his military service. In a letter dated 30 November 2009 and marked “secret”, the head of the military counterintelligence department of military unit no. 171, a lieutenant-colonel (Y.S.), replied to the investigator’s request of 24 November 2009. He noted that according to the information obtained after having taken operational measures (əməliyyat tədbirləri), on 14 November 2009, before going to the guard post, Z.B. had had a dispute with a sergeant (S.H.) and a soldier (Q.S.), who had beaten him. Around five minutes after this incident, a gunshot had been heard and Q.S., S.H. and another soldier (K.M.) had gone to the post, where they had discovered Z.B.’s body. It was also indicated in the letter that the soldiers had removed Z.B.’s body after the incident in order to help him, but upon realising that he was dead they had laid the body back in its original place.

On 24 November 2009 the investigator sent another operational request to the head of the Khachmaz District Police Office, asking him to investigate whether Z.B. had had any family problems, whether Z.B. had been engaged to anyone, or whether any of his close relatives had been suffering from any psychological illnesses. By a letter of 7 December 2009, the head of the Khachmaz District Police Office informed the investigator that Z.B. had had no family problems, that he had not been engaged to anyone and that his relatives had not been suffering from any psychological illnesses.

By a decision of 25 November 2009, the investigator recognised the applicant as a legal heir of the victim (zərərçəkmiş şəxsin hüquqi varisi). On the same day the applicant was questioned by the investigator. He stated that at around 11 a.m. on 14 November 2009 he had talked to his son by telephone. Z.B. had been in a good mood and had not complained about anything. Z.B. had asked the applicant to tell his mother to leave her mobile telephone turned on as he would call her later. The applicant further stated that at the request of his son he had bought mobile top-up cards and sent their passwords to him by a telephone message. The applicant also stated that his son had not had a fiancée or a mother-in-law and that he had not had any family problems.

On 4 December 2009 the investigator ordered forensic medical, ballistic, chemical and trace examinations. Report no. 16771/72/73 dated 29 December 2009 showed that Z.B. had used his service weapon – an SVD-type D6197 sniper rifle – to commit suicide. The report further found that the seam of the left pocket of Z.B.’s uniform had become unstitched and that this could have resulted either from contact with a blunt object or the use of physical force.

On 7 December 2009 the investigator ordered a handwriting examination of the written note found at the crime scene. Report no. 16713 dated 28 December 2009 concluded that a comparison of the samples submitted to the examination showed that the note had similarities with Z.B.’s writing and signature. Report no. 709 dated 27 January 2010 concluded that the coloured elements used in the writing of the note in question and of the pen found at the scene of the crime had the same chemical characteristics.

According to a document entitled “Instruction” (Göstəriş) dated 14 December 2009 the Deputy Military Prosecutor of the Republic of Azerbaijan gave various instructions to the prosecuting authorities in connection with the criminal proceedings relating to Z.B.’s death. In particular, he asked the prosecuting authorities to inspect the scene of the crime. The relevant part of the document reads as follows:

“It appears from the case material that the Gazakh Military Prosecutor’s Office received the information that Z.B. died ... and the agents of the prosecuting authorities went to the scene of the crime, but it was not possible for them to inspect the scene of the crime, given the foggy weather conditions in the mountainous area. The military commander who carried out the preliminary inspection of the scene of the crime presented the collected material evidence to the Gazakh Military Prosecutor’s Office. In order to reconstruct the conditions in which the incident took place, the scene of the crime should again be inspected ...”

On 11 January 2010 the investigator visited the “A” military post and inspected the scene of the crime. According to the record of the inspection (dated 11 January 2010), it began at 2.30 p.m. and ended at 3.40 p.m. The investigator took various photographs of the area where the military post was situated.

On the same day the investigator questioned four soldiers, including S.H. and Q.S. They denied having beaten Z.B. on 14 November 2009 and submitted that Z.B. had never been subjected to ill-treatment. As regards the investigator’s question regarding the fact that the seam of the left pocket of Z.B.’s uniform had been unstitched, they stated that they had not noticed it.

On 12 January 2010 the investigator questioned the two peasants who had seen Z.B. on 14 November 2009. They stated that on 14 November 2009, as they had been cutting wood in the forest, Z.B. and Q.S. had approached them. Z.B. had used their mobile telephone to call his father; Z.B. and Q.S. had then left the area. They also stated that Z.B. had been in a good mood before and after the telephone conversation.

On 18 January 2010 the investigator carried out a reconstruction of the events in order to establish whether Z.B. had been technically able to commit suicide with his service weapon. The investigator concluded that it would have been possible if he had pressed the trigger of the weapon with the toe of his right foot when standing up or lying down.

On 21 January 2010 the applicant was again questioned by the investigator.

On the same day the investigator ordered a post-mortem psychiatric and psychological examination (məhkəmə-psixiatrik və psixoloji ekspertizası) of Z.B. Report no. 19 of that examination, dated 1 February 2010, concluded on the basis of the statements available in the case file that Z.B. had not been suffering from any mental disorder, but that he had probably been in a state of depression before his death. However, it was not possible to determine the reason for that depression.

On 3 February 2010 the investigator questioned five soldiers of the military unit in which Z.B. had served.

On 9 February 2010 the investigator decided to terminate the criminal proceedings, finding that there had been no criminal element in Z.B.’s death. The investigator concluded that Z.B. had committed suicide because he had probably been in a state of depression. The investigator further held that it had not been established that Z.B. had been ill-treated by other soldiers. The investigator also decided to destroy the material evidence found at the crime scene, including the written note found next to Z.B.’s body.

On 27 February 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gazakh Military Court against the investigator’s decision of 9 February 2010, complaining of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation. He disputed the investigator’s conclusions relating to the suicide of his son, pointing out that Z.B. had not suffered from any mental disorder. He submitted in that connection that the statements of the soldiers had been contradictory and had been fabricated, as his son had never had a fiancée or a mother-in-law. The applicant alleged that his son had been either killed or had been driven to suicide by S.H. and Q.S. In that connection, he relied on the content of the letter of 30 November 2009 from the military counterintelligence department of the military unit. He also submitted that the fact that the seam of the left pocket of Z.B.’s uniform had become unstitched proved that his son had been beaten before his death. The applicant further pointed out that the note found at the crime scene had been written using certain words that his son had never used. In particular, he noted that even though Z.B. had never called his parents “ana” (mum) and “ata” (dad), but rather “mama” and “papa”, he had addressed them as “ana” and “ata” in that note. The applicant also complained that his son had been harassed by S.H., who had regularly forced Z.B. to ask the applicant to send mobile telephone top-up cards for S.H. In that connection, he asked for an examination of the list of calls made to and from his mobile telephone during the entire period during which his son had been undertaking military service.

On 18 March 2010 the Gazakh Military Court overruled the investigator’s decision and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities for fresh examination. The court ordered the investigating authority to examine the applicant’s particular complaints. It further found that the investigator had not had the right to decide to destroy the material evidence found at the scene of the crime.

As can be seen from the documents submitted by the Government, following the Gazakh Military Court’s decision of 18 March 2010, on 19 March 2010 the investigator decided to continue the investigation.

On 23 March 2010 the investigator questioned the expert who had conducted forensic medical, ballistic, chemical and trace examinations (see paragraph 20 above). The expert stated that the seam of the left pocket of Z.B.’s uniform could have come unstitched because it had come into contact with his service weapon after his suicide.

On 25 March 2010 the investigator also questioned two soldiers, who stated that they did not remember whether Z.B. had called his parents “ana” (mum) and “ata” (dad) or “mama” and “papa”.

On 29 March 2010 the same investigator again decided to terminate the criminal proceedings. That decision was identical in its wording to the investigator’s previous decision of 9 February 2010, except for the part concerning the preservation of the written note found at the scene of the crime and two newly added paragraphs. In those paragraphs, the investigator noted that the two soldiers questioned during the investigation had not remembered whether Z.B. had called his parents “ana” (mum) and “ata” (dad) or “mama” and “papa”. Moreover, relying on the questioning of the expert on 23 March 2010, the investigator concluded that the seam of the left pocket of Z.B.’s uniform had been unstitched because it had come into contact with his service weapon after his suicide and not as a result of any ill-treatment.

On 10 April 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Military Prosecutor of the Republic of Azerbaijan against that decision. He complained of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation, pointing out that, taking into consideration that there had been a national holiday in the country from 20 to 28 March 2010, it had been impossible to carry out a new investigation between 19 and 29 March 2010. The applicant also argued that the investigator should have questioned Z.B.’s parents and relatives – not the two soldiers in question – in order to establish whether Z.B. had called his parents “ana” (mum) and “ata” (dad) or “mama” and “papa”. He further disputed the investigator’s interpretation of the expert’s conclusion (see paragraphs 20 and 34 above), alleging that the investigator had substituted his own opinion for the expert’s conclusion. Lastly, he complained that his lawyer had not had access to the case file.

