of federal troops. The armed men who had abducted Vakha Abdurzakov had Slavic features and had spoken Russian without an accent, which proved that they were not of Chechen origin. The men had arrived in military vehicles, including APCs, late at night past curfew. The applicants also pointed out that the ground given for the Government's refusal to submit the investigation file in case No. 61146 was that it contained information of a military nature.
79. The Government submitted that unidentified armed men had kidnapped Vakha Abdurzakov. They further contended that the investigation of the incident was pending; that there was no evidence that the men had been State agents; and that there was no convincing evidence that the applicants' relative was dead. In 2002 the FSB Department had not employed a person named "Sergey Konstantinov". The Government also stated that the crime could have been committed by members of illegal armed groups. In particular, they noted that no-one had seen Vakha Abdurzakov being placed inside an APC. Criminals in the Chechen Republic could have possessed camouflage uniforms and firearms stolen from the federal arsenals in the 1990s. Groups of Ukrainian, Belorussian and ethnic Russian mercenaries had committed crimes in the territory of the Chechen Republic and, therefore, the fact that the perpetrators had Slavic features and spoke Russian did not prove their attachment to the Russian military. The fact that some items had been stolen from the Abdurzakovs' house also proved that the armed men were criminals, not State agents. Furthermore, the Government observed that the applicants had made contradictory statements during their interviews in 2002, 2003 and 2007. They had never informed the investigation of blood traces allegedly found near their house. Statements by other witnesses had also been inconsistent. The Government emphasised that the applicants and other witnesses had been obliged to give truthful testimony under domestic law but there was no legal obligation as regards their submissions to the Court and inferred that the testimonies given in the course of the investigation were more reliable and correct than the information sent to Strasbourg.
B. The Court's evaluation of the facts
1. General principles
80. In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events, the Court is inevitably confronted when establishing the facts with the same difficulties as those faced by any first-instance court. When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exclusive access to information able to corroborate or refute the applicants' allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see {Tanis} and Others v. Turkey, No. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-...).
81. The Court points out that a number of principles have been developed in its case-law when it is faced with the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree. As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence confirming the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in its assessment of evidence (see {Avsar} v. Turkey, No. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)). Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. In this context, the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see {Tanis} and Others, cited above, § 160).
82. The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United King
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
