The deadly injury of a protester and the responsibility of the authorities to protect the right to life
JUDGMENT
Nagmetov v. Russia 30.03.2017 (no. 35589/08)
SUMMARY
Death of a protester from a tear grenade. Infringement of Article 2 because the authorities had not taken the necessary measures.
PROVISION
Article 2
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Yarmet Uzerovich Nagmetov, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Makhachkala (Republic of Dagestan, Russia).
On 25 April 2006, the applicant’s son, Murad Nagmeto, took part in a public gathering with hundreds of other people in Makhachkala, demonstrating against the corruption of local civil servants. The gathering was dismantled by the authorities using firearms. Murad Nagmetov succumbed to hiw wounds caused by a tear grenade. On the same day, a criminal investigation was carried out on the murder and the illicit trafficking of firearms. In February 2007, the investigative authority suspended the investigation. In December 2009, the investigation once again begun and then resumed on 16 January 2010. In February 2011, the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided that the decision of 16 January 2010 was illegal and ordered the resumption of the investigation. In particular, it noted that the investigation had not exhausted all the measures aimed at determining the circumstances of the case, collecting the evidence, or identifying the weapon that caused the death of the victim. The prosecutor considered that it would not be impossible to locate the weapon, as a expert’s report claims, as cartridges of that weapon had been seized. Even more recently, in April 2011, once again the investigation was suspended.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
In its judgment of 5 November 2015, the Court found that the Russian Government had recognized that Murad Nagmetov had been killed in breach of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. In particular, the government had stated that it was against Russian legislation to through tear grenades straight to the face. The Court had no reason to disagree with that analysis.
In addition, it considered that the authorities had not taken all reasonable and practical measures to identify the shooter and to recreate all the circumstances of the case.
The Grand Chamber approved the Board’s conclusions and found that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention with regard to its substantive and procedural aspects.
The ECtHR ruled that Russia had to pay the applicant EUR 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage
