e night of her brother's abduction. In the absence of any document confirming her allegations, the Court is bound to conclude that the second applicant's complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment is unsubstantiated.
133. It follows that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(c) The complaint concerning the applicants' mental suffering
134. The Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
135. The Court observes that the question whether a family member of a "disappeared person" is a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 will depend on the existence of special factors which give the applicants' suffering 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 directly to be a victim of the authorities' conduct (see Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164).
136. In the present case the Court notes that Sayd-Selim Benuyev is a son of the first applicant and a sibling of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants, while Abu Zhanalayev is a son of the ninth and tenth applicants and a sibling of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth applicants. It appears from the documents at the Court's disposal that it was only the first and tenth applicants who made various applications and enquiries to the domestic authorities in connection with their sons' disappearance. The Court accepts in principle that the ninth applicant, Abu Zhanalayev's father, may be regarded as having taken part in the search for his son together with his wife. It notes at the same time that no evidence has been submitted to the Court that the missing men's siblings were in any manner involved in the search for Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev (see, by contrast, Luluyev and Others, cited above, § 112). In such circumstances, the Court, while accepting that the events of 24 November 2002 might have been a source of considerable distress to the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants, and to the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth applicants, is nevertheless unable to conclude that their mental and emotional suffering was distinct from the inevitable emotional distress in a situation such as in the present case and that it was so serious that it fell within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention (see Saydaliyeva and Others v. Russia, No. 41498/04, § 124, 2 April 2009, and Malsagova and Others v. Russia, No. 27244/03, § 133, 9 April 2009).
137. As regards the first, ninth and tenth applicants, the Court notes that for more than seven years they have not had any news of their sons. During this period the first and tenth applican
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
