result of their relative's killing and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured profound mental suffering. Furthermore, referring to the forensic expert examination report, the applicants alleged that Umar Zabiyev had sustained an injury to his lower jaw prior to his death and that no investigation had been carried out in respect of his ill-treatment. Lastly, the first applicant complained that on 10 June 2003 she had been seriously wounded by State agents and that no effective investigation had been conducted into the incident. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
115. The Government disagreed with these allegations. They stated that the first applicant and Umar Zabiyev had not been subjected to ill-treatment by State agents and that the allegations of the ill-treatment had been investigated. They emphasised it was impossible to find a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Umar Zabiyev given that those responsible for his injuries mentioned in the forensic report of 11 June 2003 had not been identified. They further asserted that the first applicant had sustained mildly severe bodily injuries and that an investigation into their infliction had been opened, but submitted no information on progress in that investigation. The first applicant had also been granted victim status in case No. 23600032 concerning her son's killing.
116. The applicants maintained their submissions regarding the alleged ill-treatment of Umar Zabiyev, the alleged ill-treatment of the first applicant and the lack of investigation into it and the applicants' mental suffering. In their observations of 7 April 2008 on the admissibility and merits of the case they stated that they no longer wished to have their complaint concerning the lack of effective investigation into Umar Zabiyev's ill-treatment examined.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
117. The Court notes that the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) The complaint concerning Umar Zabiyev
118. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 161 in fine).
119. The Court has found it established that Umar Zabiyev died on 10 June 2003 as a result of the use of force by State servicemen (see paragraph 98 above).
120. The Court points out that neither the first applicant nor Ali Zabiyev mentioned that Umar Zabiyev had had any injuries when he had been seen alive for the last time. It further notes that the post-mortem expert examination report of 11 June 2003 confirmed the presence of numerous wounds and injuries to Umar Zabiyev's body, including a broken lower jaw. The Government provided no plausible explanation as to the origin of those injuries, which must therefore be considered attributable to a form of ill-treatment for which the authorities were responsible. The Court considers that this treatment reached the threshold of "inhuman and degrading".
121. Therefore, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Umar Zabiyev on account of the ill-treatment inflicted by State servicemen prio
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 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
