ng circumstances. However, the Court's findings above in relation to Article 2 and, in particular, the conduct of the investigation leave no doubt that the authorities failed to take prompt and effective measures to safeguard him against the risk of disappearance.
100. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Balavdi Ustarkhanov was held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5. This constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.
VI. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention
101. The applicant alleged that the disappearance of her son after his detention by the State authorities caused her distress and anguish which had amounted to a violation of their right to family life. She referred to Article 8 of the Convention, which as far as relevant provides:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence..."
102. The applicant's complaint concerning her inability to enjoy family life with her son Balavdi Ustarkhanov concerns the same facts as those examined above under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings under these provisions, the Court considers that this complaint should be declared admissible. However, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article 8 of the Convention in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruianu v. Romania, No. 34647/97, § 66, 17 June 2003; Laino v. Italy [GC], No. 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999-I; and Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 16 December 1997, § 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII).
VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
103. The applicant complained that she had been deprived of effective remedies in respect of the aforementioned violations, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
A. The parties' submissions
104. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention and that the authorities did not prevent her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to lodge a civil claim for compensation and challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.
105. The applicants reiterated their complaint.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
106. 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 it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
107. The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. According to the Court's settled case-law, the effect of Article 13 of the Convention is to require the provision of a remedy at national level allowing the competent domestic authority both to deal with the substance of a relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they comply with their obligations under this provision. However, such a remedy is only required in respect of grieva
> 1 2 3 ... 31 32 33 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
