119.  The applicants argued that the investigations into the abductions of their relatives had been ineffective and inadequate, in breach of the requirements derived from Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed to the delays in taking the most basic steps, failures to identify and question important witnesses other than the applicants or their neighbours, repeated suspensions and reopening of the proceedings, and failure to keep the victims informed about any progress.


42.  The applicants submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court in its judgments, obliged national authorities to investigate a death as soon as they become aware of it. They also submitted that their complaints concerned the effectiveness of the prosecutor’s investigation and that there had not been a criminal trial in which they could have taken part as civil parties.


32.  The applicants complained about the killing of their respective husband and father, Mr Stevo Borojević, and insufficiencies in the investigation in that respect. They also claimed that he had been killed because of his Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. The applicants further complained that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article 2 of the Convention alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:


57.  The Government argued that the procedural requirements as regards the State’s obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention had been respected in the present case. The authorities had acted of their own motion, the investigation conducted had been independent, all possible methods had been used, the evidence concerning the incident had been secured, the investigation had been conducted promptly, and the applicant, who had been recognised as the victim, had been sufficiently involved in the investigation.


42.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant’s brother had died of acute coronary insufficiency and ischemic decease exacerbated by alcohol withdrawal syndrome, whereas Article <mask> of the Convention covered only the deprivation of life by use of force. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaint should be dismissed as incompatible with the relevant Convention provisions. As regards the ensuing investigation, the Government considered that the national authorities had promptly investigated the circumstances of Mr Timin’s death. The investigators had questioned the staff of the temporary detention centre and medical practitioners, and had commissioned forensic evidence. The authorities had examined the circumstances of the case thoroughly and had established the cause of Mr Timin’s death, which excluded any criminal liability on the part of the staff of the temporary detention centre or medical practitioners.


61.  The Government further submitted that the persons whom the first applicant had requested in her petition of 21 January 2008 to be heard (see paragraph 22 above) had had no direct information which could have altered the course of the investigation. Referring to the Court’s case-law, the Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not impose a duty on the investigating authorities to satisfy each and every request made by a relative in the course of an investigation.


48.  The applicants alleged that their relative had been deliberately killed by a police officer in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They complained that the suspension of pronouncement of the judgment in respect of the police officer was not compatible with the obligation to protect the right to life by law within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. Relying on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants also complained that there had been serious shortcomings in the investigation into the shooting and in the trial of the police officer.


196.  The applicant did not submit that prosecutors in England and Wales were not adequately independent for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, relying on Maksimov v. Russia, no. 43233/02, 18 March 2010, she criticised the fact that the prosecutor normally makes decisions without the benefit of oral testimony. She submitted that in cases like the present, where honesty and credibility were decisive, it was vital that the prosecutor should be in a position to assess the demeanour of witnesses giving oral evidence.


72.  The Government maintained that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They pointed out that Czech law provided for a set of remedies in respect of Article <mask> of the Convention, consisting of a constitutional appeal, an action for damages under the Police Act, an action for damages under the State Liability Act and an action for protection of the personal rights under the Civil Code.


38.  The Government further submitted that the Convention did not guarantee the right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for criminal offences. They contended that even in cases under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court had accepted that the State’s procedural obligations may be met by affording victims a civil-law remedy – the Government cited the cases of Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, ECHR 2002‑I; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, ECHR 2004‑VIII; and Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, 9 April 2009. In that connection, the Government submitted that the applicant’s civil claim had been thoroughly examined by the courts and granted to the extent that the applicant had substantiated his losses, so despite the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings the applicant had received adequate compensation for the assault and any shortcomings in the criminal proceedings had thus been remedied.


85.  The applicants maintained their complaints. In their opinion, it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had apprehended and taken away their two relatives on 2 July 2001 were from the federal forces, given the fact that those forces had carried out a special operation in Sernovodsk on the date in question and that this had been confirmed by eyewitness statements, NGO and media reports submitted by the applicants and acknowledged by the Government in their observations. The applicants accordingly argued that following their arrest Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov had been under the control of the State. They stressed that their relatives had been apprehended in life-threatening circumstances and contended that the fact that Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov were not listed among those being held in detention centres proved that their lives had been endangered after their arrest, since it was widespread practice in Chechnya for people apprehended by State agents to be deprived of their lives either immediately, or shortly afterwards. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, they thus argued that the fact that their relatives had remained missing since 12 May 2001 proved that they had been killed. They also claimed that the special operation carried out on the aforementioned date had not been properly planned and supervised by the authorities to ensure that it met the requirements of Article 2.


59.  The Government maintained that, at the applicant's request, the Prosecutor's Office had conducted an inquiry in which it had collected all available evidence – reports and other documents, and statements from individuals – in connection with the death of the applicant's son. According to the Government, that inquiry complied with the requirements for an effective investigation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


213.  The Government reiterated that, in accordance with the Court’s case‑law, the obligation deriving from the procedural limb of Article 2 was one of means and not of result. In this regard, if some doubts had persisted concerning the events surrounding the applicant’s husband’s death, this was simply because there were always situations in which medical science was unable to predict, diagnose or explain. However, this was not in any way attributable to a lack of effort on the part of the domestic authorities. The Government therefore considered that the procedural obligations deriving from Article <mask> of the Convention had been fulfilled in the present case. Accordingly, they called for the application to be rejected as inadmissible under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention, on the ground that it was manifestly ill-founded.


86.  The applicant stated that the quantum of any award for non-pecuniary damage was for the Court to assess on an equitable basis. She raised concerns, however, that any just satisfaction award, as was made in the other Northern Ireland cases (Hugh Jordan, McKerr, Kelly and Others and Shanaghan, cited above), would be regarded as bringing to an end the investigative obligation imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention. She referred in that regard to the approach adopted by the domestic courts in the application brought by Jonathan McKerr after the Court's judgment for a declaration that the State was in continuing breach of the procedural obligation under Article 2 and for an order of mandamus to compel it to provide an effective investigation. On 26 July 2002 the High Court in Northern Ireland rejected the application, finding that this Court would not have exercised its discretion to award just satisfaction had it envisaged the possibility of restitutio in integrum through the holding of an effective investigation and therefore considered that any continuing obligation had come to an end once the Court had delivered its judgment. This decision has since been overturned by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, on 10 January 2003, and an application by the Crown for leave to appeal is apparently pending before the House of Lords. The applicant requested the Court to state that awards of just satisfaction do not bring to an end the rights conferred by Article 2. Since she would not wish any just satisfaction award to jeopardise action taken at the domestic level to enforce an investigation, she requested the Court not to make such an award if it were to agree with the High Court's approach mentioned above.


47.  The applicant asserted that the point at which life began had a universal meaning and definition. Even though that was in the nature of things, it was now scientifically proven that all life began at fertilisation. That was an experimental finding. A child that had been conceived but not yet born was neither a cluster of cells nor an object, but a person. Otherwise, it would have to be concluded that in the instant case she had not lost anything. Such an argument was unacceptable for a pregnant woman. Accordingly, the term “everyone” (“toute personne”) in Article <mask> of the Convention was to be taken to mean human beings rather than individuals with the attributes of legal personality. Indeed, that had been the position taken by the Conseil d’Etat and the Court of Cassation, which, having agreed to review the compatibility of the Termination of Pregnancy Act with Article 2, had been compelled to accept that, from the first moments of its life in the womb, the unborn child came within the scope of that provision (Conseil d’Etat (full court), 21 December 1990, Recueil Lebon, p. 368; Court of Cassation (Criminal Division), 27 November 1996, Bulletin criminel no. 431).


52.  The applicants complained about the killing of S.M. and insufficiencies in the investigation in that respect. They also claimed that S.M. had been killed because of his Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. The applicants further complained that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article 2 of the Convention alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:


47.  The Government maintained that the applicants had not yet exhausted domestic remedies as regards the substantive complaint because their civil action was pending. While there appeared to be two lines of relevant case-law, they considered that the governing authority lay with the Caraher v. the United Kingdom line ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000 I; the six judgments concerning Northern Ireland cited at paragraph 37 above; and Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010). The cases, which the applicants considered showed a contrary line, were distinguishable. In any event, given the pending decision of the DPP, the possible referral to the Police Ombudsman, possible criminal proceedings and related judicial review proceedings, it would be premature and inappropriate to examine the applicant’s complaint of a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


106.  The Government further argued that only actual killing could be regarded as deprivation of life for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention and that there were no grounds to believe that Mr Sultan Isayev or any other residents of Alkhan-Kala detained on 29 April 2001 were in fact dead, given that their deaths had not been confirmed by courts in accordance with domestic law.


59.  The applicants complained under Article 2 that their relatives were killed in circumstances in which resort to lethal force was not justified. Alternatively, it was alleged that the planning and conduct of the operation which resulted in the deaths was not such as to ensure the protection of the right to life of their relatives. In addition, it was contended that the right to life of their relatives was not adequately protected by domestic law and practice in Turkey. The applicants further alleged that the investigation and criminal proceedings against certain members of the security forces was fundamentally flawed and, as a result, were not capable of being effective, in violation of the procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention.


178.  The applicants maintained their complaints, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances that violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, they noted that the Government did not provide the Court with some of the investigation files in their entirety as had been requested.


19.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 17 of the Convention about unfairness and outcome of the proceedings. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 about excessive length of the first set of proceedings. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was not provided with the car he whished. He finally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. He also referred to certain provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons.


112.  The Government attributed the delay in commencing the investigation to the applicants, arguing that the first applicant had made a complaint to the authorities only on 14 February 2003. The Court is not in a position to establish whether the applicants visited any law enforcement authorities on 3 February 2003 in the absence of any material evidence for that or to the contrary, but it does not deem it necessary to go into such details for the following reason. The Government provided no explanation whatsoever for the fact that the district prosecutor’s office had opened the investigation in case no. 42050 more than a month after 14 February 2003. The Court reiterates in this respect that the mere knowledge of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances on the part of the authorities gives rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident (see, mutatis mutandis, Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, § 82, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑IV; and Yaşa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, § 100, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑VI). Accordingly, the Court finds that the investigating authorities should be held responsible for the delay in commencing the investigation between 14 February and 17 March 2003. In the Court’s view this delay was in itself liable to affect the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in a timely fashion.


148.  The Government disputed the applicants’ assertions and maintained that the refusal of access to Boydaş village had aimed at protecting the lives of the applicants on account of the insecurity of the region. In their opinion, had the applicants been evicted from their village by the security forces as alleged, this must have been carried out in pursuance of the State’s duty to fulfil its obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention, which overrode its undertakings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.


99.  The applicants argued that Marvan Idalov had been detained by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for almost seven years. The applicants also argued that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court's case-law on Article <mask> of the Convention. They had verbally informed the authorities of Marvan Idalov's kidnapping immediately after the crime, but had not considered it necessary to lodge written complaints owing to their lack of legal background. In any event, the first written reply to their complaints had been sent by the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116 on 27 March 2003, which proved that the applicants had complained before that date. The applicants pointed out that the investigating authorities had not tried to establish the owners of the APC and IBV or to question the servicemen of military unit no. 24. The investigation had several times been suspended and then resumed, which illustrated its ineffectiveness. The applicants invited the Court to draw conclusions from the Government's unjustified failure to submit the documents from the case file to them or to the Court.


83.  The applicants further stated that the investigation into their son’s death had not complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. While there had been no significant difficulties in gathering and assessing the necessary evidence related to the case and the conclusions of the internal investigation had been available two days after the incident, the criminal proceedings against the police officers in charge of the training exercise had only been instituted seven and a half months later. The investigation authorities had focused on the criminal case against K. and failed to investigate properly the circumstances which had led to the applicants’ son’s death. The conclusions of the internal police investigation, which highlighted the severe deficiencies in the organisation and exercise of the training exercise, had been disregarded by the investigating authorities, who had also lost important pieces of evidence, such as the original video recording of the training exercise.


16.  The applicants complained of the lack of an effective, impartial and thorough investigation carried out within a reasonable time and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the violent crackdown on the demonstrations of December 1989 in Bucharest, Timișoara, Brașov, Reșița and Craiova, when they had been shot or their close relatives had been killed by gunfire. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention.


