Rechtsprechung
| EGMR - 65054/11, 77744/11, 851/12, 867/12, 9616/12, 13843/12, 13909/12, 34909/12, 36883/12, 40162/12 |
Sonstiges
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 - 65054/11
(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, 08.10.2019 - 36875/11
KHAKIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov v. Russia (no. 65054/11).In the remainder of the applications at hand that period varied between ten years and five months and eleven years and seven months (it amounted to around eleven years and six months in Dedishev (no. 46624/11); ten years and five months and ten years and nine months in Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11); eleven years and two months in Chapanovy (no. 76566/11); and eleven years and seven months in Gerimovy (no. 8435/12)).
The Court further notes that in Khakimova and Others (no. 36875/11), Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11), Chapanovy (no. 76566/11) and Gerimovy (no. 8435/12) the authorities became aware of the abductions within several weeks of the respective incidents, which can be considered as lodging the official complaints without undue delay given the situation at the material time.
The Court also notes certain lulls in the criminal proceedings (see in Khakimova and Others (no. 36875/11) paragraph 22 above; in Dedishev (no. 46624/11) paragraph 46 above; in Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11) paragraphs 64 and 786464; in Chapanovy (no. 76566/11) paragraph 98; and in Gerimovy (no. 8435/12) paragraphs 122 and 124 above), while the investigations were suspended.
The most significant of them, which appears to have exceeded five years (the exact dates of suspension and resumption were not always clear), took place in Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11) and Chapanovy (no. 76566/11).
In Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11) Mr Uvays Shaipov was abducted at a military checkpoint by armed men with an APC.
In Khakimova and Others (no. 36875/11), Dedishev (no. 46624/11) and Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11) the Government submitted that the applicants" complaints should be dismissed as unsubstantiated.
The applicants in Khakimova and Others (no. 36875/11), Chapanovy (no. 76566/11), Gerimovy (no. 8435/12) and Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11) complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives.
Given the above findings regarding the State's responsibility for the abductions of the applicants" relatives and the failure to carry out meaningful investigations into the incidents (see paragraphs 178 above), the Court finds that the applicants in Khakimova and Others (no. 36875/11), Chapanovy (no. 76566/11), Gerimovy (no. 8435/12) and Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11), as far as the latter's complaint related to the abduction of Mr Alvi Dzhankhotov, must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of both their inability to ascertain the fate of their missing family members and the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with.
Regard being had to the belated submission of the claim in respect of the mental suffering caused by the abduction of Mr Uvays Shaipov to his relatives in Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11), the Court will not examine it within the present proceedings (see, for similar reasoning, Elita Magomadova v. Russia, no. 77546/14, §§ 37-38, 10 April 2018; and Chernenko and Others v. Russia, no. 4246/14 and 5 other applications, § 37, 5 February 2019).
The Court furthermore confirms that since it has been established that the applicants" relatives were detained by State agents, apparently in the absence of 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 Khakimova and Others (no. 36875/11), Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11), Chapanovy (no. 76566/11) and Gerimovy (no. 8435/12).
In the light of the above, and taking into account the scope of the applicants" complaints, the Court finds that the applicants in Khakimova and Others (no. 36875/11), Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11), Chapanovy (no. 76566/11) and Gerimovy (no. 8435/12) did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
All of the applicants except the applicant in Dedishev (no. 46624/11) and the second applicant in Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11) claimed compensation for loss of financial support from the breadwinners in their families.
The applicants in Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11) made their calculations on the basis of the UK Ogden Actuary Tables, using domestic subsistence levels and inflation rates.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in Khakimova and Others (no. 36875/11), Chapanovy (no. 76566/11), Gerimovy (no. 8435/12) and Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11) as far as the latter's complaint relates to the abduction of Mr Alvi Dzhankhotov, on account of their mental suffering caused by their relatives" disappearance and the authorities" response to their suffering;.
Holds that in Khakimova and Others (no. 36875/11), Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11), Chapanovy (no. 76566/11) and Gerimovy (no. 8435/12) there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants" relatives, on account of their unlawful detention;.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in Khakimova and Others (no. 36875/11), Dzhankhotova and Dzhankhotov (no. 65054/11), Chapanovy (no. 76566/11) and Gerimovy (no. 8435/12);.
65054/11.