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

ove). The complaint under Article 2 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) The alleged violation of the right to life of Mr Abu Aliyev
i. General principles
48. The Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, it must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances. Detained persons are in a vulnerable position and the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of a detained individual is particularly stringent where that individual dies or disappears thereafter (see, among other authorities, Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 326, 18 June 2002, and the authorities cited therein). Where the events in issue lie wholly or in large part within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in detention, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and {Cakici} v. Turkey [GC], No. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV).
ii. Establishment of the facts
49. The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia, No. 69481/01, §§ 103 - 109, 27 July 2006). The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A No. 25).
50. The applicant alleged that on the night of 29 October 2002 her husband, Mr Abu Aliyev, was abducted by Russian servicemen and then disappeared. She invited the Court to draw inferences as to the well-foundedness of her allegations from the Government's failure to provide the documents requested from them. She said that she had witnessed Mr Abu Aliyev's abduction and provided a coherent account of the sequence of events. The applicant also enclosed a witness statement by her neighbour Ms B. to support her account of the events.
51. The Government conceded that Mr Abu Aliyev had been abducted by unknown armed men on the night of 29 October 2002. However, they denied that the abductors were State servicemen and, consequently, that the State was responsible for the disappearance of the applicant's husband.
52. The Court notes that despite its repeated requests for a copy of the investigation file into the abduction of Mr Abu Aliyev, the Government, relying on Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have produced no documents from the case files apart from several copies of procedural decisions. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, No. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
53. In view of this, and bearing in mind the principles cited above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in this respect. It considers that the applicant has presented a coherent and convincing picture of her husband's abduction on the night of 29 October 2002. It observes that the Government did not deny that Mr Abu Aliyev had been abducted by armed men, although they did deny that the men were State agents.
54. The Government argued that the applicant's submissions were inconsistent. In particular, while according to her there had been approximately thirty abductors, Ms B. s



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 15 16 17

	Поделиться:	Tweet