July 2012

RAZVYAZKIN v. RUSSIA, 3 July 2012 
A violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s repeated solitary confinement in PKT punishment cells of the correctional colony 

RUSTAMOV v. RUSSIA, 3 July 2012 
Holds that, if the decision to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan were to be enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3; Decides to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to extradite the applicant until such time as the present judgment becomes final or a further order is made. 

BERLADIR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 10 July 2012 
By five votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 11, read in the light of Article 10. 

ILAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 10 July 2012
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants’ relatives; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants; a violation of Article 5 in respect of the applicants’ relatives; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. 

VAKHAYEVA v. RUSSIA, 10 July 2012
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Ruslanbek Vakhayev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Ruslanbek Vakhayev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Ruslanbek Vakhayev; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. 

YUDINA v. RUSSIA, 10 July 2012
A violation of Article 3 the in that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment; a violation of Article 3 in that the applicant was subjected to inhuman treatment by the police. 

MIKHAIL GRISHIN v. RUSSIA, 24 July 2012
A violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the detention from 6 December 2005 to 12 March 2009; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the failure to examine speedily the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 14 September 2007, 27 May 2008, 28 August 2008 and 24 February 2009; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 

SIZOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2), 24 July 2012
A violation of Article 6. 

ALIKHONOV v. RUSSIA, 31 July 2012 
A violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of a speedy review of the applicant’s detention as authorised by the court order of 17 December 2010. 

MAKHASHEVY v. RUSSIA, 31 July 2012 
A violation of Article 3 taken together with Article 14 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicants’ ill-treatment at the hands of the police and the failure to investigate possible discriminatory motives behind the incident; a violation of Article 3 taken together with Article 14 due to the applicants’ ill‑treatmentbased on discrimination at the hands of the police. 

MIKRYUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 31 July 2012 
A violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the absence of the defendants at the appeal hearings; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the participation of the Prosecutor’s Office in favour of the defendants in the civil proceedings (applications nos 59954/09 et 1162/10). 

TYAGUNOVA v. RUSSIA, 31 July 2012
A violation of Articles 3 and 8. 

UMAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 31 July 2012 
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Khamzat Umarov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Khamzat Umarov 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 Khamzat Umarov; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention. 
Comments