al expert who had examined the body indicated that the death had been caused by splinters from an explosive device (see paragraphs 33, 37 and 39 - 41 above). These documents and statements appear coherent and the Court does not discern any reasons to question their credibility. The investigation found that the two criminal suspects had used hand grenades against the police officers; safety pins from grenades were found in the house. The police had used firearms and the two suspects' deaths had been caused by bullet wounds (see paragraph 39 above). There is no mention in any of the descriptions of the events that the security forces used explosive devices against the two suspects. The applicant did not allege this either. Thus, the domestic investigation concluded that the child's death had resulted from the actions of the two criminal suspects who had been killed during the operation. Although many aspects of the domestic investigation are open to criticism (see below), the Court cannot find its conclusions to be so faulty as to reject them altogether as "defying logic" or improbable (contrast Beker v. Turkey, No. 27866/03, §§ 51 - 52, 24 March 2009).
70. The Court further notes that pursuant to the decision taken by the applicant and her family, no autopsy of the body was conducted. In the note signed by the applicant's sister-in-law on 14 March 2005 the decision not to conduct an autopsy was justified by the fact that there was no need to establish the cause of death since the family was aware of it (see paragraph 43 above); therefore, it appears that the family accepted the forensic expert's conclusion that the death had resulted from splinter wounds. While fully appreciating that this choice was made under the influence of a shock following tragic and traumatic events, the Court notes that it resulted in the absence of a document which could have provided a complete and accurate record of injuries and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII).
71. In such circumstances the Court finds that it has not been established to the required standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" that the security forces were directly responsible for the death of Summaya Abdurashidova.
72. Accordingly, the Court finds no direct State responsibility, and thus no violation of Article 2 of the Convention in this respect.
(b) The alleged failure to safeguard the right to life of Summaya Abdurashidova
73. The Court has not found it established that State agents were responsible for the death of the applicant's daughter. However, this does not necessarily preclude the responsibility of the Government under Article 2 of the Convention (see {Osmanoglu} v. Turkey, No. 48804/99, § 71, 24 January 2008). According to the established case-law of the Court, the first sentence of Article 2 § 1 enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III). The State's obligation in this respect extends beyond its primary duty to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions. Article 2 of the Convention may also imply a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports 1998-VIII).
74. In this connection the Court reiterates that, in the light of the difficulties in policing modern
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 16 17 18