ation of Article 5 (see {Cicek} v. Turkey, No. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev, cited above, § 122).
104. The Court has found it established that Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev was abducted by State servicemen on 8 February 2001 and has not been seen since. His detention was not acknowledged, was not logged in any custody records and there exists no official trace of his subsequent whereabouts or fate. In accordance with the Court's practice, this fact in itself must be considered a most serious failing, since it enables those responsible for an act of deprivation of liberty to conceal their involvement in a crime, to cover their tracks and to escape accountability for the fate of a detainee. Furthermore, the absence of detention records, noting such matters as the date, time and location of detention and the name of the detainee as well as the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it, must be seen as incompatible with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Orhan, cited above, § 371).
105. The Court further considers that the authorities should have been more alert to the need for a thorough and prompt investigation of the applicants' complaints that their relative had been detained and taken away in life-threatening circumstances. However, the Court's findings above in relation to Article 2 and, in particular, the conduct of the investigation leave no doubt that the authorities failed to take prompt and effective measures to safeguard him against the risk of disappearance.
106. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev was held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5. This constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.
VI. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
Admissibility
107. The applicants alleged that they had no access to a court as they were unable to bring a civil action for compensation for their relative's kidnapping since the investigation had produced no results. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
108. The Court observes that the applicants submitted no evidence to prove their alleged intention to claim compensation through the domestic courts. Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see Musikhanova and Others v. Russia (dec.), No. 27243/03, 10 July 2007).
VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
109. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of effective remedies in respect of the aforementioned violations, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
A. The parties' submissions
110. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants could have brought a civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage or could have lodged court complaints against the investigators. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.
111. The applicants reiterated the complaint.
B. The Court's assessment
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 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
