been pending for many years without producing any tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their objection as regards the applicants' failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation.
93. 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 Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
94. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that it was highly probable that after the abduction Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev had been subjected to ill-treatment. The applicants also alleged that the third applicant was subjected to ill-treatment during the abduction. Further, the applicants complained 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. Article 3 reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
95. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants and Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
96. The applicants maintained their submission.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) The complaint concerning Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev
97. 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, cited above, § 161 in fine).
98. The Court has already found that Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev were detained on 10 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, they can be presumed dead and that the responsibility for their death lies with the State authorities (see paragraph 80 above). However, the questions as to the exact way in which they died and whether they were subjected to ill-treatment while in detention have not been answered. In the absence of any relevant evidence the Court finds that this part of the complaint has not been substantiated.
99. 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 ill-treatment of the third applicant
100. The Court observes that as it follows from the documents before it, it does not appear that this complaint has been properly raised before the competent domestic authorities. Therefore, the Court concludes that the applicants failed to exhaust available domestic remedies with regard to this part of their complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
101. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
(c) The complaint concerning the applicants' mental and emotional suffering
102. The Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-f
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 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
