Nyt fra E u r o p a r å d e t
Opdatering februar og kalender marts
Pressemeddelelse DK 3/05,1. marts 2005
Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols første domme i sager med relation til
konflikten i Tjetjenien (domstolens resumé af sagerne: se pressemeddelelse af 24. februar):
CHAMBER JUDGMENTS IN SIX APPLICATIONS AGAINST RUSSIA
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) has today notified in writing three separate judgments
[1] in the cases of Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia (nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00), Isayeva, Yusupova and
Bazayeva v. Russia (no. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00) and Isayeva v. Russia (no. 57950/00). The Court
held as follows:
in the case of Khashiyev and Akayeva
• by six votes to one that the Government’s preliminary objection was unfounded;
• unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on
Human Rights in respect of the applicants’ relatives’ deaths;
• unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in that the authorities had failed
to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ deaths;
• unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) in respect of the failure to
protect the applicants’ relatives from torture;
• unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the failure to carry out an adequate
and effective investigation into the allegations of torture;
• by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction) the Court unanimously awarded 15,000 euros (EUR)
to the first applicant and EUR 20,000 to the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR
10,927 in respect of costs and expenses.
in the case of Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva,
unanimously,
• that the Government’s preliminary objection was unfounded;
• that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the respondent State’s obligation
to protect the right to life of the three applicants and of the two children of the first applicant;
• that there had been a violation of Article 2 in that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and
effective investigation into the circumstances of the attack of 29 October 1999;
• that no separate issue arose in respect of Article 3;
• that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in respect of the third
applicant;
• that there had been a violation of Article 13.
Under Article 41 of the Convention the Court awarded EUR 12,000 to the third applicant in respect of
pecuniary damage; EUR 25,000 to the first applicant, EUR 15,000 to the second applicant and EUR 5,000 to
the third applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and EUR 10,926 in respect of costs and expenses.
in the case of Zara Isayeva
