THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 3340/08 and 24689/10)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
22 November 2016

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

In the case of Ortsuyeva and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Luis Lpez Guerra, President,
Helena Jderblom,
Helen Keller,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fato Arac, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in two applications (Ortsuyeva and Others
v. Russia, no. 3340/08, and Magomedova and Others v. Russia, no. 24689/10)
against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(the Convention) by forty-nine Russian nationals (the applicants) on
28 December 2007 and 31 March 2010 respectively.
2. The applicants were represented before the Court by lawyers from the
NGO Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with the NGO
Astreya) and lawyers from the Dagestan Regional Public Human Rights
Organisation, Boretz za Spravedlivost (
,
), respectively. The Russian Government (the
Government) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the
Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicants in both applications alleged that as a result of a special
operation carried out in Mesker-Yurt, Chechnya, between 21 May and
11 June 2002, seventeen of their relatives had been abducted by State
servicemen and that no effective investigation into the matter had taken place.
4. The eighth applicant in Ortsuyeva and Others, Ms Zulay Gachayeva,
died on 15 February 2015. On 25 August 2015 the seventh applicant, Ms Zara
Gachayeva, informed the Court that she wanted her name removed from the
list of applicants.
5. On 4 March 2015 the applications were communicated to the
Government.

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
6. The applicants are close relatives of persons who disappeared as a
result of a large-scale sweeping operation conducted by the Russian federal
military forces in Mesker-Yurt between 21 May and 11 June 2002.
7. The Court has already examined cases in which other residents of
Mesker-Yurt were abducted by federal servicemen in 2002 in the following
judgments: Amanat Ilyasova and Others v. Russia, no. 27001/06, 1 October
2009, concerning the abduction and subsequent disappearance of Mr Musa
Ilyasov on 11 August 2002; Ilyasova and Others v. Russia, no. 1895/04,
4 December 2008, concerning the abduction and subsequent disappearance of
Mr Adam Ilyasov on 15 November 2002; Magamadova and Iskhanova
v. Russia, no. 33185/04, 6 November 2008, concerning the abduction and
subsequent disappearance of Mr Viskhadzhi Magamadov and Mr Khaskhan
Mezhiyev on 14 November 2002; Petimat Magomadova v. Russia,
no. 36965/09, 9 January 2014, concerning the abduction and subsequent
disappearance of Mr Buvaysar Magomadov on 27 October 2002; Aliyeva and
Dombayev v. Russia no. 67322/099 January 2014, concerning the abduction
and subsequent disappearance of Mr Apti Dombayev on 4 November 2002;
Kosumova and Others v. Russia, no. 27441/07, 7 June 2011, concerning the
abduction and subsequent disappearance of Mr Abdul Kasumov on
21 November 2002; and Takhayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 23286/04,
18 September 2008, concerning the abduction and subsequent disappearance
of Mr Ayub Takhayev on 13 November 2002.
8. The relevant facts are summarised below. The personal data of the
applicants and their missing relatives are summarised in the attached table
(Appendix I).
A. General information pertaining to both applications
Abduction of the applicants relatives
(a) Information submitted by the applicants

9. The circumstances of all the abductions are similar and can be

summarised as follows. At the material time the village of Mesker-Yurt was
under curfew. The federal forces had set up checkpoints on the roads leading
to and from the settlement.
10. Between 21 May and 11 June 2002 servicemen of the Russian federal
forces conducted a large-scale sweeping-up operation in Mesker-Yurt. On
21 May 2002 they arrived in the settlement in several armoured personnel
vehicles (APCs) and other military vehicles, such as UAZ minivans and
URAL lorries. They blockaded the village and set up a temporary filtration
camp on the outskirts. Nobody was allowed to leave the village.
11. The servicemen, who spoke Russian without an accent, checked the
residents identity documents. After the check they took some of the residents

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

away, including the applicants relatives, under the pretext of needing to carry
out further identity checks. They told the applicants that their relatives would
be released once the checks had been completed.
12. The majority of the applicants relatives were taken away between
21 May and 5 June 2002, either from their homes or from the local mosque,
where they had been hiding in the belief that it was a safe place. All of the
residents detained during the special operation were taken to the temporary
filtration camp.
13. The applicants visited the temporary filtration camp on several
occasions and passed food to their relatives through the servicemen guarding
it.
14. On 4 June 2002 the body of Mr Adam Temersultanov, who had been
detained during the special operation, was thrown from a military UAZ
vehicle on the outskirts of the village. He was found by local residents. The
other sixteen abducted men were transferred from the filtration camp to an
unknown location. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives
ever since.
15. On an unspecified date between 9 and 17 June 2002 the military unit
conducting the special operation in Mesker-Yurt left the place where they had
been stationed as well as the temporary filtration camp in the vicinity of the
village. On 17 June 2002, local residents went to the place where the unit had
been stationed and found several pits with blown-up human remains.
16. From the documents submitted by the parties it transpires that along
with the applicants relatives, a number of other residents of Mesker-Yurt,
including Mr R. Makhtykhanov, Mr M. Magomedov and Mr I. Gachayev,
were abducted during the special operation. All of them, like the applicants
relatives, were arrested at home or at the mosque and taken to the filtration
camp. They then went missing.
17. According to the applicants, as a result of the special operation,
nineteen residents of Mesker-Yurt were killed and a number of others,
including their relatives, have gone missing.
(b) Information submitted by the Government

18. The Government did not submit their version of the events and did not
dispute the circumstances of the abductions as presented by the applicants.
19. From the Governments submission concerning the official
investigation into the events, it transpires that during a passport check on
27 May 2002, federal servicemen killed Mr A. Saltamirzayev. In addition, on
4 June 2002 a resident of Mesker-Yurt, Mr I. Khadzhimuradov, died as a
result of an explosion and on 5 June 2002 two other residents of Mesker-Yurt,
Mr M. Malayev and Mr A. Temersultanov, died under similar circumstances.

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

B. Details of the individual cases

1. Application no. 3340/08, Ortsuyeva and Others v. Russia
(a) Abduction of Mr Islam Ortsuyev

20. Mr Islam Ortsuyev was born in 1980. On 21 May 2002 a group of

armed servicemen abducted him from his house at 157 Lenina Street.
(b) Abduction of Mr Adam Gachayev

21. Mr Adam Gachayev was born in 1973. On 21 May 2002 a group of

armed servicemen abducted him from the family house at 24 Sheripova Street
(in the documents submitted, also referred to as Vishnevaya Street).
(c) Abduction of Mr Aslan Israilov and Mr Anzor Israilov

22. Mr Aslan Israilov was born in 1981 and his brother, Mr Anzor
Israilov, was born in 1984. On 21 May 2002 a group of armed servicemen
abducted the brothers from their house at 71 Lenina Street.
(d) Abduction of Mr Ibragim Askhabov

23. Mr Ibragim Askhabov was born in 1983. On 22 May 2002 a group of

armed servicemen abducted him from his house at 8 Checkhova Street.
24. According to the applicants, shortly after the abduction they learnt
from undisclosed sources that in June 2002 Mr Askhabov had been detained
on the premises of the Shali district department of the interior (
()) (the ROVD) and then
transferred elsewhere.
(e) Abduction of Mr Shaip Makhmudov

25. Mr Shaip (also spelled as Shoip) Makhmudov was born in 1980. On

23 May 2002 a group of armed servicemen abducted him on the outskirts of
Mesker-Yurt where he was tending cattle. In the documents submitted the
place of the abduction was also referred to as 63 Tereshkova Street.
(f) Abduction of Mr Sayd-Magomed Abubakarov

26. Mr Sayd-Magomed Abubakarov was born in 1982. On 21 May 2002

(in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 23 May 2002) a
group of armed servicemen, who arrived in two APCs with registration
numbers 588 and 466, abducted him from his house at 64 Lenina Street.
(g) Abduction of Mr Lechi Temirkhanov

27. Mr Lechi Temirkhanov was born in 1980. On 21 May 2002 a group of

armed servicemen abducted him from his uncles house at 1 Moskovskaya
Street.

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

(h) Abduction of Mr Apti Dedishov, Mr Abu Dedishov and Mr Adam Dedishov

28. Mr Apti Dedishov was born in 1965, and his brothers, Mr Abu
Dedishov and Mr Adam Dedishov, were born in 1968 and 1971. On 22 May
2002 a group of armed servicemen abducted the brothers from their family
house at 6 Shkolnaya Street.
29. On 11 June 2002 residents of Mesker-Yurt found clothing belonging
to the Dedishov brothers and human remains on the outskirts of the village.
(i) Abduction of Mr Suliman Magomadov and Mr Salambek Magomadov

30. Mr Suliman Magomadov was born in 1978 and his brother,

Mr Salambek Magomadov, was born in 1980. On 23 May 2002 (in the
documents submitted the date was also referred to as 25 May 2002) a group
of armed servicemen abducted the brothers from their house at 19 Shkolnaya
Street.
(j) Abduction of Mr Vakha Ibragimov

31. Mr Vakha Ibragimov was born in 1975. On 1 June 2002 a group of

armed servicemen abducted him from the village mosque in Mesker-Yurt (in
the documents submitted the address was also referred to as 4 Gorkova
Street).
(k) Abduction of Mr Abu Dudagov

32. Mr Abu Dudagov was born in 1981. On 5 June 2002 a group of armed
servicemen abducted him from the village mosque in Mesker-Yurt (in the
documents submitted the address was also referred to as 1 Sportivnaya
Street).
(l) Abduction of Mr Adam Temersultanov and subsequent discovery of his body

33. Mr Adam Temersultanov (in the documents submitted also spelled

Timersultanov) was born in 1976. On 25 May 2002 he went to the village
mosque in Mesker-Yurt and stayed there for several days during the special
operation, believing that it was a safe place.
34. On 30 May 2002 the servicemen conducting the special operation took
Mr Temersultanov from the mosque to a checkpoint situated on a nearby
bridge for an identity check and detained him.
35. On 4 June 2002 some villagers saw one of the military UAZ vehicles
used for the special operation with Mr Temersultanovs body in it; they then
saw servicemen throw the body out of the vehicle. According to the
applicants, Mr Adam Temersultanovs body bore signs of violence.
2. Application no. 24689/10, Magomedova and Others v. Russia
Abduction of Mr Magomedrasul Magomedov

36. Mr Magomedrasul Magomedov was born in 1951. At the material

time he and the applicants lived in the settlement of Komsomolskoye in the
Kizilyurt district of Dagestan. On 23 May 2002, Mr Magomedov went to visit
his sister in Mesker-Yurt, Chechnya, with his friend, Mr Kh. M.

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

37. On 24 May 2002 Mr Magomedov and Mr Kh. M. wanted to leave

Mesker-Yurt, but the entire settlement was cordoned off by military
servicemen and all the roads leading to and from the village were blocked due
to the special operation.
38. On an unspecified date at the beginning of June 2002 Mr Magomedov
and Mr Kh. M. were told by the servicemen to go to the village mosque and
join the other residents who had gathered there. On the same day, the
servicemen took Mr Magomedov from the mosque to the temporary filtration
camp. His whereabouts remain unknown. As for Mr Kh. M., he was allowed
to leave the village a few days later.
3. Official investigation into the abduction of the applicants relatives
39. In response to the Courts request for a copy of the contents of the
criminal cases opened in connection with the abductions, the Government did
not furnish any documents but provided an information statement concerning
the investigation of joint criminal case no. 14/90/0091-11.
40. The applicants in Ortsuyeva and Others (application no. 3340/08)
furnished the Court with copies of numerous requests for assistance in the
search for their relatives lodged by them with various State authorities
between 2002 and 2008 and the replies received thereto.
41. The information submitted by the parties concerning the investigation
into the abduction can be summarised as follows.
42. Between June and July 2002 the Shali district prosecutors office
opened criminal cases nos. 59114, 59125, 59126, 59127, 59128, 59129,
59133, 59134, 59135, 59136, 59138, 59163, 59164, and 59171 under Article
126 of the Criminal Code (abduction) in respect of the abduction of the
relatives of the applicants in Ortsuyeva and Others (application no. 3340/08).
It also opened criminal case no. 59166 in respect of the abduction of the
relative of the applicants in Magomedova and Others (application
no. 24689/10).
43. On 6 August 2002, all of the criminal cases, along with cases
nos. 59113 and 59205 opened in connection with the abduction of other
residents of Mesker-Yurt, were joined under joint criminal case no. 59113.
44. On 26 December 2002 the joint criminal case was forwarded to the
military prosecutors office of the United Group Alignment (
()) (the UGA) for further investigation. The
applicants were not informed thereof.
45. On an unspecified date between January 2003 and April 2007, while
the proceedings were suspended, the military prosecutors office remitted
joint criminal case no. 59113 to the Chechnya prosecutors office for further
investigation. The applicants were not informed thereof.
46. On 19 April 2007 the investigation of the criminal case was resumed.
It was then suspended again on 20 April 2007 for failure to identify the
perpetrators. The relevant decision stated, among other things:
... the preliminary investigation has established that between 21 May and
10 June 2002 in the vicinity of Mesker-Yurt in the Shali district of the Chechen
Republic, servicemen of the Russian Ministry of Defence and the Russian Ministry of

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

the Interior together with servicemen from the Department of the Execution of
Sentences of the Russian Ministry of Justice, conducted a special operation to check
identity documents and identify members of illegal armed groups. During the special
operation unidentified persons abducted twenty-one local residents whose whereabouts
have not been established since ...

