June 2011

Gerasiyev and Others v Russia, 7 June 2011 
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Valid Gerasiyev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Valid Gerasiyev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Valid Gerasiyev; a violation of Article 13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2. 

Gusak v Russia, 7 June 2011 
A violation of Article 6 § 1. 

Kosumova and Others v Russia, 7 June 2011 
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Abdul Kasumov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Abdul Kasumov disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Abdul Kasumov; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. 

Ryabikina v Russia, 7 June 2011 
A violation of Article 6 § 1. 

Vitayeva and Others v Russia, 7 June 2011 
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Magomed-Emi Kudayev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Magomed-Emi Kudayev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the first and second applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Magomed-Emi Kudayev; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. 

Denisova and Moiseyeva v Russia, 14 June 2011 
Just satisfaction. Damages awarded. [In a judgment delivered on 1 April 2010 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights because the applicants had not had an opportunity to challenge effectively the confiscation measure imposed in the criminal proceedings to which they had not been parties (Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, 1 April 2010). Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicants sought just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision.] 

Khanamirova v Russia, 14 June 2011 
A violation of Article 8. 

Movsayevy v Russia, 14 June 2011 
A violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the abduction and subsequent killing of Salambek Movsayev. 

Petr Sevastyanov v Russia, 14 June 2011 
A violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unlawful composition of the court which convicted the applicant on 4 September 2000. 

Chudin v Russia, 21 June 2011 
A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 8 June 2000 to 28 September 2004 in facility IZ-17/01 of Kyzyl, Tyva Republic; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention from 24 to 25 September 2003; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings against the applicant. 

Giriyeva and Others v Russia, 21 June 2011 
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Isa Aygumov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Isa Aygumov disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Isa Aygumov; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. 

Isayev and Others v Russia, 21 June 2011 
A violation of Article 2 in respect of Zelimkhan Isayev’s death; a violation of Article 2 in that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into Zelimkhan Isayev’s death; a violation of Article 3 on account of the torture inflicted on Zelimkhan Isayev and the authorities’ failure to investigate it; a violation of Article 13. 

Makharbiyeva and Others, 21 June 2011 
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Adam Makharbiyev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Adam Makharbiyev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the first, second and third applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Adam Makharbiyev; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. 

Nakayev v Russia, 21 June 2011 
A violation of of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s detention pending investigation and trial; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant; a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the trial court was not independent and impartial. 

Orlov v Russia, 21 June 2011 
A violation of Article 3 as regards conditions of detention in the punishment cells of Rubtsovsk prison in 2005 and 2006; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with its Article 3; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) as regards the appeal proceedings in 2004 and 2008. 

Shimovolos v Russia, 21 June 2011 
A violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 8. 

Zyklov v Russia, 21 June 2011 
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 

Kamaliyevy v Russia, 28 June 2011 
Just satisfaction. Damages awarded. [In a judgment delivered on 3 June 2010 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 34 on account of the Government’s failure to comply with the interim measure ordered under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Under Article 41 the applicants’ representative claimed monetary compensation for the damage suffered by the first applicant, Mr Abdugani Kamaliyev, a national of Uzbekistan, as a result of the breach of Article 34 and costs. The question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision.] 

Miminoshvili v Russia, 28 June 2011 
A violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the period of the applicant’s detention from 9 to 24 December 2002; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the period of the applicant’s detention from 28 May to 21 July 2003; a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the delays involved in the examination of the appeals against the detention orders of 2, 9 and 21 July 2003, and on account of the failure of the Moscow City Court to examine the appeal against the detention order of 7 October 2003; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) on account of the trial court’s failure to summon and examine witness M. on behalf of the applicant.
ĉ
Rights in Russia,
11 Jul 2011, 07:33
Comments