ECHR ordered Russia to pay €50 thousand for death of demonstrator in Dagestan

ECHR ordered Russia to pay €50 thousand for death of demonstrator in Dagestan
European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Russian authorities must pay €50.000 to the resident of Dagestan, Yarmet Nagmetov, for moral damages. His son was killed as a result of police actions during the dispersal of the rally in 2006.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered Russia to pay €50 thousand as compensation of moral damages for the death of Murad Nagmetov at the rally in Dagestan in 2006. The corresponding decision is posted on the court's website.

Murad's father, Yarmet Nagmetov, believes that his son was killed against the backdrop of the police special means use during the dispersal of the anti-corruption rally, and the investigation of the death's circumstances was not properly carried out by the Russian authorities.

The protest action against corruption, during which Murad Nagmetov died, was held in one of the villages of the Dagestani Dokuzparinsky district in April 2006. Its participants demanded the resignation of the district Head.

To disperse the rally, riot policemen used firearms and other special means, such as smoke bombs and light-and-noise grenades. According to Kavkazsky Uzel, as a result of dispersal of the rally three demonstrators were killed: Nagmetov died on the spot, two more, Elman Ahmedkhanov and Zeynal Gadzhimov, died in the hospital, 74 more people were detained. Human rights defenders also reported on tortures and insults to detainees.

After the death of Murad Nagmetov in 2006, a criminal case was opened, but a year later it was suspended. After that the investigation was renewed twice and finally discontinued in 2011.

According to the court's decision, compensation to Yarmet Nagmetov must be paid within three months. The court's decision notes that the payment of monetary compensation can not be recognized as a just compensation for the pain of the applicant's son loss, but it is indicated that the panel of judges stated that "for want of a better option".

Discuss

Recommended

1 / 3