N. AND M. v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 39496/14 and 39727/14) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ms Ye. V. Gribanova, on 27 May 2014, on behalf of two Uzbek nationals, N. and M. 2. Ms Gribanova did not provide any written authority to act on behalf of N. and M. 3. N. and M. were born in 1972 and 1975 respectively and prior to their alleged disappearance lived in Kaliningrad. 4. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. Prior to 2008 N. lived in Uzbekistan. In December 2008 he left Uzbekistan for Russia, and settled in Kaliningrad. 7. Prior to 2009 M. lived in Uzbekistan. In November 2009 he left Uzbekistan for Russia and settled in Kaliningrad. 8. Both N. and M. are practising Muslims. 9. In 2010 the Uzbek authorities charged N. and M. in absentia with being members of banned religious organisations, issued international warrants for their arrest, and ordered that they be placed in detention once arrested. During those criminal proceedings, on two occasions (in December 2008 and August 2010) the Uzbek authorities questioned N.’s relatives about his whereabouts. 10. In 2011 and 2012 the Russian police arrested N. and M. in Kaliningrad under an international warrant. The Kaliningrad Tsentralnyy District prosecutor’s office ordered their detention pending extradition. This was subsequently extended by the Kaliningrad Tsentralnyy District Court. 11. N. and M. retained Ms Gribanova to represent them in the extradition proceedings. She applied to the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia (“the GPO”) with a request for their extradition to Uzbekistan to be refused. 12. The GPO refused to extradite N. and M. on the grounds that the acts imputed to them by the Uzbek authorities were not regarded as criminal under Russian law. 13. On 13 March and 12 July 2012 respectively the Kaliningrad regional prosecutor ordered N. and M.’s release. The Government submitted that since their release N. and M. had not informed the relevant authorities of their place of residence on the territory of the Russian Federation. 14. In April 2012 N. and M. addressed the following statements to Ms Gribanova: Statement by N.: “In the event I give any written or oral submissions to the mass media to the effect that I have voluntarily decided to return to Uzbekistan, this should be regarded as a forced return to the Republic of Uzbekistan.” Statement by M.: “In the event I give any written or oral submissions to the mass media to the effect that I have voluntarily decided to return to Uzbekistan, this should be regarded as a statement made under pressure and my return to my country of origin, Uzbekistan, should be regarded as a forced return.” 15. In March 2012 and May 2013 respectively N. and M.’s names were removed from the international wanted list following the prosecutor’s decision not to extradite them to Uzbekistan. 16. N. and M. applied for refugee status and temporary asylum in Russia. They lodged their applications with the Kaliningrad regional branch of the Russian Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”). They submitted that they had been persecuted in Uzbekistan on the basis of their religious beliefs, and would be subjected to ill-treatment if they returned. They indicated that Ms Gribanova was their point of contact. 17. In July 2012 and April 2013 respectively the FMS dismissed their requests for refugee status. In 2013 the Russian courts upheld those decisions. M. was represented in the proceedings by Ms Ye. Ryabinina, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 18. In October 2013 and April 2014 respectively the FMS dismissed their applications for temporary asylum. They lodged appeals against those decisions. The outcome of those proceedings is unknown. 19. On 11 February 2014 N. was arrested for violating residence regulations for foreign nationals. On 13 February 2014 the court refused to expel him and terminated the administrative proceedings for lack of corpus delicti. N. was represented by Ms Gribanova in those proceedings. 20. On 22 May 2014 N. was summoned to the FMS and questioned about his place of residence. After being questioned he telephoned Ms Gribanova. According to her, he seemed very scared. 21. According to Ms Gribanova, on 23 May 2014 N. received a call from the Uzbek security service, which insisted that he return to Uzbekistan. 22. On the morning of 26 May 2014 N. was again summoned to the FMS and was asked to bring copies of all the appeals he had lodged with the FMS and the courts in connection with the asylum proceedings. Ms Gribanova stated that he seemed scared, and asked her to attend in his place. 23. At 8 p.m. on 26 May 2014 N. telephoned Ms Gribanova to ask for help. He said that unknown persons had forced him into a car and taken him to the airport. Immediately after this call his mobile telephone was switched off. 24. That evening Ms Gribanova informed M. that N. had been abducted, and asked him to be extremely careful. 25. Around 3 p.m. on 27 May 2014 Ms Gribanova received a call from a man who introduced himself as one of M.’s friends. According to him, at around 9 a.m. that day three unidentified men had approached M. in the street. Two of them were wearing camouflage uniforms, while one was in civilian clothes. They forced M. into a yellow minibus and drove him away to an unknown destination. 26. Ms Gribanova submitted that prior to their abduction N. and M. had given her their passports, which she still held. 27. On 27 May 2014 Ms Gribanova sought the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. She asked the Court to indicate to the Russian Government that N. and M.’s removal to Uzbekistan should be suspended. 