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

the Government's objection that was joined to the merits of the application (see paragraph 95 above). Inasmuch as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court notes that the authorities' failure to take necessary and urgent investigative measures undermined the effectiveness of the investigation in its early stages. Furthermore, the Government mentioned that the applicants had the opportunity to apply for judicial or administrative review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes in this respect that the applicants, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities before a court or a higher prosecutor. Besides, after a lapse of time some investigative measures that ought to have been carried out promptly could no longer usefully be conducted. Therefore, it is 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.
135. 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 of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.

V. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

136. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, claiming that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen. They further complained under this heading that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of 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

137. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants and Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
138. The applicants maintained their submissions.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

(a) The complaint concerning Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov
139. 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).
140. The Court has found it established that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov were detained on 30 December 2002 by federal forces and that no reliable news of them has been received since. It has also found that, in view of all the known circumstances, the two missing men can be presumed dead and that the responsibility for their deaths lies with the State authorities (see paragraph 120 above). However, the question of the exact way they died has not been elucidated. Furthermore, the materials at the Court's possession do not contain any detailed information that would allow it to establish with certainty that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov were ill-treated in a particular manner a



> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 22 23 24

	Поделиться:	Tweet