tated that she had seen only ten armed men. However, the Court sees no contradiction in that when Ms B. had glanced out the window she had only seen ten out of the thirty abductors.
55. The Government further asserted that the applicant's allegations that the abductors had arrived in APCs were not supported by other witnesses. Furthermore, she did not mention any specific military insignia and, in the Government's view, the described conduct of the abductors did not correspond to that of servicemen. The Court notes with regard to the first argument that, indeed, no other witness had seen the APCs. Several witnesses had only heard the sound of unspecified vehicles. However, the Court considers that neither argument refutes the applicant's contention that the abductors were servicemen, for the following reasons.
56. The Court notes that the parties disagreed as to whether there had been curfew in Grozny at the time of the abduction. The Government submitted that there had been none, but conceded that checkpoints had been operating. They enclosed a letter from the UGA commander to corroborate their submissions. The applicant maintained that there had been curfew and referred to, in particular, the cases of Dangayeva and Taramova (cited above, § 81) and Dokayev and Others (cited above, § 72) where the Court had established that curfew had been operating in Grozny on 23 October and 10 December 2002 respectively. Having regard to the cases cited, the Court finds it unlikely that the curfew in Grozny should be lifted and re-imposed during such a relatively short period in 2002. It also notes that the Government did not provide copies of any relevant orders. However, the Court is not called upon to decide on this issue in the present case since it is not in dispute between the parties that checkpoints in Grozny were operating at the time of the abduction.
57. The Court observes that, apart from the applicant's account, the circumstances of Mr Abu Aliyev's abduction were described in concordant statements of several witnesses, including Ms B., the applicant's neighbour, and Ms A., the applicant's daughter. In the Court's view, the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform in several vehicles, even if those were not the APCs, was able to pass freely through checkpoints, proceeded to search the apartment and spoke unaccented Russian suffices to corroborate the applicant's allegation that they were State servicemen.
58. The Court also notes that in her applications to the authorities the applicant consistently maintained that Mr Abu Aliyev had been detained by unknown servicemen and requested the investigating authorities to look into that possibility. It further notes that after seven years the domestic investigation has produced no tangible results.
59. The Court reiterates that where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to the lack of such documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicant, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see {Togcu} v. Turkey, No. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, No. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
60. Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a prima facie case that her husband was detained by State servicemen. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of the special forces in the abduction is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
