Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Хачукаев (Khachukayev) против России» [англ.]

d refute the one presented by the applicant.
122. The Court finds that the facts of the present case strongly suggest that the death of Murad Khachukayev was part of the same sequence of events as his abduction and support the conclusion that he was extrajudicially executed by State agents. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the death of the applicant's son.
123. For the above reasons the Court considers that it has been established that Murad Khachukayev was killed following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen.

III. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

124. The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that his son had been killed after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the matter. Article 2 reads:
"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. The alleged violation of the right to life
of Murad Khachukayev

125. The Court has already established that the death of the applicant's son can be attributed to the State. In the absence of any justification in respect of the use of lethal force by State agents, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Murad Khachukayev.

B. The alleged inadequacy of the investigation
into the disappearance and murder of Murad Khachukayev

126. The applicant maintained his complaint. He alleged that in spite of his complaint on 5 February 2003 about his son's abduction, the investigators had failed to initiate the criminal proceedings in a timely manner and had opened the criminal case only on 12 February 2003. Due to this delay a number of items of important evidence, such as the perpetrators' fingerprints, imprints of their boots and the vehicle's tyre imprints had been lost. Even after the opening of the criminal proceedings in February 2003, the investigators failed to conduct a scene of crime examination or question the applicant and other witnesses of the abduction for more than five months. Further, the investigators had failed to establish how the abductors had been allowed to pass through the checkpoint on the eastern outskirts of Urus-Martan; they had failed to question the heads of the local military and law enforcement agencies about possible participation of their staff in the abduction of Murad Khachukayev; they had failed to establish the owners of the UAZ vehicles which had been seen driving around in Goyty on the night of the abduction and to question their drivers. The investigators had failed to establish the type of the explosive device used to blow up the applicant's son; they had failed to verify whether any law enforcement agencies had been involved in a special operation in Goyty on 5 February 2003. Although Murad Khachukayev's remains had been discovered on 12 February 2003, the criminal investigation in this respect had been opened only on 5 June 2006. The criminal investigation into the abduction and murder of Murad Khachukayev had been ongoing for more than five years, but it had failed to produce any tangible results. The authorities had f



> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet