that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer usefully be conducted. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the remedy in question would have had any prospects of success. Therefore, the Court finds that the remedy relied upon by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their preliminary objection in this part also.
110. In the light of the foregoing, the Court further concludes that the authorities failed to carry out a thorough and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and Ayshat Eskirkhanova.
111. The Court accordingly holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural head.
III. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
112. The applicants complained that the anguish and distress suffered by them as a result of the shelling of their house, their relatives' deaths and the authorities' reaction amounted to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
113. The applicants maintained their complaint.
114. The Government submitted that perception of the events was a subjective factor dependent upon the individual emotional characteristics of each person. The domestic investigation had found no evidence that the applicants had ever been subjected to any ill-treatment. The applicants had been granted victim status and thus enjoyed all the rights provided for by domestic law.
115. The Court reiterates that whilst a family member of a "disappeared person" may in certain circumstances claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130 - 34, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where a person dies at the hands of the authorities (see, for example, {Tanli} v. Turkey, No. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)). In the latter situations the Court would limit its findings to Article 2 of the Convention. Similarly, in the present case, while having no doubt as to the profound suffering caused to the applicants by the deaths of their relatives, the Court finds no basis for finding a violation of Article 3 in this context, as the Court's case-law on the issue refers to the specific phenomenon of disappearances.
116. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
117. The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had had no effective remedies in respect of the alleged violations of the Convention. Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:
"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."
118. The applicants argued that the operation of the legal system in the Chechen Republic had been disrupted and that there had been an administrative practice of ineffective investigation into alleged abuses of power on the part of the Russian military, thus, in their view, rendering all potential remedies ineffective.
119. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies as required by Article 13 of the Convention. For instance, they could have complained about the investigators' actions both to higher prosecutors and to the courts. Their access to such remedies had not been restricted. The first applicant had been granted victim status and thus had had all relevant procedural rights. Moreover, he could have lodged civil claims for non-pecun
> 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
