Auszug aus EGMR - 62822/15

(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 disappearance of the applicants" missing relative sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?.

Auszug aus EGMR - 62822/15

(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in respect of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants" relative's abduction and ensuing disappearance (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others, cited above, §§ 181-84; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants" submissions that State agents were involved in the abduction by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the event?.

Auszug aus EGMR - 62822/15

16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009 and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, ECHR 31 May 2016)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their application with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction of their relative.