ard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of persons in the Chechen Republic which have come before the Court (see, among others, Imakayeva, cited above, Luluyev and Others v. Russia, No. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, No. 74237/01, 5 April 2007, Akhmadova and Sadulayeva, cited above, and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, No. 68007/01, 5 July 2007), the Court considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Vakha Abdurzakov or any news of him for more than five years supports this assumption.
99. Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish to the requisite standard of proof that Vakha Abdurzakov must be dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention
100. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the matter. Article 2 reads:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."
A. The parties' submissions
101. The Government contended that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that Vakha Abdurzakov was dead or that any servicemen of the federal law enforcement agencies had been involved in his kidnapping or alleged killing. The Government claimed that the investigation into the kidnapping of the applicants' relative met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as it had been opened within the ten-day term established by domestic law for institution of criminal proceedings and all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators. The applicants themselves had been responsible for delays in the investigation as they had not promptly reported to the investigating authorities all the information they had had.
102. The applicants argued that Vakha Abdurzakov had been detained by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for more than five years. The applicants also argued that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court's case-law on Article 2. The applicants pointed out that by 6 August 2004 the district prosecutor's office had not taken any investigative measures apart from questioning the applicants. By January 2008 the crime scene had not been inspected at all. The investigation into Vakha Abdurzakov's kidnapping had been opened nine days after the events. The applicants had not been properly informed of the course of the investigation most important investigative measures. The fact that the investigation had been pending for more than five years without producing any known results had been further proof of its ineffectiveness. The applicants invited the Court to draw conclusions from the Government's unjustified failure to submit the documents from the investigation file to them or to the Court.
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 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
