as the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it, must be seen as incompatible with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Orhan, cited above, § 371).
122. The Court further considers that the authorities should have been more alert to the need for a thorough and prompt investigation of the applicants' complaints that their relative had been detained and taken away in life-threatening circumstances. However, the Court's findings above in relation to Article 2 and, in particular, the conduct of the investigation leave no doubt that the authorities failed to take prompt and effective measures to safeguard him against the risk of disappearance.
123. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Aslanbek Khamidov was held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5. This constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.
VII. Alleged violations of Articles 6 and 8
of the Convention
124. The applicants vaguely suggested that criminal proceedings might have been instituted against their relative and alleged possible violations of Aslanbek Khamidov's right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. They also relied on Article 8 of the Convention complaining about the unlawful intrusion into their home on 25 October 2000.
Article 6, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
Article 8, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for... his home...
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
125. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and as far as it is within its competence, the Court finds that the applicants' submissions disclose no appearance of violations of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
VIII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
126. The applicants complained, invoking Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention, that they had been deprived of effective remedies in respect of the violation of Alsanbek Khamidov's right to life, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
A. The parties' submissions
127. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or to claim civil damages.
128. The applicants reiterated the complaint.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
129. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 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