47. On 20 April 2007 the investigation of the joint criminal case was
suspended yet again for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants
were not informed thereof.
48. According to the documents submitted, the special operation in
Mesker-Yurt was conducted under the command of General Bornovitskiy and
on an unspecified date between 2002 and 2007 the applicants and their
relatives forwarded that information to the investigators. It is unclear whether
any steps were taken to verify the information.
49. From the documents submitted it appears that on various dates
between 2002 and 2007 the applicants and/or their relatives gave statements
to the investigating authorities. In their statements, they stressed that their
relatives had been abducted by military servicemen during the special
operation, and taken to the temporary filtration camp and that they had been
missing ever since.
50. Furthermore, on various dates between 2002 and 2010 the applicants
lodged complaints and requests for assistance in the search for their relatives
with the investigative authorities and other State bodies. In reply, they were
informed either that their complaints had been forwarded to another
law-enforcement or military agency, or that the investigating authorities were
taking operational search measures to establish the abducted mens
whereabouts and identify the culprits.
51. According to the documents submitted by the applicants in Ortsuyeva
and Others (application no. 3340/08), between 2002 and 2010 the applicants
lodged numerous complaints and information requests concerning the search
for their abducted relatives and the progress of the investigation into the
matter.
52. Between 2002 and 2010 the applicants in Magomedova and Others
(application no. 24689/10) lodged a number of complaints and information
requests with the authorities as well. For instance, from a copy of the decision
of the Kizilyurt Town Court of 5 April 2010 declaring Mr Magomedrasul
Magomedov dead, it transpires that on unspecified dates in March 2003,
April 2005, May 2006, December 2009 and March 2010 the applicants
requested assistance in searching for him and complained to the supervisory
prosecutors of the lack of progress in the investigation. In reply, they were
informed that proceedings were under way and that the necessary measures
were being taken.
53. From the documents submitted it follows that between 2002 and 2010
the investigation of the criminal case consisted mostly of taking short
statements from the applicants and/or some of their relatives and forwarding
numerous requests for information to various State bodies. The proceedings
were suspended and resumed on several occasions for failure to identify the
perpetrators. The applicants were either not informed thereof or informed
with significant delays.

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

54. It appears that following complaints lodged by the applicants, on

4 October 2011 the investigation of the joint criminal case was resumed and
transferred again to the military authorities the main military investigations
department of the investigative committee of the Russian Federation. The
relevant decision gave the following reason for the transfer:
... the investigation has established that the military servicemen who conducted the
special operation in Mesker-Yurt between 21 May and 10 June 2002 were involved in
the abductions.

The joint criminal case file was given a new number, 14/90/0091-11. It is
unclear whether the applicants were informed of those decisions.
55. On 16 December 2011 the investigation of the criminal case was
suspended again for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently
suspended and resumed again on several more occasions. The last suspension
of the proceedings took place on 29 April 2015.
56. From the information statement furnished by the Government, it
transpires that between 2011 and 2015 the investigators questioned twentyeight people, including the applicants, and forwarded about 310 information
requests to various authorities. No new information was obtained.
57. The proceedings are still pending.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
58. For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice, see
Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, (nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08
and 42509/10, 43-59 and 69-84, 18 December 2012).

THE LAW
59. The Court will deal with the procedural matters in the case before
considering the applicants complaints concerning the abduction of their
relatives and the allegedly ineffective investigation.
60. On 25 August 2015 the applicants in Ortsuyeva and Others
(application no. 3340/08) informed the Court that the eighth applicant,
Ms Zulay Gachayeva, had died on 15 February 2015 and that on 11 August
2015 the seventh applicant, Ms Zara Gachayeva, had expressed her wish to
have her name removed from the list of applicants.
61. The Court notes that Ms Zulay Gachayeva has died and that no heir
has shown an interest in pursuing her part of application no. 3340/08, and that
Ms Zara Gachayeva has expressed her wish not to pursue her part of
application no. 3340/08 before the Court.
62. In accordance with Article 37 1 in fine, the Court finds no special
circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the
Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of
their applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the
complaints of the seventh and eighth applicants out of the list.

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

63. In accordance with Rule 42 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court
decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal
background.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH RULE
A. The parties submissions
1. Government
64. The Government submitted that the applicants had lodged their
applications with the Court with unjustifiable delay and had therefore failed
to comply with the six-month time-limit. In particular, they pointed out that
the applicants in Ortsuyeva and Others (application no. 3340/08) had lodged
their application about five and a half years after the alleged abductions, and
those in Magomedova and Others (application no. 24689/10) had lodged their
application about eight years after the events in issue. The Government stated
that by the beginning of 2007 the applicants must already have known of the
numerous cases of killings, disappearances and ill-treatment in the Chechen
Republic but had nonetheless lodged their applications with the Court later
that is, at the end of 2007 and at the beginning of 2010 respectively.
65. Furthermore, according to the Government, the applicants must have
become aware of the obvious ineffectiveness of the pending investigations
into the abductions long before they initiated the proceedings before the
Court for the following reasons: as early as 2002 the applicants in Ortsuyeva
and Others (application no. 3340/08) started lodging numerous requests with
various State bodies and not just the investigating authorities
demonstrating that they had doubts about the success of the pending
investigation. In addition, the applicants in that application signed authority
forms for their representatives before the Court in March 2007, which date
must be taken into account as the trigger for calculation of the six-month
time-limit. As for the applicants in Magomedova and Others (application
no. 24689/10), between 2002 and 2010 they failed to maintain any contact
with the authorities on the matter and, therefore, failed to demonstrate a
certain amount of diligence and initiative to justify the belated lodging of
their application with the Court.
2. The applicants
66. The applicants in both applications submitted that they had complied
with the admissibility criteria concerning the six-month time-limit. They had
taken all possible steps within a reasonable time to initiate the search for their
missing relatives and assist the authorities in the proceedings. They submitted
that there had been no excessive or unexplained delays in submitting their
applications to the Court, and that they had lodged their complaints as soon as

10

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

they had become convinced that the investigations into the abduction of their
relatives had been ineffective.
67. Referring to the case of Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC]
(nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90,
16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, ECHR 2009), the applicants in Ortsuyeva
and Others (application no. 3340/08) argued that the six-month rule did not
apply to continuing situations of enforced disappearances, and that in any
event they had lodged their application within a reasonable time frame
following the events in question.
68. The applicants further submitted that that they had complained to the
authorities shortly after the incidents and had hoped that the criminal
investigation initiated thereafter would produce results. Throughout the
proceedings they maintained regular contact with the authorities and actively
cooperated with the investigation. The applicants further maintained that the
armed conflict in Chechnya had led them to believe that investigative delays
were inevitable and it was only with the passage of time and a lack of
information from the investigating authorities that they had begun to doubt
the effectiveness of the investigation. Furthermore, the applicants stated that
the information provided to them by the investigating authorities on the
progress of the proceedings had been insufficient to assess their effectiveness
promptly and conclude that unwarranted delays had been taking place. They
lodged their application with the Court after realising that the domestic
investigations had been ineffective.
69. The applicants in Magomedova and Others (application no. 24689/10)
submitted that they had complained to the authorities shortly after the
abduction and had hoped that the criminal investigation initiated thereafter
would produce results. Although the authorities failed to keep them informed
of developments in the proceedings, they themselves maintained contact with
the authorities by lodging requests for information and giving their statements
to the investigators.
B. The Courts assessment
1. General principles
70. A summary of the principles concerning compliance with the
six-month rule in cases involving violations of Article 2 of the Convention
allegedly perpetrated by military servicemen may be found in Sultygov and
Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07, 53679/07, 311/08, 424/08, 3375/08,
4560/08, 35569/08, 62220/10, 3222/11, 22257/11, 24744/11 and 36897/11,
369-74, 9 October 2014, and Dudayeva v. Russia, no. 67437/09, 71,
8 December 2015.
2. Application of the principles to the present case
71. Turning to the circumstances of the applications at hand, the Court
notes that the investigations were pending when the applicants lodged their
respective applications with the Court and that they are still in progress. The
Court further notes that there are no final domestic decisions in either of the

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

11

applications capable of triggering the six-month time-limit. The applicants in

both cases maintained contact with the authorities after the abductions (see
paragraphs 40, 48, 51 and 52 above) and lodged their respective applications
with the Court within less than ten years of the incident and the initiation of
the investigation (see Varnava and Others, cited above, 166).
72. Based on the information statement furnished by the Government on
the progress of the investigation into the abductions, the Court observes that
there have been breaks in the criminal proceedings, when the investigation
remained suspended (see paragraphs 45, 47 and 55 above) and that the most
significant break between April 2007 and December 2011 lasted more than
four and half years (see paragraphs 47 and 54 above). It further observes that
the applicants were not informed in advance of the decisions to suspend the
investigations.
73. The Court considers that such long periods of inactivity on the part of
the authorities could have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the pending
investigations and could have compelled the applicants to lodge their
applications with the Court at an earlier date. However, it notes that the
authorities failed to provide the applicants with information concerning the
investigations, including the decisions to suspend them (see paragraphs 44, 45
and 47 above).
74. From the documents submitted, it appears that in both cases the
applicants did all that could be expected of them to assist the authorities with
the investigations into their relatives disappearance. Taking into account the
applicants explanations concerning their compliance with the six-month rule
and their efforts to communicate with the authorities (see paragraphs 48, 49,
51 and 52 above), given the overall time frame for lodging their applications
with the Court and having regard to the complexity of the cases and the
nature of the alleged human rights violations at stake, the Court concludes
that it was reasonable for the applicants to wait for developments that could
have resolved crucial factual or legal issues (see El -Masri v. the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, 142, ECHR 2012).
The Court notes that having no information on the progress of the
proceedings, the applicants and/or their relatives either lodged requests for
information or complained about the investigations in the hope of expediting
the proceedings (see paragraphs 51 and 52 above). Further to their requests,
the authorities resumed the dormant proceedings and took steps to obtain
evidence (see paragraphs 46 and 54 above). The Court therefore considers
that the breaks in the domestic investigations cannot be held against the
applicants or interpreted as a failure on their part to comply with the
six-month requirement by unreasonably waiting for the pending investigation
to yield results (see, for a similar situation, Sultygov and Others, cited above,
375-80).
75. The Court thus considers that investigations, albeit sporadic, were
being conducted during the period in question, and that the applicants
explained the delay in their applications to the Court (see Varnava and
Others, cited above, 166). In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that
the applicants have complied with the six-month time-limit.

12

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXHAUSTION RULE

A. The parties submissions
1. Government
76. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust
domestic remedies, as the investigation into the disappearance of their
relatives was still in progress. In addition, the applicants could have appealed
against the investigators decisions before the domestic courts or lodged a
civil claim for damages.
2. The applicants
77. The applicants, referring to the Courts case-law, submitted that they
were not obliged to pursue civil remedies and that lodging complaints against
the investigators would not have remedied the shortcomings of the
investigations. They submitted that the criminal investigation had proved to
be ineffective.
B. The Courts assessment
78. As regards a civil claim for damages, the Court has already found in a
number of similar disappearance cases that this procedure alone cannot be
regarded as an effective remedy (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia,
nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 119-21, 24 February 2005). Accordingly, the
objection in this regard is dismissed.
79. As regards criminal-law remedies, the Court has concluded that the
ineffective investigation of disappearances that have occurred in Chechnya
between 2000 and 2006 constitutes a systemic problem, and that criminal
investigations are not an effective remedy in this regard (see Aslakhanova
and Others, cited above, 217).
80. In such circumstances, and noting the absence over the years of
tangible progress in the criminal investigations into the abduction of the
applicants relatives, the Court concludes that this objection must be
dismissed, since the remedy relied on by the Government is not effective in
the circumstances.
IV. THE COURTS ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
A. The parties submissions
1. The Government
81. The Government did not contest the facts underlying both
applications, but submitted that there was no evidence proving beyond

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

13

reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged
abductions, or that the applicants relatives were dead.
2. The applicants
82. The applicants submitted that it had been established beyond
reasonable doubt that the men who had taken their relatives had been State
agents. In support of that assertion, they referred to evidence contained in
their submissions and in the information statement on the progress of the
criminal proceedings submitted by the Government. They also submitted that
they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted
by military servicemen, but the essential facts underlying their complaints
had not been challenged by the Government. Given the lack of any news
about their relatives for a long time and the life-threatening nature of
unacknowledged detention in Chechnya at the relevant time, they asked the
Court to consider their relatives dead.
B. The Courts assessment
1. General principles
83. A summary of the principles concerning assessment of evidence and
establishment of facts in disappearance cases and the life-threatening nature
of such incidents may be found in Sultygov and Others (cited above,
393-96).
2. Application of the above principles to the present case
84. The Court finds that the applicants allegations are supported by both
the witness statements collected by them and the domestic investigation. In
their submissions to the authorities, the applicants maintained that their
relatives had been abducted by State agents (see paragraphs 48 and 49 above)
and that Mr Adam Temersultanov had been killed by them (see paragraphs
33-35 above). The investigating authorities accepted as fact the primary
versions of events presented by the applicants and took steps to check
whether State servicemen had been involved in the abductions (see
paragraphs 44, 46 and 54 above).
85. Information submitted by the applicants, along with the information
statement furnished by the Government, confirms that the applicants
relatives were abducted between 21 May and 10 June 2002 in Mesker-Yurt
by a group of servicemen during a special operation (see paragraphs 46 and
54 above). In view of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that
the applicants have presented a prima facie case that a security operation was
carried out in Mesker-Yurt and thus that the State had exclusive control over
the detainees (see, among many other authorities, Aslakhanova and Others,
cited above, 114).
86. The Government did not provide any explanation for the events in
question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof.

