BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
European Court of Human Rights |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> FINOGENOV AND OTHERS v RUSSIA - 18299/03 [2011] ECHR 2234 (20 December 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2234.html Cite as: 32 BHRC 324, (2015) 61 EHRR 4, 61 EHRR 4, [2011] ECHR 2234 |
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF
FINOGENOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 December 2011
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Finogenov and Others v. Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina
Vajić,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Peer
Lorenzen,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
Erik
Møse,
judges,
and
Søren Nielsen,
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 29 November 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Hostage-taking
B. Preliminary plan of the rescue operation
C. Storming and the rescue operation
D. The criminal investigation
1. Witness statements by the negotiators
2. Witness statements by former hostages
3. Examination of the explosive devices
4. Report of the Public Health Department
5. Examination of medical records
6. Statements by public health officials and chief doctors
7. Statements by rescue workers
8. Statements by ordinary doctors and paramedics
9. Other evidence; results of the forensic medical examination of the victims
E. Intermediate conclusions of the criminal investigation
“... acute respiratory and cardiac deficiency, induced by the fatal combination of negative factors existing ... on 23-26 October 2002, namely severe and prolonged psycho-emotional stress, a low concentration of oxygen in the air of the building (hypoxic hypoxia), prolonged forced immobility, which is often followed by the development of oxygen deprivation of the body (circulatory hypoxia), hypovolemia (water deprivation) caused by the prolonged lack of food and water, prolonged sleep deprivation, which exhausted compensatory mechanisms, and respiratory disorders caused by the effects of an unidentified chemical substance (or substances) applied by the law-enforcement authorities in the course of the special operation to liberate the hostages on 26 October 2002.”
The investigator concluded that:
“... the multi-factor nature of the causes of death excludes a direct causal link ... between the effects of [the gas] and the death [of the hostages]. In this case the link is only indirect, since there are no objective grounds to conclude that, in the absence of the other factors named above, the application of [the gas] would have led to [the] death [of the hostages].”
F. Materials produced by the applicants concerning the rescue operation
1. “Amateur” video recording produced by the applicants
According to the timing information on the video, the recording starts at 9.35 p.m. There is no date, but apparently it is the evening of 25 October 2002. It shows a group of people coming out of the building. The applicants explained that those people were five Azeri hostages released by the terrorists.
At 11.23 p.m. a lone figure enters the building. Again, the applicants explained that this was Mr Vl. entering the building.
At 11.49 p.m. a man in red approaches the building but then returns to the point where the security forces are stationed.
At 2.05 a.m. (the early morning of 26 October 2002) two ambulances approach the building. The medics enter the building and then return carrying a body on a stretcher (2.15 a.m.), then another (2.17 a.m.). At 2.18 a.m. the ambulances leave the car park. According to the applicants, the doctors evacuated Ms St., who had been wounded by an accidental shot during the incident with Mr G., and Mr Z. The ambulances arrived two hours after the terrorists requested them.
At 5.33 a.m. the sound of shooting can be heard from the building. Two minutes afterwards there is an explosion in the foyer of the theatre.
At about 6.22 a.m. heavily armed officers from the special squad, wearing bullet-proof vests, helmets and masks, appear in the foyer of the theatre.
At 6.30 a.m. there are several explosions in the foyer.
At 6.46 a.m. the first three hostages come out of the building; a special squad officer helps one of them to walk. They are conveyed to an off-road vehicle parked on the car-park. No ambulance can be seen at this point.
At 6.51 a.m. a hostage comes out by himself.
At 6.52 a.m. another group of uniformed men enter the building; they are not wearing helmets. At the same time, special squad officers drag out an unconscious body by the hands and place it on the stairs just outside the main doors (6.51.32). An officer carries a woman in red on his shoulder.
At 6.53 a.m. an officer approaches the man who was earlier left on the stairs of the building and drags him away. It appears that this person’s hands are handcuffed or tied behind his back. A woman in uniform with fair hair approaches them. She holds an object in her hand which looks like a handgun or something similar. She points it at the person prostrated on the floor (6.53.27 - 41), then other uniformed men bend over the body and push it closer to the wall.
More hostages come out of the building, and others are carried out by the officers. The first ambulance appears at the scene at 6.57 a.m. Then three rescue-service vehicles appear. People in yellow uniforms come out of the vehicles and enter the building through the main entrance. Within a few seconds new rescue-service vehicles arrive; more rescue workers enter the building, and some of them carry out unconscious bodies. It appears that some of those bodies have already been lying on the floor of the foyer, some of them face up (6.52.37). The recording ends here.
The next recording (no. 2) is made from the same position and starts a few seconds after the end of the first recording. It shows the beginning of the mass evacuation of hostages (7 a.m.). Rescue workers and special squad officers carry unconscious people out of the building. Most of the bodies are carried by their hands and legs, some of them are carried face down, others face up. A person near the entrance seems to be coordinating the actions of the rescue workers and showing them where to take the hostages.
At 7.05 a.m. the camera zooms out over the parking area. From this point the image becomes quite blurred. There are no ambulances on the parking area; then one vehicle arrives. At 7.06 a.m. more ambulances start to arrive from the left, led by the rescue-service vehicles.
By 7.11 a.m. over a dozen bodies have been placed on the stairs outside the entrance. Several rescue workers are examining them and manipulating the bodies, but it is impossible to see what they are doing. It appears that some of workers are giving heart massage. In the meantime the evacuation continues.
By 7.20 a.m. city buses appear on the parking area. The number of people in front of the building and in the foyer reaches its peak at about 7.30 a.m.
At 7.33 a.m. a person in a rescue worker’s uniform appears to give an injection to one of the victims lying on the floor.
In the following minutes several ambulances and buses leave the scene, while others arrive. The ambulances move slowly, but they do not seem to be completely blocked, or at least not for any length of time.
By 7.55 a.m. there are hundreds of people on the staircase of the building: special squad officers, rescue workers, police officers, medics, etc.
At 8.03 a.m. a line of city buses waiting for their turn can be seen on the car park. The evacuation of the victims continues, although at a slower rate.
The next episode starts at 8.58 a.m. It appears that by this time the mass evacuation of hostages is over. Nevertheless, several ambulances arrive at the parking area at 9.30 a.m. At 9.35 a.m. the military armoured cars start to leave the scene.
2. The film made by the Moscow City Rescue Service
3. Reports by Dr Mark Wheelis, PhD, and Dr Martin Furmanski, MD
“... Significant numbers of fatalities among the hostages inside the Dubrovka theatre should have been anticipated. Fatalities were certain to occur from two distinct mechanisms. First, fatalities and permanent injury should have been anticipated from direct toxic effects of the chemical agent. Although the Russian Federation has not identified the agent, they have said it is a member of the phentanyl class of synthetic opioids. Several of these are in medical use as analgesics for severe chronic pain, and as anaesthetics, and it is known that the margin between the effective dose for unconsciousness and the lethal dose is very small. Death is usually by respiratory depression. Phentanyl is also known as a drug of abuse, and many fatalities have been recorded among recreational users. Since all known phentanyls have similar, and very narrow, safety margins, fatalities from respiratory depression should have been anticipated.
Second, even if the chemical agent itself was safe, fatalities should have been anticipated as a result of asphyxiation from airway obstruction consequent upon sudden collapse from a seated or standing position. Some lethality or permanent injury should also have been anticipated as a result of aspiration of vomit, as vomiting is a common side effect of opioids.
I make no judgment on the wisdom of using an anaesthetic compound under the circumstances faced by the Russian Federation during this tragic event. However the decision to employ the agent should certainly have considered the likelihood of significant numbers of deaths among the hostages as a result, and should have recognized the necessity for immediate medical intervention to minimize them.”
4. Press interviews and other submissions
5. Report by the All-Russia Centre of Disaster Medicine
G. Criminal-law complaints by the applicants and third parties
1. Criminal-law complaint by Mr Nmt.
2. Criminal-law complaint by Mr Finogenov
3. Criminal-law complaint by Ms Gubareva
(a) lack of medical assistance to the hostages, and the circumstances of their evacuation from the theatre;
(b) thefts of the personal belongings of several hostages;
(c) poisoning of the hostages by an unknown gas;
(d) unlawful use of that gas by the security forces;
(e) killing of the unconscious terrorists;
(f) inactivity of the MCPO, responsible for the investigation;
(g) inaccurate medical examination carried out by the Forensic Bureau of the Public Health Department of the Moscow City administration.
4. Criminal-law complaint by Mr Kurbatov and Ms Kurbatova
5. Criminal-law complaint by Mr Burban and Ms Burban-Mishuris
H. Compensation payments and subsequent civil proceedings
1. Civil proceedings concerning compensation before the Tverskoy District Court
2. Civil proceedings concerning compensation before the Basmanniy District Court
grounds. The applicants sought to obtain the attendance of certain witnesses and examination of additional evidence, as in the proceedings before the Tverskoy District Court, but this was refused. On 6 August 2003 the court dismissed their claims. The court’s reasoning was broadly similar to the reasoning given by the Tverskoy District Court in its judgment of 23 January 2003. On 10 October 2003 that decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
(a) priority should be given to the interests of people endangered by a terrorist act,
(b) the State should make minimal concessions to terrorists,
(c) the State should keep secret, to the maximum extent possible, the technical methods of anti-terrorist operations and not disclose the identity of those involved in them.
Section 3 of the Act defines terrorism as follows:
“... violence or the threat of its use against physical persons or organisations, and also destruction of (or damage to) or the threat of destruction of (or damage to) property and other material objects which creates danger to people’s lives, causes significant loss of property or entails other socially dangerous consequences, perpetrated with the aim of violating public safety, intimidating the population or exerting pressure on State bodies to take decisions favourable to the terrorists or to satisfy their unlawful pecuniary and/or other interests; an attempt on the life of a State or public figure, committed with the aim of halting his or her State or other political activity or in revenge for such activity; or an attack on a representative of a foreign State or an official of an international organisation who is under international protection, or on the official premises or means of transport of persons under international protection, if this act is committed with the aim of provoking war or of straining international relations.”
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law ...
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”
A. The applicants’ submissions
1. Use of lethal force
2. Rescue operation
3. Criminal investigation
B. The Government’s submissions
“The State Party in the territory of which the hostage is held by the offender shall take all measures it considers appropriate to ease the situation of the hostage, in particular, to secure his release .... “
C. The Court’s assessment
1. Whether the case falls within the ambit of Article 2 of the Convention
2. Victim status of several applicants
3. General principles
4. Standard of scrutiny to be applied
5. The use of force
(a) Decision to storm
(b) Decision to use the gas
6. Rescue and evacuation operation
242. Third, the Court has taken note of the Government’s response to the Court’s questions, addressed to them following its decision on admissibility. The Court requested the respondent Government to answer several very specific questions, concerning, in particular, the planning and conduct of the rescue operation, the chronology of events, the instructions given to the medics and rescue workers, any special equipment they had at their disposal, particular investigative actions taken in the aftermath of the events, etc. However, most of the questions put by the Court remained unanswered. The Government’s observations on the merits repeated, to a large extent, their observations on admissibility, were very general and did not touch upon the specific factual issues.
(a) The planning of the medical assistance and evacuation
252. In sum, the original plan of the rescue and evacuation of the hostages was in itself flawed in many respects.
(b) Implementation of the plan
(c) Conclusions
7. Effectiveness of the investigation
(a) General principles
(b) Application to the present case
i. Whether the official investigation was “effective”
273. The present case clearly falls into the category of cases where the authorities must investigate the circumstances of the victims’ deaths. Thus, there existed a nexus between the use of lethal force by the security forces and the victims’ death. The gas remained the primary cause of casualties amongst the hostages, and it was legitimate to suspect that some of the victims died as a consequence of an ineffective rescue operation. Although the responsibility for the hostage taking as such cannot be attributed to the authorities, the rescue operation lay in an area within the exclusive control of the authorities (here the Court draws a parallel with the security operations by the Russian military in Chechnya or Turkish security forces in South-East Turkey - see Akkum v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Goygova v. Russia, no. 74240/01, §§ 88-96, 4 October 2007, and Magomed Musayev and Others v. Russia, no. 8979/02, §§ 85-86, 23 October 2008). Finally, the events in issue “lay wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities” in the sense that it was virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain any evidence independently from the authorities. In such circumstances the authorities were under an obligation to carry out an effective official investigation in order to provide a “satisfactory and convincing” explanation of the victims’ deaths and the degree of the authorities’ responsibility for it.
II. OTHER COMPLAINTS
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian Roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement (the amounts to the applicants who are foreign nationals must be paid in euros):
(i) The amounts indicated in the annex, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,000 to Ms Burban-Mishuris and EUR 2,000 to Ms Gubareva in reimbursement of their travel expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on those amounts.
(iii) EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants jointly, in respect of legal costs and expenses (to be distributed amongst the applicants’ lawyers as indicated in paragraph 296 above);
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 December 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina
Vajić
Registrar President
ANNEX
N |
Name of Applicant |
Name of the immediate victim |
Year of birth |
Non-pecuniary damage claimed (EUR) |
Non-pecuniary damage awarded (EUR) |
Nat. |
1 |
Aistova Yevgeniya Lvovna |
Lost her son, Rodionov D.I., |
1960 |
240,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
2 |
Akimova Yelena Gennadyevna |
Lost her partner, Finogenov I.A. Was a hostage herself |
1974 |
480,000 |
28,600 |
RUS |
3 |
Alyakina Olga Aleksandrovna |
Lost her father, Alyakin A.F. |
1983 |
200,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
4 |
Alyakina Alla Kuzminichna |
Lost her husband, Alyakin A.F. |
1950 |
200,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
5 |
Apshev Timur Khasenovich |
Lost his sister Apsheva S.Kh. Cares for a minor daughter of his late sister |
1967 |
240,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
6 |
Bessonova Anna Andreyevna |
Lost her husband, Mitrofanov A.A.
|
1973 |
240,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
7 |
Bochkov Sergey Leonidovich |
Lost his son, Bochkov A.S. |
1950 |
240,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
8 |
Bondarenko Nora Petrovna |
Lost her son, Bondarenko V.V. |
1940 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
9 |
Bondarenko Viktor Grigoryevich |
Lost his son, Bondarenko V.V. |
1938 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
10 |
Burban (Lobazova) Yelena Leonidovna |
Lost her husband, Burban G.M. Was a hostage herself |
1979 |
480,000 |
28,600 |
UKR |
11 |
Burban-Mishuris Lyubov Grigoryevna |
Lost her son, Burban G.M. |
1939 |
360,000 |
8,800 |
USA |
12 |
Burban Mark Naumovich |
Lost his son, Burban G.M. |
1939 |
240,000 |
8,800 |
USA |
13 |
Chernetsova Zoya Pavlovna |
Lost her son, Chernetsov D.A. |
1954 |
360,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
14 |
Finogenov Pavel Alekseevich |
Lost his brother, Finogenov I.A. |
1974 |
180,000 |
8,800 |
RUS |
15 |
Frolova Larisa Nikolayevna |
Lost a son and a daughter-in-law, Frolov E.V. and Frolova V.V. |
1945 |
480,000 |
52,800 |
RUS |
16 |
Generalova Svetlana Nikolayevna |
Lost her partner, Bondarenko V.V. Was a hostage herself |
1967 |
480,000 |
39,600 |
RUS |
17 |
Gorokholinskiy Sergey Aleksandrovich |
Lost his wife, Gorokholinskaya Yu.Ye. Was a hostage himself |
1968 |
480,000 |
39,600 |
RUS |
18 |
Grinberg Yekaterina Vyacheslavovna |
Lost her mother, Yakubenko Ye. A. |
1975 |
240,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
19 |
Gromovich Sergey Vladimirovich |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage himself |
1977 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
20 |
Gubareva Svetlana Nikolayevna |
Lost her partner , Booker S.A., and her daughter, Letyago A. Was a hostage herself |
1957 |
840,000 |
66,000 |
KAZ |
21 |
Gunyasheva Olga Vladimirovna |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage herself |
1971 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
22 |
Karpov Ivan Sergeyevich |
Lost his brother, Karpov A.S. |
1982 |
180,000 |
8,800 |
RUS |
23 |
Karpov Sergey Nikolayevich |
Lost his son, Karpov A. S. |
1954 |
240,000 |
8,800 |
RUS |
24 |
Karpova Tatyana Ivanovna |
Lost her son, Karpov A.S. |
1946 |
240,000 |
8,800 |
RUS |
25 |
Khaziyev Tukay Valiyevich |
Lost his son, Khaziyev T.T. |
1947 |
360,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
26 |
Khomontovskiy Mikhail Yuryevich |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage himself |
1971 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
27 |
Khramtsov Aleksandr Fedorovich |
Lost his father, Khramstov F.I. |
1975 |
180,000 |
8,800 |
RUS |
28 |
Khramtsova Irina Fedorovna |
Lost her father, Khramstov F.I. |
1982 |
180,000 |
8,800 |
RUS |
29 |
Khramtsova Valentina Ivanovna |
Lost her husband, Khramstov F.I. |
1955 |
120,000 |
8,800 |
RUS |
30 |
Khudovekova Eleonora Vasilyevna |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage herself |
1962 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
31 |
Kiseleva Lyudmila Vasilyevna |
Lost her husband, Kiselev A.V. Was a hostage herself |
1945 |
480,000 |
39,600 |
RUS |
32 |
Koletskova (Udovitskaya) Anna Aleksandrovna |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage herself |
