on 25 October 2000 or to question servicemen on duty at the Tsentoroy filtration point on that day.
100. The Court also notes that even though the first applicant was eventually granted victim status in case No. 39024, she was not promptly informed of progress in the investigation. For instance, the latest official notification concerning the developments in the case addressed to her is dated 9 December 2004 (see paragraph 24 above). Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings (see {Oyur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
101. Lastly, the Court notes that it follows from the Government's submissions that the investigation in case No. 39024 was suspended and resumed several times, apparently in order to rectify certain defects.
102. The Court will now examine the limb of the Government's objection that was joined to the merits of the application (see paragraph 55 above). Inasmuch as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court notes that the authorities' failure to take necessary and urgent investigative measures undermined the effectiveness of the investigation in its early stages. Furthermore, the Government mentioned that the applicants had the opportunity to apply for judicial or administrative review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes in this respect that the applicants, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities before a court or a higher prosecutor. Besides, after a lapse of time some investigative measures that ought to have been carried out promptly could no longer usefully be conducted. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the remedies relied on would have had any prospects of success. Accordingly, the Court finds that the criminal-law remedies relied on by the Government were ineffective in the circumstances of the case and rejects their objection as regards the applicants' failure to exhaust these domestic remedies.
103. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Aslanbek Khamidov, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect.
V. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
104. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained that Aslanbek Khamidov had been publicly humiliated by State agents when he had been forced to strip down to his trousers in front of women and that he had probably been ill-treated upon his arrest. They further claimed under this head that as a result of their relative's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured severe mental suffering. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
105. The Government asserted that neither the applicants nor Aslanbek Khamidov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
106. The applicants maintained their complaints.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) The complaint concerning Aslanbek Khamidov
107. The Court reiterates at the outset that in order to fall under Article 3 of the Convention ill-treatment must be at least marginally severe (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 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
