Beslanin vuoden 2004 terroristisesta kouluiskusta suullinen kuuleminen EIT:ssa

16.10.2014 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) järjesti suullisen kuulemistilaisuuden Venäjää vastaan tehdyssä valituksessa, jossa on kyse terroristi-iskusta Beslanin kouluun vuonna 2004.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

A series of forensic reports commissioned by the investigators indicated that the first explosions in the gymnasium were caused by the devices that had been placed by the terrorists. Some applicants, however, maintain that the first two explosions were caused by external sources, pointing to various documents and testimonies. After the first explosions the security forces stormed the building and met with fierce resistance by the terrorists. Numerous hostages and members of the security forces died or were injured during the storming. All but one of the terrorists are presumed to have been killed on 3 September. The official investigation attributed all civilian casualties to the terrorists’ actions.

The events gave rise to a number of legal proceedings in Russia, in which the applicants and other victims of the events have actively participated. The original criminal investigation opened into the terrorist attack remains pending to this day. The trial of the only surviving terrorist ended with his conviction in December 2006. Two sets of criminal proceedings on charges of professional negligence were brought in respect of the local police officers in Beslan and in Ingushetia, where the terrorists had trained and gathered prior to 1 September 2004. These two prosecutions resulted, in 2007 and 2008, in the application of an amnesty act and acquittal by jury. Finally, some of the victims pursued civil remedies against the State authorities for their alleged failure to prevent the terrorist act.

In addition to the criminal and civil proceedings, two parliamentary reports about the events were prepared by the North Ossetia Parliament and by the Russian Federal Assembly.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants maintain, in particular: that the State has failed in its obligation to protect the victims from the known risk to their lives; that there was no effective investigation into the events; and that many aspects of the planning and control of the negotiations and rescue operation were deficient. Some applicants maintain that the deaths were the result of a disproportionate use of force by the authorities. Some applicants further allege violations of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.