The case concerned the September 2004 terrorist attack on a
school in Beslan, North Ossetia (Russia). For over fifty hours heavily armed
terrorists held captive over 1,000 people, the majority of them children.
Following explosions, fire and an armed intervention, over 330 people lost
their lives (including over 180 children) and over 750 people were injured.
The
case was brought by 409 Russian nationals who had either been taken hostage
and/or injured in the incident, or are family members of those taken hostage,
killed or injured. They made allegations of a range of failings by the Russian
State in relation to the attack.
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of
Tagayeva and Others v. Russia (application nos. 26562/07, 14755/08, 49339/08,
49380/08, 51313/08, 21294/11 and 37096/11), the European Court of Human Rights
made the following findings. Unanimously, the Court held that there had been a
violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, arising from a failure to take preventive measures.
The authorities had
been in possession of sufficiently specific information of a planned terrorist
attack in the area, linked to an educational institution. Nevertheless, not
enough had been done to disrupt the terrorists meeting and preparing;
insufficient steps had been taken to prevent them travelling on the day of the
attack; security at the school had not been increased; and neither the school
nor the public had been warned of the threat.
Unanimously, the Court found that
there had been a violation of the procedural obligation under Article 2,
primarily because the investigation had not been capable of leading to a
determination of whether the force used by the State agents had or had not been
justified in the circumstances. By five votes to two, the Court held that there
had been a further violation of Article 2, due to serious shortcomings in the
planning and control of the security operation. The command structure of the
operation had suffered from a lack of formal leadership, resulting in serious
flaws in decisionmaking and coordination with other relevant agencies.
By five
votes to two, the Court also found that there had been a violation of Article 2
arising from the use of lethal force by security forces. In the absence of
proper legal rules, powerful weapons such as tank cannon, grenade launchers and
flame-throwers had been used on the school. This had contributed to the
casualties among the hostages and had not been compatible with the requirement
under Article 2 that lethal force be used “no more than [is] absolutely
necessary.”
Taking into account the compensation already afforded to the
victims in Russia and various domestic procedures that had been aimed at
establishing the circumstances of the events, the Court held, by six votes to
one, that there had been no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective
remedy).
Under Article 46 (binding force and implementation of judgments), the
Court indicated the need for a variety of measures aimed at drawing lessons
from the past, raising awareness of applicable legal and operational standards,
and deterring similar violations in the future. It also held that the future
requirements of the pending investigation into the incident must be determined
with regard to the Court’s conclusions about investigation’s failures to date. (hudoc/ photo:cnn.com)
Σχόλια