ned that the anguish and distress suffered by them as a result of their relative's disappearance and the authorities' reaction amounted to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
163. The Government submitted that the investigation had been conducted in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention and had produced no evidence that either the applicants or Muslim Nenkayev had been subjected to treatment prohibited by the above Convention provision.
A. Alleged ill-treatment of Muslim Nenkayev
164. In so far as the applicants complained about alleged ill-treatment of Muslim Nenkayev following his abduction, the Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 161 in fine).
165. The Court has found it established that Muslim Nenkayev was detained on 8 June 2002 by State agents. It has also found that, in view of all the known circumstances, he should be considered dead and that the responsibility for his death lies with the State authorities (see paragraph 146 above). The Court notes, however, that the exact way in which Muslim Nenkayev died and whether he was subjected to ill-treatment while in detention have not been established, and finds that this complaint has not been substantiated.
166. Against this background, the Court finds no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on this account.
B. The applicants' mental suffering
167. Turning to the applicants' complaint concerning the distress they had endured after Muslim Nenkayev's disappearance, the Court observes that the question whether a member of the family of a "disappeared person" is a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 will depend on the existence of special factors which give the suffering of the applicants a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human rights violation. Relevant elements will include the proximity of the family tie, the particular circumstances of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed the events in question, the involvement of the family member in the attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person and the way in which the authorities responded to those enquiries. The Court would further emphasise that the essence of such a violation does not mainly lie in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member but rather concerns the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention. It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities' conduct (see Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164).
168. In the present case the Court notes that the first and second applicants are the parents of the missing person, the third to ninth applicants are his siblings and the tenth applicant is his sister-in-law. The materials in its possession show that the first applicant made the vast majority of petitions and enquiries to the domestic authorities in connection with Muslim Nenkayev's disappearance, while on some occasions it was the second applicant who dealt with the investigators. The Court also points out that the third applicant was arrested together with his brother and then detained for twenty-four hours and that the domestic investiga
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 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
