Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Исраилова и другие (Israilova and others) против России» [англ.]

flicted 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 parties' submissions

122. The Government contended that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov were dead or that any servicemen of the federal law-enforcement agencies had been involved in their alleged kidnapping or killing. The Government claimed that the investigation into the kidnapping of the applicants' relatives met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators.
123. The applicants argued that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov had been detained by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of them for six years. The applicants also argued that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court's case-law on Article 2. The fact that the investigation had been pending for six years without producing any known results was further proof of its ineffectiveness.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

124. The Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. Further, the Court has already found that the Government's objection concerning the alleged non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies should be joined to the merits of the complaint (see paragraph 95 above). The complaint under Article 2 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) The alleged violation of the right to life of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov
125. The Court reiterates that Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, from which no derogation is permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146 - 47, Series A No. 324, and {Avsar}, cited above, § 391).
126. The Court has already found that the applicants' relatives must be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by State servicemen and that the deaths can be attributed to the State. In the absence of any justification in respect of any use of lethal force by State agents, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov.
(b) The alleged inadequacy of the investigation into the kidnapping
127. The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann and Others, cited above, § 161, and Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 19



> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 22 23 24

	Поделиться:	Tweet