orate the allegations made by the applicants, 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).
81. Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made out a prima facie case that Aslanbek Khamidov was arrested by State servicemen. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence of military or other State involvement in the kidnapping is insufficient to relieve them of 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 of the events in question, the Court considers that Aslanbek Khamidov was arrested on 25 October 2000 by State servicemen during the special security operation.
82. There has been no reliable news of Aslanbek Khamidov since the date of his kidnapping. His name has not been found in any official detention facilities' records. Lastly, the Government did not submit any explanation as to what had happened to him after his arrest.
83. Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of persons in the Chechen Republic which have come before the Court (see, among others, Imakayeva, cited above, Luluyev and Others v. Russia, No. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts), Baysayeva v. Russia, No. 74237/01, 5 April 2007, Akhmadova and Sadulayeva, cited above, and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, No. 68007/01, 5 July 2007), 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 Aslanbek Khamidov or of any news of him for more than eight years supports this assumption.
84. Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish that Aslanbek Khamidov must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention
85. In their application form of 25 March 2005 the applicants complained that their relative had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to effectively investigate the crime.
86. The Court considers, of its own motion, that it is appropriate to examine this complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"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. The parties' submissions
87. The Government indicated that no direct reference to Article 2 of the Convention had been made in the application form submitted by the applicants. Further, they contended that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that Aslanbek Khamidov was dead or that any State servicemen had been involved in his kidnapping or alleged killing. The Government
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
