t being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged acts or omissions of investigating authorities before a court. Furthermore, the Court emphasises in this respect that while the adjourning or reopening of proceedings is not in itself a sign that the proceedings are ineffective, in the present case the decisions to adjourn were made without the necessary investigative steps being taken, which led to periods of inactivity and thus unnecessary protraction. Moreover, owing to the delay in the opening of the investigation and the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain measures that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer usefully be conducted. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the remedy relied on would have had any prospects of success.
71. 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 Khasan Yusupov, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
72. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relative's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they 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
73. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
74. The applicants maintained their submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
75. The Court reiterates that it has already found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of relatives of missing persons in a series of cases concerning the phenomenon of "disappearances" in the Chechen Republic (see, for example, Luluyev and Others, cited above, §§ 117 - 18; Khamila Isayeva v. Russia, No. 6846/02, §§ 143 - 45, 15 November 2007; and Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, §§ 107 - 10, 15 November 2007). It is noteworthy, however, that in those cases the State was found to be responsible for the disappearance of the applicants' relatives. In the present case, by contrast, the applicants did not claim, until submission of their additional observations in 2008, that the Russian authorities were implicated in the kidnapping (see paragraph 51 above). Nor did they make this claim to the investigating authorities in Russia. In such circumstances the Court considers that this case is clearly distinguishable from those mentioned above and therefore concludes that the State cannot be held responsible for the applicants' mental distress caused by the commission of the crime itself.
76. Furthermore, the Court is not persuaded that the investigating authorities' conduct in this case, albeit negligent to the extent that it has breached Article 2 in its procedural aspect, could in itself have caused the applicants mental distress in excess of the minimum level of severity which is necessary in order to consider treatment as falling within the scope of Article 3 (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], No. 26307/95, § 239, ECHR 2004-III, and {Tekdag} v. Turkey, No. 27699/95, § 86, 15 January 2004).
77. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
V. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
78. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of effective remedies in r
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 ... 13
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
