e negation of these guarantees and discloses a very grave violation of Article 5 (see {Cicek} v. Turkey, No. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev, cited above, § 122).
135. The Court has found it established that Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov were apprehended by State servicemen on 9 June 2002 and have not been seen since.
136. The Court takes note of the Government's argument that the men were detained in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. However, no documents authorising their detention, such as an arrest warrant or detention report, were submitted to the Court. Having regard to the State authorities' consistent denials of the very fact of detention of the applicants' relatives, which they maintained for several years, the Court doubts whether such documents ever existed. No custody records pertaining to the detention of the applicants' relatives were provided to the Court either.
137. As to the Government's contention that the applicants' relatives were released on 10 June 2002, the Court has already noted in paragraph 104 above that no evidence, such as detention facility records, was provided to it to corroborate this assertion. It has therefore found it established that Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov remained under the control of the authorities after that date.
138. Accordingly, the Court concludes that from 9 June 2002 the applicants' relatives were held in unacknowledged detention which was not logged in any custody records and that there exists no official trace of their subsequent whereabouts or fate. In accordance with the Court's practice, this must be considered a most serious failing, since it enables those responsible for an act of deprivation of liberty to conceal their involvement in a crime, to cover their tracks and to escape accountability for the fate of a detainee. Furthermore, the absence of detention records, noting such matters as the date, time and location of detention and the name of the detainee as well as the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it, must be seen as incompatible with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Orhan, cited above, § 371).
139. The Court further considers that the authorities should have been more alert to the need for a thorough and prompt investigation of the applicants' complaints that their relatives had been detained and taken away in life-threatening circumstances. However, the Court's findings above in relation to Article 2 and, in particular, the conduct of the investigation, leave no doubt that the authorities failed to take prompt and effective measures to safeguard the applicants' relatives against the risk of disappearance.
140. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov were held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5. This constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.
V. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
141. The applicants complained that under national law they were barred from filing a civil claim to obtain compensation for their relatives' unlawful detention or death pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
A. The parties' submissions
142. The Government disputed this alle
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 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
