JUSTICE FOR CHECHNYA

H U M A N

R I G H T S

W A T C H

JUSTICE FOR CHECHNYAThe European Court of Human Rights Rules against Russia

July 2007

“… the Court finds … that the applicants’ relatives were killed byservicemen and that their deaths can be attributed to the State. It observesthat no explanation has been forthcoming from the Russian Government asto the circumstances of the deaths, nor has any ground of justification beenrelied on by them in respect of any use of lethal force by their agents.”—Khashiyev and Akayeva v Russia, judgment of February 25, 2005

Chechen women hold portraits of their missing relatives.© 2002 Thomas Dworzak

The international community, and in particular theCouncil of Europe’s member states, must insist thatRussia implement the final decisions of the court. TheEuropean Court judgments on Chechnya obligate theRussian government to both rectify the violations inindividual cases and make meaningful policy changesto prevent further abuses. For real change to takeplace in Chechnya, Russia must find the political willto ensure proper investigations and prosecutions of

crimes committed by its forces. The internationalcommunity should press Russia to take these crucialsteps. Only then will the persistent pattern of abusescease. This brochure describes the impact of theEuropean Court judgments against Russia andexplains what actions the international communityshould take to ensure that Russia fulfills itsobligations before the court and puts an end tohuman rights abuses in Chechnya.

RUSSIA ON TRIALIn eight recent landmark rulings, the European Court of Human Rights found Russiaresponsible for serious human rights abuses in Chechnya, where a second military conflictbetween Russian forces and Chechen rebel groups began in 1999. The court found Russiaresponsible for executions, torture, enforced disappearances and for failing to properlyinvestigate these crimes, and confirmed the systematic nature of human rights abuses inChechnya. Given the failure by the Russian government, under the leadership of PresidentVladimir Putin, to hold its forces accountable for these and other crimes committed inChechnya, these judgments provided victims and their family members the only avenue tosome measure of the justice denied them in Russia. As of May 2007, more than 200 casesfrom Chechnya were pending before the European Court.


2 Justice For Chechnya

As open conflict between the Russian military andChechen rebel fighters subsided, the nature of theconflict changed. Beginning in 2003, Russia adopteda policy known as “Chechenization,” under which lawenforcement operations, including counterterrorism,increasingly became the responsibility of localChechen forces loyal to Moscow and under thecommand of Ramzan Kadyrov. Kadyrov and hisforces, known as “Kadyrovsty,” have been implicatedin serious human rights abuses, includingunacknowledged detention, and torture. Althoughthe total number of reported cases of enforceddisappearance in Chechnya has decreased in recent

years, hundreds of people “disappeared” byKadyrov’s forces remain unaccounted for. Kadyrovbecame president of Chechnya in April 2007.

An estimated 3,000-5,000 people have“disappeared” in Chechnya at the hands of statesecurity services, yet not a single official has beenheld accountable for enforced disappearance. In2005, Human Rights Watch characterized thewidespread “disappearances” in Chechnya as acrime against humanity under international law.

BACKGROUND ON CHECHNYARussia’s second armed conflict in Chechnya in the 1990s began in September 1999,just a few weeks after Vladimir Putin was named prime minister. Russia claimed it was acounterterrorism operation, aimed at liquidating terrorist groups that had found haven inthe chaos in Chechnya following the end of the 1994-1996 Chechen war. Five months ofindiscriminate bombing and shelling in 1999 and early 2000 caused thousands of civiliandeaths. Throughout the conflict, Chechen rebel forces also committed grave crimes,including numerous brutal attacks targeting civilians in and outside Chechnya.By March 2000, Russia’s federal forces had gained control over most of Chechnya.They began a pattern of classic “dirty war” tactics and human rights abuses that continuesto this day. Russian forces arbitrarily detained suspected rebel fighters and collaboratorsand tortured them to secure confessions or testimony. In some cases, the corpses ofthose last seen in custody were subsequently found, bearing marks of torture or summaryexecution. More often, those detained were simply never seen again—they had beenforcibly “disappeared.”

An elderly woman in Chechnya stands outside the ruinsof her house destroyed by Russian bombardment.© 2002 Thomas Dworzak


• The European Court determined that Russiansecurity forces committed grave human rightsabuses in Chechnya, including murder, enforceddisappearance, torture, illegal destruction ofproperty, and violation of privacy during anillegal search.

• In cases involving enforced disappearance, thecourt found that victims could be presumeddead, since they were abducted by unidentifiedRussian servicemen without any subsequentacknowledgement of detention and had notbeen seen in many years. Furthermore, the courtfound that the Russian authorities failed toprovide any explanation for the“disappearances.”

• The European Court determined that Russianofficials have been negligent in their investi-gations into victims’ complaints regardingabuses committed by Russian servicemen. Theauthorities failed to promptly open investi-gations or conduct basic investigative steps,such as interrogating witnesses or potentialperpetrators identified in video footage or othermaterials. Victims and their relatives most oftenreceived no information or only perfunctoryletters about the investigations. Officialsrepeatedly suspended and reopened investi-gations for up to six years without producing anyresults.

• The court determined that the indifferencedemonstrated by the Russian government, asexemplified in the failed investigations, causedsuffering of such gravity as to constituteinhuman treatment of victims’ relatives.

• The European Court found that Russia failed toprovide victims the opportunity to achievejustice within Russia. Incomplete andinadequate investigations meant that noperpetrators of abuses were ever identified. Inthe absence of suspects, no cases were everreferred for trial.

• The court found the Russian authorities inviolation of their obligation to cooperate withthe court by refusing to submit requesteddocuments. The Russian authorities haverepeatedly rebuffed requests from the EuropeanCourt for documents in cases concerningChechnya, claiming that domestic law precludesthem from doing so because investigations areongoing or the documents contain state secrets.

WHAT DO THE EUROPEAN COURT JUDGMENTSON CHECHNYA SAY?

Human Rights Watch 5

• Justice: In the absence of a proper response bythe Russian government to abuses committed byits forces, the European Court judgmentsprovide victims and their families with the onlychance to achieve some measure of justice. TheEuropean Court judgments oblige the Russiangovernment to undertake effective investi-gations and award monetary compensation tothe victims or their relatives.

• Accountability: This justice is incomplete,however, as the European Court of Human Rightsis not a criminal court and cannot investigate orprosecute perpetrators of the human rightsabuses identified in its judgments. TheEuropean Court holds the Russian governmentresponsible for the human rights abusescommitted by its forces and culpable for failingto conduct adequate investigations into theabuses. The court’s decisions obligate theRussian government to investigate andprosecute the crimes in individual cases andreform its investigative and judicial structures toput an end to impunity for its forces.

• Vindication: For years, the Russian governmentdenied that its forces perpetrated human rightsabuses in these and other cases from Chechnya.The authorities refused to investigate properlythe complaints made by victims and denouncedreports by Human Rights Watch and othersdocumenting widespread human rights abusesin Chechnya. The European Court rulings provideindependent validation of abuses in thesespecific cases, of the systematic nature of theabuses, and of the lack of accountability forperpetrators.

• Hope: The victories in these cases provide hopeto thousands of other victims of human rightsabuses in Chechnya that they, too, may findjustice either through the European Court or,ideally, within a Russian justice system whichhas rectified the failings identified by the court.

• Potential to End Abuses: As a party to theEuropean Convention on Human Rights, Russiais obligated to implement the final judgments ofthe court. To prevent future abuses, thegovernment must adopt general measures toeliminate the causes of the abuses identified bythe court. These measures may includeimproving the legal and regulatory frameworkgoverning the activities of security forces andensuring that the investigative and judicialsystem in Chechnya is available to all victimsand is capable of responding to abuses.

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EUROPEANCOURT JUDGMENTS ON CHECHNYA?


The first European Court judgments on Chechnyaconcern enforced disappearances, killings, andtorture–all abuses that remain commonplace inChechnya. The cases involved date back to 2000-2002, yet the judgments identify systemic problemsthat the Russian government has failed to resolve,despite President Putin’s insistence that the situationin Chechnya is steadily “normalizing.”

Although the conflict between the Russian militaryand Chechen rebel forces ended several years ago,Russian security forces and pro-Moscow Chechenforces, led by Ramzan Kadyrov and known as“Kadyrovtsy,” are still committing serious human

rights abuses in the context of counterterrorism andintelligence operations. In November 2006, HumanRights Watch documented enforced disappearances

and torture and ill-treatment in detention committedby these forces in Chechnya. In the majority of casesdocumented, “Kadyrovtsy” tortured detainees inunlawful secret detention facilities in order to extractconfessions or testimony about alleged rebel forces.In other cases, Ministry of Interior personnel of theSecond Operational Investigative Bureau (ORB-2)were implicated in torture. Some detainees providedcoerced confessions and were later sentenced, andother detainees were released after providinginformation under duress about alleged rebels. Manyother individuals became victims of enforceddisappearance. The patterns of detention, torture,

and enforced disappearance havechanged little since the earliest days ofthe crisis.

The widespread patterns of abuse inChechnya persist primarily due to thecontinued lack of accountability forperpetrators. The Russian governmenthas continuously failed to investigateand prosecute crimes committed bystate agents. Regarding torture, HumanRights Watch is aware of only one casein which an official was convicted forphysically abusing someone incustody. Not a single person has beenheld accountable for enforceddisappearance. The human rightssituation in Chechnya will improve onlyif Russia fully implements the EuropeanCourt’s judgments by addressing

individual abuses and taking meaningful actions toprevent further abuse.

HOW ARE THE JUDGMENTSRELEVANT FOR CHECHNYA TODAY?

Testimony from “Widespread Torture in the Chechen Republic:Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper for the 37th Session UNCommittee against Torture”

“They started kicking me, and then brought an‘infernal machine’ to give me electric shocks. Theyattached the wires to my toes and kept crankingthe handle to release the current. I couldn’t bearit. I was begging: ‘Give me any paper—I’ll sign it,I’ll sign anything.’”—Testimony of “Khamid Kh,” an elderly construction worker, about historture at the hands of Kadyrovtsy in April 2006. They accused him ofproviding food and weapons to rebels.


European Court judgments | Torture

CHITAYEV AND CHITAYEV V RUSSIA

Testimony

“They really wanted me to confess. First they tied me to a chair and kickedme. … The next day they put wires on my fingers and turned on a machine togive me shocks. They called it a ‘lie detector.’ … At that moment I wanted todie. I could only think, ‘If I die it will all be over and I won’t feel anythinganymore.’”—Testimony of Arbi Chitayev, who, in 2000, was detained for six months and tortured in a police station andin the infamous Chernokozovo detention center in Grozny and accused of, among other things, being a rebelfighter and providing materials to other rebels. In Chitayev and Chitayev v Russia, the European Court foundthat Russian forces had tortured Arbi and his brother Adam and held them in unlawful detention for severalmonths. The government also failed to effectively investigate the brothers’ allegations of torture, refusing toconduct forensic examinations or interview officials allegedly responsible.

Judgement

“…the applicants were indisputably kept in a permanent state of physical painand anxiety … The Court considers that such treatment was intentionallyinflicted on the applicants by agents of the State acting in the course of theirduties, with the aim of extracting from them a confession or information aboutthe offences of which they were suspected. …the Court concludes that, taken asa whole and having regard to its purpose and severity, the ill-treatment atissue was particularly serious and cruel … and amounted to torture.”

—Chitayev and Chitayev v Russia, judgment of January 18, 2007

Testimony

“They came and took my husband a year and half after my son disappeared. …My husband and I were sleeping, when sometime after six in the morning weheard a loud noise in our courtyard. … I got up to go outside ... I was terrified bywhat I saw there – … Russian soldiers, probably about 20 men, holding machine-guns. Many of them were wearing masks. I was in a panic. I asked, ‘What are youdoing? What do you want?’ They yelled at me and told me to be quiet. … Theysearched our whole house and held my husband up against the side of the house.… Then they started to take my husband away. I begged them, ‘Please don’t takehim! Please don’t hurt him!’ They forced him into a military vehicle and pushedme away when I tried to go with them. … I went everywhere, … but no one wouldtell me where he was. I even gave them the numbers of three of the [militaryvehicles], but everywhere they denied that they had taken him. All this time, Ihave searched and searched for my husband and for my son. I searched as muchas I could, through so many tears.”—Marzet Imakayeva, wife of Said-Magomed Imakayev and mother of Said-Khuseyn Imakayev, April 9, 2007.In Imakayeva v Russia, the European Court of Human Rights found the Russian government responsible for the“disappearances” and deaths of Said-Magomed and Said-Khuseyn, for failing to properly investigate their“disappearances,” for conducting an illegal search of the Imakayev’s home, and for subjecting Marzet Imakayevato inhuman treatment.

Judgement

“… the stance of the prosecutor's office and other law-enforcement authorities afterthe news of [Said-Magomed Imakayev’s] detention had been communicated to them… significantly contributed to the possibility of disappearance, because no necessaryactions were taken in the crucial first days or weeks after the detention. Theirbehaviour in the face of the applicant’s well-established complaints gives a strongpresumption of at least acquiescence in the situation and raises strong doubts as tothe objectivity of the investigation.”

—Imakayeva v Russia, judgment of November 9, 2006


European Court judgments | Disappearances

IMAKAYEVA V RUSSIA


Russian soldier at a check-point in Chernokozovo, Chechnya.© 2003 Stanley Greene


Bloody handprints mark the wall of a house where Russian soldiersexecuted a civilian in Grozny on January 25, 2000.© 2000 Stanley Greene


Testimony

“Some of my relatives and I had left Grozny because of the bombing. Wefled to Ingushetia. Our aunt came to visit us and told us that our familyhome in Grozny had been destroyed. ‘The Russians did it,’ she said. … Iknew something else was wrong, but she didn’t want to tell us. Finallyshe couldn’t bear it any longer. She told us that [our relatives in Grozny]had been killed. … They had been shot by Russians. All of them. Myelderly father, my brother, my brother’s wife, who was nine monthspregnant, and even their son, little Khasan, who was only a year old. Theyhad stayed in Grozny to protect our house. … The [Russian] soldiers alsokilled our uncle, who was at our house that day. The Russians shot themall, right in the courtyard of our home. They just came in and killed themfor no reason, for nothing.”—Sovdat Dakayeva, applicant in Estamirov and Others v Russia, April 15, 2007. The European Courtdetermined that Russian forces had executed five members of the Estamirov family during a sweepoperation in Grozny in February 2000.

Judgement

“The Court is satisfied that the applicants made a prima facie case that theirrelatives had been killed by [Russian] servicemen on 5 February 2000 andthat the Government failed to provide any other satisfactory and convincingexplanation of the events.”

—Estamirov and Others v Russia judgment of October 12, 2006

European Court judgments | Executions

ESTAMIROV AND OTHERS V RUSSIA


Khashiyev and Akayeva v Russiajudgment of February 24, 2005

The mutilated bodies of Magomed Khashiyev’s sister and nephewand Roza Akayeva’s brother were found with numerous stab andgunshot wounds following a massive “mopping up” operation in theStaropromyslovsky district of Grozny in January 2000. The EuropeanCourt held the Russian government responsible for their deaths.

Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russiajudgment of February 24, 2005

On October 29, 1999, as residents of Grozny attempted to fleefighting in the capital, the Russian military bombed a civilianconvoy. As a result of the aerial bombardment, Medka Isayeva waswounded and her two children and daughter-in-law were killed; ZinaYusupova was wounded by shells in the neck, arm and hip; andLibkan Bazayeva’s car containing her family’s possessions wasdestroyed. The European Court found Russia responsible for thedeaths and for violating Ms. Bazayeva’s right to the peacefulenjoyment of possessions.

Isayeva v Russiajudgment of February 24, 2005

On February 4, 2000, Zara Isayeva lost her son and three niecesduring a Russian military aerial and artillery bombardment of thevillage of Katyr-Yurt. Russian forces had declared the village a “safezone” for people fleeing fighting taking place in other parts ofChechnya. The European Court found two senior military officers,Major-General Yakov Nedobitko and Major-General VladimirShamanov, responsible for the operation, which involved the“massive use of indiscriminate weapons” and led to the loss ofcivilian lives.

Estamirov and Others v Russiajudgment of October 12, 2006

Five members of the Estamirov family, including a one-year-old childand a woman in her ninth month of pregnancy, were executed in asweep operation by Russian forces in Grozny in 2000. The court heldthe Russian authorities responsible for the murders.

Imakayeva v Russiajudgment of November 9, 2006

In December 2000, Russian security forces detained Said-KhuseinImakayev. After desperately searching for her son and receiving nomeaningful response from the authorities, Marzet Imakayeva andher husband, Said-Magomed, appealed to the European Court in2002. A fewmonths later, in an unlawful raid on the Imakayev home,security forces abducted Said-Magomed. Marzet Imakayeva neversaw her son or husband again. The European Court established thatboth men must be presumed dead at the hands of Russian forces.The court found that the traumatic nature of the “disappearances”and the government’s refusal to conduct an effective investigationconstituted inhuman treatment with respect to Marzet Imakayeva.

Luluyev and Others v Russiajudgment of November 9, 2006

The European Court unanimously held Russia responsible for thedetention and murder of Nura Luluyeva, a mother of four, whosebody was found among 51 corpses in a mass grave located less thanone kilometer from the main military base at Khankala, Chechnya. InJune 2000, Russian servicemen had detained Nura Luluyeva duringa raid on a market in Grozny. Her relatives searched for her for eightmonths until her body was discovered, in February 2001.

