peared person" is a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 will depend on the existence of special factors which give the suffering of the applicants a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human rights violation. Relevant elements will include the proximity of the family tie, the particular circumstances of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed the events in question, the involvement of the family member in the attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person and the way in which the authorities responded to those enquiries. The Court would further emphasise that the essence of such a violation does not mainly lie in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member but rather concerns the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention. It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim to be a direct victim of the authorities' conduct (see, among other authorities, Orhan, cited above, § 358).
122. In the present case, the Court observes that the two missing persons were sons of the first two applicants and brothers of the sixth applicant. The fourth applicant was Isa Yansuyev's wife, and the seventh, third and fifth applicants were respectively the wife and children of Ilyas Yansuyev. For more than seven years the applicants have not had any news of Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev, during which period the first, fourth and seventh applicants, on behalf of the other applicants, have applied to various official bodies with enquiries about the Yansuyev brothers, both in writing and in person. Despite their attempts, the applicants have never received any plausible explanation or information as to what became of their family members following their abduction. The responses received by the applicants mostly denied that the State was responsible for their arrest or simply informed them that an investigation was ongoing. The Court's findings under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are also of direct relevance here.
123. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants suffered distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their family members and their inability to find out what had happened to them. The manner in which their complaints have been dealt with by the authorities must be considered to constitute inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3.
124. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account.
V. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention
125. The applicants complained that the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention as a whole, related to the lawfulness of detention and guarantees against arbitrary detention, had been violated in respect of Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. Article 5, in its relevant parts, provides as follows:
"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
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 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
