ion. Therefore, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their preliminary objection in this part.
127. The Government also mentioned the possibility for the applicants to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes 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 actions or omissions of investigating authorities before a court. Furthermore, the investigation has been resumed by the prosecuting authorities themselves a number of times due to the need to take additional investigative measures. However, they still failed to investigate the applicants' allegations properly. Moreover, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative steps that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer usefully be conducted. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the remedy relied on would have had any prospects of success. Therefore, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their preliminary objection in this part also.
128. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Saydi Malsagov, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect.
III. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
129. The applicants claimed that as a result of their family member's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate those events 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."
130. The applicants maintained the complaint.
131. The Government argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
132. 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, cited above, No. 25656/94, § 358, and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164).
133. In the present case the Court notes that the first applicant is the mother of the missing person and the other applicants are his siblings. The materials in its possession show that it was only the first applicant who made various requests and enquiries to the domestic authorities in connection with Saydi Malsagov's disappearance. At the same time the Court points out that the fourth applicant, who was an eyewitness to h
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
