DOCSLIB.ORG

FIRST SECTION CASE of TAGAYEVA and OTHERS V. RUSSIA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FIRST SECTION CASE of TAGAYEVA and OTHERS V. RUSSIA FIRST SECTION CASE OF TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 26562/07 and 6 other applications – see list appended) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 April 2017 FINAL 18/09/2017 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1 Table of Contents PROCEDURE ..........................................................................................................4 THE FACTS.............................................................................................................5 I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.......................................................5 A. General information.......................................................................................5 B. The events of 1 to 4 September 2004.............................................................6 1. Situation prior to the hostage-taking on 1 September 2004 .................................6 2. Hostage-taking......................................................................................................7 3. Events of 1 to 2 September 2004..........................................................................9 4. Storming and rescue operation ...........................................................................14 5. Events of 4 September 2004, identification of bodies and burials .....................17 6. Assuming responsibility for the terrorist act ......................................................18 C. Criminal investigations ................................................................................19 1. Criminal investigation no. 20/849 ......................................................................19 2. Criminal investigation in respect of Mr Nurpashi Kulayev................................49 3. Criminal proceedings against police officers .....................................................70 D. Civil proceedings brought by the victims ....................................................72 1. First group of claimants ......................................................................................72 2. Second group of claimants..................................................................................73 E. Parliamentary inquiries ................................................................................73 1. Report prepared by the North Ossetian Parliament ............................................73 2. The Federal Assembly report..............................................................................80 F. Other relevant developments........................................................................86 1. Humanitarian relief.............................................................................................86 2. Other important public and media reactions.......................................................87 3. Victims’ organisations ........................................................................................88 G. Expert reports submitted by the applicants after the admissibility decision........................................................................................................89 1. Expert report on counter-terrorism .....................................................................89 2. Expert report on medical (forensic) aspects of the operation .............................94 II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE ....................................96 A. Regulation of anti-terrorist operations and the use of force ........................96 1. Suppression of Terrorism Act and Criminal Code .............................................96 2. Field Manuals .....................................................................................................98 B. Amnesty Act .................................................................................................99 III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE ......................99 A. Use of force by law-enforcement officials ...................................................99 B. International humanitarian law ..................................................................101 2 TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT THE LAW.............................................................................................................103 I. PRELIMINARY ISSUES ...............................................................................103 II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION (ALL APPLICANTS) .......................................................104 A. Article 2 - positive obligation to prevent threat to life ..............................104 1. The parties’ submissions...................................................................................104 2. The Court’s assessment ....................................................................................106 B. Procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention ..........................110 1. The parties’ submissions...................................................................................110 2. The Court’s assessment ....................................................................................111 III. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION (APPLICATIONS Nos. 26562/07, 49380/08, 21294/11, 37096/11 AND 14755/08)..............................................................124 A. Planning and control of the operation........................................................124 1. The parties’ submissions...................................................................................124 2. The Court’s assessment ....................................................................................129 B. Use of lethal force ......................................................................................133 1. The parties’ submissions...................................................................................133 2. The Court’s assessment ....................................................................................136 IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION (ALL APPLICANTS) .......................................................144 A. The parties’ submissions............................................................................144 1. The applicants...................................................................................................144 2. The Government ...............................................................................................145 B. The Court’s assessment..............................................................................146 1. General principles established in the Court’s case-law ....................................146 2. Application of the above principles in the present case ...................................148 V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 41 AND 46 OF THE CONVENTION..............................................................................................151 A. Non-monetary measures ............................................................................151 B. Damage ......................................................................................................153 1. The first group of applicants.............................................................................153 2. The second group of applicants ........................................................................154 3. The Government ...............................................................................................154 4. The Court’s assessment ....................................................................................155 C. Costs and expenses.....................................................................................155 1. The first group of applicants.............................................................................155 2. The second group of applicants ........................................................................156 3. The Government ...............................................................................................156 4. The Court..........................................................................................................157 TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 3 D. Default interest...........................................................................................157 4 TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT In the case of Tagayeva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Khanlar Hajiyev, Julia Laffranque, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Erik Møse, Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 October 2014, 9 January 2017 and on 15 March 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in seven applications (see Appendix for details) lodged between 25 June 2007 and 28 May 2011 against the Russian Federation with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 447 Russian nationals. One group of applicants (“the first group of applicants”, applications nos. 26562/07, 49380/08, 21294/11 and 37096/11) were represented by Mr Kirill Koroteyev, a lawyer of EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre, an NGO with offices in Moscow and London, assisted by Ms Jessica Gavron, advisor; and the remaining applicants (“the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russian Law Enforcement and Internal Security Agencies
    September 14, 2020 Russian Law Enforcement and Internal Security Agencies Russia has an extensive internal security system, with Competition frequently leads to arrests and prosecutions, multiple, overlapping, and competitive security agencies often for real or imagined corruption allegations to undercut vying for bureaucratic, political, and economic influence. targeted organizations and senior leadership both Since Vladimir Putin assumed Russia’s leadership, these institutionally and politically. agencies have grown in both size and power, and they have become integral to the security and stability of the Russian Law Enforcement and Internal government. If Putin extends his rule beyond 2024, as is Security Agencies and Heads now legally permissible, these agencies could play a role in (as of September 2020) the leadership succession process and affect the ability of a transitional regime to quell domestic dissent. For Members Ministry of Interior (MVD): Vladimir Kolokoltsev of Congress, understanding the numerous internal security National Guard (Rosgvardiya, FSVNG): Viktor Zolotov agencies in Russia could be helpful in assessing the x Special Purpose Mobile Units (OMON) prospects of regime stability and dynamics of a transition x Special Rapid Response Detachment (SOBR) after Putin leaves office. In addition, Russian security agencies and their personnel have been targeted by U.S. x Interior Troops (VV) sanctions for cyberattacks and human rights abuses. x Kadyrovtsy Overview and Context Federal Security Service (FSB): Alexander Bortnikov
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Security Service (Russia) from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Jump To: Navigation, Search This Article May Need to Be
    Federal Security Service (Russia) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (February 2013) The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (February 2013) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation 'Федеральная служба безопасности Российской Федерации' Federal'naya sluzhba bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii Common name Federal Security Service Abbreviation FSB (ФСБ) Emblem of the Federal Security Service Agency overview Formed 12 April, 1995 Preceding agency KGB Employees around 200,000–300,000[1] Legal personality Governmental: Government agency Jurisdictional structure Federal agency Russia General nature Federal law enforcement Civilian agency Operational structure Headquarters Lubyanka Square, Moscow, Russia Website www.fsb.ru The Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) (Russian: ФСБ, Федеральная служба безопасности Российской Федерации; Federal'naya sluzhba bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii) is the main domestic security agency of the Russian Federation and the main successor agency of the Soviet Committee of State Security (KGB). Its main responsibilities are counter-intelligence, internal and border security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance. Its headquarters are on Lubyanka Square, downtown Moscow. The direct predecessor of the FSB was the Federal Counterintelligence Service (FSK). On 12 April 1995, President Boris Yeltsin signed a law ordering a reorganisation of the FSK, which resulted in the creation of the FSB. In 2003, the FSB's responsibilities were widened with the integration of the Border Guard Service and a major part of the abolished Federal Agency of Government Communication and Information (FAPSI).
    [Show full text]
  • Decoding the Wagner Group: Analyzing the Role of Private Military Security Contractors in Russian Proxy Warfare
    November 2019 Decoding the Wagner Group: Analyzing the Role of Private Military Security Contractors in Russian Proxy Warfare Candace Rondeaux Last edited on November 05, 2019 at 11:41 a.m. EST Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Peter Bergen and It is worth noting that some of the best research Daniel Rothenberg, co-directors of the New America/ produced about the Wagner Group and Russian Arizona State University Future of War project for private military security contractors has been their support throughout the production of this paper. produced by anonymous open source intelligence A deep debt of gratitude is owed to David Sterman researchers, human rights activists and investigative for applying his sharp editorial eye to the text and journalists in Ukraine, Russia, Syria, and elsewhere. sharing his analytical intuition throughout the This paper would not be what it is without their brave research for this report. I also benefited greatly efforts to hold power to account and the extensive Sergey Sukhankin’s research on Russian military advice and help of so many people, many of whom affairs and the Wagner Group and his direct could not be named here due to security concerns. contributions to the historical sections of this report All errors of fact or interpretation are, of course, the covering Moscow’s Cold War strategy in the Middle author’s alone. East elevated the analysis greatly. Navvar Saban’s research on private security contractors and pro- Assad militias likewise helped answer critical questions about Russia’s influence over local proxy forces in Syria. Christopher Miller, Mike Eckel, and many other long-time Russia hands who have spent time living and covering the Kremlin and the conflict in Ukraine were essential sounding boards and critical pillars of support throughout.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Analytical Digest No 5
    No. 5 29 August 2006 rrussianussian aanalyticalnalytical ddigestigest www.res.ethz.ch www.russlandanalysen.de BESLAN – TWO YEARS AFTER ■ ANALYSIS Looking Back at Beslan. Alexander Cherkasov, Moscow 2 ■ ANALYSIS Th e North Caucasus: Taking stock two years after Beslan. Jeronim Perovic, Zurich 4 ■ TABLES AND DIAGRAMS Th e North Caucasus and the Southern Federal District: Statistics and Facts 9 ■ OPINION SURVEY Th e North Caucasus in Russian Eyes 13 ■ CHRONOLOGY Terror-related incidents in the North Caucasus September 2004 – August 2006 14 Research Centre for East CSS Center for Security Otto Wolff -Stiftung DGO European Studies, Bremen An ETH Center Studies, ETH Zurich rrussianussian aanalyticalnalytical russian analytical digest 05/06 ddigestigest Analysis Looking Back at Beslan Alexander Cherkasov, Moscow Summary Two years after the Beslan tragedy, the authorities have yet to publish a fi nal report on what took place there. Most importantly, they have refused to examine the terrorist attack within the larger context of the Chechen war. Th ey have also blamed all the deaths on the terrorists, preventing a thorough investigation examining the role of the Russian security forces and the responsibilities of the authorities. Such a study would make possible a more nuanced understanding of what happened at Beslan. Hostage-taking tragedies: Moscow’s terrorists prepare and carry out their plans? Which questionable approach administrative and law enforcement offi cials were uring the course of the Chechen wars over the responsible for this?” Th ose questions are suitable for Dlast 12 years, Beslan was the fourth large-scale prosecutors. In the wider sense, we need to address terrorist act with the taking of hostages in Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LONG SHADOW of ―NORD OST‖ by David Satter
    November 2012 THE LONG SHADOW OF ―NORD OST‖ By David Satter David Satter, an FPRI senior fellow, is the author of It Was a Long Time Ago and It Never Happened Anyway (Yale), which will be out in paperback in January and the director of ―Age of Delirium,‖ a documentary film based on his book of the same name. Ten years after the worst terrorist act in Moscow history, the seizure on October 22, 2002 of 979 hostages in the Theatre on Dubrovka during the musical ―Nord-Ost,‖ mystery still shrouds the role of the Russian authorities in the crisis. In the end, 129 hostages are known to have died when Russian forces flooded the theater with gas on the morning of October 26 and then stormed the building. But the real number of dead may have been higher; 75 persons believed to have been in the building were unaccounted for. The organizers of the storm received ―Hero of Russia‖ awards and the day after the theater was ―liberated,‖ Putin invited the commandos from the Alpha and Vympel units that conducted the operation to a reception in the Kremlin. Survivors of the siege and relatives of the victims, however, have long insisted that the Putin regime was culpable in the hostages’ deaths for recklessly mounting a lethal attack without provision for the rescue and medical treatment of the hostages. The theater was seized by 40 terrorists, including 19 female suicide bombers who had bombs strapped around their waists. They quickly attached dozens of other bombs to the building’s main supports.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Report: Russia and Disinformation
