1978, § 162, Series A No. 25). It is not persuaded that forcing Aslanbek Khamidov to strip down to his trousers in public in itself amounted to a treatment exceeding the minimum level of severity.
108. The Court further 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 Velikova v. Bulgaria, No. 41488/98, § 70, ECHR 2000-VI).
109. The Court has found it established that Aslanbek Khamidov was detained on 25 October 2000 by State agents and that no reliable news of him has been received since. It has also found that, in view of all the known circumstances, he must be presumed dead and that the responsibility for his death lies with the State authorities (see paragraph 84 above). However, the question as to the exact way he died and whether he was subjected to ill-treatment while in detention has not been elucidated. The Court considers that the materials before it do not permit it to find beyond all reasonable doubt that Aslanbek Khamidov was ill-treated in detention. It thus finds that this part of the complaint has not been substantiated.
110. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(b) The complaint concerning the applicants
111. The Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
112. 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).
113. In the present case the Court notes that the applicants are the wife and the mother of the missing man. For more than eight years they have not had any news of Aslanbek Khamidov. During this period the first applicant applied to various official bodies with enquiries about her husband. It is noteworthy that the second applicant was not actively communicating with the authorities, probably due to her advanced age. The applicants have never received any plausible explanation or information as to what became of Aslanbek Khamidov. The Court's findings under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention are also of direct relevance here.
114. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants suffered distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their husb
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 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