14

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

87. Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court
finds that the applicants relatives were taken into custody by State agents
during the special operation. Given the lack of any news about them since
their detention and its life-threatening nature (see paragraph 83 above), and
the subsequent discovery of Mr Adam Temersultanovs body (see paragraph
35 above), the Court finds that he was killed following his unacknowledged
detention by State agents and that Mr Islam Ortsuyev, Mr Adam Gachayev,
Mr Aslan Israilov, Mr Anzor Israilov, Mr Ibragim Askhabov, Mr Shaip
Makhmudov, Mr Sayd-Magomed Abubakarov, Mr Lechi Temirkhanov,
Mr Apti Dedishov, Mr Abu Dedishov, Mr Adam Dedishov, Mr Suliman
Magomadov, Mr Salambek Magomadov, Mr Vakha Ibragimov, Mr Abu
Dudagov and Mr Magomedrasul Magomedov may be presumed dead
following their unacknowledged detention.
V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
88. The applicants complained, under Article 2 of the Convention, that
their relatives had disappeared after being detained by State agents during a
security operation in Mesker-Yurt, and that the domestic authorities had
failed to carry out effective investigations into the matter. Article 2 of the
Convention reads as follows:
1. Everyones right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his
life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction
of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article
when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

A. The parties submissions

89. The Government submitted that no evidence had been obtained in the
domestic investigations to suggest that the applicants relatives had been held
under State control, or were dead.
90. The applicants maintained their complaints.
B. The Courts assessment
1. Admissibility
91. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes
that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be
declared admissible.

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

15

2. Merits
(a) Alleged violation of the right to life of the applicants relatives

92. The Court has already found that the applicants relatives may be
presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by State agents and
that one of them, Mr Adam Temersultanov, had been killed by State agents.
In the absence of any form of justification put forward by the Government,
the Court finds that the deaths of the applicants relatives can be attributed to
the State. It concludes that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect
of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Islam Ortsuyev, Mr Adam
Gachayev, Mr Aslan Israilov, Mr Anzor Israilov, Mr Ibragim Askhabov,
Mr Shaip Makhmudov, Mr Sayd-Magomed Abubakarov, Mr Lechi
Temirkhanov, Mr Apti Dedishov, Mr Abu Dedishov, Mr Adam Dedishov,
Mr Suliman Magomadov, Mr Salambek Magomadov, Mr Vakha Ibragimov,
Mr Abu Dudagov, Mr Magomedrasul Magomedov and Mr Adam
Temersultanov.
(b) Alleged inadequacy of the investigations into the abductions

93. The Court has already found that a criminal investigation does not
constitute an effective remedy in respect of disappearances which have
occurred, in particular, in Chechnya between 1999 and 2006, and that such a
situation constitutes a systemic problem under the Convention (see
Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, 217). Bearing in mind the cases
reviewed by the Court concerning abductions perpetrated by State servicemen
at around the same time from the very same settlement (see paragraph 7
above), the Court notes that the investigations in the present cases have been
pending for many years without bringing about any significant developments
as to the identities of the perpetrators or the fate of the abducted men, except
for that of Mr Adam Temersultanov, whose body was subsequently found
(see paragraphs 14 and 35 above). While the obligation to investigate
effectively is one of means and not of results, the Court notes that each set of
criminal proceedings has been plagued by a combination of defects similar to
those enumerated in the Aslakhanova and Others judgment (cited above,
123-25). They have been subjected to several decisions to suspend the
investigation, followed by periods of inactivity, which have further
diminished the prospects of solving the crimes. No meaningful steps have
been taken to identify and question the servicemen who could have
witnessed, registered or participated in the operations.
94. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities have
failed to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances of
the disappearance and death of the applicants relatives, Mr Islam Ortsuyev,
Mr Adam Gachayev, Mr Aslan Israilov, Mr Anzor Israilov, Mr Ibragim
Askhabov, Mr Shaip Makhmudov, Mr Sayd-Magomed Abubakarov,
Mr Lechi Temirkhanov, Mr Apti Dedishov, Mr Abu Dedishov, Mr Adam
Dedishov, Mr Suliman Magomadov, Mr Salambek Magomadov, Mr Vakha
Ibragimov, Mr Abu Dudagov, Mr Adam Temersultanov and

16

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

Mr Magomedrasul Magomedov. Accordingly, there has been a violation of

the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.
VI. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 3, 5 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
95. The applicants complained of a violation of Article 3 of the
Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the
disappearance of their relatives. All of the applicants complained of a
violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of
their relatives detention. The applicants also argued that, contrary to
Article 13 of the Convention, there were no domestic remedies available to
them against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3
of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:
Article 3
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
Article 5
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived
of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed
by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing
him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed
an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an
offence or fleeing after having done so;
...
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he
understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c)
of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by
law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to
release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to
take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a
court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the
provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Article 13
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated
shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

17

A. The parties submissions

96. The Government contested the applicants claims.
97. The applicants reiterated their complaints.
B. The Courts assessment
1. Admissibility
98. The Court notes that the forty-fourth and forty-fifth applicants (the
relatives of Mr Adam Temersultanov) in Ortsuyeva and Others (application
no. 3340/08) complained of their mental suffering caused by the discovery of
Mr Adam Temersultanovs body. From the documents submitted it transpires
that his body had been discovered in five days after the abduction. In a
number of cases the Court has already found that while there was no doubt
that a similar situation had caused the applicants profound distress and
anxiety, taking into account the short time frame between the abduction and
the death, it did not raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for
example, Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, 82-83,
21 December 2010; Inderbiyeva v. Russia, no. 56765/08, 110-11,
27 March 2012; and Kosumova v. Russia, no. 2527/09, 100-01, 16 October
2014). The Court finds, therefore, that the complaint of the forty-fourth and
forty-fifth applicants under Artilce 3 of the Convention should be declared
inadmissible under Article 35 3 (a) of the Convention.
99. The Court further notes that the rest of the complaints are not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) of the
Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other
grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
100. The Court has found on many occasions that a situation of enforced
disappearance gives rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in
respect of the close relatives of the victim. The essence of such a violation
does not lie mainly in the fact of the disappearance of the family member,
but rather concerns the authorities reactions and attitudes to the situation
when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94,
358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, 164, ECHR
2006-XIII (extracts)). Where the news about a missing persons death has
been preceded by a sufficiently long period when he or she has been deemed
to have disappeared, there exists a distinct period during which the applicants
have sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic of the specific
phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia,
no. 69480/01, 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts).
101. Equally, the Court has found on many occasions that
unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained
in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly serious violation of
its provisions (see iek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, 164, 27 February 2001,
and Luluyev and Others, cited above, 122).

