aph 25). It notes the Government's submission that the domestic investigation had not established that Lema Dikayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to the applicants' consistent complaints about it (see paragraphs 51, 57, 60, 61, 77, 85). The Court observes that according to the ninth applicant she had informed the investigators about the ill-treatment, but they had failed to examine her statement. The Government themselves stated in their submission that the applicant had indeed informed the authorities about her husband's ill-treatment by the abductors (see paragraph 77 above). The Court also notes that, that despite its repeated requests the Government refused to provide most of the documents from the investigation file, having failed to adduce sufficient reasons for the refusal (see paragraph 101 above), and finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in this respect.
149. The Court has already established that Lema Dikayev was abducted on 6 July 2002 by State agents. It further considers that the applicants have made a prima facie showing that he was ill-treated by the servicemen during his abduction. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government to refute this allegation (see paragraph 120 above). The Government's statement that the investigation had not established that Lema Dikayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof.
150. The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, amongst other authorities, the Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV).
151. The evidence submitted shows that during the night of 6 July 2002 the servicemen, who intruded into Lema Dikayev's home, kicked him and beat him with rifle butts. The Court considers that this treatment reached the threshold of "inhuman and degrading" since not only it must have caused Lema Dikayev physical pain, taking into account his physical condition as a person with a second-degree disability and abdominal sutures, but must have made him feel humiliated and caused fear and anguish as to what might happen to him.
152. Having regard to the Government's failure to plausibly refute the applicants' allegations, the Court finds that there has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Lema Dikayev.
ii. Effective investigation
153. The Court notes that the applicants had complained to the investigators that Lema Dikayev had been ill-treated during his abduction (see paragraphs 51, 57, 60, 61, 77 above). However, it does not appear that these allegations were properly examined by the investigating authorities.
154. For the reasons stated above in paragraphs 133 and 140 in relation to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment of Lema Dikayev.
155. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 also in this respect.
B. Alleged violation of Article 3 in respect
of the applicants
1. The parties' submissions
156. The applicants alleged that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
157. The Government disagreed with these allegations and submitted that the investigation had not
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 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
