going and bearing in mind the principles cited above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in this respect. It considers that the applicants have presented a coherent and convincing picture of the two Nenkayev brothers' arrest on 8 June 2002. The applicants stated that the perpetrators had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation - they had checked the identity papers and searched the house. Moreover, the men had been armed with machine guns used by the Russian military. In their applications to the authorities the applicants consistently maintained that their relative had been detained by unknown servicemen and requested the investigation to look into that possibility.
138. The Court takes note of the Government's assertion that both Muslim Nenkayev and the third applicant were police officers at the material time and that they could have been kidnapped by insurgents wishing to take revenge on them but considers nonetheless that this is outweighed by the applicants' arguments for the following reasons.
139. The Court observes that the armed men who took away the Nenkayev brothers were travelling in a large group late at night in a town controlled by the federal military. As follows from the third applicant's statement, the armed men led him and his brother on foot for some fifty minutes before arrival at a two-storey building (see paragraph 22 above).
140. The third applicant assumed that the building belonged to the military commander's office. Owing to the Government's refusal to provide the investigation file in case No. 61116, the Court cannot compare the third applicant's depositions made before national authorities to those submitted to the Court. Yet it does not deem it necessary to establish whether the third applicant shared his conclusion as to the nature of the premises in which he had been kept with the investigators, since the building in question was most likely located inside Urus-Martan. Indeed, the Court doubts that some fifteen to thirty armed men escorting the two captured persons could have easily walked a long way out of Urus-Martan in fifty minutes and found a large building outside a settlement. Accordingly, it considers that the two Nenkayev brothers were walked through Urus-Martan and taken to premises located within the town.
141. The Court considers it rather dubious that in the course of their fifty-minute march through the town such a visible assembly could remain unnoticed by military patrols or any other law enforcement agencies or that insurgents could travel through federal checkpoints using forged documents of the military or other State agencies without being caught by servicemen on duty at those points. The Court thus finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniforms was able to move freely about the town controlled by the federal forces late at night and to abduct two men at their home strongly supports the applicants' allegation that these were State servicemen. It further notes that after over six years the domestic investigation had produced no tangible results.
142. The Court reiterates that where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to the lack of documents withheld by the Government, it is for the latter to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicant, 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).
143. Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfi
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 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
