Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 26.02.2009 «Дело Астамирова и другие (Astamirova and others) против России» [англ.]

the party requesting confidentiality to substantiate its request.
68. The Court further notes that it has already found on a number of occasions that the provisions of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not preclude disclosure of documents from a pending investigation file, but rather set out a procedure for and limits to such disclosure (see Mikheyev v. Russia, No. 77617/01, § 104, 26 January 2006, and Imakayeva v. Russia, No. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)). For these reasons the Court considers the Government's explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of the key information requested by the Court.
69. Referring to the importance of a respondent government's cooperation in Convention proceedings, the Court notes that there has been a breach of the obligations laid down in Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court in its task of establishing the facts.

C. The Court's evaluation of the facts

70. The Court observes that 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 Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, pp. 64 - 65, § 161). In view of this and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in respect of the well-foundedness of the applicants' allegations. The Court will thus proceed to examine crucial elements in the present case that should be taken into account when deciding whether the applicants' relative can be presumed dead and whether his death can be attributed to the authorities.
71. The applicants alleged that the persons who had taken Aslanbek Astamirov away on 5 August 2002 had been State agents.
72. The Government seemed to suggest in their submission that the persons who had detained Aslanbek Astamirov could be members of paramilitary groups. They also alleged, alternatively, that he could have left his home on his own. However, these allegations were not specific and they did not submit any material to support them. The Court would stress in this regard that the evaluation of the evidence and the establishment of the facts is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see {Celikbilek} v. Turkey, No. 27693/95, § 71, 31 May 2005).
73. The Court notes that, on the contrary, the applicants' version of the events is supported by their statements and by the information collected by the investigation. The applicants and the neighbours stated that the perpetrators had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation - they had checked the residents' passports and they had spoken Russian among themselves and to the applicants. Some witnesses also referred to the use of military vehicles such as APCs, which would not have been available to paramilitary groups (see paragraph 16 above). In their applications to the authorities the applicants consistently maintained that their relative had been detained by unknown servicemen and requested the investigation to look into that possibility.
74. The Court finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform during curfew hours, equipped with military vehicles, was able to move freely through military roadblocks and proceeded to check identity documents and to arrest a person at his home in a town area strongly supports the applicants' allegation that these were State servicemen. The domestic investigation also accepted factual assump



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet