spended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been ongoing for many years and has produced no tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their objection in this part.
122. The Government also mentioned the opportunity for the applicants to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities, in the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes that the applicants, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged actions or omissions on the part of investigating authorities before a court. Therefore, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their objection in this part as well.
123. 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 Khava Magomadova, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
III. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
124. 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 and emotional suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
125. 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.
126. The applicants maintained their submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
127. Referring to its settled case-law, the Court reiterates that, where a person has been abducted by State security forces and has subsequently disappeared, his or her relatives can claim to be victims of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of their mental distress caused by the "disappearance" of their family member and the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130 - 34, Reports 1998-III, and {Timurtas} v. Turkey, No. 23531/94, §§ 96 - 98, ECHR 2000-VI).
128. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicants are close relatives of Khava Magomadova. Accordingly, it has no doubt that they have indeed suffered from serious emotional distress following the disappearance of their wife and mother.
129. The Court notes 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, it has not been established to the required standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" that the Russian authorities were implicated in Khava Magomadova's disappearance (see paragraph 105 above). 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 distres
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15 ... 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
