er brother's abduction, was granted victim status in the course of the domestic proceedings and assumes therefore that she was directly implicated in communication with the authorities. However, no evidence has been submitted to the Court that the other five applicants were involved in the search for Saydi Malsagov in any manner (see, by contrast, Luluyev and Others, cited above, § 112). Still, the Court remarks that the seventh applicant himself encountered the servicemen on the night of his brother's abduction and thus endured considerable suffering. In such circumstances, the Court, while accepting that the events of 7 November 2002 might have been a source of considerable distress to the second, third, fifth and sixth applicants, is nevertheless unable to conclude that their mental suffering was distinct from the inevitable emotional distress in a situation such as in the present case and that it was so serious that it fell within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention.
134. As regards the first, fourth and seventh applicants, the Court notes that for more than six years they have not had any news of Saydi Malsagov. During this period the first applicant has applied to various official bodies with enquiries about her son, both in writing and in person. Despite all their efforts, the applicants have never received any plausible explanation or information as to what became of their family member following his arrest. The responses received by the applicants mostly denied that the State was responsible or simply informed them that an investigation was ongoing. The Court's findings under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are also of direct relevance here.
135. In view of the above, the Court finds that the first, fourth and seventh applicants suffered, and continue to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their family member and their inability to find out what happened to him. The manner in which their complaints have been dealt with by the authorities must be considered to constitute inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3.
136. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first, fourth and seventh applicants and no violation of this provision in respect of the other applicants.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention
137. The applicants further stated that Saydi Malsagov had been detained in violation of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
...
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravent
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 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
