Abdulkhanov et al. v. Russia (ECtHR)
The applicants in this case alleged that between 17 and 20 February 2000, some of their relatives had been killed, and some of the applicants had been injured as a result of airstrikes and artillery fire by Russian military forces. According to the applicants, thirty people were killed and twenty-five wounded on the first day. Although the villagers remained in their cellars after the attack, two more people were killed on 19 and 20 February 2000 by airstrikes and some of the wounded died because they did not receive medical assistance. (§7)
The applicants complained that their right to life, as well as the right to life of their deceased and injured relatives had been violated under both the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (§46)
The applicants submitted video materials and photos of parts of rockets and missiles which had fallen on the village, some of which they identified as cluster bombs. (§9) Other passages of the case refer to ‘air and artillery strikes’ and to a ‘bombing/missile’ attack, or ‘air and rocket strikes’.
The Government referred to previous findings of the Court in respect of Chechnya, according to which ‘the situation that existed in Chechnya at the relevant time called for exceptional measures on behalf of the State in order to regain control over the Republic and to suppress the illegal armed insurgency’, measures that could ‘presumably include employment of military aviation equipped with heavy combat weapons’. However, in contrast to other cases relating to the use of explosive weapons in or near villages in Chechnya,E.g., Isayeva et al. v. Russia, Isayeva v. Russia; Abuyeva v. Russia. in this case, the Russian government did not dispute that the applicants and their close relatives were victims of the use of lethal force by Russian forces, and it accepted that there had been a violation of Article 2 in its substantive aspect and that no investigation capable of establishing the circumstances of the application of lethal force had taken place.
The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, in both its substantive and procedural aspects.
Last updated on: 03 February 2015