had any prospects of success Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their objection as regards the applicants' failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation.
88. 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 Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
89. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that their relative Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev had been subjected to ill-treatment by his abductors and that as a result of his 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
90. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants and Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
91. The applicants maintained their submission.
B. The Court's assessment
(a) The complaint concerning the ill-treatment of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev on 8 February 2001
Admissibility
92. 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.
93. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
(b) The complaint concerning the applicants' moral suffering
1. Admissibility
94. The Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
95. 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 v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164).
96. In the present case the Court notes that the applicants are close relatives of the d
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 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
