and the establishment of the facts
A. The parties' arguments
112. The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had abducted Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev had been State agents. In support of their complaint they referred to the following facts. At the material time Martan-Chu had been under the total control of the federal troops. The village and its premises were under curfew. The district military commander's office was located in the village. There had been Russian military checkpoints on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The armed men who had abducted Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev had spoken Russian without an accent, had been well-organised and acted in a manner similar to that of special forces carrying out an identity check. The men, who had used military vehicles, had arrived late at night, during the curfew, which indicated that they had been able to move freely in Martan-Chu and pass through the military checkpoint located in the village. On 6 July 2002 an employee of the ROVD had confirmed that he had seen Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev in the corridor of the ROVD. Four other residents of Martan-Chu, who had been apprehended on the same night, had been released from the ROVD in the afternoon of 6 July 2002. The district military commander had informed the seventh applicant that her brother had been detained for involvement in the murder of an officer of a law enforcement agency.
113. The Government submitted that unidentified armed men had kidnapped Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev. They further contended that an investigation of the incident was pending, that there was no evidence that the men had been State agents and that there were therefore no grounds for holding the State liable for the alleged violations of the applicants' rights. They also pointed out that although the abductors had worn camouflage uniforms similar to that of Russian military and that they had been armed with machine guns, these factors did not indicate that the abductors of the applicants' relatives belonged to State authorities. They further argued that there was no convincing evidence that the applicants' relatives were dead. The Government further stated that the crime could have been committed by criminals who had acted with mercenary motives or by members of paramilitary groups. Finally, the Government alleged that the applicants' description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction of their relatives was inconsistent. In particular, the applicants had failed to inform the investigators that there had been four other residents of Martan-Chu who had been abducted on the same night and released from the ROVD on the afternoon of 6 July 2002; that Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev had been friends; that the seventh applicant had followed the abductors and that she had asked the abductors where they were taking her brother; and that the applicants had received information about their relatives in the morning of 6 July 2002 from the district military commander.
B. The Court's evaluation of the facts
114. The Court observes that in its extensive jurisprudence 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, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A No. 25, § 161 in fine § 161).
115. The Court notes that despite its requests for a copy of the investigation file into the abduction of Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev, the Government produced just a few documents from the case file. The
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 26 27 28
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
