tion is to require the provision of a remedy at national level allowing the competent domestic authority both to deal with the substance of a relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they comply with their obligations under this provision. However, such a remedy is only required in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Halford v. the United Kingdom, 25 June 1997, § 64, Reports 1997-III).
165. As regards the complaint of lack of effective remedies in respect of the applicants' complaint under Article 2, the Court emphasises that, given the fundamental importance of the right to protection of life, 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, including effective access for the complainant to the investigation procedure (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, cited above, § 183).
166. In view of the Court's above findings with regard to Article 2, this complaint is clearly "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A No. 131). The applicants should accordingly have been able to avail themselves of effective and practical remedies capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and to an award of compensation for the purposes of Article 13.
167. It follows that in circumstances where, as here, the criminal investigation into the disappearance has been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed has consequently been undermined, the State has failed to discharge its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention.
168. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.
169. In so far as the complaint under Article 13 concerns the existence of a domestic remedy in respect of the complaint under Article 3 that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov had been ill-treated by State agents, the Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 was found unsubstantiated in paragraph 140 above. In the absence of an "arguable claim" of a violation of a substantive Convention provision the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 13 in this respect.
170. As regards the applicants' reference to Article 3 of the Convention on account of their mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their close relatives, their inability to find out what had happened to those missing and the way the authorities had handled their complaints, the Court notes that it has found a violation in this respect as regards the first, second, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants. However, the Court 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. The Court considers that, in the circumstances, no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention.
VIII. Alleged violations of Articles 8
and 14 of the Convention
171. In their initial application form the applicants stated that their right to respect for their family life had been violated as a result of their relatives' disappearance
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 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
