highly doubtful that the remedies relied on would have had any prospects of success. Accordingly, the Court finds that the criminal-law remedies relied on by the Government were ineffective in the circumstances of the case and rejects their objection as regards the applicants' failure to exhaust these domestic remedies.
117. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance and death of Idris Gakiyev, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
118. The applicants complained that as a result of their son's abduction and killing and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured mental suffering. Furthermore, the first applicant complained that at the time of his son's abduction he had been beaten and that no effective investigation was conducted into the incident. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
119. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that either applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. They also stated that the first applicant had sustained minor bodily injuries and that, under Russian law, an investigation into infliction of such injuries was opened upon a victim's request. Since the first applicant had failed to lodge such a request, the investigation into infliction of minor bodily injuries on him had been commenced in case No. 26075. The first applicant had been granted victim status in that case and meticulously questioned about the circumstances of the infliction of injuries on him. He had undergone an expert medical examination. The investigation in this respect had not been completed.
120. The applicants maintained their submissions. They stressed, in particular, that they feared for their lives. In their observations of 7 April 2008 on the admissibility and merits of the case they also complained for the first time that Idris Gakiyev had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen prior to his death and that there had been no effective investigation into the ill-treatment.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) The complaint concerning Idris Gakiyev
121. The Court notes at the outset that the applicants complained that their son had been subjected to ill-treatment prior to his death for the first time on 7 April 2008, that is, more than six months after the discovery of Idris Gakiyev's dead body. Even assuming that this complaint is not time-barred, it should nonetheless be declared inadmissible for the following reason.
122. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161 in fine, Series A No. 25).
123. The Court has found it established that Idris Gakiyev was detained on 30 November 2002 by State servicemen forces and died while in their hands as a result of the use of force (see paragraphs 96 and 101 above). However, it does not have a copy of Idris Gakiyev's post-mortem examination and, due to the scarcity of information at its disposal, is not in a position to establish the exact circumstances of his death. It has nothing to rely on except f
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 21 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
