Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.07.2010 <Дело Ахматхановы (Akhmatkhanovy) против России» [англ.]

ght to have been carried out much earlier could no longer usefully be conducted. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the remedy relied on would have had any prospects of success. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy cited by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection as regards the applicants' failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation.
133. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Artur Akhmatkhanov, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.

IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

134. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relative's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. The parties' submissions

135. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the applicants had not been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
136. The applicants maintained their submission.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

137. The Court notes that this complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

138. The Court has found on many occasions that in a situation of enforced disappearance close relatives of the victim may themselves be victims of treatment in violation of Article 3. The essence of such a violation does not mainly lie in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member but rather concerns the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164).
139. In the present case the Court notes that the applicants are close relatives of the disappeared person. For more than seven years they have not had any news of the missing man. During this period the applicants have made enquiries of various official bodies, both in writing and in person, about their missing relative. Despite their attempts, they have never received any plausible explanation or information about what became of him following his detention. The responses they received mostly denied State responsibility for their relative's arrest or simply informed them that the investigation was ongoing. The Court's findings under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are also of direct relevance here.
140. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants.

V. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention

141. The applicants further stated that Artur Akhmatkhanov had been detained in violation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:...
(a) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasona

> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18 ... 19 20