Government referred to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, No. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
116. 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 applicants' allegations. The Court will thus proceed to examine crucial elements in the present case that should be taken into account when deciding whether the applicants' relatives can be presumed dead and whether their deaths can be attributed to the authorities.
117. The applicants alleged that the persons who had abducted Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev on 6 July 2002 and then killed them were State agents.
118. The Government suggested in their submission that the persons who had detained Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev could have been criminals who had acted for mercenary motives or members of paramilitary groups. However, this allegation was not specific and they did not submit any material to support it. The Court would stress in this regard that the evaluation of the evidence and the establishment of the facts is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see {Celikbilek} v. Turkey, No. 27693/95, § 71, 31 May 2005).
119. The Court notes that the applicants' allegation is supported by the witness statements collected by them and by the investigation. It finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform was able to move freely during curfew hours in military vehicles through military checkpoints, proceeded to check identity documents and abducted several persons from their homes strongly supports the applicants' allegation that these were State servicemen conducting a security operation. In their application to the authorities the applicants had pointed out that Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev had been detained by federal servicemen and requested the investigation to look into that possibility (see paragraphs 46, 58 and 60 above).
120. The Court observes that where the applicants make 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 applicants, 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).
121. The Government seemed to question the credibility of the applicants' statements concerning the factual circumstances of their relatives' abduction (see paragraph 113 above). The Court notes in this respect that no other elements underlying the applicants' submissions of facts have been disputed by the Government. The Court finds that the inconsistency pointed out by the Government is so insignificant that it cannot cast doubt on the overall credibility of the applicants' submissions. Furthermore, the witness statements referred to by the Government have not been made available to the Court.
122. Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by State servicemen. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of the special forces in the kidnapping is insufficient to discharge them f
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 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