28. On the same date the Court granted that request, indicating to the Russian Government that N. and M. should not be extradited, expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from Russia to Uzbekistan or any other country for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. It also asked the Government for information as to N. and M.’s whereabouts. 29. On 17 June 2014 the Government informed the Court that N. and M. had not been arrested by the Russian authorities on 26 and 27 May, and that since 25 May 2014 they had not passed through any border crossing points in the Kaliningrad region. Their whereabouts were unknown. 30. On 28 May 2014 Ms Gribanova received a telephone call from N.’s wife, who told her that she and N.’s father had been summoned by the Uzbek security service several times. The Uzbek authorities had insisted that N. return to Uzbekistan voluntarily or else he would be forcibly returned. 31. On 25 July 2014 Ms Gribanova submitted to the Court that there were grounds to believe that N. and M. had been transferred to Uzbekistan on one of the two direct flights from Kaliningrad which had been scheduled after the Court’s indication of interim measures. She also submitted that at the time of their abduction N. and M. had not been in possession of their passports, so they could not have crossed the border without the knowledge and passive or active involvement of the Russian authorities. 32. On an unspecified date Ms Gribanova was visited by a man who introduced himself as N.’s “mate”. He said that N.’s father had informed him that N. was in Uzbekistan. 33. On an unspecified date M.’s relatives informed Ms Gribanova that he had been transported to Uzbekistan on 2 June 2014. 34. In mid-October 2014 Ms Gribanova was contacted by some people who introduced themselves as N. and M.’s relatives. They asked her to return N. and M.’s passports. They explained that N. and M. were standing trial in Uzbekistan and therefore needed them. She refused to hand them over unless they made a written statement confirming that the passports had been taken by them and why. The people disappeared and never contacted her again. 35. At the end of June 2014 the Kaliningrad regional department of the interior informed Ms Gribanova that enquiries had been made after she had reported that N. and M. had been abducted, but that their abduction by unknown persons and transportation to Uzbekistan had not been confirmed. In particular, N.’s relatives in Uzbekistan had submitted that he had been living in Kaliningrad, and there had been no information regarding N. and M.’s possible arrest by Russian law-enforcement bodies or their departure from the Kaliningrad region. Nor were their names on the list of deceased persons. 36. Between July 2014 and January 2015 the investigating authorities on several occasions refused to initiate criminal proceedings into N. and M.’s disappearance, for lack of corpus delicti. However, the decisions were overruled each time by the head of the Investigation Committee, and the matter was sent for additional investigation. 37. In one of the refusals to initiate criminal proceedings, namely a decision taken on 20 November 2014, the investigator referred to information provided by the information centre of the Kaliningrad department of the interior, to the effect that N. had been arrested in Uzbekistan on 11 June 2014. 38. On 31 March 2015 an investigator from the local investigation committee initiated criminal proceedings into N. and M.’s abduction by unknown persons. The Government did not inform the Court of the outcome of those proceedings. 39. Ms Gribanova submitted that on 16 June 2015 she had been summoned by the investigator in charge of the case to give evidence as a witness. 40. On 17 June 2015 she appeared before the Investigation Committee and claimed that she could not be questioned as a witness. She applied to be acknowledged as representing N. and M. She was allegedly told that the investigator possessed information to the effect that M. had been detained by the Uzbek authorities in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, shortly after his disappearance from Kaliningrad. 41. In various proceedings in Russia N. and M. were questioned about their family situation, among other things. 42. N. submitted that all his relatives lived in Uzbekistan. He had been married but was divorced. He had a son from his marriage. He was not in contact with his former wife or their son. Since 2003 he had been living with his female partner B., an Uzbek national, with whom he had two daughters. Between 2011 and 2013 B. and their daughters had lived in Kaliningrad. In August 2013 B. and the children had returned to Uzbekistan, because one of their daughters needed to undergo an operation there. N. was in regular telephone contact with his parents, sisters and brothers. He submitted that he was not aware of any persecution of his family members in Uzbekistan. 43. M. submitted that all his relatives lived in Uzbekistan. He was married to Kh., an Uzbek national, and they had two sons. In 2011 his wife came to Russia to visit him and stayed with him. Their children stayed in Uzbekistan with their grandparents. In March 2013 his wife returned to Uzbekistan. He was in regular telephone contact with his wife and their two young children, as well as his father and brothers and sisters.