Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 11.06.2009 «Дело Хасуева (Khasuyeva) против России» [англ.]

ure to disclose the entire contents of the file.
99. In view of these inferences and the circumstances of the present case, the Court does not find it necessary to draw separate conclusions under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

C. The Court's evaluation of the facts

100. The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia, No. 69481/01, §§ 103 - 109, 27 July 2006). The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A No. 25). In view of this, and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in respect of the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations. The Court will thus proceed to examine crucial elements in the present case that should be taken into account when deciding whether the applicant's son can be presumed dead and whether his death can be attributed to the authorities.
101. The applicant alleged that the persons who had taken Abu Khasuyev away on 30 August 2001 and then killed him were State agents. The Government did not dispute any of the factual elements underlying the application and did not provide any other explanation of the events.
102. The Court notes that the applicant's version of the events is supported by the witness statements collected by her and by the investigation. The applicant and the neighbours stated that the perpetrators had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation - they had been wearing masks and camouflage uniforms, had been armed with automatic weapons and spoke Russian among themselves and to the residents. They had broken into the applicant's flat during the daytime, in close proximity to the checkpoint of the Russian federal forces. In her applications to the authorities the applicant consistently maintained that her son had been detained by unknown servicemen and requested the investigation to look into that possibility (see paragraphs 45 and 54 above).
103. The Court finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform in broad daylight, equipped with vehicles, was able to move freely through military roadblocks and to proceed to arrest the applicant's son at his home in a town area, across the street from a military checkpoint, strongly supports the applicant's allegation that these were State servicemen. The domestic investigation also accepted factual assumptions as presented by the applicant and took steps to check whether law enforcement bodies were involved in the arrest. The investigation did establish that the military were involved in the abduction of the applicant's son (see paragraph 82 above), but it does not appear that any further steps were taken to establish exactly which military unit.
104. The Court observes that where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to a lack of documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicant, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see {Togcu} v. Turkey, No. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, No. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
105. Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made a prima facie case that her so



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet