Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHUMAYDOV AND KHUMAYDOV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  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 Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports 1998-III, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 96-98, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  These delays, for which there has been no explanation in the instant case constitute a breach of the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  Furthermore, in the absence of a finding of State responsibility for Khava Magomadova'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).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence requiring the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in its assessment of evidence (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

  DOUGLAS-WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exclusive access to information able to corroborate or refute the applicants" allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  The Court has found the Russian State authorities responsible for extrajudicial executions or disappearances of civilians in the Chechen Republic in a number of cases, even in the absence of final conclusions from the domestic investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Estamirov and Others, cited above; and Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  The Court observes that in previous cases it has found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01

  BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 67797/01

  ZUBAYRAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE