r to his death.
122. Considering that the applicants no longer wished to have an examination of their complaint in respect of the alleged deficiencies in the investigation into the infliction of injuries on Umar Zabiyev, the Court does not deem it necessary to make a separate finding under Article 3 of the Convention.
(b) The complaint concerning the first applicant's ill-treatment
(i) Compliance with Article 3
123. The Court observes at the outset that the Government admitted that the first applicant had suffered wounds to her neck and chest in the course of the armed attack of 10 June 2003 (see paragraph 14 above) and claimed that those wounds amounted to mildly severe bodily injuries. Moreover, they stated that the investigation into the infliction of the injuries was still pending.
124. The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 52, Reports 1998-IV).
125. The Court has found it established that the attack on the ZIL-130 lorry was carried out by Russian servicemen (see paragraph 98 above). Therefore, the first applicant sustained serious injuries as the result of the use of firearms by State agents. The Court considers that this treatment reached the threshold of "inhuman and degrading".
126. Therefore, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant on account of her ill-treatment by the servicemen.
(ii) Effectiveness of the investigation
127. The Court notes that the first applicant raised the complaint concerning her ill-treatment by State servicemen before the investigating authorities when describing the events of 10 June 2003. According to the Government, an investigation into the incident was opened. The Court must now assess whether that investigation met the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.
128. The Court notes at the outset that it remains unknown on what date and by which body the investigation was instituted. Nor is it clear whether it produced any tangible results. None of the documents from the investigation were disclosed by the Government. Moreover, they did not communicate to the Court the number which had been assigned to the investigation.
129. Owing to the lack of information at its disposal, the Court is not in a position to establish whether any progress has been achieved in the investigation into the infliction of injuries on the first applicant. Nonetheless, it is clear that the perpetrators have not yet been identified. Drawing inferences from the Government's refusal to provide any material from the case file or to submit at the very least a summary outline of the investigation, the Court finds that the domestic investigating authorities have failed to take requisite measures to solve the crime.
130. Having regard to the limb of the Government's objection that was joined to the merits of the complaint concerning the first applicant's ill-treatment, in so far as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation into it is still pending, the Court notes that nothing in the material submitted by the Government warrants the conclusion that the investigation has produced any results so far. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective and rejects their objection in this part.
131. The Government also mentioned in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies that the first applicant had the opportunity to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities or to complain to higher
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 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