    MARCH 2019 RUSSIA AND DISINFORMATION: THE CASE OF THE CAUCASUS FULL REPORT Dr Cerwyn Moore, University of Birmingham How does Russian state disinformation operate in the Caucasus region? This report considers three different cases of disinformation deployment in the Caucasus region to highlight the dynamics of Russian state influence, both domestically in the Russian Federation’s North Caucasus region as well as in Georgia, just across the Russian border in the South Caucasus. This report is part of a series on disinformation to come out of the Actors and Narratives programme. The other three reports in the Russia and Disinformation series: 'The Case of Ukraine', 'Maskirovka' , and 'Institutions and Actors' can be found at www.crestresearch.ac.uk/tag/russia- disinformation/ About CREST The Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST) is a national hub for understanding, countering and mitigating security threats. It is an independent centre, commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and funded in part by the UK security and intelligence agencies (ESRC Award: ES/N009614/1). www.crestresearch.ac.uk ©2019 CREST Creative Commons 4.0 BY-NC-SA licence. www.crestresearch.ac.uk/copyright TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................4 DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND THE RISE OF TECH ..............................................5 BESLAN .......................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Universitas Indonesia BAB II Konsep Etnonasionalisme Dan Terorisme II
    BAB II Konsep Etnonasionalisme dan Terorisme II.1 Etnonasonalisme Nasionalisme di dunia, khususnya pada abad ke-20, merupakan suatu fenomena yang sangat kompleks dan merupakan gejala zaman modern. Hal ini dikarenakan banyaknya konotasi serta interpretasinya yang beragam sebagai hasil studi. Nasionalisme di setiap negara tidaklah sama, dikarenakan nasionalisme suatu negara berkembang menurut ide politik dan susunan masyarakat yang sesuai dengan apa yang telah berakar di negara tersebut. Oleh karena itu, perkembangan nasionalisme adalah sebuah proses sejarah yang dapat dilihat. Nasionalisme memegang peranan penting dalam sejarah dunia. Saat ini konsep negara-bangsa menjadi bentuk dominan organisasi pemerintahan, sehingga membuat para sejarawan menggunakan istilah nasionalisme untuk merujuk transisi sejarah dan munculnya serta keunggulan dari ideologi nasionalis. Istilah nasionalisme sendiri merujuk pada sebuah aksi kolektif yang dirancang untuk membuat batasan sebuah bangsa menjadi satu ruang (kongruen) dengan sebuah unit pemerintahan.30 Konsep nasionalisme sendiri terbentuk dari dua unsur, yakni bangsa dan unit pemerintahan31 (untuk lebih mudahnya, disebut negara). Beberapa teori nasionalisme menunjukkan identitas nasional menciptakan pergerakan nasional yang kemudian direspon oleh para unit politis, atau unit sosial itu sendiri yang mempromosikan sendiri identitas nasional mereka melalui kesadaran nasional tersebut. Menurut Gellner, sebuah bangsa tidak akan memunculkan nasionalisme tetapi nasionalisme-lah yang mengakibatkan lahirnya sebuah
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress
    Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress November 24, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46616 SUMMARY R46616 Russian Military Intelligence: Background and November 24, 2020 Issues for Congress Andrew S. Bowen Following Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea region and invasion of eastern Ukraine in Analyst in Russian and 2014, many observers have linked Russia to additional malicious acts abroad. U.S. and European European Affairs officials and analysts have accused Russia of, among other things, interfering in U.S. elections in 2016; attempting a coup in Montenegro in 2016; conducting cyberattacks against the World Anti- Doping Agency and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2016 and 2018, respectively; attempting to assassinate Russian intelligence defector Sergei Skripal in the United Kingdom in 2018; and offering “bounties” to Taliban-linked fighters to attack U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. Implicated in all these activities is Russia’s military intelligence agency, the Main Directorate of the General Staff (GU), also known as the GRU. The United States has indicted GRU officers and designated the GRU for sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, cybercrimes, and election interference. The Department of Justice has indicted GRU officers for cyber-related offenses against the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, NotPetya malware attacks in 2017, various cyberattacks against the 2018 Olympics, and interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The GRU as an agency has been designated for sanctions under Executive Order 13694, as amended, and Section 224 of the Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA; P.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Islam in the Russian Federation and the Post-Soviet Republics: a Historical Perspective (Part B)
    Islam in the Russian Federation and the post-Soviet Republics: a Historical Perspective (Part B) Note: Photo of Mosque in Groznyy, capital of the Chechnya Autonomous Republic 1 Introduction Secular and religious ideologies are often quite copasetic. For instance, an individual can easily believe in Keynesiaii economics while also being a devoted Christian, reflecting Weber's insight into how religious and secular worldviews are often compatible and can borrow from one another to produce compatible systems of belief. This compatibility is the result of defining the domain of a secular ideology in such a way that it does not overlap and overlook a religions doctrine. In fact, some historians hold that religion was most successful in Western Enrope after religious and secular doctrines became the specialties of separate institutions. Peter Raedts persnasivelv argues that: ―A new era for Christianity in Europe began when after 1800 the churches gradually lost support ofthe state and had to organize themselves. And it was not until then that the new forms of mass media and the schooling of all the population made the Christianization ofeveryone a reality‖.1 Arrival of Soviet communism in the early twentieth century dramatically changed church-state relations within the territories which fell under its influence. Conunnnism was unique becanse it was the first political ideology that was not only anti-clerical but also advocated a radical atheistic worldview. As explained by Isaiab Berlin: ―What in fact was created by Marx was a new ecumenical organization, a kind of anti-Ghurch, witli a full apparatus of concepts and categories, capable, at Ieast in theory, of yielding clear and final answers to all possible questions, private and public, scientific and historical, moral and aesthetic, individual and institutional.‖2 As such, communist ideology could not accept the continued influnence of religion even as an independent institutional entity.
