Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHADZHIALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  The Court further reiterates that the requirements of Article 13 are broader than a Contracting State's obligation under Article 2 to conduct an effective investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 183, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  As to the alleged violation of procedural guarantees of Article 3, the Court considers that in the absence of any reliable information about the alleged ill-treatment of Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhialiyev this complaint raises no separate issue from that examined above under Article 2 and to be examined below under Article 13 of the Convention (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 107, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  In view of the Court's above findings with regard to Article 2, this complaint is clearly "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11; Ribitsch, cited above, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence confirming 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, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  The Court considers that, in order to comply with their obligation to exercise exemplary diligence in dealing with a serious crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II), the investigating authorities should have taken these measures more promptly.
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  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, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  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 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  The Court observes that in previous cases it has already 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, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147, and Avsar v. Turkey, cited above, § 391).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  Massaker von Katyn

  Nevertheless, the Court has considered a separate finding of a violation of Article 3 to be justified in situations of confirmed death where the applicants were direct witnesses to the suffering of their family members (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 204, 14 March 2013, where the applicant witnessed the slow death of her son who was in detention, without being able to help him; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 190, 29 March 2011, where a violation of Article 3 was found in respect of an applicant who had witnessed the killing of his entire family, but no violation was found in respect of other applicants who had only later found out about the killings; Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 121, 6 November 2008, where the applicants were unable to bury the dismembered and decapitated bodies of their children in a proper manner; Musayev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  ELBERTE v. LATVIA

  Nor is there any suggestion of mutilation of the body (see Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, §§ 258-259, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), and Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 84-87, 27 February 2007) or that the corpse had been dismembered and decapitated (see Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, §§ 120-122, 6 November 2008) in the present case.
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1572/07

  NASUKHANOVY v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, there were no specific circumstances in the present case precluding the applicants from burying their loved ones in a proper manner (see, by contrast, Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 121, 6 November 2008).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 200, ECHR 2009; see also Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 114, 6 November 2008, as regards Article 3 claims).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

  Fourth, the victim should be able to participate effectively in the investigation in one form or another, in particular, by having access to the materials of the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III, and Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 106, 6 November 2008; see also Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 157, 17 December 2009; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 92, ECHR 2008 (extracts); and Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria, no. 46317/99, § 107, 23 February 2006).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 5269/08

  SHCHIBORSHCH AND KUZMINA v. RUSSIA

  To be "effective", an investigation should meet several basic requirements, formulated in the Court's case-law under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: it should be thorough (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 103 et seq., Reports 1998-VIII; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman, cited above, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 1999-IV; and Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000), expedient (see Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV; Timurtas, cited above, § 89; and Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and independent (see Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, §§ 80-82, Reports 1998-IV; ÖÄŸur v. Turkey, [GC], no. 21954/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III; and Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 37, 20 July 2004); and the materials and conclusions of the investigation should be sufficiently accessible to the relatives of the victims (see OÄŸur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III, and Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 106, 6 November 2008), to the extent that it does not seriously undermine its efficiency.
• EGMR - 15393/22 (anhängig)

  DAGHAN c. TÜRKIYE

  Les mutilations constatées sur le cadavre du fils des requérants constituent-ils un traitement inhumain ou dégradant (Akkum et autres c. Turquie, no 21894/93, §§ 256-259, CEDH 2005-II (extraits), et mutatis mutandis, Khadjialiyev et autres c. Russie, no 3013/04, §§ 120-122, 6 novembre 2008), en violation de l'article 3 de la Convention lu isolément ou combiné avec son article 14 ?.