noted the difficulty for the applicants to obtain the necessary evidence in support of allegations in cases where the respondent Government are in possession of the relevant documentation and fail to submit it. Where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to the lack of such documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see {Togcu} v. Turkey, No. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, No. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
65. Taking into account the above-mentioned elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov were detained by State servicemen. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of State representatives in the abduction and the subsequent killing is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government's failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide any explanation of the events in question, the Court considers that the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov were arrested on 16 February 2003 at their home by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation and that Valid Dzhabrailov was subsequently killed by State servicemen.
66. The Court has already noted above that it has been unable to benefit from the results of the domestic investigation, owing to the Government's failure to disclose most of the documents from the investigation file. Nevertheless, it is clear that the investigation did not identify the perpetrators of the abduction and the subsequent killing. As it follows from the documents and information submitted by the Government, as late as January 2009, almost six years after the crime had occurred and the investigation had been opened, the most basic investigative steps had still not been taken (see paragraphs 40 and 45 above).
67. Furthermore, in a case involving abduction and a subsequent killing, the Court finds it particularly regrettable that there should have been no thorough investigation of the relevant facts by the domestic prosecutors or courts. The few documents submitted by the Government from the investigation file opened by the prosecutor's office do not suggest any progress in six years and, if anything, show the incomplete and inadequate nature of those proceedings. Moreover, the stance of the prosecutor's office and the other law-enforcement authorities after the circumstances of the abduction had been communicated to them by the applicants, contributed significantly to the subsequent killing, because no necessary steps were taken in the crucial first hours and days after the arrest. The authorities' behaviour in the face of the applicants' well-substantiated complaints gives rise to a strong presumption of at least acquiescence in the situation and raises strong doubts as to the objectivity of the investigation.
68. Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish that the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov were abducted by State servicemen and that Valid Dzhabrailov was subsequently killed by them.
III. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention
69. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that Valid Dzhabrailov had been abducted and subsequently killed by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
