that no reliable news of them has been received since. It has also found that, in view of all the known circumstances, they can be presumed dead and that the responsibility for their deaths lies with the State authorities (see paragraph 112 above). However, questions remain as to the exact way in which they died and whether they were subjected to ill-treatment following their abduction. The Court considers that the materials at its disposal do not enable it to find beyond all reasonable doubt that Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov were ill-treated in detention. It thus finds that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention has not been substantiated.
132. 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.
(b) The complaint concerning the applicants' mental suffering
133. The Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention 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
134. The Court observes that the question whether a member of the family of a "disappeared person" is a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 will depend on the existence of special factors which give the suffering of the applicants a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human rights violation. Relevant elements will include the proximity of the family tie, the particular circumstances of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed the events in question, the involvement of the family member in the attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person and the way in which the authorities responded to those enquiries. The Court would further emphasise that the essence of such a violation does not mainly lie in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member but rather concerns the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention. It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities' conduct (see Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002).
135. The Court further reiterates that while a family member of a "disappeared person" can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130 - 34, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see {Tanly} v. Turkey, No. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)). The Court observes in this respect that Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov were thought to be dead, not merely kidnapped, as the investigation into their disappearance was opened under the head of "murder". Nonetheless, their dead bodies have never been found and their fate after 18 July 2001 has not been elucidated. In such circumstances the Court readily accepts that the second, third and fourth applicants have sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic to the specific phenomenon of disappearances.
136. Furthermore, the Court points out that the second applicant, Aslan Dokayev's sister, actively participated in the search for her brother and lodged numerous complaints with the authorities (see, for example, paragraphs 22, 28 and 33 above). In such circumstances the Court does not consider it necessary to distinguish in the present case the second applicant as a person who could not have standing as a victim for the purposes of Article 3 (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, No. 69480/01, §§ 112 - 13, ECHR 2006-... (extracts).
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
