Abuyeva et al. v. Russia (ECtHR)

The applicants and their relatives were victims of the attack on the village of Katyr-Yurt that took place between 4 and 7 February 2000.The facts of this case are connected to the case of Isayeva v. Russia. According to the Court, by the beginning of February 2000, up to 25,000 persons lived in the village, including local residents and internally displaced persons. On 4 February 2000, the village was captured by a large group of Chechen fighters escaping from Grozny and ‘the federal military forces subsequently carried out an assault, using weapons such as heavy free falling aviation bombs, missiles and other arsenal’. (§8) As a result of the bombardment between 4 and 7 February, twenty-four of the applicants' relatives died and some applicants sustained injuries. (§9)

The applicants alleged that there had been a violation of the right to life in respect of their relatives who had died as a result of the shelling and with respect to the level of danger to which they themselves had been exposed. They also complained of the ineffectiveness of the investigation. (§§169,191–2)

The Government claimed that fighters, armed with large-calibre weapons, grenade launchers, and mortars had taken up defensive position in the village and resisted government forces. The Government had taken the decision to evacuate the civilians on 4 February, but the fighters did not allow the evacuation to proceed. According to the Government, ‘At the same time the commanders of the operation decided to employ artillery and attack aircraft’, (§146) and residents trying to leave the village were caught in the cross-fire. In the words of the Government, the operation involved the use of ‘firearms, artillery and attack aircraft employed with pinpoint precision at the places where the fighters were grouped.’ (§147) The Government argued that the attack and its consequences resulted from the use of force which was absolutely necessary for the protection of the population of Katyr-Yurt and that of neighbouring villages from unlawful violence under Article 2§2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (§193)

Referring to its judgment in Isayeva, the Court recalled that ‘the situation that existed in Chechnya at the relevant time called for exceptional measures by the State in order to regain control over the Republic and to suppress the illegal armed insurgency’, which ‘could presumably include the deployment of army units equipped with combat weapons, including military aviation and artillery’, and that the presence of a very large group of armed fighters in Katyr Yurt and their active resistance to law-enforcement bodies, ‘may have justified the use of lethal force by agents of the State’ under Article 2§2. (§197) 

The Court concluded, like in Isayeva, that while the operation in Katyr Yurt pursued a legitimate aim, it was not planned and executed with the requisite care for the lives of the civilian population and, accordingly, resulted in a violation of Russia's obligation to protect the right to life of the applicants and their relatives. (§203)

The Court further found that no effective investigation had been carried out into the circumstances of the attack, amounting to a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2. (§2016) In this connection the Court also found a violation of the right to an effective remedy (Article 13). (§234)

Judge Malinverni, in a concurring opinion joined by Judges Rozakis and Spielmann, expressed regret about the Court’s failure to mention ‘the principal rules governing the conduct of combatants in situations such as that dealt with in this case, namely the rules of international humanitarian law’. Judge Malinverni referred in particular to Article 3 common of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and to Article 13 of 1977 Additional Protocol II applicable in non-international armed conflicts (ratified by Russia).

Last updated on: 03 February 2015