ed that the applicants have made a prima facie case that Muslim Nenkayev and the third applicant were arrested 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 abduction is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government's failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court considers that Muslim Nenkayev and the third applicant were abducted on 8 June 2002 at their house in Urus-Martan by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation.
144. The Court has to decide further whether Muslim Nenkayev is to be considered dead. It notes in this regard that there has been no reliable news of the missing man since 8 June 2002. His name has not been found in any official records of detention facilities. Lastly, the Government did not submit any explanation as to what happened to him after his abduction.
145. Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of people in the Chechen Republic which have come before the Court (see, for example, Imakayeva, cited above, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, No. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-...), the Court considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Muslim Nenkayev or any news of him for over six years corroborates this assumption. Furthermore, the Government have failed to provide any explanation of Muslim Nenkayev's disappearance and the official investigation into his abduction, dragging on for more than six years, has produced no tangible results.
146. Accordingly, the Court finds it established that on 8 June 2002 Muslim Nenkayev was abducted by State servicemen and that he must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.
(c) The State's compliance with Article 2
147. Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances in which deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, to which no derogation is permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146 - 47, Series A No. 324, and {Avsar} v. Turkey, No. 25657/94, § 391, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
148. The Court has already found it established that Muslim Nenkayev must be dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen (see paragraph 146 above). Noting that the authorities do not rely on any ground of justification in respect of the use of lethal force by their agents, or otherwise accounting for his death, it follows that liability for his death is attributable to the respondent Government.
149. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Muslim Nenkayev.
B. The alleged inadequacy of the investigation
into the abduction
1. Arguments of the parties
150. The applicants also claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of Muslim Nenkayev's disappearance. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for more than six years without any tangible results so far, having been repeated
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 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