As can be seen from the documents in the case file, on 21 April 2010 the Military Prosecutor of the Republic of Azerbaijan overruled the investigator’s decision of 29 March 2010 and remitted the case for fresh examination. Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government that they submit copies of all the documents relating to the criminal proceedings concerning Z.B.’s death, the Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of the decision of 21 April 2010 of the Military Prosecutor of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The criminal case was allocated to another investigator at the Gazakh Military Prosecutor’s Office.

In May and June 2010 the new investigator questioned Z.B.’s parents, two schoolmates, and five soldiers (including Q.S.) who had served in the same military unit. During the questioning, despite stating that Z.B. had never complained before his death about being ill-treated, the applicant reiterated his previous complaints. It further appears that, even though on 5 June 2010 the investigator questioned the five soldiers separately, the wording of their statements was identical. They each stated that Z.B. had never been ill-treated during his military service.

On 18 June 2010 the investigator in charge of the case decided to terminate the criminal proceedings. The investigator found that the allegation of Z.B.’s ill-treatment by Q.S. and S.H. had not been proved during the investigation and that Z.B. had committed suicide because he had probably been in a state of depression.

On 13 July 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision, reiterating his previous arguments. He also noted that the investigator’s decision of 18 June 2010 was almost identical in its wording to the previous decisions of the prosecuting authorities. He further complained that the new investigator had failed to question S.H. again or to address the contradictions in the statements of the soldiers. In that connection, he pointed out that, although Z.B. had had no fiancée or mother-in-law – which had been confirmed in a letter dated 7 December 2009 from the Khachmaz District Police Office – the soldiers had referred in their statements to an alleged telephone conversation with a mother-in-law. The applicant lastly complained about the investigator’s failure to attach any importance to the letter dated 30 November 2009 from the head of the military counterintelligence department of military unit no. 171.

On 23 July 2010 the Military Prosecutor of the Republic of Azerbaijan again quashed the investigator’s decision and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities for fresh examination. The Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of the decision of 23 July 2010 of the Military Prosecutor of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

On 27 July 2010 the investigator again questioned Z.B.’s parents, who reiterated their previous complaints. They also stated that Q.S. and S.H. had regularly harassed their son into obtaining mobile telephone top-up cards.

In August 2010 the investigator also questioned various soldiers, who denied any ill-treatment or harassment of Z.B. during his military service.

According to the documents submitted by the Government, on 27 August 2010 the investigator again sent an operational request to the head of the military counterintelligence department of military unit no. 171. The investigator noted that, although in the letter dated 30 November 2009 it was stated that Z.B. had been beaten by S.H. and Q.S. on the day of the incident, that allegation had not been proved during the investigation. The investigator further asked the head of the military counterintelligence department to investigate whether S.H. and Q.S. had tried to extort money from Z.B. during his military service.

By a letter dated 10 September 2010, the head of the military counterintelligence department of military unit no. 171, Y.S., replied to the investigator’s request of 27 August 2010. Y.S. noted that, although he had previously indicated in his letter of 30 November 2009 that Z.B. had been beaten by S.H. and Q.S., that information had not been subsequently confirmed. He further informed the investigator that the military counterintelligence department had not received any information relating to the extortion of money.

On 20 September 2010 the investigator at the Gazakh Military Prosecutor’s Office again decided to terminate the criminal proceedings, finding that there had been no criminal element in Z.B.’s death. In that connection, the investigator found that Z.B. had committed suicide because he had probably been in a state of depression. Relying on the letter dated 10 September 2010 from the intelligence department of military unit no. 171, he also concluded that the allegation that Z.B. had been ill-treated by S.H. and Q.S. had not been confirmed during the investigation.

On 9 October 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Military Prosecutor of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He reiterated his previous complaints, pointing out that the investigator had tried to cover those who had ill-treated his son and driven him to suicide.

On 15 October 2010 the Deputy Military Prosecutor of the Republic of Azerbaijan dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the criminal investigation had been effective.

On 1 November 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Baku Military Court, arguing that the investigator had failed to carry out an effective investigation. In particular, he alleged that the appearance of a new letter from the military counterintelligence department of military unit no. 171 (see paragraph 47 above), which clearly contradicted the previous letter from the same organ, had shown that the domestic authorities had tried to cover S.H. and Q.S., who had beaten his son. He also complained of the investigator’s failure to address the contradictions in the statements of the soldiers relating to the alleged existence of a fiancée and a mother-in-law and the alleged family problems of Z.B.

On 13 November 2010 the Baku Military Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court found, without providing any explanation, that the applicant’s complaints were groundless.

On 1 December 2010 the applicant appealed against that decision, reiterating his previous complaints.

On 29 December 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Baku Military Court’s decision of 13 November 2010.