Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MEHDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09
1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions, and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V, and Assenov and Others, cited above, § 93).In these circumstances, bearing in mind the authorities" obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control in custody, and in the absence of any convincing and plausible explanation by the Government, the Court should have considered, in my view, that it could draw inferences from the Government's conduct and should have found it established to the standard of proof required in the Convention proceedings that the injuries sustained by the applicant were the result of the treatment of which he complained and for which the Government bore responsibility (see Barabashchikov v. Russia, cited above, § 50; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 88, ECHR 1999-V; Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 30, 20 July 2004; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 104-105, 26 January 2006; and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 78-79, 15 May 2008).
- EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01
MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09
In these circumstances, bearing in mind the authorities" obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control in custody, and in the absence of any convincing and plausible explanation by the Government, the Court should have considered, in my view, that it could draw inferences from the Government's conduct and should have found it established to the standard of proof required in the Convention proceedings that the injuries sustained by the applicant were the result of the treatment of which he complained and for which the Government bore responsibility (see Barabashchikov v. Russia, cited above, § 50; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 88, ECHR 1999-V; Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 30, 20 July 2004; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 104-105, 26 January 2006; and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 78-79, 15 May 2008). - EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09
Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many other authorities, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
TOMASI c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09
In particular, where an individual, when taken into police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni, cited above, § 87). - EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00
KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09
Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Bati and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 134, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)). - EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03
DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09
In these circumstances, bearing in mind the authorities" obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control in custody, and in the absence of any convincing and plausible explanation by the Government, the Court should have considered, in my view, that it could draw inferences from the Government's conduct and should have found it established to the standard of proof required in the Convention proceedings that the injuries sustained by the applicant were the result of the treatment of which he complained and for which the Government bore responsibility (see Barabashchikov v. Russia, cited above, § 50; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 88, ECHR 1999-V; Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 30, 20 July 2004; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 104-105, 26 January 2006; and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 78-79, 15 May 2008).
- EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 47915/09
DADASHOV AND HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
However, the Court notes that the applicant failed to submit any evidence or details in support of his account of the conditions of detention, either in the domestic proceedings or before the Court (compare Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 59075/09, § 80, 18 June 2015, and Yagublu v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 69686/12, §§ 32-43, 15 July 2021). - EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 20605/13
GURBANOV AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that although the applicants' complaints made before the domestic authorities contained enough specific information - the identity of the alleged perpetrators, the date, the place and the nature of the ill-treatment - and were supported by sufficient evidence - photos, witness statements and media reports - to constitute an "arguable claim" in respect of which those authorities were under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation, no criminal inquiry has been carried out in the instant case into the applicants' allegations of ill-treatment (see Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 59075/09, § 66, 18 June 2015). - EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 77612/11
ISGANDAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
However, he failed to submit any evidence or details in support of his account of the conditions of detention, either in the domestic proceedings or before the Court (compare Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 59075/09, § 80, 18 June 2015, and Yagublu v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 69686/12, §§ 32-43, 15 July 2021).