ent were ineffective in the circumstances of the case and rejects their objection as regards the applicants' failure to exhaust these domestic remedies.
114. 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 Vakha Abdurzakov, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
V. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
115. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relative's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental and emotional suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
116. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
117. The applicants maintained their submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
118. 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
119. 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 v. Turkey, No. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002).
120. In the present case the Court notes that the applicants are the parents of the missing person who witnessed his abduction. For more than five years they have not had any news of Vakha Abdurzakov. During this period the applicants have applied to various official bodies with enquiries about their son, both in writing and in person. Despite their attempts, the applicants have never received any plausible explanation or information as to what became of Vakha Abdurzakov following his kidnapping. The responses received by the applicants mostly denied that the State was responsible for his arrest or simply informed them that an investigation was ongoing. The Court's findings under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are also of direct relevance here.
121. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants suffered distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their son and their inability to find out what happened to him. The manner in which their complaints have been dealt with by the authorities must be considered to constitute inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3.<
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 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
