nts' relatives had been detained at all, and it was only in the Government's observations of 10 October 2007 that the fact of their detention was acknowledged for the first time. No explanation was provided to the Court as to why the establishment of this simple fact required so many years of investigation.
114. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court observes that in the present case the investigating authorities not only did not comply with the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, No. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II), but failed to take the most elementary investigative measures.
115. The Court further notes that, according to the Government, the first, third, fifth and seventh applicants were granted victim status in the proceedings. The Court only has a document corroborating the assertion that victim status was granted to the fifth applicant. However, even assuming the accuracy of the Government's submissions, it appears that the applicants in any event were not informed of any significant developments in the investigation. Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, and to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings.
116. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation was adjourned and resumed a number of times and, even as regards the periods when the investigation was officially pending, the Court has very scant information concerning any investigative actions taken and notes lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the investigating authorities. This manner of conducting the investigation could only be detrimental to the prospects of establishing the fate of the applicants' relatives and ensuring the accountability of those responsible for their abduction.
117. Having regard to the Government's objection that was joined to the merits of the complaint, the Court notes that the investigation, having being repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been ongoing for many years without producing any tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their objection.
118. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
III. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
119. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also stated that their relatives had been subjected to ill-treatment contrary to that provision. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
120. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that either the applicants or Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, they submitted that those applicants who had witnessed their relatives' apprehension had themselves acted aggressively towards the servicemen at the checkpoint.
121. In their observations on the admissibility and
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
