.
87. These factors resulted in the investigation's failure to examine all the circumstances of the girl's death, including the aspects of the police operation, as the positive obligations under Article 2 require.
88. 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 death of Summaya Abdurashidova, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
89. The applicant relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that as a result of her daughter's death and the State's failure to investigate it properly, she had endured mental suffering 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
90. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that it had not been established that the applicant's daughter's death had been caused by State agents. They also denied that there had been any deficiencies in the investigation.
91. The applicant maintained her submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
92. The Court would refer to its practice by which the application of Article 3 is usually not extended to the relatives of persons who have been killed by the authorities in violation of Article 2 (see Yasin {Ates} v. Turkey, No. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005) or to cases of unjustified use of lethal force by State agents (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, Nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 229, 24 February 2005), as opposed to the relatives of the victims of enforced disappearances. In such cases the Court would normally limit its findings to Article 2. In the present case the Court did not find that the applicant's daughter had been killed by State agents and considers that the grievances expressed by the applicant are covered by its above findings under the substantive and procedural headings of Article 2.
93. It therefore concludes that, even if this complaint were to be declared admissible, there is no need to examine it separately.
III. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to the Convention
94. The applicant further stated that her house and property had been damaged during the security operation on 14 March 2005. She invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads, in so far as relevant:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. ..."
A. The parties' submissions
95. First, the Government stressed that the applicant had failed to seek damages from the State or from third parties through civil proceedings, and therefore had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Government then contended that the damage to the house had been partly caused by the explosions of hand grenades employed by the two criminal suspects and that the State could therefore not be held responsible for it. They further argued that the documents obtained during the investigation demonstrated that some parts of the house had been unfinished and uninhabitable and that the load-bearing walls and roof had not suffered any significant damage. Furthermore, the valuables collected by the investigator during the search on 14 March 2005 had been returned to the applicant after she had signed for them. No other valuables or documents had been collected.
96. The applicant reiterated the complaint.
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 16 ... 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
