Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.05.2009 «Дело Хумайдов и Хумайдов (Khumaydov and Khumaydov) против России» [англ.]

detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

A. Arguments of the parties

87. The Government argued that the complaint was unfounded. They insisted that no-one had witnessed Khava Magomadova's kidnapping and thus it could not be established that she had been arrested by State agents. They also suggested that Khava Magomadova, the railway station official, could have been kidnapped by insurgents wishing to take revenge on her or to replace her in office with their followers. The Government further referred to the fact that the investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that this person was dead, or that representatives of the federal forces had been involved in her abduction or alleged killing.
88. The Government also claimed that the investigation of Khava Magomadova's kidnapping met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as evidenced by the questioning of witnesses and requests sent by the investigating authorities to other State agencies.
89. The applicants maintained their complaint. They claimed that the abductors were Russian servicemen and supported their allegations with the following: the Gazel had been parked in the vicinity of a special task force checkpoint located in the premises of the railway station. One of the witnesses had noted that the passenger of the Gazel had been wearing a military jacket. The Gazel's registration plates had been illegible, while every car with such plates would have normally been stopped at the checkpoint. Two witnesses had seen two UAZ vehicles in the village on the day of the abduction. Furthermore, the applicants argued that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy required by the Court's case-law on Article 2.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

90. The Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court has already found that the Government's objection concerning the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should be joined to the merits of the complaint (see paragraph 85 above). The complaint under Article 2 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) The alleged violation of the right to life of Khava Magomadova
i. Establishment of the facts
91. The Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, it must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances. Detained persons are in a vulnerable position and the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of a detained individual is particularly stringent where that individual dies or disappears thereafter (see Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 326, 18 June 2002). Where the events in issue lie wholly or in large part within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons under their control in detention, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and {Cakici} v. Turkey [GC], No. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV).
92. In cases where there are conflicting accounts of events, the Court is inevitably confronted when establishing the facts with the same difficulties as those faced by any first-instance court. When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exc



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 15 16 17

	Поделиться:	Tweet