Ineffective investigation into assassination of opposition leader. Violation of the procedural part of Article 2 of the ECHR
JUDGMENT
Nemtsova v. Russia 11.07.2023 (app. no. 43146/15)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the investigation into the assassination of the applicant’s father, Boris Nemtsov,
a prominent politician and opposition leader, who had been murdered next to the Moscow Kremlin
in 2015.
The Court found in particular that the Russian authorities had failed to adequately investigate who
had organised and commissioned the assassination; to explore the allegations of a possible political
motive behind the assassination, as well as possible involvement of certain State officials; and to
identify a motive for the actions of those who could have offered a reward to the perpetrators to
assassinate Mr Nemtsov. The investigation overall had been ineffective.
PROVISIONS
Article 2
Article 13
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Zhanna Borisovna Nemtsova, is a Russian national who was born in 1984 and lived in Moscow at the time of the events in this case. She is the daughter of Boris Nemtsov, who was,
among many other political positions held, deputy prime minister of Russia, co-founder of the Union
of Right Forces political party, later co-leader of the Republican Party of Russia – People’s Freedom
Party, and one of the leaders of the Russian opposition. He was a member of the Yaroslavl Regional
Duma at the time of the events in question.
Assassination of Boris Nemtsov
On 27 February 2015 Boris Nemtsov was shot dead on the Bolshoy Moskvoretskiy bridge in the
immediate vicinity of the Kremlin in Moscow.
Investigation
An investigation into the murder was opened on 28 February 2015. Basic investigative steps were
taken immediately, such as examining the crime scene, securing evidence, obtaining CCTV footage
from cameras located along the route taken by the victim on the night of the murder and in
surrounding areas (according to the applicant, the investigators failed to obtain footage from
cameras pointed at the section of the bridge where Mr Nemtsov had been assassinated) and
questioning witnesses. Ms Nemtsova was later given victim status in the case and granted access to
the case file.
In March 2015 five suspects were arrested, while a sixth died during his arrest. One of the men
confessed, implicating the other suspects, stating that the assassination had been in response to
Mr Nemtsov’s support for the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammed in the French
satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. However, this confession was later retracted, with the suspect alleging it had been given under duress. Another suspect also confessed and later retracted his
confession. The remaining suspects denied involvement.
Ramzan Kadyrov, president of the Chechen Republic, expressed support for one of the suspects via a
social-media platform, stating that he knew him as a “true patriot” and a “courageous soldier”.
During the investigation, friends and colleagues of Mr Nemtsov who were interviewed in connection
with his activities and statements towards Islam stated that, among many other things, he had
systematically and openly criticised both the Federal and Chechen authorities. He did so, in
particular, on account of corruption at all levels of government and referring to the authoritarian
“State within a State” built up in Chechnya by Ramzan Kadyrov, including, most recently, the latter’s
sending Chechen military personnel to Ukraine in 2014.
Among the extensive evidence concerning the five suspects collected by the investigation, several
items of evidence, including witness testimony, documents and camera footage, flight records and
call logs pointed to interaction between certain individuals including officers of the Interior Ministry
of the Chechen Republic and the suspects both before and after the assassination. In October 2015
the investigators attempted to deliver summonses to some of those individuals at their registered
addresses but in vain, as “no one had opened the door”.
It was also established that the suspects had started preparing for the assassination in autumn 2014.
In October 2015 a certain R.Mukh. was charged in connection with the crime as it was alleged that
he, together with “other unidentified persons”, had commissioned the murder and had offered a
reward of 15 million Russian roubles (RUB) to the alleged perpetrators. That part of the investigation
was severed from the case against the other five suspects in January 2016, despite Ms Nemtsova’s
objections.
Trial
In January 2016 the investigation was completed and the five suspects were indicted in June of that
year on charges of murder committed in a group that had been hired or motivated by the promise of
a reward. The investigators argued, among other things, that R.Mukh. and “other unidentified
persons” had instigated and financed Mr Nemtsov’s assassination. Extensive evidence and testimony
was examined in a jury trial. The presiding judge disallowed some questions to witnesses pertaining
to possible political undertones of the murder, and refused requests for certain witnesses including
federal and Chechen Republic officials to be questioned, ruling the respective questions and
testimonies irrelevant. He also refused a request for issuance of an order for certain witnesses (who
failed to appear) to be brought to court, on procedural grounds. The five suspects were found guilty
as charged, receiving prison sentences of between 11 and 20 years.
Ms Nemtsova appealed, arguing that the five co-defendants’ actions should have been classified as
assassination of a public figure aimed at putting an end to his or her political activities or in revenge
for such activities. That appeal was dismissed in October 2017.
According to the latest information received from the parties in 2021, the severed investigation into
the organisation of the assassination remained ongoing.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court established that it had jurisdiction to deal with the case, as the facts giving rise to the
alleged violations of the Convention had taken place before 16 September 2022, the date on which
Russia ceased to be a Party to the European Convention.
Among other facts, the Court noted the following: the investigation had started promptly; urgent
investigative steps had been taken immediately; and extensive evidence had been collected, and the
case against the alleged perpetrators had been promptly sent for trial and examined by the courts.
However, the five convictions notwithstanding, the Russian authorities had an obligation to
investigate who had commissioned and organised the murder.
The Court pointed out that it had barely received any information from the Government regarding
this case, and certainly not enough to establish clearly the thoroughness of the investigation into
who had ordered and organised the assassination. It stated that a failure on a Government’s part to
submit material which was in their hands without a satisfactory explanation could give rise to the
drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of an applicant’s allegations. It noted that the
investigation into the people behind the assassination had been severed from the main criminal
proceedings in 2016, despite Ms Nemtsova’s objections. That severed investigation had not
advanced in at least five years by the time of receipt of the parties’ latest submissions in 2021. The
protracted nature of proceedings was a strong indication that they had been severely defective, and
as the Government had failed to provide any clarification on that point, the Court had to conclude
that this inactivity had seriously impacted the chances of establishing the facts around Mr Nemtsov’s
death and had led to a failure to identify who had ordered the killing.
Furthermore, the allegations that Mr Nemtsov’s murder could have been politically motivated, and
that certain State officials could have been involved in the events, were not implausible. Mr
Nemtsov had been a prominent politician, one of the opposition leaders in Russia, and very critical
of his opponents including senior Chechen Republic officials; the applicant had consistently pointed
to profuse family and professional links between the alleged perpetrators and various senior
Chechen Republic officials, and had referred to threats reportedly issued in the past against Mr
Nemtsov by Ramzan Kadyrov. The investigators themselves had obtained substantial evidence
pointing to possible involvement of certain officers of interior security forces of the Chechen
Republic in the events. There had been an obligation on the Russian authorities to pursue that line of
enquiry. The Court highlighted the failure to follow-up on summonses issued in connection to this
strand of the investigation, and the termination of enquiries into the alleged involvement of some
individuals. A number of persons who could have provided information of crucial importance for the
case had either never been examined nor asked key questions. The investigation had singularly
failed to either explore the political motive for the assassination with particular diligence or to come
up with another plausible explanation for the motives behind the murder – that is to say to establish
the context within which the hitmen had operated, and the reason why a reward had been offered.
The deficiencies of the investigation had not been rectified by the national courts later on in any
proceedings including the trial.
The Court concluded that the investigation into Mr Nemtsov’s death had been inadequate and
ineffective. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the
investigation.
Given this finding, the Court considered that there was no need to examine the complaint under
Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Russia was to pay Ms Nemtsova 20,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
