Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.05.2010 «Дело Джабраиловы (Dzhabrailovy) против России» [англ.]

an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 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. The alleged violation of the right to life
of Valid Dzhabrailov

70. The applicants maintained their complaint and argued that their relative had been detained and subsequently killed by State servicemen.
71. The Government stated that the investigation had found no evidence to the effect that State servicemen had been involved in the abduction and killing.
72. Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, to which no derogation is permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146 - 147, Series A No. 324, and {Avsar} v. Turkey, No. 25657/94, § 391, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
73. The Court has already found that the applicants' relative was killed following unacknowledged arrest by State servicemen. In the absence of any justification put forward by the Government, the Court finds that his death can be attributed to the State and that there has been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Valid Dzhabrailov.

B. The alleged inadequacy of the investigation
into the abduction and the subsequent killing

74. The applicants argued that the investigation had not met the requirements to be effective and adequate, as required by the Court's case-law on Article 2. They noted that it had been suspended and reopened a number of times and thus the taking of the most basic steps had been protracted, and that the applicants had not been informed properly of the most important investigative steps. They argued that the fact that the investigation had been pending for six years without producing any known results had been further proof of its ineffectiveness. The applicants invited the Court to draw its own conclusions from the Government's unjustified failure to submit the documents from the investigation file to them or to the Court.
75. The Government claimed that the investigation into the abduction and killing of Valid Dzhabrailov met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators.
76. The Court has on many occasions stated that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force. It has developed a number of guiding principles to be followed for an investigation to comply with the Convention's requirements (for a summary of these principles see Bazorkina, cited above, §§ 117 - 119).
77. In the present case, an investigation into the abduction and the killing was carried out. The Court must assess whether that investigation met the requi



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet