at the investigation had been pending for more than six years with no tangible results proved that it was an ineffective remedy in this case. They also asserted that the first applicant's court complaint against the district prosecutor's office had never been examined on the merits, which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the court remedies relied on by the Government.
B. The Court's assessment
124. In the present case the Court took no decision about the exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies at the admissibility stage, having found that this question was too closely linked to the merits. It will now proceed to examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia, No. 60272/00, §§ 73 - 74, 12 October 2006).
125. The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides for a distribution of the burden of proof. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), No. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
126. The Court further observes that an investigation into the kidnapping of Muslim Nenkayev and the third applicant had been pending since 15 August 2002. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation.
127. The Court considers that this limb of the Government's preliminary objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints. Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention
128. The applicants complained that Muslim Nenkayev had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."
A. Alleged violation of Muslim Nenkayev's right to life
1. Arguments of the parties
129. The applicants argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Muslim Nenkayev had been kidnapped by representatives of federal forces. They further stressed that their relative had been abducted in life-threatening circumstances and argued, relying on Article 2 of the Convention, that the fact that he had remained missing for more than six years proved that he was dead.
130. The Government referred to the fact that the investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that Muslim Nenkayev was dead, or that representatives of the federal forces had been involved in his kidnapping or alleged killing.
2. The Court's assessment
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 23 24 25
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
