Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.05.2010 «Дело Джабраиловы (Dzhabrailovy) против России» [англ.]

fered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation" (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
93. The Court notes that the first applicant raised in detail his complaints about the ill-treatment with the investigating authorities (see paragraphs 33 and 49 above). However, it does not appear that they were properly examined by the prosecutor's office.
94. For the reasons stated above in paragraphs 78 - 85 in relation to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to conduct an effective investigation into the first applicant's allegations of ill-treatment.
95. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 in this respect.

3. The complaint concerning the applicants'
mental suffering

a. Admissibility
96. The Court notes that this part of the 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.
b. Merits
97. The Court considers that in the present case no separate issues arise beyond those already examined under Articles 2 and 13 (see paragraphs 107 - 110 below).
98. In these circumstances, while the Court does not doubt that the death of Valid Dzhabrailov caused the applicants profound suffering, it nevertheless finds no basis for finding a violation of Article 3 in this context (see Tangiyeva v. Russia, No. 57935/00, §§ 104 - 105, 29 November 2007, and Dangayeva and Taramova v. Russia, No. 1896/04, § 107, 8 January 2009).

V. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention

99. The applicants further stated that the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov had been detained in violation of the guarantees of 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:...
(c) 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 reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
...
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation."
100. In the Government's opinion, no evidence was obtained by the investigators to confirm that the first applicant and Valid Dzhab

> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 16 ... 17 18