Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MESTOYEVY v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR - 66394/10

  (d) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearances of the applicants" missing relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?.

• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 50556/08

  KUKURKHOYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Mestoyevy v. Russia (no. 66394/10).

  In Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10) the Government noted that the applicants" representative had unduly delayed lodging the application with the Court.

  In Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10) the formal complaint was brought two weeks after the abduction, and in Umarov and Others (no. 5691/11) and Kosumova (no. 65052/11) within about one month of the incidents, which does not appear to have been unreasonable in the circumstances of the cases (see paragraphs 93, 99, 110, 114, 150 and 151 above).

  In Akhmetkhanova and Others (no. 43706/09) and Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10) the proceedings remained suspended for about four years and five months (see paragraphs 80, 83, 103 and 105 above).

  The Court also takes into account that in Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11) and Kosumova (no. 65052/11) the periods of inactivity were not particularly significant and that the applicants in those cases demonstrated an active stance in the proceedings as a whole.

  The Government argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions of the investigating authorities, and raise the issue of the effectiveness of the investigation, or claim compensation for pecuniary damage, but the applicants in Kosumova (no. 65052/11), Isayevy, Zakriyeva and Muradova, Akhmetkhanova and Others (no. 43706/09) and Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10) had failed to do so.

  Eye witnesses to the events in Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva (no. 51029/08) and Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10) stated that the perpetrators were of Slavic appearance.

  In Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Kosumova (no. 65052/11) and Isayevy (no. 70640/11) they arrived in UAZs, a brand of military vehicle.

  In the cases of Zakriyeva and Muradova, Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10) and Umarov and Others (no. 5691/11) the culprits" vehicles passed freely through road checkpoints.

  The Court furthermore confirms that since it has been established that the applicants" relatives were detained by State agents, apparently without any legal grounds or acknowledgement of such detention, this constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security of persons enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants" relatives in Kukurkhoyeva (no. 50556/08), Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova (no. 22667/09), Akhmetkhanova and Others (no. 43706/09), Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10), Umarov and Others (no. 5691/11), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Isayevy (no. 70640/11) and Demelkhanova (no. 59203/13).

  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants" relatives in Kukurkhoyeva v. Russia (no. 50556/08), Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva v. Russia (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova v. Russia (no. 22667/09), Akhmetkhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 43706/09), Mestoyevy v. Russia (no. 66394/10), Umarov and Others v. Russia (no. 5691/11), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia (no. 59117/11), Isayevy v. Russia (no. 70640/11) and Demelkhanova v. Russia (no. 59203/13) on account of their unlawful detention;.

  66394/10.