t notes that from the submitted materials it follows that the investigation was suspended in March 2003 and then resumed in March 2008, that is, the investigation was inactive for almost five years, which was acknowledged in May 2008 by the supervising prosecutor who instructed the investigators to take certain steps (see paragraph 50 above). It is unclear whether his instructions were complied with.
84. Having regard to the limb of the Government's preliminary objection that was joined to the merits of the complaint, inasmuch as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court notes that the investigation, having being repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been under way for many years and has 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.
85. 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 Balavdi Ustarkhanov, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
86. The applicant relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that as a result of her son'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
87. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
88. The applicant maintained her submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
89. The Court notes that this 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
90. 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).
91. In the present case the Court notes that the applicant is the mother of the disappeared person. For more than six years she has not had any news of the missing man. During this period the applicant has made enquiries to various official bodies, both in writing and in person, about her missing son. 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 his 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.
92. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention also in respect of the applicant.
V. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention
93. The applicant further stated that Balavdi Ustarkhanov had been detained in viol
> 1 2 3 ... 29 30 31 ... 34 35 36
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