18

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

102. The Court reiterates its findings regarding the States responsibility
for the abductions and the failure to carry out meaningful investigations into
the fates of the missing persons. It finds that the applicants, who are close
relatives of the missing persons, must be considered victims of a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish they have
suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of their inability to ascertain the
fate of their family members and of the manner in which their complaints
have been dealt with.
103. At the same time the Court notes that the fifth applicant, Ms Petimat
Gachayeva, and the thirty-fourth applicant, Mr Khadzh-Murad Magomadov,
in Ortsuyeva and Others (application no. 3340/08) were born in October 2002
and in 2003, that is to say, several months after their fathers disappearance.
Consequently, the Court does not find that these applicants have suffered
such distress and anguish as a result of their fathers disappearance that it
would amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for a similar
situation, Dokayev and Others v. Russia, no. 16629/05, 105, 9 April 2009;
Babusheva and Others v. Russia, no. 33944/05, 110, 24 September 2009;
and Khava Aziyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 30237/10, 97, 23 April 2015).
The Court finds a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the
applicants whose complaints under this provision have been declared
admissible, except for the fifth and thirty-fourth applicants.
104. Since it has been established that the applicants relatives were
detained by State agents, apparently without any legal grounds or
acknowledgement of such detention, this constitutes a particularly serious
violation of the right to liberty and security of person enshrined in Article 5 of
the Convention. Therefore, the Court finds a violation of in respect of the
applicants relatives on account of their unlawful detention.
105. The Court reiterates its findings regarding the general ineffectiveness
of the criminal investigations in cases such as those under examination. In the
absence of the results of a criminal investigation, any other possible remedy
becomes inaccessible in practice.
106. The Court thus finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal
an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2 of the
Convention and that they, except for the fifth and thirty-fourth applicants, did
not have an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3, in
breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

19

VIII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

107. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols
thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the
injured party.

A. Damage
108. The applicants in Ortsuyeva and Others (application no. 3340/08)
claimed compensation for pecuniary damage in the following amounts:
- The first and second applicants (Ms Zulay Ortsuyeva and Mr Abdul
Ortsuyev) claimed 855,304 Russian roubles (RUB) (about 11,100 euros
(EUR)) and RUB 811,070 (about EUR 10,500) respectively as the parents of
Mr Islam Ortsuyev;
- The fifth applicant (Ms Petimat Gachayeva) claimed RUB 1,295,163
(about EUR 17,000) and the sixth applicant (Ms Radima Gachayeva) claimed
RUB 1,295,163 (about EUR 16,800) as the daughters of Mr Adam Gachayev;
the ninth applicant (Ms Sila Umkhayeva) claimed RUB 1,036,130 (about
EUR 13,500) as his wife;
- The tenth applicant (Mr Emin Israilov) claimed RUB 1,311,444 (about
EUR 17,000) and the eleventh applicant (Ms Nurzhan Israilova) claimed
RUB 1,424,234 (about EUR 18,500) as the parents of Mr Aslan Israilov and
Mr Anzor Israilov;
- The seventeenth applicant (Ms Aminat Askhabova) claimed
RUB 917,988 (about EUR 11,900) as the aunt of Mr Ibragim Askhabov;
- The nineteenth applicant (Ms Medin Alsultanova) and the twenty-first
applicant (Mr Rizvan Makhmudov) claimed RUB 672,703 (about
EUR 8,800) and RUB 549,851 (about EUR 7,100) respectively as the parents
of Mr Shaip Makhmudov;
- The twenty-third applicant (Mr Elbek Abubakarov) claimed
RUB 631,008 (about EUR 8,200) as the brother of Mr Sayd-Magomed
Abubakarov; the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth applicants (Ms Elisa
Abubakarova and Ms Khedi Abubakarova) claimed RUB 578,702 (about
EUR 7,500) and RUB 601,134 (about EUR 7,800) respectively as his sisters;
- The twenty-sixth applicant (Ms Larisa Temirkhanova) claimed
RUB 1,068,723 (about EUR 13,900) as the sister of Mr Lechi Temirkhanov;
- The twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth applicants (Mr Ali Dedishov and
Ms Luisa Dedishova) claimed RUB 1,012, 401 (about EUR 13,200) and
RUB 809,921 (about EUR 10,500) respectively as the son and the wife of
Mr Apti Dedishov; the thirty-first applicant (Ms Zukhra Dedishova) claimed
RUB 1,012,401 (about EUR 13,200) as his daughter and the thirtieth
applicant (Ms Malika Dedishova) claimed RUB 1,287,676 (about
EUR 16,700) as his mother and also the mother of Mr Abu Dedishov and
Mr Adam Dedishov;
- The thirty-fourth applicant (Mr Khazh-Murad Magomadov) claimed
RUB 1,522,226 (about EUR 19,800) as the son of Mr Salambek Magomadov

20

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

and the thirty-fifth applicant (Ms Ayna Magomadova) claimed

RUB 1,345,406 (about EUR 17,500) as the mother of Mr Salambek
Magomadov and Mr Suliman Magomadov;
- The fortieth applicant (Ms Izhan Ibragimova) claimed RUB 637,103
(about EUR 8,300) as the mother of Mr Vakha Ibragimov;
- The forty-second applicant (Ms Petimat Molayeva) claimed
RUB 380,039 (about EUR 5,000) as the grandmother of Mr Abu Dudagov
and the forty-third applicant (Ms Rozan Molayeva) claimed RUB 834,759
(about EUR 10,900) as his mother;
- The forty-fourth applicant (Ms Malika Amkhadova) claimed
RUB 616,309 (about EUR 8,000) as the mother of Mr Adam Temersultanov.
The applicants based their calculations on the provisions of the UK Ogden
Actuarial Tables and the provisions of the Russian Civil Code on pecuniary
damage resulting from the death of a breadwinner. The calculations were
made on the basis of the official subsistence level, as at the time of their
abduction, all the men (except for Apti, Abu and Adam Dedishov) were
unemployed.
109. The applicants in Magomedova and Others (application
no. 24689/10) claimed the following amounts in compensation for pecuniary
damage:
- the third applicant, Ms Zukhra Dengayeva, claimed EUR 500,000 as the
wife of Mr Magomedrasul Magomedov; the first, second and fourth
applicants claimed jointly the same amount (EUR 500,000) as his children.
The applicants neither explained the method used as the basis for their
calculations nor submitted any documents to substantiate their claim.
110. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicants in Ortsuyeva and
Others (application no. 3340/08) requested that the awards be made
separately for each family and left it to the Court to determine the amount.
111. As for the applicants in Magomedova and Others (application
no. 24689/10), the third applicant claimed EUR 50,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and the first, second and fourth applicants claimed
jointly EUR 100,000 under this head.
112. The Government submitted that the claim for pecuniary damage
submitted by the applicants in Ortsuyeva and Others (application
no. 3340/08) should be rejected as the applicants had not shown that their
abducted relatives had had any source of income. They further stated that the
method used by the applicants to calculate the damages was applicable in
the UK but not in the Russian Federation and that there was a domestic
mechanism for calculating compensation in respect of pecuniary damage
resulting from the loss of a breadwinner.
113. The Government further submitted that the claim for pecuniary
damage submitted by the applicants in Magomedova and Others (application
no. 24689/10) should be rejected as completely unsubstantiated. They again
pointed out that there was a domestic mechanism for calculating
compensation in respect of pecuniary damage resulting from the loss of a
breadwinner.

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

21

114. As regards the claims for non-pecuniary damage, the Government

did not comment on the claims under that head submitted by the applicants in
Ortsuyeva and Others (application no. 3340/08). As for the claim submitted
by the applicants in Magomedova and Others (application no. 24689/10), the
Government pointed out that the amounts claimed in respect of non-pecuniary
damage were extremely excessive and that the amount of compensation
should be determined on the basis of the existing case-law of the Court.
B. Costs and expenses
115. The applicants in Ortsuyeva and Others (application no. 3340/08)
were represented by SRJI/Astreya. The aggregate claim in respect of costs
and expenses related to their legal representation amounted to EUR 10,850,
which included the drafting of legal documents, translation services and
administrative and postage costs. The applicants submitted copies of their
legal representation contracts and invoices with breakdowns of the costs
incurred.
116. The applicants in Magomedova and Others (application
no. 24689/10) were represented by the Dagestan Regional Public Human
Rights Organisation, Boretz za Spravedlivost. The aggregate claim in
respect of costs and expenses related to their legal representation before the
Court amounted to EUR 5,000. No documents substantiating the amount
claimed were submitted.
117. The Government submitted in respect of the claim in Ortsuyeva and
Others (application no. 3340/08) that the amount claimed was unreasonable
as the representatives represent the interests of many other applicants in
absolutely similar cases against Russia.
118. In respect of the claim in Magomedova and Others (application
no. 24689/10), the Government submitted that the applicants had failed to
furnish copies of any documents establishing the payment rates and showing
the amount of work performed.
C. The Courts assessment
119. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection
between the damages claimed by applicants and the violation of the
Convention, and that this may, where appropriate, include compensation in
respect of loss of earnings. The Court further finds that loss of earnings
applies to close relatives of the disappeared persons, including spouses,
elderly parents and children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited
above, 213).
120. Wherever the Court finds a violation of the Convention, it may
accept that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot
be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation, and make a financial
award.
121. As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish whether they
were actually incurred and whether they were necessary and reasonable as to

22

ORTSUEYVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom,

27 September 1995, 220, Series A no. 324).
122. Having regard to the conclusions and principles set out above and the
parties submissions, the Court awards the applicants the amounts detailed in
Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on those amounts.
The awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid into the
representatives bank accounts as indicated by the applicants.
D. Default interest
123. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should
be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which
should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to strike out the part of application no. 3340/08 in so far as it
concerns the complaints of the seventh and eighth applicants (Ms Zara
Gachayeva and Ms Zulay Gachayeva) in Ortsuyeva and Others
(application no. 3340/08);
2. Decides to join the applications;
3. Declares the complaints concerning Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in
respect of the applicants mental suffering, except for that of the fortyfourth and forty-fifth applicants, and Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention
admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the
Convention in respect of the applicants relatives, Mr Islam Ortsuyev,
Mr Adam Gachayev, Mr Aslan Israilov, Mr Anzor Israilov, Mr Ibragim
Askhabov, Mr Shaip Makhmudov, Mr Sayd-Magomed Abubakarov,
Mr Lechi Temirkhanov, Mr Apti Dedishov, Mr Abu Dedishov, Mr Adam
Dedishov, Mr Suliman Magomadov, Mr Salambek Magomadov,
Mr Vakha Ibragimov, Mr Abu Dudagov, Mr Adam Temersultanov and
Mr Magomedrasul Magomedov;
5. Holds that there has been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the
Convention on account of the failure to investigate the killing of
Mr Adam Temersultanov and the disappearance of Mr Islam Ortsuyev,
Mr Adam Gachayev, Mr Aslan Israilov, Mr Anzor Israilov, Mr Ibragim
Askhabov, Mr Shaip Makhmudov, Mr Sayd-Magomed Abubakarov,
Mr Lechi Temirkhanov, Mr Apti Dedishov, Mr Abu Dedishov, Mr Adam
Dedishov, Mr Suliman Magomadov, Mr Salambek Magomadov,
Mr Vakha Ibragimov, Mr Abu Dudagov and Mr Magomedrasul
Magomedov;

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

23

6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in

respect of the applicants, except for the fifth and thirty-fourth applicants,
on account of their relatives disappearance and the authorities response
to their suffering;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in
respect of the applicants relatives on account of their unlawful detention;
8. Holds there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in
conjunction with Article 2 in respect of all of the applicants and of Article
3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants whose complaints were
declared admissible, except for the fifth and thirty-fourth applicants;
9. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months
of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 2 of the Convention, the amounts as indicated in Appendix II,
plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. The payments in respect of
costs and expenses to the applicants representatives are to be made to the
representatives bank accounts as indicated by the applicants; the
payments are to be made in euros in respect of the applicants represented
by SRJI/Astreya and are to be converted into the currency of the
respondent State in respect of the applicants represented by Dagestan
Regional Public Human Rights Organisation Boretz za Spravedlivost;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until
settlement, simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate
equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during
the default period plus three percentage points;
10. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 November 2016, pursuant
to Rule 77 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fato Arac
Deputy Registrar

Luis Lpez Guerra

President

24

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

APPENDIX I
Details of the applications
Number, name of application
and date of introduction
1.

no. 3340/08
Ortsuyeva and Others v. Russia

Lodged on 28/12/2007

Applicants details (name, year of birth, family

relation and place of residence)

Abducted person
(name, year of birth)

(1) Ms Zulay Ortsuyeva (1960), mother, Mesker-Yurt

(1) Mr Islam Ortsuyev (1980)
(2) Mr Abdul Ortsuyev (1960), father, Mesker-Yurt
(3) Mr Rasul-Khadzhi Ortsuyev (1993), brother, MeskerYurt
(4) Ms Milana Ortsuyeva (1987), sister, Mesker-Yurt

Date of the
alleged
abduction
21/05/2002

(5) Ms Petimat Gachayeva (2002), daughter, Mesker-Yurt (2) Mr Adam Gachayev (1973)
(6) Ms Radima Gachayeva (2000), daughter, Mesker-Yurt
(7) Ms Zara Gachayeva (1964), sister, idem, requested to
be removed from the list of applicants on 11/08/2015
(8) Ms Zulay Gachayeva (1939), mother, Mesker-Yurt,
passed away on 15/02/2015
(9) Ms Sila Umkhayeva (1982), wife, Mesker-Yurt

21/05/2002

(10) Mr Emin Israilov (1952), father, Mesker-Yurt

(11) Ms Nurzhan Israilova (1952), mother, Mesker-Yurt
(12) Ms Petimat Israilova (1978), sister, Mesker-Yurt
(13) Ms Zulikhan Israilova (1979), sister, Mesker-Yurt

21/05/2002

(3) Mr Aslan Israilov (1981)

(4) Mr Anzor Israilov (1984)

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHES v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

25

(14) Mr Ayub Askhabov (1992), brother, Mesker-Yurt

(15) Mr Elbek Askhabov (1985), brother, Mesker-Yurt
(16) Mr Mayrbek Askhabov (1987), brother, Mesker-Yurt
(17) Ms Aminat Askhabova (1963), aunt, Mesker-Yurt
(18) Ms Khava Askhabova (1989), sister, Mesker-Yurt

