led to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding Aslanbek Khamzatov's disappearance in life-threatening circumstances, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
VI. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
91. 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 moral suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
92. 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.
93. The applicants maintained their submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
94. Referring to its settled case-law, the Court reiterates that, where a person has been abducted by State security forces and has subsequently disappeared, his or her relatives can claim to be victims of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of their mental distress caused by the "disappearance" of their family member and the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see, among many other authorities, Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130 - 34, Reports 1998-III, and {Timurtas} v. Turkey, No. 23531/94, §§ 96 - 98, ECHR 2000-VI).
95. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicants are close relatives of Aslanbek Khamzatov. Accordingly, it has no doubt that the applicants have indeed suffered from grave emotional distress following the disappearance of their son, husband and brother.
96. The Court notes that it has already found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of relatives of missing persons in a series of cases concerning the phenomenon of "disappearances" in the Chechen Republic (see, for example, Luluyev and Others, cited above, §§ 117 - 18; Khamila Isayeva v. Russia, No. 6846/02, § 143 - 45, 15 November 2007; and Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, §§ 107 - 10, 15 November 2007). It is noteworthy, however, that in those cases the State was found to be responsible for the disappearance of the applicants' relatives. In the present case, by contrast, it has not been established to the required standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" that the Russian authorities were implicated in Aslanbek Khamzatov's disappearance (see paragraph 70 above). In such circumstances the Court considers that this case is clearly distinguishable from those mentioned above and therefore concludes that the State cannot be held responsible for the applicants' mental distress caused by the commission of the crime itself.
97. Furthermore, in the absence of a finding of State responsibility for Aslanbek Khamzatov's disappearance, the Court is not persuaded that the investigating authorities' conduct, albeit negligent to the extent that it has breached Article 2 in its procedural aspect, could have in itself caused the applicants mental distress in excess of the minimum level of severity which is necessary in order to consider treatment as falling within the scope of Article 3 (see, among other authorities, Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 83, Series A No. 201).
98. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
VII. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention
99. The applicants further stated t
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15 ... 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