1983 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
33 |
Konyakhin Aleksey Yuryevich |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage himself |
1971 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
34 |
Kovrizhkin Anatoliy Ivanovich |
Lost his daughter, Kunova S.A.; is the guardian of a minor son of his late daughter |
1938 |
540,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
35 |
Kutukova Nina Fedorovna |
Lost her son, Finogenov I.A. |
1937 |
360,000 |
8,800 |
RUS |
36 |
Kurbatov Vladimir Vasiliyevich |
Lost his minor daughter, Kurbatova K.V. |
1959 |
240,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
37 |
Kurbatova Natalia Nikolayevna |
Lost her minor daughter, Kurbatova K.V. |
1960 |
240,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
38 |
Lyubimov Nikolay Alekseyevich |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage himself |
1931 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
39 |
Malenko Viktor Ivanovich |
Lost his daughter, Malenko N.V. |
1951 |
240,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
40 |
Matyukhina Yekaterina Vladimirovna |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage herself |
1978 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
41 |
Milovidov Dmitriy Eduardovich |
Lost a minor daughter, Milovidova N.D. |
1963 |
420,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
42 |
Milovodova Olga Vladimirovna |
Lost a minor daughter, Milovidova N.D. |
1966 |
240,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
43 |
Panteleyeva (Schetko) Viktoriya Yevgenyevna |
Lost her husband, Panteleyev D.V. |
1979 |
200,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
44 |
Paramzin Vitaliy Sergeyevich |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage himself |
1982 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
45 |
Ponomarenko Eduard Nikolayevich |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage himself |
1969 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
46 |
Ryabtseva Aleksandra Aleksandrovna |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage herself |
1983 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
47 |
Rybachok Lyudmila Viktorovna |
Lost her son, Sinelnikov P.S. |
1947 |
240,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
48 |
Senchenko Vyacheslav Nikolayevich |
Lost his brother, Senchenko S.N. |
1975 |
120,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
49 |
Shalnov Aleksey (a minor, represented by Shalnov A.B.) |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage himself |
1957 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
50 |
Shalnova Olga Aleksandrovna |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage herself |
1957 |
180,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
51 |
Sidorenkov Petr Ilyich |
Lost his son, Sidorenkov Yu. P. |
1929 |
360,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
52 |
Simonov Dmitriy Vladimirovich |
Lost his son, Simonov D.D. |
1960 |
240,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
53 |
Solodova Olga Yevgenyevna |
Lost her husband, Solodov G.L. |
1973 |
200,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
55 |
Tolmacheva Galina Aleksandrovna |
Lost her son, Tolmachev A.A. |
1938 |
360,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
56 |
Troitskiy Sergey Stanislavovich |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage himself |
1964 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
57 |
Volkov Nikolay Aleksandrovich |
Lost his daughter Volkova Ye.N. |
1955 |
240,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
58 |
Yakubenko Alexandr Vyacheslavovich |
Lost his mother, Yakubenko Ye.A. |
1978 |
120,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
59 |
Yegorova Svetlana Igorevna |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage herself |
1982 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
60 |
Yemakova Yuliya Vladimirovna |
Did not lose relatives Was a hostage herself |
1977 |
360,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
61 |
Yuftyayev Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich |
Lost his wife, Yuftyaeva N.A. |
1962 |
120,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
62 |
Yuftyayeva Yekaterina Yevgenyevna |
Lost her mother, Yuftyaeva N.A. |
1984 |
200,000 |
13,200 |
RUS |
63 |
Zabaluyev Mikhail Petrovich |
Lost his son, Zabaluyev A.M. |
1959 |
240,000 |
26,400 |
RUS |
64 |
Zhirov Oleg Aleksandrovich |
Lost his wife, Zhirova N.V. |
1964 |
120,000 |
26,400 |
NLD |