nt, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see {Togcu} v. Turkey, No. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, No. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
104. Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their two relatives were detained by State agents. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of special forces in the abduction is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. The Court is also sceptical about the Government's assertion of the possible involvement of some private individuals in the abduction of Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev, given that this allegation was not specific and was not supported by any materials. Drawing inferences from the Government's failure to submit any documents from the criminal investigation file which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court finds it established that Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev were detained on 13 February 2003 by State agents.
105. The Court further notes that there has been no reliable news of the applicants' two relatives since that date. Their names have not been found in the official records of any detention facilities. The domestic investigation into the Yansuyev brothers' disappearance, dragging on for over seven years, has not made any meaningful findings regarding their fate. Lastly, the Government did not submit any explanation as to what had happened to the applicants' relatives after they had been detained.
106. Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of people in Chechnya which have come before the Court (see, among other cases, Luluyev and Others v. Russia, No. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Imakayeva, cited above; and Baysayeva v. Russia, No. 74237/01, 5 April 2007), the Court considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev or any news of them for over seven years by now corroborates this assumption. In the light of these considerations and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, and more specifically the considerable lapse of time since the applicants' two relatives went missing, the Court finds that they must be presumed dead following unacknowledged detention by State agents.
107. In the absence of any plausible explanation on the part of the Government as to the circumstances of the deaths of Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev, the Court further finds that the Government have not accounted for the deaths of the applicants' two relatives during their detention and that the respondent State's responsibility for these deaths is therefore engaged.
108. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in this connection.
B. Alleged inadequacy of the investigation
1. Submissions by the parties
109. The applicants submitted that the investigation in the present case had fallen short of the requirements of Convention standards. They pointed out that the Government had withheld information regarding the investigation by refusing to provide the file of the criminal investigation. The applicants further argued that the investigation had been pending for several years, being repeatedly suspended and reopened but with no tangible results. In their submission, the authorities had failed to inform them of the progress in
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 21 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
