A substantial number of cases arose over Russia’s actions against a rebellion in Chechnya. Chechnya declared itself independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The first Chechen war led to a ceasefire in 1996. In 1999 Russia conducted aerial bombardment with a significant loss of life. Its troops took back the cities of Grozny, but Chechen separatists continue to resist.<\/p>\n
The court accepted the right of the Russian state to regain control over Chechnya and suppress an illegal armed insurgency. It stated that a balance must be achieved between the aim pursued and the means employed to achieve it. The use of aerial bombardment in an area with a civilian population required precise justification. The use of a weapon in a populated area outside wartime without evacuation of civilians was found to breach Article 2.<\/p>\n
There was no martial law or state of emergency, and no derogation was sought from the Convention. The massive use of indiscriminate weapons stands in flagrant contrast to the aim of protecting lives from violence and could not be considered compatible with the standard of care prerequisite to an operation of this kind. involving the use of lethal force by state agents.<\/p>\n
Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia of 9 January 2014 concerned the disappearances of 36 men after they were abducted in Chechnya by groups of armed men, in a manner resembling a security operation, between 2000 and 2006. In this case the Court confirmed its conclusion in previous cases that the situation resulted from a systemic problem of non-investigation of such crimes, for which there was no effective remedy at national level.<\/p>\n
The Court held in the present case that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, both on account of the disappearance of the applicants\u2019 relatives who were to be presumed dead and on account of the inadequacy of the investigation into the abductions; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in respect of the applicants on account of their relatives\u2019 disappearance and the authorities\u2019 response to their suffering; a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) on account of the unlawful detention of the applicants\u2019 relatives; and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.<\/p>\n
The judgment in the case of Abakarova v. Russia of 15 October 2015 concerned an aerial attack by the Russian military on a village in Chechnya in February 2000 which had killed the family of the applicant, eight year old at the time, and left her injured.<\/p>\n
The Court held in the present case that there had been a violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention in respect of the applicant and her five deceased relatives, a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the use of lethal force by State agents, and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2, on account of the flaws of the criminal investigation, which had in turn undermined the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed.<\/p>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Katy\u0144 massacre during World War II Janowiec and Others v. Russia concerned complaints by relatives of victims of the 1940 Katy\u0144 massacre \u2013 the killing of several thousands of Polish prisoners of war by the Soviet secret police (NKVD) \u2013 that the Russian authorities\u2019 investigation into the massacre had been inadequate. The applicants complained that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[347],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22946"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22946"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22946\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23544,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22946\/revisions\/23544"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}