Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Муцолгова и другие (Mutsolgova and others) против России» [англ.]

compiling a photofit image of the abductor, which measure had been repeatedly requested by the applicants from the beginning.
89. Contrary to the Government's assertion, the applicants received no substantial information on the investigation because the domestic authorities simply informed them that an investigation was ongoing or that they had been unable to identify the perpetrators. The refusal of access to the case file had deprived the applicants from an effective opportunity to check whether all relevant investigative measures had been taken. The investigation dragged on for years and had been suspended on numerous occasions; it was only reopened because of the applicants' numerous requests to that effect.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

90. The Court reiterates, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. Further, the Court has already found that the Government's objection concerning the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic criminal remedies should be joined to the merits of the complaint (see paragraph 79 above). The complaint under Article 2 must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) The alleged violation of the right to life of Bashir Mutsolgov
(i) General principles
91. The Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, it must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances. Detained persons are in a vulnerable position and the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of a detained individual is particularly stringent where that individual dies or disappears thereafter (see, among other authorities, Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 326, 18 June 2002, and the authorities cited therein). Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in detention, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and {Cakici} v. Turkey [GC], No. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV).
(ii) Establishment of the facts
92. The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia, No. 69481/01, §§ 103 - 109, 27 July 2006). The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, § 161, Series A No. 25).
93. The applicants alleged that on 18 December 2003 their relative, Bashir Mutsolgov, had been abducted by State agents and then disappeared. The applicants were not eyewitnesses to their relative's abduction. However, they produced in support of their submission statements of eyewitnesses to the event; a detailed hand-drawn map of the place of the abduction and an information note from the criminal case file on Bashir Mutsolgov's abduction, according to which their relative was abducted by officers of law-enforcement bodies (see paragraphs 14 and 32 above). Furthermore, they referred to officer Ch.'s submissions to the investigation (their existence and content being not contested by the Government) that the abductors had produced a special passage permit, usually



> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 27 28 29

	Поделиться:	Tweet