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

is possible involvement in the terrorist activities of illegal armed groups.
59. The Government denied the involvement of State representatives in the abduction of the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov and the subsequent killing of the latter. In particular, they contended that the place of the discovery of Valid Dzhabrailov's body could not in any way indicate the involvement of the military in the incident; that the abductors' camouflage uniforms and the sound of military vehicles and helicopters heard by the first applicant did not mean that the Dzhabrailov brothers had been detained on a military base; that the first applicant's medical documents certifying the injuries received as a result of the abduction had been obtained by him some time after the events and therefore cannot corroborate his allegations of ill-treatment. At the same time the Government neither submitted their version of the events of 16 - 18 February 2003 nor the possible reasons for the abduction of the Dzhabrailov brothers and the subsequent killing of Valid Dzhabrailov.

B. The Court's evaluation of the facts

60. The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in a dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia, No. 69481/01, §§ 103 - 109, 27 July 2006). It also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 5310/71 § 161, 18 January 1978). In view of this and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in respect of the well-foundedness of the applicants' allegations. The Court will thus proceed to examine crucial elements in the present case that should be taken into account when deciding whether the abduction of the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov and the subsequent death of the latter can be attributed to the authorities.
61. The applicants alleged that the persons who had abducted the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov on 16 February 2003 and then killed the latter had been State agents. The Government did not dispute the main factual elements underlying the application and did not provide any explanation of the events.
62. The Court notes that the applicants' version of the events is supported by the witness statements collected by the applicants and by the investigation. The applicants stated that the perpetrators had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation - they had checked the identity documents, they had spoken Russian among themselves and to the residents. In their applications and statements to the authorities the applicants consistently maintained that the abduction and the subsequent killing had been perpetrated by military servicemen and asked the investigation to look into that possibility (see paragraphs 31 - 33 above).
63. The Court finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform equipped with a number of vehicles proceeded to check identity documents and arrest the Dzhabrailov brothers at their home in a town area strongly supports the applicants' allegation that these were State servicemen. The domestic investigation also accepted factual assumptions as presented by the applicants, but it does not appear that any steps have been taken to verify the involvement of State servicemen in the abduction and the subsequent killing.
64. The Court reiterates that the evidentiary standard required for the purposes of the Convention is proof "beyond reasonable doubt", and that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. The Court has also



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet