Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.02.2009 «Дело Идалова и Идалов (Idalova and Idalov) против России» [англ.]

conduct (see Orhan v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002; and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164).
121. In the present case the Court notes that the applicants are the parents of the missing man. For almost seven years they have not had any news of Marvan Idalov. During this period the applicants have applied to various official bodies with enquiries about their son. Despite their attempts, the applicants have never received any plausible explanation or information as to what became of Marvan Idalov following his kidnapping. The responses received by the applicants mostly denied that the State was responsible for his abduction or simply informed them that an investigation was ongoing. The Court's findings under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention are also of direct relevance here.
122. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants suffered distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their son and their inability to find out what happened to him. The manner in which their complaints have been dealt with by the authorities must be considered to constitute inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
123. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants.

VII. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention

124. The applicants further stated that Marvan Idalov had been detained in violation of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
...
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation."

A. The parties' submissions

125. In the Government's opinion, no evidence was obtained by the investigators to confirm that Marvan Idalov had been deprived of his liberty in breach of the guarantees set out in Article 5 of the Convention.
126. The applicants reiterated the complaint.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

127. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that the complaint is not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

128. The Court has previously noted the fundamental importance of the guarantees contained in Article 5 to secure the right of individuals in a democracy to be free from arbitrary

> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 18 19 20

0.161 с