y explanation for his disappearance, and the official investigation into his kidnapping, which has been dragging on for more than six years, has produced no known results.
105. Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish that Bashir Mutsolgov must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State agents.
(iii) The State's compliance with Article 2
106. The Court reiterates that Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, from which no derogation is permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146 - 47, Series A No. 324, and {Avsar} v. Turkey, No. 25657/94, § 391, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
107. The Court has already found that Bashir Mutsolgov must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State agents. Noting that the authorities did not rely on any ground capable of justifying the use of lethal force by their agents or otherwise accounting for his death, it follows that the responsibility for his presumed death is attributable to the respondent Government.
108. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Bashir Mutsolgov.
(b) The alleged inadequacy of the investigation into the abduction
109. The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I). The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or was otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, No. 24746/94, §§ 105 - 09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
110. The Court notes at the outset that the documents from the investigation were not disclosed by the Government. The Court therefore has to assess the effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by the applicants and the information on its progress presented by the Government.
111. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes, and this is not contested by the parties, that the applicants immediately put the authorities on notice about the abduction of Bashir Mutsolgov (see paragraphs 17, 25 and 26 above). However it took the town prosecutor's office seven days to launch the investigation because during that period of time they were allegedly waiting for confirmation from the Ingushetiya department of the FSB as to whether office
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 27 28 29
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
