Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.07.2010 <Дело Бенуева и другие (Benuyeva and others) против России» [англ.]

lodged civil claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, but had failed to do so.
79. The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had been pending for more than six years without producing any meaningful results and thus had proved to be ineffective. Moreover, they pointed out that their court complaint had produced no positive results. The applicants further asserted that civil remedies were ineffective in the circumstances of the case.

B. The Court's assessment

80. The Court will examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia, No. 60272/00, §§ 73 - 74, 12 October 2006).
81. The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies.
82. As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 119 - 21, 24 February 2005). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies.
83. As regards criminal-law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that the applicants complained to the law-enforcement authorities immediately after the kidnapping of Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev and that an investigation into it has been pending since 27 November 2002. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation.
84. The Court considers that this part of the Government's objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints. Thus, it decides to join this objection to the merits of the case and considers that the issue falls to be examined below.

II. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

85. The applicants complained that Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev had been arrested by Russian servicemen and then disappeared and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

A. Arguments of the parties

1. The Government

86. The Government argued that it had not been proven that the applicants' relatives had been abducted by State agents. Their dead bodies had not been discover



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 17 18 19

	Поделиться:	Tweet