Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.01.2009 «Дело Медова (Medova) против России» [англ.]

elf be considered as life-threatening (see {Osmanoglu} v. Turkey, No. 48804/99, § 57, 24 January 2008). The Court considers that such circumstances definitely include situations where, as in the present case, a person is abducted by a group of armed men. The absence of Mr Medov or any news of him for over four years corroborates this assumption.
91. For the above reasons the Court considers that Mr Adam Medov must be presumed dead.

III. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

92. The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention of a violation of the right to life in respect of Mr Adam Medov and of the authorities' failure to conduct a proper investigation. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:
"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. Alleged violation of the right to life of Mr Adam Medov

1. The parties' submissions

93. The applicant contended that her husband had been apprehended by agents of law-enforcement bodies and then deprived of his life in violation of Article 2.
94. The Government submitted that the circumstances of Mr Medov's disappearance were under investigation. There was no evidence that he had been deprived of his life as a result of the use of lethal force. Furthermore, the applicant's allegation that representatives of federal forces had been involved in his abduction and possible death were unfounded. The Government also pointed out that the applicant had not applied to courts to have her husband declared dead.

2. The Court's assessment

95. The Court has not found it established that State agents were responsible for the disappearance of the applicant's husband (see paragraph 88 above). However, this does not necessarily exclude the responsibility of the Government under Article 2 of the Convention (see {Osmanoglu} v. Turkey, cited above, § 71). According to the established case-law of the Court, the first sentence of Article 2 § 1 enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 36). The State's obligation in this respect extends beyond its primary duty to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. Article 2 of the Convention may also imply a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, § 115).
96. In this connection the Court reiterates that, in the light of the difficulties in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources, the scope of the positive obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet