9; complaint under Article 2 and the first applicant's complaint of ill-treatment under Article 3, the Court emphasises that 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 and infliction of treatment contrary to Article 3, including effective access for the complainant to the investigation procedure leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, No. 38361/97, §§ 161 - 62, ECHR 2002-IV, and {Suheyla Aydin} v. Turkey, No. 25660/94, § 208, 24 May 2005). 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 Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 183, 24 February 2005).
151. It follows that in circumstances where, as here, a criminal investigation into violent death was ineffective 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.
152. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Idris Gakiyev's deprivation of life, and with Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant's ill-treatment by the servicemen.
153. In so far as the complaint under Article 13 concerns the existence of a domestic remedy in respect of the complaint that Idris Gakiyev had been ill-treated by State servicemen, the Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 was found to have been unsubstantiated (see paragraph 124 above). Accordingly, the applicants did not have an "arguable claim" of a violation of a substantive Convention provision and, therefore, there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention in this respect.
154. As regards the violation of Article 3 of the Convention found on account of the applicants' mental suffering as a result of the disappearance of their son, their inability to find out what had happened to him and the way the authorities had handled their complaints, the Court notes that it has already found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention on account of the authorities' conduct that led to the suffering endured by the applicant. The Court considers that, in the circumstances, no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention.
VII. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention
155. In their initial application form the applicants stated that they had been discriminated against on the grounds of their ethnic origin. They invoked Article 14 of the Convention, which provides:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
156. In the observations on admissibility and merits of 7 April 2008 the applicants stated that they no longer wished their complaints under Article 14 of the Convention to be examined.
157. The Court, having regard to Article 37 of the Convention, finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). The Court also finds no reasons of a general character, affecting respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the present complaints by virtue of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine (see Stamatio
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 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