57.  The applicants Güler Karataş, Pınar Şafak Karataş, Berdan Ulaş Karataş, Bıra Karataş, Kumru Karataş, Perince Ataş, Nebahat Ateş, Serincan Çiçek and Yıldız Deniz complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their relative Bülent Karataş had been killed in breach of Article 2 of the Convention. The tenth applicant alleged that he had been injured in breach of Article 2 of the Convention. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention the applicants also complained that the national authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the killing of Bülent Karataş and the wounding of the tenth applicant.


116.  The applicants submitted that Mr Dimitrov had been killed intentionally, and had died as a result of a use of force which had not been absolutely necessary and in the course of a police operation which had not been planned with a view to minimising any risk to his life. They pointed out that he had died in the presence of no one but five police officers and in the course of a police operation involving violence on the part of all three groups of officers entrusted with carrying it out. The way in which the operation had unfolded showed that the police were not seeking to gather evidence against Mr Dimitrov but to inflict retribution on him. For instance, the group dispatched to his family’s hotel had stopped the search for narcotic drugs after learning that Mr Dimitrov had died. The applicants contended that the authorities had not given a plausible explanation of how Mr Dimitrov had lost his life. The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation that his death had been accidental did not correspond to the findings of the lower courts or the evidence in the case. The use of force against Mr Dimitrov had not at all been necessary. He had not been convicted, had on all previous occasions cooperated with the police, was unarmed and not physically prepared for resistance, and was not doing anything illegal at the time when he encountered the five officers. He did not put up any resistance – a fact established by all courts which had dealt with the case – and was alone against five experienced, well-armed and trained officers. His arrest should have been carried out without any force. The violence unleashed against him – especially after he was handcuffed – had therefore contravened the requirements of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 1997 and the terms of any briefing or order given to the officers. Indeed, the Sofia Military Court and the Military Court of Appeal had both, on four consecutive occasions, found that the officers had intentionally murdered him; their findings differed only in respect of the medical cause of death. Even if it were to be accepted that the death had occurred in the manner impermissibly established the Supreme Court of Cassation, it still engaged the respondent State’s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention.


97.  The Government claimed that the investigation carried out in the present case had met the Convention requirement of effectiveness. It had been expeditiously instituted on the day following the incident. The applicants had impeded the investigation by refusing to agree to an autopsy on their relatives’ bodies. The proceedings had been repeatedly suspended and then resumed, which did not prove its ineffectiveness. The Government argued that the investigators’ refusal to allow the applicants’ access to the case file did not run counter to the procedural requirements of Article 2. Further, numerous investigative measures had been and were being taken and, accordingly, the investigation was compatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention.


87.  The applicants complained that Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov had been killed in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. It was alleged that they had died as a result of the failure of domestic law and practice to regulate in a Convention-compatible manner the use of firearms by State agents. In effect, State agents had been authorised in the instant case to use lethal force in circumstances where this was not absolutely necessary. This fact alone violated Article 2. The applicants also complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths.


32.  The applicant complained about lack of an effective investigation into the death of his wife. He invoked Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that it is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case. In the present case, it considers that the applicant’s complaint concerns exclusively the failure of the State authorities to effectively investigate the circumstances of his wife’s death. The complaint is therefore to be examined under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:


19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been “intentionally deprived of his health, which also means life” by being kept in inhuman conditions of detention, which had led to his contracting tuberculosis, and that he had not been provided with sufficient medical assistance. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant also complained under Article 3 that he had been ill-treated by the police when arrested in order to make him confess to crimes which he had not committed.


63.  The Government submitted that the fact that some persons had not been heard as witnesses and that DNA results could not be obtained from the hair samples had not diminished the effectiveness of the investigation. They added that there had not been any other actions left to take by their authorities and that the obligations arising from Article <mask> of the Convention and the Court’s established case-law on the subject had been fulfilled in the present case.


39.  The applicant complained under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been infected with HIV through a blood test in the hospital of the correctional colony where he was detained and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the incident. The Court will examine the present complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Colak and Tsakiridis v. Germany, nos. 77144/01 and 35493/05, § 29, 5 March 2009, and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, §§ 51-57, 23 March 2010). Article 2, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:


52.  The applicants claimed that Article <mask> of the Convention covered not only incidents which resulted in the death of the victim, but also cases where the victim suffered life-threatening, serious injury. Bearing in mind that the first applicant's disease was not curable, the State was responsible for violation of the right to life of the first applicant. They thus claimed that Article 2 of the Convention applied in the present case.


167.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that during his detention his health had deteriorated. He complained under Article 6 of the Convention alleging overall unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant also complained under Article 7 of the Convention that he had been charged with a crime which he had not committed. The applicant further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the criminal prosecution and, in particular, searches at his father’s flat had adversely affected his private life. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention alleging ineffectiveness of the Russian legal system in general.


75.  The applicant did not lodge a civil claim with the courts. Meanwhile, as noted above (see paragraph 65 above), Article <mask> of the Convention does not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in every case of medical negligence. The question is therefore whether in the present case the applicant should have raised the matter before the civil courts.


52.  The applicants complained under Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation conducted by the Azerbaijani prosecution authorities in connection with their son’s murder, and of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Azerbaijani courts and prosecution authorities. The Court considers that the present complaint falls to be examined solely under Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:


28.  The applicants indicated that there had been numerous incidents both remote in time and recent when D. had abused alcohol and had behaved violently. He had nevertheless been allowed to carry a weapon day and night. The failure of his superior officers to monitor compliance with the conditions for the use of firearms by their subordinates had been expressly acknowledged in the internal police investigation and in the court decisions of 14 November 2000. However, these conclusions had been ignored by the national courts in the civil proceedings for compensation, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


200.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the police had been responsible for the death of their son. In particular, although they were called in precisely to deal with a mentally disturbed person, they had not been trained for such a situation, nor were they accompanied by a specialist, such as a psychiatrist; and their excessive and unjustified use of force led to Mr Shchiborshch’s death. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:


24.  The applicants, who now live in France, argued that the fact that no enforcement judge had been appointed for a prolonged time to execute F.T.’s custodial sentence (see paragraph 14 above) could not release the State from its obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. Their allegations under this head did not concern any new threats or attacks by F.T. about which they could complain to the national authorities, but rather the continuing threat which F.T. posed to them, and the sense of impunity which he had been free to enjoy until the authorities enforced his custodial sentence. It was that threat and the continuing pressure created by the presence of F.T. in their vicinity which forced the applicants to leave their village and the respondent State.


