Legal Obstacles to Investigation

In at least two cases, legal, jurisdictional, or bureaucratic obstacles have prevented an effective investigation and thereby proper implementation of European Court judgments.

Aziyevy v. Russia

In the investigation into the abduction in 2000, of the Aziyev brothers, the lack of replies from government structures and a secret order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs have prevented the investigation from establishing the identity of potential perpetrators. As noted above, in Aziyevy v. Russia, the European Court established that the investigation into the disappearances had been inadequate and that it had failed to undertake a number of essential steps:

Most notably, it does not appear that the investigation tried to identify and question the servicemen who had manned the roadblock to which the witnesses referred nor that they had tried to find out whether any special operations had been carried out at the applicants’ place of residence on the night in question.[87]

According to a December 2008 letter from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Chechnya to the Aziyev family’s lawyers, the investigation had submitted several letters to various government structures, requesting information about possible special operations at the time of the abduction. The investigative authorities had not received any replies, however.[88]

The investigation also attempted to establish the identity of military servicemen manning the checkpoint near the Aziyev family’s house. According to the same December 2008 letter, the investigative authorities had submitted a letter to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Mari-El, requesting the names of officers of the Mari-El riot police who served at checkpoint 13 in Grozny on the night that the Aziyev brothers were abducted.[89] The head of the Mari-El Ministry of Internal Affairs rejected the request, however, referring to an August 25, 2007 Ministry of Internal Affairs order that allegedly prohibits the disclosure of personal information about officers participating in counter-terrorist and special operations.[90]

The Aziyev family’s lawyers have since attempted to obtain a copy of the August 25, 2007 order from the Ministry of Internal Affairs.[91] As of this writing, the Ministry has not replied.  Despite these shortcomings, the investigative authorities again suspended the investigation into the Aziyev brothers' abduction on December 6, 2008.[92]

Imakayeva v. Russia

Russian military investigative authorities have refused to provide the civilian investigation with access to key information about likely perpetrators of the abduction of Marzet Imakayeva’s husband in 2002, preventing an effective investigation and proper implementation of the judgment.

In 2002, Marzet Imakayeva’s husband was abducted by military servicemen from his home in Novye Atagi. After having denied any state involvement in the abduction for more than two years, the military prosecutor’s office in July 2004 admitted that Imakayev had been detained by the Federal Security Service (FSB) and that it had questioned the military servicemen who detained him. The authorities claimed, however, that the FSB had released Imakaeyev shortly after his detention and that his disappearance therefore was not connected to his detention. Based on this conclusion, the military prosecutor’s office closed the investigation and canceled Imakayeva’s status as a victim in the case, depriving her and her lawyers of the possibility to review the case file and the relevant testimonies. When the civilian prosecutor’s office launched a new criminal investigation several months later, the military prosecutor’s office refused to provide the civilian prosecutor with statements from the military servicemen who detained Imakayev.

In its judgment, the European Court referred to the civilian investigation’s lack of access to these statements as one of the reasons for finding that the investigation had been inadequate and in violation of article 2.[93] In its supervision of Russia’s implementation of European Court judgments on Chechnya, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has also pointed out this shortcoming.[94]

After the judgment became final, Imakayeva’s representatives have on several occasions requested that the documents from the military investigation be joined to the current civilian investigation to allow the civilian investigator to access information related to Imakayev’s detention.[95] Their requests have been forwarded from one government institution to another, with each institution denying responsibility.

On April 28, 2008, the Investigative Directorate of the Republic of Chechnya informed Imakayeva’s lawyers that it was beyond its competence to join the case files because part of it was with the military investigative authorities.[96] In a letter of February 20, 2008, the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office informed Imakayeva’s lawyers that questions regarding the case should be directed to the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the United Group of Forces.[97]

On April 7, 2009, the Military Investigative Directorate of the United Group of Forces informed Imakayeva’s lawyer that the case file had been transferred to the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office in 2003, the very same office which in 2008 had said that all questions should be directed to the United Group of Forces, and that all questions should be directed to that office.[98] As a result of this bureaucratic roundabout the Russian authorities have still not provided the civilian investigative authorities with statements from the military servicemen who detained Said-Magomed Imakayev almost two and a half years after the judgment in the case became final and the European Court pointed to the lack of access to key statements as a serious shortcoming.