{"id":1321,"date":"2008-12-04T09:31:24","date_gmt":"2008-12-04T09:31:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rcstaging.co.uk\/ehrac\/?post_type=case-studies&p=1321"},"modified":"2023-10-31T21:04:52","modified_gmt":"2023-10-31T21:04:52","slug":"bersunkayeva-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"case-studies","link":"http:\/\/ehrac.org.uk\/en_gb\/key-ehrac-cases\/bersunkayeva-v-russia\/","title":{"rendered":"Bersunkayeva v Russia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\r\n
\r\n\t
\r\n\t\t
\n

Case No.27233\/03<\/strong>
\nJudgment date: 4 December 2008<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The applicant claimed that on 13 June 2001 her son had been beaten and then taken away from their family home by armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks. According to the applicant\u2019s account, the abductors had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation and had spoken Russian without an accent. There has been no news of the applicant\u2019s son since.<\/p>\n

The applicant attempted to find her son and stated that she was told by an employee of the district administration that during the night in question, twelve persons, including her son, had been apprehended and held at the Chechen Federal Security Service (FSB) Department of Urus-Martan. Over the next few days this was confirmed by various officials, only to be rejected shortly after. On 28 June 2001, a criminal investigation was opened, being suspended and reopened subsequently on several occasions. In September 2003, the applicant was acknowledged as a victim in the criminal case in connection with her son\u2019s abduction by \u201cunidentified individuals wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with automatic firearms.\u201d No involvement of federal servicemen in the detention or abduction of applicant\u2019s son was established.<\/p>\n

Judgment<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In determining the applicant\u2019s claims under Article 2, the Court considered that her submissions were coherent and convincing in presenting the picture of her son\u2019s abduction. Having regard to previous cases concerning disappearances of people in Chechnya before the Court, and the absence of the applicant\u2019s son or any news of him for over seven years, the Court found that he must be presumed dead following unacknowledged detention by State agents. It therefore found a violation of Article 2.<\/p>\n

On account of the authorities\u2019 failure to investigate the disappearance effectively and adequately, the Court found a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2.<\/p>\n

No violation of Article 3 was found in regards to the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s beating, as the evidence presented was not sufficiently strong and clear. However, the distress and mental suffering endured by the applicant over a long period of time due to her son\u2019s disappearance and the manner in which her complaints were dealt with were considered to be inhuman treatment in violation of Article 3.<\/p>\n

Russia had also violated Article 5 as the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s detention had not met any of the conditions provided by this provision and was contrary to Russian domestic law.<\/p>\n

The failure to conduct a thorough and effective investigation, and the lack of any other effective remedies available to the applicant constituted a breach of Article 13, in connection with Article 2.<\/p>\n

The Court also found that the failure to provide the full investigative file involved a failure to comply with Article 38(1)(a).<\/p>\n

The applicant was awarded EUR 35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Links<\/h3>\n