or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 119 - 121, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others, cited above, § 77). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies.
57. As regards criminal law remedies, the Court observes that the applicants complained to the law enforcement authorities after the kidnapping of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev and that an investigation has been pending since 9 June 2001. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation of the kidnapping.
58. Furthermore, the Court considers that the Government's objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints under Article 2. Thus, it considers that the objection should be joined to the merits and falls to be examined below under the relevant substantive provisions of the Convention.
II. The court's assessment of the evidence
and the establishment of the facts
A. The parties' arguments
59. The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev were State agents. In support of their complaint they referred to the following facts. In February 2001 Chechen-Aul had been under the total control of federal troops. Russian military checkpoints had been stationed on the roads leading to and from the village. The armed men in camouflage uniform who had abducted Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev had been driving in military vehicles, APCs, and this had been confirmed by eyewitness accounts. The armed men had blocked the road and acted in a manner similar to that of special forces carrying out identity checks.
60. The Government submitted that unidentified armed men had kidnapped Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev. They further contended that the investigation of the incident was pending, that there was no evidence that the men were State agents and that there were therefore no grounds for holding the State liable for the alleged violations of the applicants' rights. They further argued that there was no convincing evidence that the applicants' relative was dead. The Government also stated that "without denying the necessity to verify the theory of possible involvement of federal forces in the abduction of A.-M. Shakhmurzayev, it should be noted that his abduction could have been committed by persons connected with the criminal world, or that it could have been the result of a blood feud". At the same time the Government pointed out that the applicants' submissions concerning the factual circumstances of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev's abduction had been inconsistent. In particular, they alleged that the applicants had failed to inform the domestic authorities about the eyewitnesses to the abduction; that some of the witnesses had stated that a man had been wounded during the detention of the applicants' relative whereas others had not mentioned that in their testimonies to domestic authorities or to the Court and that the witnesses to A.-M. Shakhmurzayev's apprehension had not been consistent in their description of the number of the APCs involved in the abduction.
B. The Court's evaluation of the facts
61. The Court observes that in its extensive jurisprudence it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia, No. 69481/01, §§ 103 - 109, 27 July 2006). The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ire
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
