s statement alone does not allow the Court to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant's relative was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
105. In so far as the complaint concerns the ill-treatment Mr Magomed Dokuyev was allegedly subjected to during his apprehension, the Court observes that the applicants, except for the second applicant, witnessed their relative's apprehension and saw the servicemen kicking him and beating him with rifle butts. It further notes the Government's submission that the domestic investigation had not established that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court observes, however, that despite its repeated requests the Government refused to provide a copy of the investigation file, having failed to adduce sufficient reasons for the refusal (see paragraph -- above), and finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in this respect.
106. The Court has found it established that Mr Magomed Dokuyev was apprehended on 14 February 2001 by State agents. It further considers that the applicants have made a prima facie showing that he was ill-treated by the servicemen during his apprehension. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government to refute this allegation (see paragraph 78 above). The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of special forces in the abduction is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof.
107. The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, amongst other authorities, the Tekin v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, § 52, Reports 1998-IV).
108. The evidence submitted shows that early in the morning of 14 February 2001 the servicemen who intruded into the applicants' home forcibly took Mr Magomed Dokuyev into the courtyard where they kicked him and beat with rifle butts. The Court considers that this treatment reached the threshold of "inhuman and degrading" since not only it must have caused Mr Magomed Dokuyev physical pain, but must have made him feel humiliated and caused fear and anguish as to what might happen to him.
109. Drawing inferences from the Government's failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession and to plausibly refute the applicants' allegations, the Court finds that there has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Magomed Dokuyev.
3. Effective investigation
110. The Court notes that the applicants have submitted their account of the ill-treatment Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been subjected to during his apprehension to the investigating authorities. However, the domestic investigation produced no tangible results.
111. For the reasons stated above in paragraphs 89 - 98 in relation to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment of Mr Magomed Dokuyev.
112. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 also in this respect.
B. The violation of Article 3 in respect of the first,
second and third applicants
113. 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 th
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
