nov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 117, Reports 1998-VIII; 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 Orhan, cited above, § 384).
137. As regards the applicants' complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention, the Court has held in a number of similar cases that in circumstances where, as in the present case, the criminal investigation into the death was ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including the civil remedies, was consequently undermined, the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Musayeva and Others v. Russia, No. 74239/01, § 118, 26 July 2007, or Kukayev, cited above, § 117). It therefore rejects the Government's argument that the applicants had effective remedies afforded to them by criminal or civil law and finds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in connection with Article 2 of the Convention.
138. As regards the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, the Court notes that it has found above that they endured severe mental suffering on account of, inter alia, the authorities' inadequate investigation into their relatives' disappearance (see paragraphs 123 - 124 above). It has also found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in connection with Article 2 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective remedies in a situation, such as the applicants' one, where the investigation was ineffective. Having regard to these findings, the Court is of the opinion that the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 is subsumed by those under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention. It therefore does not consider it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention.
139. Lastly, as regards the applicants' reference to Article 5 of the Convention, the Court refers to its findings of a violation of this provision set out above. It considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, which itself contains a number of procedural guarantees related to the lawfulness of detention.
VII. Compliance with Article 38 of the Convention
140. The applicants stated that the State's failure to submit the criminal investigation file was in violation of their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which in its relevant part provided as follows:
"1. If the Court declares the application admissible, it shall
(a) pursue the examination of the case, together with the representatives of the parties, and if need be, undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities;
..."
141. The Court notes that as from 1 June 2010, following the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, Article 38 of the Convention reads as follows:
"The Court shall examine the case together with the representatives of the parties and, if need be, undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the High Contracting Parties concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities."
142. The Government argued that under Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure disclosure of the documents, other than those they had already submitted to the Court, was contrary to the interests of the investigation and could entail a breach of the rights of the participants in the criminal proceedings. They also submitted that they had taken into account the p
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 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
