granted victim status in the criminal case concerning the abduction of their relatives, they were only informed of the suspension and resumption of the proceedings, and not of any other significant developments. Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, and to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings.
105. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation was adjourned and resumed on numerous occasions and that there were lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the prosecutor's office when the proceedings were suspended. The district court criticised the deficiencies in the proceedings and ordered remedial measures (see paragraph 44 above). It appears that its instructions were not complied with.
106. The Government argued that the applicants could have sought further judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes that the applicants did, in fact, make use of that remedy, which eventually led to the resumption of the investigation. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the investigation had already been undermined in its early stages by the authorities' failure to take essential investigative measures. Moreover, the district court's instructions to the prosecutor's office to investigate the crime effectively did not bring any tangible results for the applicants. The investigation was repeatedly suspended and resumed, but it appears that no significant investigative measures were taken to identify those responsible for the kidnapping. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants could not be required to challenge in court every single decision of the district prosecutor's office. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy cited by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection as regards the applicants' failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation.
107. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
108. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that after their arrest Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and that the State had failed to investigate the applicants' allegations about it in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
109. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
110. The applicants maintained their submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
Ill-treatment of the applicants' relatives
111. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 161 in fine).
112. The Court has already found that Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev were detained on 29 January 2003 by federal forces and th
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 18 19 20