Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHAMBULATOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 3 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 3 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 33488/04

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, §§ 146-47).

  The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant's representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).

• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 33488/04

  She relied in this connection on the cases of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 202-203, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 33488/04

  In view of its findings above (see paragraph 100 above), the Court considers that, although the complaint is admissible, no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 123, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 33488/04

  The Court reiterates that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health and is found to be injured on release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see, among other authorities, Selmouni, cited above, § 87; Salman, cited above, § 99; and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336).

• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 48523/19

  N.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Considering that the Government failed to put forward any plausible explanations as to the origins of the burn injury received by Movsar Umarov after this arrest, and taking into account the circumstances of his unacknowledged detention (see also paragraph 94 below), the Court considers that the evidence before it enables it to find beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Umarov was ill-treated while in the hands of State agents (see, for example, Khambulatova v. Russia, no. 33488/04, §§ 108-09, 3 March 2011).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 688/11

  GAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the particular circumstances of this case and its finding in respect of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraph 60 above), the Court does not deem it necessary to make a separate finding under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the alleged deficiencies in the investigation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 117, ECHR 2000-VII, and Khambulatova v. Russia, no. 33488/04, § 110, 3 March 2011).