merits of the application the applicants submitted that they no longer wished to have the complaint regarding the alleged ill-treatment of their relatives examined. They reiterated their complaint concerning the mental suffering they themselves had endured.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) The complaint concerning Suliman Malikov, Adlan Khatuyev, Aslan Khatuyev, Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mansur Ismailov
122. The Court, having regard to Article 37 of the Convention, finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). The Court also finds no reasons of a general character relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require it to continue the examination of the present complaints under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine (see, for example, Chojak v. Poland, No. 32220/96, Commission decision of 23 April 1998, unpublished; Singh and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 30024/96, 26 September 2000; and Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece, No. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).
123. It follows that this part of the application must be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
(b) The complaint concerning the applicants' mental suffering
124. 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 it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
125. 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 the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human rights violation. Relevant elements will include the proximity of the family tie, the particular circumstances of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed the events in question, the involvement of the family member in the attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person and the way in which the authorities responded to those enquiries. The Court would further emphasise that the essence of such a violation does not mainly lie in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member but rather concerns the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention. It is especially in respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim of the authorities' conduct (see Orhan, cited above, § 358, and Imakayeva, cited above, § 164).
126. In the present case the Court notes that the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh applicants were parents of the disappeared persons and thus belonged to their immediate family. To a certain extent this applies also to the sixth and eighth applicants, who were sisters of the disappeared persons. The fifth and the seventh applicants witnessed their sons' apprehension. For more than six years the applicants have not had any news of their close relatives. During this period the applicants, including sisters of the disappeared persons (see, in particular, paragraph 57 above), have applied to various official bodies with enquiries about their family members, both in writing and in person. For these reasons, in the present case the Court does not consider it necessary to distinguish any family members who could not have standing as victims for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention (see Luluyev and Others, cited above, §§ 112 - 113).
127. Despite their attempts, the applicants have never received any plausible explanation or inform
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 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
