journed and resumed on several occasions. It also appears that there were lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the prosecuting authorities when no investigative measures were being taken.
76. Having regard to the limb of the Government's preliminary objection that was joined to the merits of the complaint, the Court notes that the investigation, having being repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been pending for many years, having produced no tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection.
77. 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 Mr Abu Aliyev, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
III. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
78. The applicant relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this respect. She also complained that as a result of her husband's disappearance 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
79. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention by State agents. Likewise, since it had not been established by the domestic investigation that Mr Abu Aliyev had been abducted by State agents, the applicant's mental suffering could not be imputable to the State.
80. The applicant maintained her submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
81. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that the complaint is not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) The complaint concerning Mr Abu Aliyev
i. General principles
82. In so far as the applicant complained that her husband had been ill-treated when abducted, the Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. 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, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A No. 25, pp. 64 - 65, § 161 in fine).
83. The Court reiterates that "where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation" (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
ii. The alleged ill-treatment
84. The Court notes that the applicant herself and her neighbour, Ms B., witnessed her husband's abduction. They saw that the servicemen took Mr Abu Aliyev, who
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