Chitayev and Chitayev v Russiajudgment of January 18, 2007

In the first torture case from Chechnya to be heard by the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights, the court found that in 2000 Russian forcesheld two brothers, Adam and Arbi Chitayev, in secret detention andsubjected them to torture, including beatings, electric shock,attacks by dogs, and attempted suffocation, at a police station andat the notorious Chernokozovo detention center in Grozny.

CASE SUMMARIES :In addition to the findings of violations described below, in all cases the European Court found that theRussian government had failed to properly investigate the abuses perpetrated by its forces.


Bazorkina v Russia, judgment of July 27, 2006

While watching an evening news broadcast on February 2, 2000,Fatima Bazorkina saw footage of federal forces detaining her son,Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev. The video showed Russian Colonel-GeneralAlexander Baranov order his men to execute Yandiyev and showedseveral Russian servicemen leading Yandiyev away. He has not been

seen since. The court determined that the Russian government hadillegally detained and killed Yandiev and that they had subjectedFatima Bazorkina to inhuman treatment by failing to respondadequately to her complaints or properly investigate Yandiyev’sdisappearance.

Images © 2000 Cable News Network (CNN)

Foreign armies, national rebel groups and Congo’s eliterulers have all used the country’s mineral wealth as a wayto enrich themselves with money, guns and power. Thesearmed groups have fought each other ruthlessly, oftenattacking civilians trapped in their path. The result hasbeen widespread ethnic slaughter and a campaign oftorture, rape and kidnappings. An estimated 4 millionpeople have died since 1998, some directly from theviolence, many others due to the lack of medical care andhunger.

In 2004–2005, Human Rights Watch spent 18 monthsdocumenting how local armed groups fighting for thecontrol of gold mines in the Ituri and Haut Uele districts innortheastern Congo have committed war crimes andcrimes against humanity using the profits from gold tofund their murderous campaigns. In a 159-page reporttitled The Curse of Gold, Human Rights Watchdocumented how millions of dollars worth of gold wassmuggled out of Congo to neighboring Uganda, and then

onto global gold markets in Europe and elsewhere. Thereport also showed how international companies providedfinancial and material benefits to abusive armed groupsin return for security and access to mining sites. As oneminer in northeastern Congo told Human Rights Watch,“We are cursed because of our gold. All we do is suffer.There is no benefit to us.”

A Legacy of Exploitation

The war in Congo is a complicated one, born of colonialexploitation, ethnic tensions, corruption, misman-agement, and above all, greed, and gold has played animportant role. The country’s g


• Insist that the government of Russiacomply fully with the judgments in orderto rectify the abuses suffered by thevictims and their relatives.Russia should:

· Pay in full the compensation andexpenses determined by the court;

· Provide family members with allinformation as to the fate andwhereabouts of “disappeared”persons;

· Reopen or open meaningfulinvestigations to identify andprosecute the perpetrators of theviolations identified by the court;

· Provide families with any and allinformation as to the progress of theinvestigations;

• Insist that the government of Russiainvestigate Major-General YakovNedobitko and Major-General VladimirShamanov, found by the European Courtto be responsible for the militaryoperation in Katyr-Yurt, Chechnya, inFebruary 2000 which involved the“massive use of indiscriminate weapons”leading to the loss of civilian lives.

• Insist that the government of Russiainvestigate Colonel-General AlexanderBaranov, whom the European Courtacknowledged gave the order to executeKhadzhi-Murat Yandiyev;

• Insist that the government of Russiacooperate fully with the European Courtof Human Rights in all cases bysupplying all requested investigativefiles, documents and other materials in atimely manner;

WHAT SHOULD THE INTERNATIONALCOMMUNITY DO?The international community has failed to protect people in Chechnya from widespreadhuman rights abuses. Governments and international organizations have refused to followup their statements of concern with political, financial or other consequences for Russia.The recent European Court rulings on Chechnya provide an objective assessment ofRussia’s responsibility for human rights abuses. They present an opportunity for theinternational community, and especially Council of Europe member states, to prevail on theRussian government to once and for all stop widespread human rights abuses in Chechnyaand hold perpetrators accountable.

