Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Гелаевы (Gelayevy) против России» [англ.]

s of the next of kin in the proceedings.
115. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation was suspended and resumed eight times and that there were lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the prosecutor's office when no proceedings were pending. The supervising prosecutors criticised deficiencies in the proceedings and ordered remedial measures. It appears that their instructions were not complied with.
116. The Government argued that the applicants could have sought judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes that the applicants, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged acts or omissions of investigating authorities before a court. Furthermore, the Court emphasises in this respect that while the suspension or reopening of proceedings is not in itself a sign that the proceedings are ineffective, in the present case the suspension decisions were taken without the necessary investigative steps, leading to numerous periods of inactivity and thus unnecessary protraction. Moreover, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative measures that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer usefully be conducted. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the remedy relied on would have had any prospects of success. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy cited by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation.
117. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Murad Gelayev, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.

IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

118. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that during the abduction of Murad Gelayev, the second and fourth applicants were subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. They further contended that Murad Gelayev was subjected to torture contrary to Article 3 of the Convention following the abduction, while at the hands of State agents. They further complained that the Russian authorities failed to comply with the procedural obligations arising from Article 3 to investigate these alleged instances of ill-treatment and torture. Article 3 reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. Alleged violation of Article 3 in respect
of Murad Gelayev

1. The parties' submissions

119. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Murad Gelayev had been subjected to any treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
120. The applicants maintained their submission.

2. The Court's assessment

(a) Admissibility
121. The Court notes that 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.
(b) Merits
122. In so far as the applicants complained of the alleged torture of Murad Gelayev following his abduction, the Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexiste



> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet