Investigation of journalist Anna Politkovskaya’s murder failed to look properly into who commissioned the crime

JUDGMENT

Mazepa and others v. Russia 17/7/2018 (no. 15086/07)

see here  

SUMMARY

The case concerned the investigation into the 2006 murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. The Court found in particular that while the authorities had found and convicted a group of men who had directly carried out the contract killing of Ms Politkovskaya, they had failed to take adequate investigatory steps to find the person or persons who had commissioned the murder. The authorities had followed one theory about the instigator of the crime, pointing to a now deceased Russian businessman residing in London, however, they had not explained how they had followed through on that line of enquiry. They should also have explored other possibilities, including those suggested by the applicants. They had alleged the involvement of agents from Russia’s FSB domestic secret service or of the administration of the Chechen Republic. The State had failed to abide by its obligations under the Convention to carry out an effective investigation and the length of the proceedings had been too long.

PROVISION 

Article 2

PRINCIPAL FACTS

The applicants are Raisa Aleksandrovna Mazepa, Yelena Stepanova Kudimova, Vera Aleksandrovna
Politkovskaya and Ilya Aleksandrovich Politkosvkiy. They are Russian nationals who were born in
1929, 1957, 1980 and 1978 respectively. They are the mother, sister and children of the murdered
journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

Ms Politkovskaya was shot and killed in the lift of her Moscow home in October 2006. She was a
well-known investigative journalist who covered alleged violations of human rights in Chechnya
committed during the second campaign against rebels in the region. She was also a critic of
President Vladimir Putin’s politics.

The authorities immediately began an investigation. A Makarov pistol and a silencer were found on
the apartment building’s stairs. Four men – two brothers, a police officer and an FSB officer – were
eventually indicted, tried and acquitted by a jury in February 2009.

After a further investigation, five men, including the two brothers and police officer originally tried,
were indicted. They were convicted of the murder in May 2014. The court found that one of the men
had accepted an offer for a contract killing from a person who had been unhappy with
Ms Politkovskaya’s articles. The main organiser of the murder and the actual killer each received life
sentences while the three other men were sent to jail for between 12 and 20 years.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT 

Article 2

The Court noted that one of the obligations for States under the European Convention was that of
carrying out an effective investigation into killings, either by State officials or by other individuals. It
took various factors into consideration, including the adequacy of investigative measures, the
promptness of the investigation and the involvement of the deceased’s family.

As this case involved an investigative journalist, the authorities had also had to look for any links
between the crime and Ms Politkovskaya’s work.

It emphasised that the investigation had brought tangible results in the conviction of five men
directly responsible for the murder. However, an investigation into such a killing could not be
considered adequate if no efforts had been made to identify the person who had commissioned the
crime and paid for it.

The Russian authorities had apparently followed one main theory, which had implicated a
businessman resident in London, B.B., who had died in 2013. However, they had not provided any
documents from the actual case file, had not given details of the international requests for help they
had sent in connection with that theory nor explained what investigative steps had been taken to
shed light on that person’s role in the crime in the years after his death.

The Government had also not explained why the authorities had chosen to focus on that single line
of enquiry, despite its own submissions to the Court that such killings required a multi-stranded
approach. The State should have explored the applicants’ allegations that FSB officials or
representatives of the Chechen administration had been involved in arranging the murder.
The Court also noted that the investigation had begun in 2006 and that the Government had said it
was still ongoing, without giving convincing reasons why it had lasted so long.

Overall, the State had failed to fulfil the requirement of an adequate and prompt investigation and
there had been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The Court held by five votes to two that Russia was to pay the applicants 20,000 euros (EUR) jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Separate opinions

Judges Dedov and Poláčková expressed dissenting opinions while Judges Keller and Jäderblom expressed a joint concurring opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment(echrcaselaw.com editing).


ECHRCaseLaw
Close Popup

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Close Popup
Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

Google Analytics
We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Απορρίψη όλων των υπηρεσιών
Save
Δέχομαι όλες τις υπηρεσίες