Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.09.2009 «Дело Забиева и другие (Zabiyeva and others) против России» [англ.]

opriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they comply with their obligations under this provision. However, such a remedy is only required in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see Halford v. the United Kingdom, 25 June 1997, § 64, Reports 1997-III).
141. As regards the alleged lack of effective remedies in respect of the complaints under Articles 2 and 3 concerning Umar Zabiyev, as well as the first applicant's complaint of ill-treatment under Article 3, the Court emphasises that Article 13 requires, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the deprivation of life and infliction of treatment contrary to Article 3, including effective access for the complainant to an investigation procedure leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, No. 38361/97, §§ 161 - 62, ECHR 2002-IV, and {Suheyla Aydin} v. Turkey, No. 25660/94, § 208, 24 May 2005). The Court further reiterates that the requirements of Article 13 are broader than a Contracting State's obligation under Article 2 to conduct an effective investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 183).
142. It follows that in circumstances where, as here, a violent death and the infliction of bodily injuries were not investigated effectively and the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil remedies, was consequently undermined, the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention.
143. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in respect of Umar Zabiyev, and in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant.
144. The Court notes that, despite its above finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 on account of the applicants' mental suffering, this complaint is "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention. Nevertheless the Court has already found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention, inter alia, on account of the authorities' attitude towards the applicants. In such circumstances the Court considers that no separate issue arises under Article 13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants' mental suffering.

VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

145. 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

146. The second, third and fourth applicants claimed damages in respect of the lost wages of their husband and father, who would have supported them financially. They submitted that prior to his death Umar Zabiyev had worked as a security guard in a private company with annual income of 31,836.48 Russian roubles (RUB) (861 euros (EUR)). They provided a certificate from Umar Zabiyev's former employer confirming the amount of the income and submitted their calculations of the sums they could have expected to receive from Umar Zabiyev. The second applicant claimed RUB 271,419.36 (EUR 7,340), the third applicant claimed RUB 96,981.98 (EUR 2,622) and the fourth applicant claimed RUB 107,440.48 (EUR 2,905) in respect of pecuniary damage.
147. The first applicant submitted that she had spent a considerable amount of money on medical treatment after she

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