illed. They insisted that they had incurred severe mental suffering during the fortnight between 27 March 2004, the date on which their family members had been taken away, and 9 April 2004, the date on which their relatives had been found dead, and that they had never received any information regarding the identity of the perpetrators.
104. The Government, whilst not denying that the abduction of the applicants' eight relatives and their deaths must have caused considerable emotional distress to the applicants, submitted that there was no causal link between the authorities' actions and the applicants' moral suffering, in the absence of any findings by the domestic investigation confirming the involvement of State agents in the aforementioned offences.
105. The Court reiterates that while a family member of a "disappeared person" can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 130 - 134, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, {Tanli} v. Turkey, No. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)). In such cases the Court would normally limit its findings to Article 2. However, if a period of initial disappearance is long it may in certain circumstances give rise to a separate issue under Article 3 (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, No. 69480/01, § 114, ECHR 2006-... (extracts), or Kukayev, cited above, § 107). The Court further reiterates that the question whether a member of the family of a "disappeared person" is a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 will depend on the existence of special factors which give the suffering of the applicant a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human-rights violation. The Court would further emphasise that the essence of such a violation does not mainly lie in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member but rather concerns the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention. It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities' conduct (see Orhan, cited above, § 358).
106. In the present case, the applicants' relatives remained missing from 27 March until 9 April 2004, that is, for two weeks, which period, in itself, does not appear long (see, by contrast, Luluyev and Others, cited above, where the applicants' relative remained missing for ten months, or Kukayev, cited above, where the applicant's son was deemed disappeared for five months). The Court also notes its above finding that at least some investigative actions were taken at the early stage of the investigation, which the applicants have acknowledged (see paragraphs 85 and 89 above). It cannot therefore conclude that during the period under consideration the authorities remained totally passive. Overall, while having no doubt of the profound suffering caused to the applicants by the abduction and deaths of their relatives, the Court does not consider that the present complaint raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention in the circumstances of the instant case.
107. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
V. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention
108. The applicants complained that the provisions of Article 5 as a whole, relating to the lawfulness of detention and guarantees against arbitrary detention, had been violated in respect of their eight relatives. Article 5, in its relevant parts, provides:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
