s is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see {Celikbilek} v. Turkey, No. 27693/95, § 71, 31 May 2005).
90. The Court takes note of the Government's allegation that firearms and camouflage uniforms were probably stolen by insurgents from Russian arsenals in the 1990s. Nevertheless, it considers it very unlikely that several military vehicles, such as APCs and UAZ vehicles, unlawfully possessed by members of illegal armed groups could have moved freely through Russian military checkpoints without being noticed.
91. The Government pointed out that no-one had seen Vakha Abdurzakov being placed into an APC. However, they did not claim that no APCs or UAZ vehicles had been circulating in Urus-Martan between 24 and 25 October 2002. The Court refers in this respect to the first applicant's depositions made before the domestic investigating authorities, in which she claimed to have seen two APCs and two UAZ vehicles parked in the vicinity of her house on the night of the crime (see paragraphs 48 and 57 above). It appears that the first applicant had reasonable grounds to assume that the armed men who had broken into her house had travelled in and driven away in those four vehicles. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that members of illegal armed groups could have kidnapped a person while four military vehicles most probably belonging to State agencies were parked nearby.
92. Furthermore, the Court points out that Ms Yu. told both the applicants and the investigators that she had given the money as ransom to a police officer named "Sergey".
93. The Court finds therefore that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform travelling in the APCs and UAZ vehicles arrived in the town of Urus-Martan at 3 a.m. strongly supports the applicants' assertion that these were State servicemen conducting a security operation.
94. The Government noted that the applicants' statements had been inconsistent throughout the investigation. The Court, however, has not found any major inconsistencies in the applicants' accounts of events presented in the course of both domestic and Strasbourg proceedings.
95. The Court observes that where the applicants make out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to a lack of documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see {Togcu} v. Turkey, No. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, No. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
96. Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their relative was apprehended by State servicemen. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of the special forces in the kidnapping is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government's failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court considers that Vakha Abdurzakov was abducted on 25 October 2002 by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation.
97. There has been no reliable news of Vakha Abdurzakov since the date of the kidnapping. His name has not been found in any official detention facilities' records. Finally, the Government did not submit any explanation as to what had happened to him after his arrest.
98. Having reg
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 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
