t the hands of servicemen. M.A.'s statements made before the officer of the district department of the interior only allow the conclusion that he was beaten by the servicemen. However, it does not appear that he ever claimed to have seen the perpetrators beating the other detainees, in particular, Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov (see paragraph 35 above).
141. In such circumstances the Court considers that it is unable to find beyond all reasonable doubt that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov were ill-treated in detention. It thus finds that this part of the complaint has not been substantiated.
142. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(b) The complaint concerning the applicants' mental suffering
143. The Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
144. The Court observes 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 applicants 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. Relevant elements will include the proximity of the family tie, the particular circumstances of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed the events in question, the involvement of the family member in the attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person and the way in which the authorities responded to those enquiries. 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 v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164).
145. In the present case the Court notes that Sharpuddin Israilov was a son of the first and second applicants, a grandson of the third and fourth applicants and a brother of the fifth, sixth and seventh applicants. It appears that it was only the first and second applicants who made various applications and enquiries to the domestic authorities in connection with Sharpuddin Israilov's disappearance.
146. Adlan Dovtayev was a son of the eighth applicant, the husband of the ninth applicant, the father of the tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants and a brother of the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth applicants. The materials at the Court's disposal suggest that it was the eighth applicant and M.D. who contacted the various official bodies in search of Adlan Dovtayev.
147. The Court points out that no evidence has been submitted to it that either the siblings of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov or the latter's grandparents were in any manner involved in the search for the two missing men (see, by contrast, Luluyev and Others, cited above, § 112). In such circumstances, the Court, while accepting that the disappearance of close relatives might have been a source of considerable distress to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth applicants, is nevertheless unable to conclude that their mental and emotional suffering was distinct from the inevitable emotional distress in a situation such as the on
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
