which no derogation is permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146 - 47, Series A No. 324; and {Avsar}, cited above, § 391).
102. The Court has already found it established that the applicants' son must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen and that the death can be attributed to the State. In the absence of any justification in respect of the use of lethal force by State agents, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Marvan Idalov.
(b) The alleged inadequacy of the investigation of the kidnapping
103. The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann and Others, cited above, § 161; and Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I). The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, No. 24746/94, §§ 105 - 09, ECHR 2001-III; and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
104. In the present case, the kidnapping of Marvan Idalov was investigated. The Court must assess whether that investigation met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.
105. The Court notes at the outset that most of the documents from the investigation were not disclosed by the Government. It therefore has to assess the effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by the parties and the information about its progress presented by the Government.
106. The Court observes that the applicants submitted that they had verbally reported Marvan Idalov's abduction to the investigating authorities immediately after 22 November 2002 (see paragraphs 15 and 16 above). The investigation in case No. 44034 was instituted on 5 August 2004, that is, one year, eight months and thirteen days after the crime.
107. The Government attributed the delay in commencing the investigation to the applicants, arguing that the first applicant had filed a complaint with the President's Administration only on 29 August 2003. The Court is not in a position to establish whether the applicants visited any law-enforcement authorities immediately after 22 November 2002 in the absence of any material evidence of such a visit or to the contrary, but it does not deem it necessary to go into such details for the following reason. In December 2003 the district prosecutor's office received the first applicant's complaint of 29 August 2003 (see paragraph 42 above); it refused to investigate the kidnapping in the absence of any crim
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
