128. Having regard to the Government's failure to plausibly refute the applicants' allegations, the Court finds that there has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Murad Gelayev.
(ii) Effective investigation
129. The Court notes that the applicants complained to the investigators that Murad Gelayev had been ill-treated after his abduction (see paragraphs 32, 35, 52, 56, 57, 63, 64 and 78 above). However, it does not appear that these allegations were properly examined by the investigating authorities.
130. For the reasons stated above in paragraphs 110 and 113 in relation to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court concludes that the Government have failed to conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment of Murad Gelayev.
131. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 also in this respect.
B. The complaint concerning the ill-treatment of the second
and fourth applicants on 27 February 2000
1. The parties' submissions
132. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the second and fourth applicants had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. They pointed out that the second applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been examined and rejected by the investigators as unsubstantiated.
133. The applicants maintained their submission.
2. The Court's assessment
(a) Admissibility
(i) The complaint in respect of the fourth applicant
134. The Court observes that the documents before it indicate in broad terms that the fourth applicant had been hit by the abductors. However, the description of the beating was not specific or detailed enough to draw conclusions concerning the degree of the alleged ill-treatment. In addition, it does not appear that this complaint has ever been raised before the domestic authorities. The Court is therefore unable to establish, to the necessary standard of proof, that the fourth applicant was ill-treated by Russian servicemen, and finds that this complaint has not been substantiated (see, for a similar situation, Dangayeva and Taramova v. Russia, No. 1896/04, §§ 103 - 104, 8 January 2009, Gaziyeva and Others v. Russia, No. 15439/05, §§ 92 - 93, 9 April 2009 and Dokayev and Others v. Russia, No. 16629/05, § 101, 9 April 2009).
135. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(ii) The complaint in respect of the second applicant
136. The Court observes that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the second applicant 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
(i) The alleged ill-treatment
137. The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 52, Reports 1998-IV).
138. The evidence submitted shows that during the abduction on 27 February 2000 the servicemen who had taken the second applicant's son away subjected her to beatings (see paragraphs 62, 65 and 74 above), as a result of which she applied for medical assistance (see paragraphs 14 and 85 above). The Government co
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
