ECtHR cases: July–September 2018

DOI10.1177/2032284418811261
Date01 December 2018
Published date01 December 2018
Subject MatterECHR Update
ECHR Update
ECtHR cases:
July–September 2018
Ben Wild
Article 2
Mazepa and Others v. Russia (application no. 15086/07)
The case concerned the investigation into the 2006 murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. The
Court found in particular that while the authorities had found and convicted a group of men who
had directly carried out the contract killing of Ms Politkovskaya, they had failed to take adequate
investigatory steps to find the person or persons who had commissioned the murder. The author-
ities had followed one theory about the instigator of the crime, pointing to a now deceased Russian
businessman residing in London; however, they had not explained how they had followed through
on that line of enquiry. They should also have explored other possibilities, including those sug-
gested by the applicants. They had alleged the involvement of agents from Russia’s FSB (the
Russian security service) domestic secret service or of the administration of the Chechen Republic.
The State had failed to abide by its obligations under the Convention to carry out an effective
investigation and the length of the proceedings had been too long.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2
Just satisfaction
The Court held by five votes to two that Russia was to pay the applicants 20,000 euros (EUR)
jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Khodyukevich v. Russia (application no. 74282/11)
The case concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant’s son (Mr Alchin)
and the subsequent investigation. The applicant alleged that her son had died as a result of ill
treatment by officers at a police station. She also cast doubt on the independence of the person in
charge of the investigation, on the grounds that the investigator was attached to the same police
station as the officers likely to be implicated.
The Court found in particular that the evidence submitted by the parties did not enable it to
conclude that the police officers had subjected Mr Alchin to ill treatment resulting in his death or
that the national authorities had failed in their obligation to safeguard his life. The Court also found
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 9(4) 486–505
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2032284418811261
njecl.sagepub.com
NJECL
NJECL
that it had been essential to entrust the investigation to a body or to officials not belonging to the
same police unit as the officers likely to be implicated and that this should have been done as soon
as the investigating authority became aware that Mr Alchin had been taken to the police station.
The Court stressed that the initial stage of an investigation, namely, the point at which the evidence
was gathered and preserved, was crucial and that a lack of independence at this stage was liable to
compromise the investigation’s findings.
Outcome
No violation of the substantive aspect of Articles 2 and 3.
Violation of the procedural aspect of Articles 2 and 3.
Just satisfaction
The Court held that Russia was to pay the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
Alikhanovy v. Russia (no. 17054/06)
The applicants, Ibragim Alikhanov, Muslimat Alikhanova and Tamara Alikhanova, are Russian
nationals who were born in 1930, 1936 and 1976, respectively, and live in the villages of Ruguzh
and Gurik, in the Republic of Dagestan, Russia. The case concerned their allegation that their son
and husband, Amirkhan Alikhanov, born in 1974, had been abducted at a police checkpoint and
subsequently killed.
On approaching the checkpoint on 23 December 2004, Amirkhan Alikhanov telephoned his
brother to say he was on his way. However, he never arrived. His brother received a call during the
night requesting a ransom, which he informed the law enforcement authorities about the next day.
The brother also went early the following day to the checkpoint and was told by police officers that
Mr Alikhanov had been stopped by officers from the Dagestan Organised Crime Unit, forced into
one of their vehicles and taken in the direction of Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan. The
prosecuting authorities opened an investigation shortly afterwards and questioned the brother and
other relatives. In the following weeks and months, they also questioned traffic police officers on
duty at the checkpoint during the abduction and police officers from the Organised Crime Unit,
who all denied knowing anything about the matter.
In the meantime, at the end of March or early April, the applicant family had learned of the
discovery of six bodies in a forest near Zamay-Yurt (in the Chechen Republic), allegedly shot by
federal forces during a special operation. The applicants had gone there and recovered clothes
belonging to their relative which they then gave to the authorities. However, a forensic expert
examination was inconclusive as there was not enough DNA on the clothing. The family made a
request to the authorities to exhume the bodies for a post-mortem, but received no response. The
investigation has been suspended and resumed on a number of occasions and is currently still
ongoing, without having identified those responsible. The Government argued that the investiga-
tors had not found evidence to prove that law enforcement officers were involved in the abduction
and presumed death of the applicants’ relative, and, in any case, his body had never been found.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants
alleged in particular that Russian law enforcement officers had abducted and killed their relative
Wild 487

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT