cted by the district prosecutor's office (see paragraph 17 above). The Court finds that the inconsistencies pointed out by the Government in the applicants' description of the events are so insignificant that they cannot cast doubt on the overall credibility of the applicants' submission.
69. Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by State servicemen. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of the special forces in the kidnapping is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government's failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court considers that Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev was detained on 8 February 2001 by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation.
70. There has been no reliable news of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev since the date of his kidnapping. His name has not been found in any official detention facilities' records. Finally, the Government did not submit any explanation as to what had happened to him after his arrest.
71. Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of people in Chechnya which have come before the Court (see, among others, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, No. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, No. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, cited above; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, No. 68007/01, 5 July 2007), in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev or of any news of him for several years supports this assumption.
72. The Court further notes that, regrettably, it has been unable to benefit from the results of the domestic investigation, owing to the Government's failure to disclose any of the documents from the file (see paragraph 50 above). Nevertheless, it is clear that the investigation did not identify the perpetrators of the kidnapping.
73. Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish that Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen.
III. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention
74. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the matter. Article 2 reads:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."
A. The parties' submissions
75. The Government contended that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev was dead or that any servicemen of the federal law-enforcement agencies had been involved in his kidnappi
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