103.  The Government stated that, taking into account the applicants’ submissions and witness statements on the circumstances surrounding the incident of 12 September 1999, “it should be acknowledged” that the use of lethal force resulting in the death of five residents of Kogi (Runnoye) – Borambike Esmukhambetova, Elmurat Esmukhambetov, Eldar Esmukhambetov, Melikhan Abdurakhmanova and Bota Kartakayeva – had constituted an infringement of Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as that Article secured the right to life of the relevant applicants’ deceased relatives. They further submitted that, having acknowledged that infringement, the national authorities had paid compensation in that respect to the first three applicants in the amount of 60,000 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately EUR 1,500) to the first applicant and RUB 20,000 (approximately EUR 500) to each of the second and third applicants.


95.  The applicant alleged that Mr Rustam Kagirov had been abducted by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for several years. Referring to the case of Turluyeva, cited above, he further claimed that the policemen at the roadblock failed to take measures to protect his brother’s right to life. He also argued that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court’s case-law on Article <mask> of the Convention.


83.  The applicants further claimed that the investigation into their relative's abduction had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government had failed to give the exact date of the opening of the investigation. The applicants themselves had been confused in that respect because in some authorities' replies that date was given as 19 September 2002 and in others as 19 November 2002. Assuming that it had been the former date, that meant that the investigation had been opened five weeks after the authorities had become aware of the disappearance. The investigators had failed to question any members of the armed forces who might have been involved in the disappearance and had confined themselves to simply sending written requests to various State bodies. The applicants had not been properly informed about any significant developments in the investigation. Lastly, the investigation had been suspended several times and had failed to produce any known results.


49.  The applicants complained that the State authorities had failed in their positive obligation to protect the right to life of the first applicant as a result of his infection with the HIV virus by blood supplied by the Kızılay, and that no effective investigation had been conducted into their criminal complaints. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


43.  The applicant complained of insufficiencies in the investigation into the killing of her former husband and disappearance of her two sons. She also claimed that he had been killed because of his Serb ethnicity and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. She relied on Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:


46.  The Government also pointed out that, under Article <mask> of the Convention, the State is enjoined not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction from acts by others or, where appropriate, from themselves (they referred to Kılavuz v. Turkey, no. 8327/03, § 78, 21 October 2008). They added that, where the authorities were aware of the risk of suicide by an individual, it was incumbent on them to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the suicide (ibid., § 88).


72.  The Government argued that there had been no violation of the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention and that in the circumstances the Croatian authorities had done all they could to investigate the killing of the applicant’s father. They maintained that after the Croatian authorities had regained control over the territories previously under the control of Serbian paramilitary forces in August 1995, they had been faced with a devastated territory and a chaotic post-war situation.


260.  The Government argued that the authorities had opened cases nos. 24050 and 25268 in connection with the attack of 2 October 1999, and that in the course of the investigation in those cases measures had been, and were being, taken to establish comprehensively the circumstances of the incident in question. In their submission, the length of the investigation could be explained by the fact that in the period when the events in question had taken place the active military actions had still been underway, and therefore the lives of the investigating officers had been in danger. The Government also submitted that the first applicant had never sought to be granted victim status or to be given information concerning the investigation in any of the aforementioned cases. Nevertheless, she had been declared a victim in case no. 25268 and interviewed regarding the incident of 2 October 1999. The Government further submitted that at present the criminal proceedings in this latter case were pending and insisted that the Russian authorities had complied with their obligation to carry out an effective investigation as required by Article <mask> of the Convention.


130.  The applicants complained that the authorities had put their lives at risk on 7 August 2001 by releasing a large amount of water, without any prior warning, from the Pionerskoye reservoir into a river which for years they had failed to maintain in a proper state of repair, causing a flash flood in the area around the reservoir where the applicants lived. They also complained that they had no judicial response in respect of those events. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:


93.  The Government maintained that none of the elements of a “genuine connection” between the impugned death and the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Serbia had been established in order for the procedural obligation imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention to come into effect. Firstly, whereas in the Šilih case the short lapse of time (one year) between the death of the applicant’s son and the acceptance by Slovenia of the right of individual petition was a crucial element, the fatal accident that had triggered the investigation in the present case took place nine years before the ratification date. Furthermore, and contrary to the Court’s position in numerous post-Šilih cases in which a significant proportion of the procedural steps required by this provision were, or should have been, carried out after ratification, the public investigation at issue was carried out and terminated before the critical date. The Government stressed that although the criminal prosecution pursued by the applicant had continued beyond the ratification date, the applicant had not requested the reopening of the investigation. The competent authorities could not have initiated another ex officio investigation or resumed the prosecution after the initial investigation had been terminated and the applicant had already taken over the prosecution in the capacity of a “subsidiary prosecutor”. The Government therefore opined that the applicant’s complaint should be rejected by the Court as incompatible with the Convention ratione temporis.


20.  The applicant alleged that the authorities’ refusal to provide him with meals compatible with his medically prescribed diet had infringed his right to live a healthy life, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, he submitted that his continued detention in the particular circumstances of the case had amounted to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention.


37.  The Government observed that Article <mask> of the Convention did not prohibit capital punishment but that the protection against the death penalty was guaranteed in all circumstances by Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 to the Convention, a Protocol by which Sweden was bound. Thus, the Government had no objection to the examination of the present case under both Article 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 13, and they would proceed on that assumption.


113.   The Government maintained that the investigation into Olga Biliak's death had been carried out by the Shevchenkivskyy Prosecutor's Office, a body independent from the prison authorities. The investigators had thoroughly examined the circumstances of the victim's death, commissioned medical examinations and assessed the other available evidence. The somewhat protracted nature of the investigation had been due to the need to obtain medical evidence. The Government reiterated that in the absence of a final decision on the applicants' criminal complaints they could not comment on whether or not there had been a violation of the State's procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention.


93.  The Government conceded that there had been a violation of Mr Bashir Velkhiyev’s right to life, as confirmed by the evidence in criminal case no. 04560079. At the same time they argued that the investigation conducted into his death had been effective and satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, as demonstrated by the number of steps taken to establish who had been responsible for the crime.


31.  The applicants complained that the force used by the gendarmerie officers against their daughter had not been absolutely necessary and that the excessive nature of the use of force showed that the officers had in fact intended to kill her. They further added that the investigation into the killing of their daughter had neither been impartial nor adequate for the purposes of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


64.  The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev's detention and disappearance, in violation of their procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. She argued that the investigation had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. She contended that the investigation had not been prompt because of the delay in opening it and in taking important steps. Referring to the Government's submissions, she argued that it appeared that certain important steps had never been taken, such as reviewing custody records and operational plans, identifying and questioning those responsible for the arrest of Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, and examining the alleged place of detention. The authorities had systematically failed to inform her of the proceedings and she had no information about important procedural steps. The Government's failure to disclose in full the materials of the investigation to her or to the Court served, in her view, as further proof of the ineffectiveness of the investigation.


50.  The applicants stressed that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov disappeared while under the control of the State in life-endangering circumstances and the Government had failed to produce any plausible explanation as to his whereabouts. The applicants contended that the fact that their relative was not listed among those being held in detention centres, as alleged by the Government, proved that his life had been endangered after he had been detained, since there was a widespread practice of forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Chechnya by representatives of the federal forces. The applicants thus argued, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the fact that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had remained missing since 17 October 2000 proved that he had been killed.


189.  The Government submitted that a criminal investigation into the disappearance of the residents of Stariye Atagi had been opened promptly on 13 March 2002 and complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. The investigating authorities had carried out a large amount of work. The investigation was complicated by the need to eliminate discrepancies between the witnesses’ statements concerning the underlying events, especially since some of them resided in different regions, and by the complexity of expert examinations and tests.


52.  The applicant complained that his wife, Sariye Yılmaz, was killed by artillery shells fired by the security forces. He alleged that no effective investigation had been carried out into her death. He also claimed that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to protect her right to life. He invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


51.  The applicants submitted that Mr Mihaylov’s killing was the result of a clear abuse of force. As the domestic courts observed on a number of occasions, the forensic evidence indicated that Mr Mihaylov was shot from behind, in a position that gave the policeman full control over him. The relevance and significance of these findings was not altered by the fact that, in its final judgment, the Military Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor’s decree exonerating the policeman. The Court of Appeal’s ruling lacked any analysis of its own concerning the necessity of the killing; it merely reproduced the partial reasoning of the prosecutor’s office which had been declared inadequate and false a number of times previously by more critical and independent-thinking judges of the same court and of the lower court. Moreover, the Military Court of Appeal, in upholding the prosecutor’s decision to exonerate the police officer, applied a legal test which was not in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. Domestic law during the period in question did not require a test of absolute necessity to justify recourse to lethal force by the police. The Court had been critical of this same legal framework in a number of judgments, for example Karandja v. Bulgaria, no. 69180/01, 7 October 2010 and the national authorities had themselves recognised that the law was in need of reform and had taken steps to amend it (see paragraph 41 above). The fact that the domestic courts on a number of occasions, even applying the more lenient national law standard as it then applied, found that the killing was unjustified made it all the more clearer that the use of force was in breach of the more rigorous requirements of Article 2.


52.  The Government argued that Mr Togonidze died of methadone intoxication. Given this cause of death and the lack of any evidence of coercive actions against Mr Togonidze, his death should not be considered as a death in suspicious circumstances (see Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 86, 3 February 2011). Consequently the Government argued that there was no need for further investigative measures and the conducted investigation was in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government did not submit any comments on the medical report provided by the applicant.


259.  The applicants maintained their complaint, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances violating Article <mask> of the Convention. They furthermore argued that the investigation into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, they noted that, in breach of Articles 34 and 38 of the Convention, the Government had failed to duly comply with the Court’s request for the investigation files.


51.  The applicant complained that the State had been responsible for her son’s death in the course of an intervention intended to take him to a psychiatric hospital. She also complained that the investigation into the circumstances of his death had been carried out by the authorities merely as an attempt to conceal the truth and to avoid liability. The applicant relied on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. However, the Court considers that her complaints fall to be examined solely under Article <mask> of the Convention. The relevant parts read as follows:


272.  The applicant has suggested that the threshold should be lower in cases involving the use of lethal force by State agents. However, there is nothing in the Court’s case-law to support this proposition. Although Gürtekin did not concern unlawful killing by State agents, in that case the Court made it clear that the fact that a crime engaging Article <mask> of the Convention was particularly “serious” (in that case, mass killings) was not a sufficient reason to prosecute individuals regardless of the strength of the evidence. On the contrary, it found that since the consequences of a prosecution on such serious charges would be particularly severe for any defendant, it should not be lightly embarked upon (see paragraph 266 above).


120.  The applicants were further of the view that the criminal proceedings had fallen short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, in the manner in which they had been conducted, in their scope and in the standard applied by the authorities. Attempts had been made to cover up Mr Dimitrov’s murder from the very outset. The two military investigators and the prosecutor from the Sofia Military Prosecutor’s Office who had visited the scene shortly after the events had not carried out any investigative steps. Mr Dimitrov’s relatives had been kept in the dark about his death and had not been allowed access to the body. The police had given a press conference at which they had made false statements about the case. A number of crime-scene investigative steps which could only have been taken immediately had not been properly carried out. The initial autopsy had not been sufficiently full, and the experts carrying out the second autopsy had faced obstructions. After taking over the case, the military prosecuting authorities had made an attempt unlawfully to discontinue the proceedings. When hearing the case on appeal for the first time, the Military Court of Appeal had quashed the Sofia Military Court’s judgment on spurious grounds, as demonstrated by the dissenting opinion of one of its judges. Later, a series of improper procedural steps had led to the appointment of experts who could not lawfully have been appointed, and to the admission of expert reports which had unlawfully altered the conclusion on the cause of Mr Dimitrov’s death. That had initially led to much lower punishments being imposed on the five officers convicted of his death, and eventually to their acquittal by the Supreme Court of Cassation, on the basis of impermissible fresh findings of fact.


30.  The Government argued that the investigation carried out into the death of the applicant’s daughter had been in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. It had started immediately after the law-enforcement agencies had received a report on Z.’s death, and had been effective and thorough. The measures necessary to establish the circumstances and the cause of Z.’s death, as well as the examination of its possible criminal nature and the involvement of third parties, had been undertaken by the pre-trial investigation agency within a month and a half of the incident. The length of the investigation had been caused by numerous complaints brought by the applicant, in which she had raised new arguments regarding crimes allegedly committed by Ch. in respect of her daughter and pointed to new circumstances to be examined or specified. The Government concluded, therefore, that the applicant’s complaint was manifestly ill-founded.


230.  The Government argued in particular that the refusal to grant any civilian access to Gulistan was justified by the security situation pertaining in and around the village. While referring briefly to their obligations under international humanitarian law, the Government relied mainly on interests of defence and national security and on their obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect life against dangers emanating from landmines or military activity.


61.  The applicant submitted that the investigation conducted following the death of his son had not been effective, as required by the Court’s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention. He stated that the investigators were not independent from the authority involved and that a deliberate attempt had been made to cover up evidence of the true circumstances of his son’s death.


16.  The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the Russian authorities had complied with their obligations set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had sustained injuries as a result of a terrorist attack at the Domodedovo airport. Her allegations of the State responsibility in her case had been unsubstantiated. The security system at the airport had been in full compliance with international and domestic standards. In any event, the fully operational security system could only minimise the terrorist threat. It could not eliminate it completely. The Government further submitted that the circumstances of the bombing of the airport had been fully established within the framework of the criminal case against the alleged perpetrators. The investigating and judicial authorities had identified the persons responsible for the organisation of the act of terror and brought them to justice. The applicant had been granted a victim status in the relevant criminal proceedings. It had been open to her to bring civil claims for damages against the defendants either within the criminal proceedings instituted or in a separate set of civil proceedings. However, the applicant had chosen to do neither. In the Government’s view, the applicant’s failure to resort to that remedy raised an issue of her compliance with the admissibility requirements set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. As regards the investigation into the alleged negligence on the part of the airport security personnel and the police deployed at the airport, the Government submitted that the proceedings were still pending. The case was a complex one. The authorities had so far commissioned 283 forensic expert examinations, questioned over 900 witnesses and performed numerous investigative activities (searches, seizures, etc.). Lastly, the Government pointed out that the Russian authorities had not distanced themselves from the victims of the explosion. All of them, including the applicant, had received financial support from the State. In particular, the applicant had received a financial aid in the amount of 1,900,000 Russian roubles (RUB).


193.  The applicant contended that as the investigating authorities were applying a lower standard than that required by the Court, they were prevented from considering whether the use of force by Charlie 2 and Charlie 12 was or was not justified in the circumstances within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In other words, the extent to which the domestic authorities were able to submit the actions of State agents to careful scrutiny was undermined, with the consequence that the State’s investigation was unable to secure accountability through a prosecution for a violation of Article 2 (see, for example, Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 63106/00, § 52, 10 June 2010).


81.  The Government submitted that the investigation into Mr Todorov’s death had been comprehensive, objective and sufficiently speedy. It had been opened the same day. An autopsy had been carried out the next day and had identified all injuries on Mr Todorov’s body and the cause of his death. All police officers who had taken part in the operation had been interviewed, and expert opinions had been obtained. The authorities which had conducted the investigation had been independent from the persons who had taken part in the police operation. In deciding to discontinue the proceedings, the prosecutors and the courts had duly applied Article 12a of the Criminal Code, and their findings had been fully consistent with this Court’s case‑law under Article <mask> of the Convention.


69.  The applicant also argued that she was excluded from the criminal proceedings, as despite her efforts she had been denied access to the case file and had not been properly informed of the course of the investigation. In particular, the authorities had failed to send her copies of procedural decisions suspending and reopening the proceedings. The applicant thus claimed that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in it procedural aspect, in the present case.


84.  The applicant argued that, according to the Court’s case-law, the positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention imposed a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person and backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. She submitted that this could also imply in certain circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (she referred to Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑VIII, cited in Kontrová v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, § 49, 31 May 2007). She concluded that in the present case the Italian State had not taken the necessary measures to protect her life and that of her son.


84.  The applicant complained that his brother had died as a result of intentional police mistreatment, that the failure of the police to provide adequate medical care for the victim following his arrest had resulted in his brother's death and that the authorities had failed to carry out a prompt, impartial and effective official investigation to determine the cause of the death. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides :


177.  The applicants complained that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention by both the Cypriot and Turkish (including the “TRNC”) authorities on account of their failure to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths of their relatives, Elmas, Zerrin and Eylül Güzelyurtlu. They pointed to the failure of the respondent States to cooperate in the investigation of the murders and bring the suspects to justice. The applicants contended that where there had been a systemic failure to investigate certain killings after the perpetrators had escaped by crossing a dividing line; the substantive requirement of Article 2 had also been violated, as the domestic laws in place had not protected the right to life.


63.  The applicants complained, under various Articles of the Convention, that the relevant Montenegrin bodies had failed to promptly and effectively investigate the deaths and/or disappearances of their family members and prosecute those responsible. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, § 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), the Court considers that the applicants’ complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


162.  The applicant alleged that her right to life and the right to life of her son and other relatives was violated by the actions of the military. She also submitted that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into the attack and to bring those responsible to justice. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


41.  The applicant contended that his son, who had not taken part in the demonstrations in question and had found himself by chance between the demonstrators and the security forces, had been killed deliberately by the latter, which had used a degree of force that was unnecessary and manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate. In addition, domestic law did not regulate, in a manner that was compatible with the Convention, the use of firearms by State agents. The latter had allegedly been authorised to use lethal force against his son in a manifestly inappropriate manner without it being absolutely necessary, in his view. He added that numerous violations of human rights had been committed during the incidents in question and, lastly, that the Government were not able to provide the slightest explanation capable of justifying the degree of force used. In addition, the applicant contended that the investigation had not been conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements under Article <mask> of the Convention.


