iary damage. The Government referred to several cases concerning the events in the Chechen Republic in which awards for non-pecuniary damage had been made by Russian courts.
120. The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they comply with their Convention obligations under this provision. The scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention. Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by acts or omissions by the authorities of the respondent State (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 95, Reports 1996-VI).
121. Given the fundamental importance of the right to protection of life, Article 13 requires, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the deprivation of life, including effective access for the complainant to the investigation procedure leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Khatsiyeva and Others v. Russia, No. 5108/02, § 162, 17 January 2008). The Court further reiterates that the requirements of Article 13 are broader than a Contracting State's obligation under Article 2 to conduct an effective investigation (see Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 384, 18 June 2002).
122. In view of the Court's findings above with regard to Article 2, the applicants' complaint was clearly "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A No. 131). The applicants should accordingly have been able to avail themselves of effective and practical remedies capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and to an award of compensation for the purposes of Article 13.
123. It follows that in circumstances where, as in the present case, the criminal investigation into the deaths was ineffective (see paragraph 110 above) and the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil remedies, was consequently undermined, the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Khatsiyeva and Others, cited above, § 164).
124. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.
125. As regards the applicants' reference to Article 13 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention, the Court refers to its above finding that there has been no violation of the Convention on account of the applicants' mental suffering. In the absence of an "arguable claim" of a violation of a substantive Convention provision, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 13 in this respect.
V. Observance of Article 38 § 1 (A) of the Convention
126. The applicants argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court at the communication stage disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant:
"1. If the Court declares the application admissible, it shall
(a) pursue the examination of the case, together with the re
> 1 2 3 ... 14 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
