BITSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 14196/08 (Judgment : Article 2 - Right to life : Third Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 871 (23 October 2018)

BITSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 14196/08 (Judgment : Article 2 - Right to life : Third Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 871 (23 October 2018)

The Court found that the applicants' relatives were abducted by State agents in areas under State control, that the investigations were ineffective and repeatedly suspended, and that the applicants complied with procedural requirements. The State failed to discharge its burden of proof and is responsible for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ECHR 871
Parties
Applicants: Bitsayeva and Others; Respondent: Russian Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
23 October 2018
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applications allowed; violations found
Legal Topics
Enforced Disappearance, Right to Life, Effective Investigation, State Responsibility, Six Month Rule, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Human Rights Law International Law Criminal Law Enforced Disappearance Right to Life Effective Investigation State Responsibility Six Month Rule +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bitsayeva and Others

Applicants

Russian Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' relatives were victims of enforced disappearance by State agents
  2. 2 Whether the State failed to conduct effective investigations into the disappearances
  3. 3 Compliance with the six-month rule

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants' relatives were abducted by State agents in areas under State control, that the investigations were ineffective and repeatedly suspended, and that the applicants complied with procedural requirements. The State failed to discharge its burden of proof and is responsible for violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed; violations found

Orders

  • State to pay compensation to applicants
  • State to conduct effective investigations