(5) Mr Ibragim Askhabov (1983)

22/05/2002

(19) Ms Medin Alsultanova (1951), mother, Mesker-Yurt

(20) Ms Petimat Baybamatova (1977), sister, Mesker-Yurt
(21) Mr Rizvan Makhmudov (1947), father, Mesker-Yurt
(22) Ms Esyat Makhmudova (1993), sister, Mesker-Yurt

(6) Mr Shaip Makhmudov (also 23/05/2002

spelled as Shoip) (1980)

(23) Mr Elbek Abubakarov (1992), brother, Mesker-Yurt

(24) Ms Elisa Abubakarova (1973), sister, Grozny
(25) Ms Khedi Abubakarova (1975), sister, Mesker-Yurt

(7) Mr Sayd-Magomed
Abubakarov (1982)

21/05/2002

(26) Ms Larisa Temirkhanova (1969), sister, Mesker-Yurt

(8) Mr Lechi Temirkhanov (1980)

21/05/2002

(27) Mr Ali Dedishov (1991), son of Mr Apti Dedishov,

Mesker-Yurt
(28) Ms Luiza Dedishova (1973), wife of Mr Apti
Dedishov, Mesker-Yurt
(29) Ms Madina Dedishova (1975), sister, Mesker-Yurt
(30) Ms Malika Dedishova (1938), mother, Mesker-Yurt
(31) Ms Zukhra Dedishova (1992), daughter of Mr Apti
Dedishov, Mesker-Yurt
(32) Ms Rozan Gaziyeva (1961), sister, Mesker-Yurt
(33) Ms Ayzan Makhmudkhadzhiyeva (1963), sister,
Mesker-Yurt

Brothers:
(9) Mr Apti Dedishov (1965)
(10) Mr Abu Dedishov (1968)
(11) Mr Adam Dedishov (1971)

22/05/2002

26

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

(34) Mr Khazh-Murad Magomadov (2003), son, Mesker- (12) Mr Suliman Magomadov 25/05/2002
Yurt
(1978)
(35) Ms Ayna Magomadova (1950), mother, Mesker-Yurt
(36) Ms Raisa Magomadova (1973), sister, Grozny
(13) Mr Salambek Magomadov
(1980)
(37) Mr Khalid Ibragimov (1971), brother, Mesker-Yurt
(14) Mr Vakha Ibragimov (1975) 1/06/2002
(38) Mr Vaid Ibragimov (1979), brother, Mesker-Yurt
(39) Mr Valid Ibragimov (1969), brother, Mesker-Yurt
(40) Mr Izhan Ibragimova (1949), mother, Mesker-Yurt
(41) Ms Milana Ibragimova (1983), sister, Mesker-Yurt
(42) Ms Petimat Molayeva (1935), grandmother, Mesker- (15) Mr Abu Dudagov (1981)
Yurt
(43) Ms Rozan Molayeva (1959), mother, Grozny
(44) Ms Malika Amkhadova (1947), mother, Mesker-Yurt (16) Mr
(45) Ms Marem Temersultanova (1982), sister, Mesker- (1976)
Yurt
2.

no. 24689/10
Magomedova
Russia

and

Lodged on 31/03/2010

Others

Adam

5/06/2002

Temersultanov 30/05/2002

(1) Ms Khatimat Magomedova (1974), daughter, (1) Mr Magomedrasul

v. Komsomolskoye, Dagestan
Magomedov (1951)
(2) Ms Madinat Magomedova (1977), daughter,
Komsomolskoye, Dagestan
(3) Ms Zukhra Dengayeva (1950), wife, Komsomolskoye,
Dagestan
(4) Mr
Gadzhidibir
Magomedov
(1972),
son,
Komsomolskoye, Dagestan

An unspecified
date at the
beginning of
June 2002

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHES v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

27

APPENDIX II
Awards made by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention

1.

Application number
Represented by
and name
no. 3340/08
SRJI/Astreya
Ortsuyeva and Others v.
Russia

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand To the first, second, third and EUR
7,000
euros) each to the first and fourth applicants EUR 60,000 thousand euros)
second applicants
(sixty thousand euros) jointly;
EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros)
to the fifth applicant and
EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros)
to the sixth applicant and
EUR 7,000 (seven thousand
euros) to the ninth applicant

To the fifth, sixth and ninth

applicants EUR 60,000 (sixty
thousand euros) jointly;

To the tenth, eleventh, twelfth

and thirteenth applicants EUR
120,000 (one hundred twenty
EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand thousand euros) jointly;
euros) each to the tenth and
eleventh applicants
To the fourteenth, fifteenth,
sixteenth,
seventeenth
and
EUR 3,000 (three thousand eighteenth
applicants
EUR
euros) to the seventeenth 60,000 (sixty thousand euros)
applicant
jointly;
EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) To the nineteenth, twentieth,
each to the nineteenth and twenty-first and twenty-second
twenty- first applicants
applicants EUR 60,000 (sixty
thousand euros) jointly;

(seven

28

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros)

to the twenty-third applicant and
EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
each to the twenty-fourth and
twenty-fifth applicants

To the twenty-third, twentyfourth and twenty-fifth applicants

EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand
euros) jointly;

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand To the twenty-sixth applicant

euros) to the twenty-sixth EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand
applicant
euros)
EUR 8,000 (eight thousand To the twenty-seventh, twentyeuros) each to the twenty-seventh eighth, twenty- ninth, thirtieth,
and thirty-first applicant;
thirty- first, thirty-second and
thirty-third
applicants
EUR
EUR 7,000 (seven thousand 180,000 (one hundred eighty
euros) to the twenty-eighth thousand euros) jointly;
applicant and EUR 16,000
(sixteen thousand euros) to the To the thirty-fourth, thirty-fifth
thirtieth applicant
and
thirty-sixth
applicants
EUR 120,000 (one hundred
EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) twenty thousand euros) jointly;
to the thirty- fourth applicant and
EUR 17,000 (seventeen thousand To the thirty-seventh, thirtyeuros) to the thirty-fifth applicant eighth, thirty-ninth, fortieth and
forty-first applicants EUR 60,000
EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) (sixty thousand euros) jointly;
to the fortieth applicant

ORTSUYEVA AND OTHES v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT

29

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) To the forty-second and fortyto the forty-second and EUR third applicants EUR 60,000
7,000 (seven thousand euros) to (sixty thousand euros) jointly;
the forty-third applicant
To the forty-fourth and forty-fifth
EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) applicants EUR 60,000 (sixty
to the forty- fourth applicant
thousand euros) jointly
2.

no. 24689/10
Magomedova and Others v.
Russia

Boretz za
Spravedlivost

EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand EUR 850 (eight hundred

euros) to the third applicant and fifty euros)
EUR 40,000 (forty thousand
euros) to the first, second and
fourth applicants jointly