special forces in the attack on the Zabiyevs' lorry that led to the first applicant's injuries and Umar Zabiyev's killing is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government's failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court considers it established that the first applicant was wounded and Umar Zabiyev was killed by State servicemen on 10 June 2003.
(b) The State's compliance with Article 2
99. The Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, it must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 147).
100. The Court has already found it established that Umar Zabiyev was killed by State servicemen (see paragraph 98 above). Since the authorities did not rely on any grounds to justify the use of lethal force by their agents or otherwise account for the killing, the Court considers that liability for the death is attributable to the respondent Government.
101. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Umar Zabiyev.
(c) Alleged inadequacy of the investigation
102. The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, § 86, Reports 1998-I). The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family and carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition. It should also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and should afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, No. 24746/94, §§ 105 - 09, ECHR 2001-III, and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
103. In the present case, the murder of Umar Zabiyev was investigated. The Court must assess whether that investigation met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.
104. The Court notes at the outset that the information on the course of the investigation at its disposal is extremely sparse because the documents from the case file remain undisclosed by the Government.
105. The Government vaguely referred to investigative steps taken to solve the murder of Umar Zabiyev. For instance, they stated that the investigators had sent a number of orders to various State agencies (see paragraphs 43 - 45, 49 and 50 above). However, they did not clarify the nature of those orders and did not indicate what aim the district prosecutor's office had pursued when sending them. Hence, it remains unclear whether the orders in question could have contributed in any manner to the overall effectiveness of the investigation.
106. The Court further points out that such a basic investigative step as a dactylographic expert examination of the servicemen of military
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