    [Show full text]
  • David Sheldon Boone Charging Him with Selling the Security Apparatus
    CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION In the early 1990s, the new Russian in the Leningrad KGB.1 Putin also quietly replaced counterintelligence service embarked on a mission fourteen presidential representatives in the regions to reclaim the former KGB’s internal security with former security offi cers. power, which had been diminished with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. A spate of press FSB director Patrushev said that, in 1999, his service articles in early 1996 by spokesmen for the Federal stopped the activities of 65 foreign individual Security Service (FSB) boasted the service’s role in offi cers and prevented 30 Russian citizens from protecting the state from foreign subversion. FSB passing secrets to foreign intelligence services. In offi cers noted that the service has the responsibility 1998, the FSB foiled the activities of 11 intelligence to monitor foreign astronauts at “Star City” and to offi cers and caught 19 Russian citizens attempting to prevent the emigration of Russian scientists. The sell classifi ed information to foreign secret services. FSB has also bragged about the arrest of Israeli, And in 1996, then-FSB chief Nikolai Kovalyov said Turkish, and North Korean spies and the expulsion the FSB had exposed 400 employees of foreign of a British businessman and an Israeli diplomat. intelligence services and 39 Russians working for The government moves against ecologists further them during the period 1994-96. revealed a resurgence of FSB internal power. The Sutyagin case follows the sentencing in Although there continues to be mutually benefi cial December 2000 of retired US Navy offi cer Edmund cooperation between Washington and Moscow, Pope to 20 years for spying.
    [Show full text]
  • FIRST SECTION CASE of TAGAYEVA and OTHERS V. RUSSIA
    FIRST SECTION CASE OF TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 26562/07 and 6 other applications – see list appended) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 April 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1 Table of Contents PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................... 4 THE FACTS ............................................................................................................. 5 I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ...................................................... 5 A. General information ....................................................................................... 5 B. The events of 1 to 4 September 2004 ............................................................ 6 1. Situation prior to the hostage-taking on 1 September 2004 ................................. 6 2. Hostage-taking ..................................................................................................... 7 3. Events of 1 to 2 September 2004 ......................................................................... 9 4. Storming and rescue operation .......................................................................... 14 5. Events of 4 September 2004, identification of bodies and burials .................... 17 6. Assuming responsibility for the terrorist act ...................................................... 18 C. Criminal investigations
    [Show full text]
  • Russia: Foreign Policy and U.S
    Russia: Foreign Policy and U.S. Relations Updated April 15, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46761 SUMMARY R46761 Russia: Foreign Policy and U.S. Relations April 15, 2021 Since Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rise to leadership more than 20 years ago, tensions have increased steadily between Russia and the United States. Some observers attribute Russian Andrew S. Bowen foreign policy actions to the personality and individual interests of Putin and certain hawkish Analyst in Russian and advisers. Some contend Russian authorities are focused mainly on reclaiming Russia’s status as a European Affairs great power. Others argue Russian foreign policy is centered on protecting the country’s status as the dominant power in the post-Soviet region and defending against foreign interference in Russia’s domestic affairs. Whatever the motivations, most observers agree Russia’s natural Cory Welt resources and military modernization program, launched in 2008, provide Russia’s leadership the Specialist in Russian and European Affairs means to conduct a flexible and often aggressive foreign policy, as well as to project force in neighboring countries and further afield (such as in the Middle East). Russia’s foreign policy priorities traditionally have focused on the post-Soviet region and the West, including relations and tensions with NATO, the United States, and Europe. However, Russia under Putin (like the Soviet Union before it) also pursues a global foreign policy. As relations with its neighbors and Western countries have become more adversarial, Russia—seeking to balance against U.S. and European power and interests—has cultivated deeper relations with China and other countries.
    [Show full text]