Specifically, the international community should:


• Insist that the government of Russiaaddress the systemic problems identifiedby the European Court to prevent furtherabuses. Russia should conduct an in-depth inquiry into the conduct ofinvestigations into abuses committed byRussian military servicemen, police andintelligence officials, and other forces inthe Chechen Republic to establish whythese investigations are so ineffective.The government should ensure thatcurrent practice is improved and thatinvestigative and prosecutorialauthorities receive appropriate training;

• Insist that the government of Russia alsoundertake a thorough review and revisionof domestic legislation and regulationsregarding the use of force by military orsecurity forces to ensure theircompliance with human rights law.Revised policies and amendments tolaws should be implemented throughappropriate training and oversight;

• Insist that the government of Russiaundertake an investigation to determineby what means secret detention has beenallowed to occur routinely and on a largescale in Chechnya, despite its prohibitionunder Russian law. This investigationshould determine which individual orindividuals are responsible forinstigating, executing, and condoningthis practice;

• Insist that the government of Russiaclose or formalize all secret detentionfacilities in Chechnya and guaranteeregular access to all places of detentionto Russian and international monitoring,including by the International Committeeof the Red Cross, the Council of Europe’sCommittee for the Prevention of Tortureand the UN special rapporteur on torture;

• Insist that the government of Russiasign, with a view to prompt ratification,the new UN Convention against EnforcedDisappearances. Doing so woulddemonstrate good faith on the part of thegovernment to prevent additional“disappearances;”

• Urge the Committee of Ministers of theCouncil of Europe to adopt rigorous andcomprehensive general measures when itconsiders Russia’s implementation of thejudgments. The Russian governmentshould conduct a detailed examination ofthe causes of the human rights violationsand demonstrate to the committee and tothe Russian public how it will addressthose causes.

www.hrw.org

H U M A N

R I G H T S

W A T C H


Burial grounds in Ingushetia for some fifty Chechen refugees, many ofwhom died because of brutal conditions in refugee camps.© 2002 Stanley Greene


Foreign armies, national rebel groups and Congo’s eliterulers have all used the country’s mineral wealth as a wayto enrich themselves with money, guns and power. Thesearmed groups have fought each other ruthlessly, oftenattacking civilians trapped in their path. The result hasbeen widespread ethnic slaughter and a campaign oftorture, rape and kidnappings. An estimated 4 millionpeople have died since 1998, some directly from theviolence, many others due to the lack of medical care andhunger.

In 2004–2005, Human Rights Watch spent 18 monthsdocumenting how local armed groups fighting for thecontrol of gold mines in the Ituri and Haut Uele districts innortheastern Congo have committed war crimes andcrimes against humanity using the profits from gold tofund their murderous campaigns. In a 159-page reporttitled The Curse of Gold, Human Rights Watchdocumented how millions of dollars worth of gold wassmuggled out of Congo to neighboring Uganda, and then

onto global gold markets in Europe and elsewhere. Thereport also showed how international companies providedfinancial and material benefits to abusive armed groupsin return for security and access to mining sites. As oneminer in northeastern Congo told Human Rights Watch,“We are cursed because of our gold. All we do is suffer.There is no benefit to us.”

A Legacy of Exploitation

The war in Congo is a complicated one, born of colonialexploitation, ethnic tensions, corruption, misman-agement, and above all, greed, and gold has played animportant role. The country’s g


www.hrw.org

H U M A N

R I G H T S

W A T C H

Front cover: A Chechen woman who fled fighting in Grozny now lives as arefugee in Georgia. Her son was wounded during bombing attacks.

© 2002 Stanley Greene


Human Rights Watch is dedicated to defending and protecting the human rights of peoplearound the world. We conduct on-site investigations of human rights abuses in more thanseventy countries worldwide and publish our findings in reports that are known foruncompromising accuracy. These reports are used in high-level policy discussions and in themedia to shape the public agenda, shame abusers, and press for change. Through thismethodology, Human Rights Watch seeks to improve the lives of countless people and securejustice and human dignity for all.

“I didn’t believe that there was justice possible for me anywhere in theworld. Not in Russia, not in Europe, not anywhere. When they told me thatwe had won our case [before the European Court] I felt happy. I was able tobelieve again that justice is possible. I think that this decision can helpother people in Chechnya also know that there is justice. That they can gothrough the court and use civilized methods to find justice.”—Arbi Chitayev, April 11, 2007

In 2000, Arbi Chitayev was detained for six months and tortured in a police station and in the infamousChernokozovo detention center in Grozny. In Chitayev and Chitayev v Russia, the European Court found thatRussian forces had tortured Arbi and his brother Adam and held them in unlawful detention for severalmonths. The government also failed to effectively investigate the brothers’ allegations of torture, refusingto conduct forensic examinations or interview officials allegedly responsible.

Documents

JUSTICE FOR CHECHNYA