Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.05.2010 «Дело Шахабова (Shakhabova) против России» [англ.]

n to the merits of the case and considers that the issue falls to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

81. The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that her son had disappeared after being detained by State agents and that the investigation into his disappearance had not been effective. 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. Submissions by the parties

82. The Government submitted that the investigation was pending and that it had obtained no evidence that Adam Khurayev had been abducted by State agents or that any State authorities had conducted a special operation in Urus-Martan on the night of his abduction. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Adam Khurayev was dead. The investigation had failed to identify any eyewitnesses to the abduction. In particular, whilst the applicant had named M.M. as a witness, the latter had confirmed to the investigators that she had not witnessed the abduction. None of the persons interviewed by the investigators had seen the APC or UAZ vehicles mentioned by the applicant in her application form; they had only heard about them from neighbours. When interviewed by the investigators, M.M. had failed to give the addresses of her neighbours "Zulay" and "Tamusa", who had allegedly seen the military vehicles. Furthermore, Zara S., who was allegedly known as "Tamusa", stated that she had not seen any military vehicles. Only M.Ch. claimed to have seen several vehicles, but she had been unable to provide any particular details. Although A.M. claimed to have seen an APC and two UAZ vehicles, she had not witnessed the abduction of the applicant's son. Furthermore, there were inconsistencies in the applicant's and M.M.'s submissions concerning the abduction. In particular, whilst in the application form the applicant stated that she had learnt about the abduction from her son Arbi while she was in Nazran, she had told the investigators that she had been in Urus-Martan on the night of the abduction. In a statement appended to the application form M.M. submitted that she had been in Urus-Martan on 23 November 2002. At the same time, when interviewed by the investigators, she submitted that she had come to Urus-Martan together with Adam Khurayev.
83. The Government further argued that the investigation into the abduction of the applicant's son met the Convention requirement of effectiveness. It was being conducted by an independent authority, which had examined various theories of the abduction, had sent requests for information to numerous State bodies and had checked several detention centres. The investigators had interviewed numerous witnesses, inspected the crime scene and examined detention logs of the ROVD. The applicant had been duly notified of the progress in the investigation. Although the investigation had been suspended and resumed on numerous occasions, this fact did not detract from its effectiveness.
84. The applicant submitted that there existed a bulk of evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that her son had been abducted by State agents and was to be presumed dead following his abduction. She consider



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 19 20 21

	Поделиться:	Tweet