Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Мудаевы (Mudayevy) против России» [англ.]

rticles of the Convention (Gusinskiy v. Russia, No. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).
128. The Court has already found in paragraphs 123 - 125 above that the applicants' relatives were deprived of their liberty without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, and not "for the purpose of bringing [a person] before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence" as stipulated in Article 5 § 1 (c). In these circumstances, since that issue has already been addressed by the Court, there is no need to examine these facts again under Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention.

VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

129. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of effective remedies in respect of the aforementioned violations, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

A. The parties' submissions

130. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.
131. The applicants reiterated the complaint.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

132. The Court notes that this complaint 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

133. The Court reiterates that in circumstances where, as here, a criminal investigation into a disappearance has been ineffective (see paragraph 107 above) and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed, including civil remedies, as suggested by the Government in the present case, has consequently been undermined the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 183).
134. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 the Convention.
135. As regards the applicants' reference to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the Court considers that, in the circumstances, no separate issues arise in respect of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention (see Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, § 119, 15 November 2007, and Aziyevy v. Russia, No. 77626/01, § 118, 20 March 2008).

VIII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

136. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"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. Pecuniary damage

137. The first applicant, as the father of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev, claimed damages in respect of loss of earnings by his sons after their arrests and subsequent disappearances. Referring to the method of calculation used in the case of Isayeva v. Russia (No. 57950/00, §§ 232 - 236, 24 February 2005), he claimed a tota

> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20