t convinced by the assertion that the military units had not possessed ammunition of the type found at the scene of the incident, as it has not been provided with a copy of the report on the explosives examination referred to by the Government (see paragraph 77 above).
91. The Court reiterates that where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to the withholding of documents by the Government, it is for the latter to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicant, 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).
92. Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that on 7 September 2002 the Taysumovs' house was shelled by the Russian artillery and that Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and Ayshat Eskirkhanova were killed in the course of shelling by federal troops. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of State agents in the killings is insufficient to discharge them from 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 for the events in question, the Court considers that Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and Ayshat Eskirkhanova died as a result of artillery shelling by the Russian military on 7 September 2002.
(c) The State's compliance with Article 2
93. The Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, it must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 147).
94. The Court has already found it established that Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and Ayshat Eskirkhanova were killed by State servicemen. Considering that the authorities did not rely on any grounds to justify the use of lethal force by their agents, or otherwise account for the killings, it follows that liability for the deaths is attributable to the respondent Government.
95. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and Ayshat Eskirkhanova.
B. Alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation
1. Arguments of the parties
96. The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their relatives' deaths. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for more than six years and during that period it had been repeatedly suspended. The authorities had not kept the applicants abreast of developments in the investigation or informed them as to what investigative measures had been taken and had repeatedly denied them access to the criminal investigation file.
97. The Government claimed that the investigation carried out in the present case had met the Convention requirement of effectiveness. It had been expeditiously instituted on the day following the incident. The applicants had impeded the investigation by refusing to agree to an autopsy on their relatives' bodies. The proceedings had been repeatedl
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 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
