Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 14.05.2009 «Дело Тайсумов и другие (Taysumov and others) против России» [англ.]

02. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation.
72. The Court considers that this limb of the Government's preliminary objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints. It thus considers that this matter falls to be examined below under the substantive provision of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

73. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention of a violation of the right to life in respect of their relatives and of the authorities' failure to conduct a proper investigation. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

A. Alleged violation of the right to life

1. Arguments by the parties

74. The applicants argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that their relatives had been killed by members of the federal forces. The applicants stressed that only the military had had artillery shells and that the craters proved that the shots had been fired from the military base in Khankala.
75. The Government submitted that federal military involvement in the killing of the applicants' relatives was not proven. They argued that the death of the applicants' relatives had been caused by the detonation of an explosive device in the immediate vicinity of the applicants' house. It was not established that there was a causal link between the applicants' relatives' deaths and the actions of the military. The applicants' neighbours had thought that Molodezhnaya Street had been shelled by the artillery. The investigators had described the events in question as a bombardment in procedural documents merely on the basis of the applicants' depositions. The hypothesis of shelling had been disproven in the course of the investigation.
76. The Government submitted that it followed from the undated report of the scene-of-incident inspection that experts had examined the oblong-shaped craters and established that they had been left by a horizontally-laid shell dug into the upper layers of soil in a manner typically associated with terrorists. According to those experts, the shells could have been detonated remotely by any radio signal, probably by accident. The explosion had taken place in the vicinity of a road leading to an illegal petrol factory and had caused demolition and casualties.
77. An explosive expert's examination carried out on an unspecified date had concluded that the fragments found at the scene of the incident had been parts of a 122-mm calibre artillery shell used with howitzers of types M-30, D-30, 2C1 "Carnation" and M-66, as well as with cannons of types A-19 and D-49. Detonators marked RGM-2 were used with artillery systems Nos. 1-30, 2C1, 2Ch3, 2c19 and D-44. The federal military units located in the vicinity of Chechen-Aul had not carried out any operations in the area on 7 September 2002 and they did not have 122-mm shells or the other ammunition mentioned in the expert examination report.
78. At the scene investigators had found fragments of electromagn



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 17 18 19

	Поделиться:	Tweet