Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.04.2010 «Дело Мутаева (Mutayeva) против России» [англ.]

and enclosed statements by four witnesses to support her submissions.
68. The Government conceded that Luiza Mutayeva had been abducted by unidentified armed men on the night of 19 January 2004. However, they denied that the abductors were servicemen, referring to the absence of conclusions from the ongoing investigation.
69. The Court notes that despite its requests for a copy of the investigation file into the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva, the Government refused to produce most of the documents from the case file, referring to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, No. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
70. 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 applicant's allegations.
71. The Government submitted that before the domestic authorities the applicant had stated that the abductors had spoken Russian and Chechen. However, no evidence was produced to support that assertion. In the materials available to the Court the applicant consistently stated that her daughter's abductors had spoken Russian. As to the lack of mention of armoured vehicles in the applicant's statements, it is observed that, besides enumerating specific vehicles, the applicant also stated that further vehicles had been present at the abduction scene; however she had not been able to memorise their models or their colours (see paragraph 11 above). In any event, the Government did not challenge the accuracy of the statements by witnesses who submitted that they had seen armoured vehicles at the applicant's gate on the night of 19 January 2004 (see paragraph 13 above). Regard being had to the statement by M.K., uncontested by the Government, to the effect that she had seen Luiza Mutayeva being taken away from her parents' house by armed men in camouflage uniforms in the night of 19 January 2004 (see paragraph 12 above), the Court does not accord important weight to the inconsistencies in the applicant's submissions concerning the year of her daughter's abduction for marriage.
72. In sum, it considers that the applicant presented an overall coherent and convincing picture of the circumstances surrounding the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva on 19 January 2004.
73. In the Court's view, the fact that a large group of armed men in uniforms, moving in a convoy of several vehicles, including armoured vehicles, was able to pass freely through checkpoints, proceeded to check identity documents in a manner similar to that of State agents and spoke unaccented Russian strongly supports the applicant's allegation that those persons were State servicemen.
74. The Court notes that in her applications to the authorities the applicant consistently maintained that Luiza Mutayeva had been detained by unknown servicemen and requested the investigating authorities to look into that possibility. It further notes that after more than five years the investigation has produced no tangible results.
75. The Court observes that where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to a lack of relevant documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicant, 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



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 17 18 19

	Поделиться:	Tweet