|
The ECHR communicates complaint by Finogenov and others vs. Russia  The European Court of Human Rights began the process of communication on the complaint of 'Finogenov et al vs. Russia' in the 'Nord-Ost' case. The parties were asked to answer the following questions:1.Did the applicants exhaust effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention? In answering this question the Government are invited to take into account the proceedings described in the case of Chernetsova and Others v. Russia, no. 27311/03, communicated on 2 April 2007.
2.Has the right to life of the applicants' relatives who died as a result of the events of 23 — 26 October 2002 been violated (see in this respect Ergi v. Turkey, judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, § 81; see also Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, §§ 179 et seq., 24 February 2005, and Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, judgment of 9 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, § 181)?
Has the right to life of Ms Gubareva, who was among the hostages on 23–26 October 2002, been violated in the present case?
Did the authorities try to bring an end to the crisis through persuasion and dialogue? Was the recourse to lethal force absolutely necessary? Did the authorities take sufficient precautions while planning, controlling and implementing the rescue operation in order to protect, to the maximum extent possible, the lives of the hostages and save those who could have been saved?
3.Having regard to the “procedural” obligations of the State under Articles 2 and 13, namely the obligations to carry out an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the use of lethal force or of inhuman and degrading treatment, and to provide for the payment of compensation where appropriate (see, inter alia, Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 36, 20 July 2004), were the domestic proceedings in conformity with these Convention provisions?
The Government are invited to produce materials of the official criminal investigation, in particular, criminal case no. 229133 and the criminal case against Mr Talkhigov, as well as other investigations (if any).
4.As regards Ms Gubareva, who was among the hostages, did the State subject her to inhuman and degrading treatment during the rescue operation? Did the authorities comply with their positive obligations under Article 3? In particular, did they take the necessary precautions in order to minimise her sufferings during the rescue operation and the deterioration of her health as a result of it? Was the investigation into the events of 26 October 2002 “effective”, as required by Article 3 of the Convention? Did she have any effective remedies at her disposal, as required by Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention?
Views: 6829 | E-mail
|
- Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
- Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
- Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
- Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
- Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
|
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze — www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved |
Be first to comment this article
