bove). However, the exact way in which he died and whether he was subjected to ill-treatment while in detention are not entirely clear and the information at the Court's disposal does not permit it to establish to the requisite standard of proof whether Bashir Mutsolgov was subjected to ill-treatment after his arrest. As to the alleged use of force against him during the arrest, the Court considers that the witness statements available to it are not consistent in that respect and do not contain conclusive evidence to support the applicants' allegations (see paragraph 9 above, and compare Bazorkina, cited above, § 132). Furthermore, the Court has doubts that the abductors' alleged actions attained the threshold of severity required by Article 3 (see ibid). In sum, the material in the case file does not lay down an evidentiary basis sufficient to enable the Court to find "beyond reasonable doubt" that the applicants' relative was subjected to ill-treatment during or after his abduction on 18 December 2003.
128. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
129. As regards the investigation of the alleged ill-treatment, the Court reiterates that Article 3 only requires the authorities to investigate allegations of ill-treatment when they are "arguable" and "raise a reasonable suspicion" (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 101 - 102, Reports 1998-VIII). Having regard to its findings that the applicants failed to lay down an arguable claim of ill-treatment of their relative, the Court considers that the procedural obligation of the authorities of the respondent Government cannot be said to have been breached (see D.E. v. Bulgaria (dec.), No. 44625/98, 1 July 2004, and Gusev v. Russia (dec.), No. 67542/01, 9 November 2006).
130. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this part of the application as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(b) The complaint concerning the applicants' moral suffering
131. The Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
132. The Court has found on many occasions that in a situation of enforced disappearance close relatives of the victim may themselves be victims of treatment in violation of Article 3. The essence of such a violation does not mainly lie in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member but rather concerns the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164).
133. In the present case, the Court observes that the missing person was a son of the first and second applicants, a brother of the third applicant and the husband and the father of the fourth and fifth applicants. Having regard to the fact that the fifth applicant was three months old at the time of Bashir Mutsolgov's disappearance, the Court considers that she cannot claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 3 (compare Musikhanova and Others v. Russia, No. 27243/03, § 81, 4 December 2008, and Dokayev and Others v. Russia, No. 16629/05, § 105, 9 April 2009). It further notes that although various enquiries and applications to the domestic authorities in connection with the disappearance of Bashir Mutsolgov appear to have been mostly made by the second and third applicants, it transpires that the first and fourth applicants, who constituted the immediate family of Bashir Mutsolgov, were also involved to a certain extent in the search for the missing man a
> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 ... 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
