carried out in reality. In this respect it cannot but observe that the grant of victim status to the third applicant appears to have had no bearing on his ability to have specific investigative measures carried out. Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicants did, in fact, complain to the courts about the alleged omissions of the investigation. Having examined the applicants' complaints, the domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction dismissed their submissions and upheld the decision to suspend the investigation, for reasons which the Court found hard to accept. In any event, the effectiveness of the investigation was undermined in its early stages by the authorities' failure to take necessary and urgent investigative measures, such as identifying and interviewing a number of eyewitnesses or inspecting the crime scene. Moreover, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of occurred, it is doubtful whether those investigative measures that ought to have been carried out much earlier could usefully be conducted. 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. It thus rejects the Government's objection in this part as well.
121. In sum, the Court is not persuaded, in the circumstances of the case, that the remedies suggested by the Government were effective. Therefore, it 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.
122. 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 Bashir Mutsolgov, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
III. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
123. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that during and after his abduction Bashir Mutsolgov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had failed to investigate that allegation. They also submitted that, as a result of their relative's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they 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
124. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants and Bashir Mutsolgov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
125. The applicants maintained their submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) The complaint concerning ill-treatment of Bashir Mutsolgov
126. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A No. 269). 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).
127. The Court has established that the applicants' relative was abducted on 18 December 2003 by State agents; that he must be presumed dead, and that the responsibility for his death lies with the State authorities (see paragraphs 105 and 107 a
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 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
