Issue 53 May 2011 - Human Rights Stop Press: Khambulatova v Russia, Chechen Republic

 

In the Chamber judgment in the case Khambulatova v Russia (app. no.33488/04), the Court examined the scope of art.2 and though finding that it could not conclude that State agents had killed Timur Khambulatova (the deceased), art.2 had still been violated as a consequence of an inadequate investigation into his death in custody. The deceased was arrested by Russian servicemen during a raid at the family home in the Chechen Republic in 2004. A home-made explosive devicemade from a plastic bottle was allegedly found during the raid. Suspected of terrorism, he was taken by the servicemen to the local police station for questioning. The applicant, the mother of the deceased, alleged that her son had been found dead in his cell later that day. Although she had not seen him being hit during the raid or handcuffed, on collecting his body from the morgue, she noticed bruising and abrasions to his body. According to the Government, her son suddenly fell to the floor while being questioned at the police station and never regained consciousness. The report noted that he had not died as a result of those injuries but from a pre-existing health problem, pulmonary heart disease.

The military prosecutor’s office refused to bring a criminal investigation into the death. In particular, it was found that witnesses had implicated police officers in the death, and not the soldiers. The local prosecutor’s office launched an official investigation. A number of witnesses were questioned including servicemen, police officers, the doctor called to provide medical care to the deceased, the applicant and her neighbours. Numerous servicemen and police officers who had taken part in the raid and arrest stated that no physical violence had been used against the deceased, nor were they aware of when or how he could have been injured. The doctor stated that she had discovered the deceased beaten up but conscious but with pain all over his body. The Head of the Security Service, also questioned, stated that his officers had beaten Timur when he had attempted to escape on the way to the local police station. He subsequently retracted that statement. The applicant consistently claimed that police officers had killed her son and requested for her son’s body to be exhumed for another autopsy, insisting that it be carried out by an independent expert. She was informed that this would not be possible. The investigation, suspended and resumed on a number of occasions, was still pending and had produced no tangible results.

Under art.2, the autopsy had not described the injuries found as life-threatening but had concluded that he had died from a pre-existing heart condition. In the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, the Court could not conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the authorities were to be held responsible for the death of Ms Khambulatova’s son. Therefore, the Court found that there had been no violation of art.2 concerning Timur Khambulatov’s right to life. Even so the Court held that art.2 had been violated in another way. Although immediately aware of Timur Khambulatov’s death in the police station, the authorities had not launched an investigation until June 29, 2004, more than three months later. Such an unexplained delay not only demonstrated the authorities’ failure to act automatically but also a lack of diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious incident. Furthermore, the investigation had failed to question the officers present at the police station on the arrival of the deceased. Nor, for some reason, had there been any follow up on the statement made by the Head of the Naursky Federal Security Service concerning the origin of the injuries to the body of the deceased or on his subsequent retraction of that statement. Likewise, no further investigation had been made into the witness statements, according to which police officers had been seen hitting and kicking the deceased. The investigation, repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been pending for many years and has produced no tangible results. In conclusion, the Court held that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the death in breach of art.2. In relation to art.3 it was considered that the deceased had been arrested in apparently good health, then taken to the police station, where he had died a few hours later, and that his body had bruising and numerous abrasions. The Government failed to provide any plausible explanation as to the origins of those injuries, which, sustained between arrest and his death in the police station, had occurred while he had been under the responsibility of State agents. The Court therefore considered that the evidence before it enabled it to find beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while in detention, in violation of art.3.