uring which period it has been suspended and reopened on at least eighteen occasions and has been plagued with inexplicable periods of inactivity.
115. For a period of over a year after the beginning of the investigation the authorities did no more than interview the first and seventh applicants and send a query to the Chernokozovo detention centre (see paragraphs 21 - 23 above). It does not appear that the scene of the incident was inspected at any time, or that any other essential steps were taken. Indeed, as indicated by the Government, for a period of over six years, which elapsed between the beginning of the investigation and the submission by the Government of their post-admissibility memorial, the investigation failed to establish even such basic facts surrounding the incident as whether the curfew was in place at the time of the incident, or whether the area where Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev were abducted was secured by federal check-points (see paragraph 97 above).
116. Despite the statements of the first applicant and those of her neighbour, Ms P., implicating representatives of the federal forces (see paragraphs 21 and 29 above), no meaningful attempts were made to investigate the possible involvement of federal servicemen or officers of security agencies in the disappearance of the Yansuyev brothers. Several years after the beginning of the investigation, the information concerning the possible involvement of representatives of the federal forces in the disappearance of the Yansuyev brothers had still not been checked (see paragraph 40 above). Superior prosecutors' instructions issued in that respect (see paragraphs 41, 50, 61 and 73 above) were repeatedly ignored by the investigating authorities (see paragraphs 53, 56, 66 and 72 above). The ineffectiveness of the investigation, the incompetence and manifest failure of the investigators and other law-enforcement bodies to take practical measures aimed at resolving the crime were acknowledged by superior prosecutors on several occasions (see paragraphs 40, 49, 60, 68 and 73 above).
117. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the authorities failed to carry out a thorough and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. It accordingly dismisses the Government's objection as regards the applicants' failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal proceedings, and holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on that account.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
118. The applicants complained that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relatives' disappearance and that there had been a lack of an adequate response from the authorities. They referred to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
119. The applicants stated that they were close relatives of the two abducted men. They insisted that they had suffered severe mental distress owing to the disappearance of their family members and the indifferent attitude of the State towards their situation.
120. The Government, whilst not denying that the abduction of the applicants' relatives must have caused considerable emotional distress to the applicants, submitted that there was no causal link between the authorities' actions and this distress, in the absence of any findings by the domestic investigation confirming the involvement of State agents in the aforementioned offences. According to them, the investigation obtained no evidence that the applicants had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
121. The Court reiterates that the question whether a member of the family of a "disap
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 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
