Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.02.2010 «Дело Алиева (Aliyeva) против России» [англ.]

had had one leg amputated, and dragged him into the street in the night in late October in only his underwear.
85. It further notes the Government's submission that the domestic investigation had not established that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court observes, however, that despite its repeated requests the Government did not provide a copy of the investigation file, having failed to adduce sufficient reasons for the refusal (see paragraph 52 above), and finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in this respect.
86. The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, amongst other authorities, the Tekin v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 52).
87. The Court has found it established that Mr Abu Aliyev was abducted on 29 October 2002 by State agents. The evidence submitted shows that he, a disabled person, was dragged outside by armed men at night in cold weather with only his underwear on. The Court considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, this treatment reached the threshold of "inhuman and degrading" since it not only made Abu Aliyev suffer from cold, but must have made him feel humiliated, defenceless and caused fear and anguish as to what might happen to him.
88. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Abu Aliyev.
iii. Effective investigation
89. The Court notes that the domestic investigation instituted in relation to Mr Abu Aliyev's abduction produced no tangible results. For the reasons stated above in paragraphs 67 - 77 in relation to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment of Mr Abu Aliyev.
90. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 also in this respect.
(b) The complaint concerning the applicant's mental suffering
91. 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).
92. In the present case the Court notes that the applicant is the wife of the disappeared person and that she witnessed his abduction. For seven years she has not had any news of him. During this period the applicant has made enquiries to various official bodies, both in writing and in person, about her husband. Despite her attempts, the applicant has never received any plausible explanation or information about what became of him following his detention. The responses she received mostly denied State responsibility for her husband's arrest or simply informed her that the investigation was ongoing. The Court's findings under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are also of direct relevance here.
93. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention also in respect of the applicant.

IV. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention

94. The applicant further stated that Mr Abu Aliyev had been detained in violation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention, which reads, in so fa



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 15 16 17

	Поделиться:	Tweet