15.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to life was violated by the State and argued that unknown persons attempted to break into his apartment and to kill him. The applicant is convinced that those persons were State agents. Moreover, the applicant argued that the State attempted to kill him by constantly increasing the price of commodities while at the same time keeping his pension at a very low level. The Court considers this complaint to be manifestly ill-founded. It must therefore be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.


50.  The Government also noted that the events under examination had occurred in 2000, when violent confrontation had taken place between the federal forces and the rebel fighters and numerous murders had been committed by members of illegal armed groups, using firearms and military vehicles. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that the right to life of the applicant’s husband secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached by the State.


50.  The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the official investigation, which had ended by 13 January 1992, had been independent and effective. Also, as noted above, no relevant new evidence was discovered as of the date of ratification, i.e. 3 March 2004, and the criminal proceedings have since then mostly concerned the assessment of evidence collected earlier, specifically whether B should be convicted of murder or, instead, acquitted on the basis of self-defence. In any event, the State could not have initiated an ex officio investigation once the applicant had already taken over the prosecution of the case in her capacity as a subsidiary prosecutor.


46.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that members of the armed forces had been responsible for the disappearance of their relatives: Casım Çelik, Cemal Sevli, Yusuf Çelik, Mirhaç Çelik, Naci Şengül, Seddık Şengül, Reşit Sevli, Kemal İzci, Hayrullah Öztürk, Salih Şengül, Hurşit Taşkın, Abdullah İnan and Aşur Seçkin. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:


96.  The applicants submitted that there was overwhelming evidence to conclude that their relatives had been deprived of their lives by the State agents in circumstances that violate Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that their relatives had been killed on 5 February 2000 during a “mopping-up” operation in the southern districts of Grozny, in particular, in the nearby settlement of Novye Aldy.


50.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his life had been in danger during the police intervention. He also claimed a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention, stating that other means than firing with live ammunition could be used to immobilise a mentally ill person. He further alleged a breach of Article 8 of the Convention, submitting that part of his house had been demolished as a result of the police intervention. Finally he complained under Article 13 of the Convention that his appeals had not been effective because the domestic authorities had failed to thoroughly examine the course of the police intervention and under Article 17, without further explanation.


66.  The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office and contended that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that Isa Zaurbekov was dead, or that representatives of the federal power structures had been involved in his abduction or alleged killing. They expressed doubts that any reliance could be placed on the eyewitness statement by Ms M.-M., submitted by the applicants (see paragraph 13 above), given that this statement contradicted the information given by Ms M.-M. to the investigating authorities during her interview (see paragraph 45 above). The Government insisted that until the circumstances of Isa Zaurbekov’s abduction, and the identity of the persons involved, had been established, there were no grounds to claim that his right to life secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached by the State.


46.  The Government also argued that the shortcomings in the criminal proceedings had been remedied by the compensation awarded to the applicant from the alleged perpetrators in subsequent civil proceedings, and cited the Court’s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention in which civil‑law remedies had been considered sufficient (see paragraph 38 above). However, the Court observes that the cases invoked by the Government (Calvelli and Ciglio, Vo and Šilih, all mentioned above) concerned injuries caused by the negligent acts of private individuals. In contrast, in cases such as the present one, where the applicants were injured by the deliberate, violent acts of other individuals, the Court has repeatedly held that compensation awarded in civil proceedings could not be considered sufficient for the fulfilment of the State’s positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, as it is aimed at awarding damages rather than identifying and punishing those responsible (see Biser Kostov v. Bulgaria, no. 32662/06, § 72, 10 January 2012; Dimitar Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 17253/07, § 39, 16 April 2013; Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine, no. 54755/08, § 41, 14 November 2013; and Stoev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 41717/09, § 50, 11 March 2014). The Court sees no reason to depart from that approach in the present case.


156.  The applicants alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the killings of their relatives, in violation of their procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. They contended that the investigation had not been prompt because of the delay in opening it and in taking important steps. The authorities had systematically failed to inform them of the proceedings and they had no information about important procedural steps. They argued that the Government's failure to submit in full the documents from the investigation file had seriously hampered their ability to make detailed submissions about the alleged violation and that the Court could draw inferences as to the well-foundedness of their allegations.


223.  The applicants, with the exception of the second applicant, complained of the deaths of their relatives as a result of the aerial attacks by the federal forces on Urus-Martan on 2 and 19 October 1999. They also alleged that the strikes by federal troops with high-explosive aerial bombs against heavily populated residential areas of Urus-Martan on 2 and 19 October 1999 had put their lives at real risk. Lastly, they argued that there had been no effective investigation into those incidents. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


66.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic authorities had disregarded his contention that he had acted in self‑defence and was protecting his own life. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been threatened and tortured by his cellmates, who were collaborating with the police and who were forcing him to confess.


205.  The applicant further submitted that disciplinary proceedings could not, by themselves, have complied with Article <mask> of the Convention as they were essentially administrative proceedings intended to govern future employment. Where serious breaches of the Convention were concerned, effective protection had to be provided by the criminal law because the sanctions available were more punitive and had better deterrents than disciplinary proceedings. In a case such as the present, disciplinary proceedings could not have satisfied the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention because there would have been a manifest disproportion between the gravity of the act and the punishment available.


43.  The applicants complained that their children had been killed in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their allegation they argued that, had the authorities carried out swab tests it would have become apparent that their children had been unarmed and had not opened fire on the soldiers. Furthermore, the fact that none of the soldiers had been killed or injured in the incident was another indication that their children had been unarmed.


93.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his brother Mr Rustam Kagirov had been abducted and deprived of his life by State agents and that the domestic authorities failed to take measures to safeguard Mr Rustam Kagirov’s right to life. He further alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 reads as follows:


33.  The Government stated that by allowing the applicant to bring a civil action, the domestic courts had expressly acknowledged a breach of the procedural guarantees enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention and had awarded her compensation. Therefore, as the applicant had been afforded sufficient redress, she had lost her status as a victim of a violation of Article 2.


78.  The applicant submitted that throughout the investigation, the version of events implying the involvement of State agents in the killing of her daughter had been paramount. The applicant specifically relied on the statement by witness O. L., who claimed that after the GAZ-66 truck driven by the applicant’s daughter had been hit by a mortar, FSB officers had got in touch with the military and asked them to cease fire; the decision of the District Court of 14 April 2008 which pointed out the need to identify the person who had given the order to use heavy weapons without precisely calculating the target area or ensuring that the relevant area had been cordoned off beforehand; and the instructions issued by the head of forensics at the Investigative Committee on 4 July 2011, who requested the investigator to question all the FSB officers who had been involved in the events of 7 June 2003, since it followed from a number of witness statements that it had been FSB officers who had asked unidentified individuals for mortar fire support, and it had subsequently been at their request that the mortar shelling had been stopped. The applicant further submitted, with reference to the statement by witness S. M., that the version of events implying the involvement of members of the illegal armed group in the mortar fire had been abandoned. The applicant thus believed that it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the authorities had been responsible for the mortar fire on the Dyshne-Vedeno-Kharachoy road on 7 June 2003 resulting in the death of her daughter. The applicant further argued that the use of heavy ordnance in peacetime and with no precautions taken did not comply with the extent of diligence expected from law‑enforcement bodies in a democratic society. Even if it were accepted that the operation had pursued a legal objective, by no means could it be agreed that the operation itself had been planned and carried out with due concern for the lives of civilians. The applicant considered, therefore, that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in its substantive aspect.


73.  The Government conceded that the applicant's relatives had been deprived of their lives by State agents. They argued, however, that the applicant's relatives had been killed in the course of a counter-terrorist operation carried out by the federal forces in the Chechen Republic in order to eliminate illegal armed groups. They further stated that the local residents had been informed about the curfew and the obligation to obey the orders of the military when in the area of a special operation. Taking into account that the applicant's relatives had been driving in the dark during the curfew and had disobeyed the order to stop the lorry, the servicemen had taken them for members of illegal armed groups and opened destruction fire. The Government thus contended that the use of lethal force in the present case had been no more than absolutely necessary for the purposes of paragraph 2 (a) and (b) Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the deaths of Ramzan Suleymanov, Petimat Aydamirova, Ibragim Suleymanov and Aslanbek Aydamirov had been the result of their failure to comply with the necessary rules concerning personal safety in an area where State agents were conducting a special operation and to obey the servicemen's legitimate orders.


47.  The Government further argued that the prosecuting authorities had initiated an investigation of their own motion immediately after the applicant’s son’s death had been discovered. Thus, in the Government’s opinion, the authorities had complied with the procedural obligation stemming from Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government pointed to the diligence and expedition of the prosecutor’s investigation, which had resulted in the bringing against four employees of the centre of serious charges of unintentional homicide and failure in their duty of supervision. Nevertheless, the Government conceded that there had been delays at the judicial stage of the proceedings owing to the resignation of one of the judges and the heavy workload of the Tychy District Court during the material time. Moreover, there had been other events, such as illnesses of witnesses and the accused, which had caused the hearings to be rescheduled. The criminal proceedings had guaranteed the necessary element of public scrutiny in that the applicant had been involved as a party in both the investigative and the judicial stage.


74.  The applicant complained that the doctors treating her daughter failed to provide her with adequate treatment. She also complained that no effective investigation was conducted which would have allowed the establishment of responsibility for her daughter’s death. Lastly, referring to the law governing objection on grounds of conscience, she maintained that the State had failed to adopt a legal framework which would have prevented the death of her daughter. She cited Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention provides, in so far as relevant:


65.  The applicants argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Isa Zaurbekov had been detained by representatives of the federal forces, this fact being confirmed by two eyewitness statements, which they had previously submitted to the Court, and by the statements of Mr Sh. contained in the file on criminal case no. 20123. They also pointed out that the investigating authorities had established the fact that the armed men who had taken Isa Zaurbekov away had used armoured personnel carriers and argued that such military vehicles had been in the exclusive possession of the federal armed forces. The applicants stressed that their relative had been apprehended in life-endangering circumstances, and the fact that he had remained missing for over three years and the Government’s failure to provide any plausible explanation as to his fate proved that he had been killed. The applicants also argued that the special operation carried out on the aforementioned date had not been properly planned and supervised by the authorities to ensure that it met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


75.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the prison authorities had failed to protect her son’s right to life by taking the necessary measures, in particular by protecting him from attacks by other prisoners, as well as from the danger he posed to himself. She submitted that the prison staff had been aware of the applicant’s son’s suicidal tendencies and that she had also warned them regularly about his worsening mental state. In addition, the applicant complained that no investigative measures had been taken as regards the responsibility of the prison staff for the death of her son.


41.  The Government argued that the applicant had lost her victim status. In particular, they noted that following the accident of 30 November 1998, the criminal investigation had been carried out and the responsible persons had been identified, charged and convicted, whereas the other persons had been subjected to a disciplinary sanction. Additionally, the domestic courts, having found the local authorities liable, had awarded the applicant damages. Although that judgment had been partly quashed on appeal, the applicant's award had been upheld. Furthermore, neither the judgment nor the Court of Appeal's decision had been appealed against by the applicant who, on the other hand, sought their enforcement. In the Government's view, the above facts show that the domestic authorities had expressly acknowledged and afforded the applicant redress for the breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


41.  The applicants complained that the security forces had been responsible for the disappearance of their relatives, who, in their opinion, should be presumed dead in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Under the same provision they also submitted that the national authorities had failed to carry out a meaningful investigation into their relatives’ disappearance. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:


102.  The Government maintained that the prosecutor had conducted an investigation which was in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. He had not ignored any small detail or evidence and had conducted the entire investigation swiftly within one year. The aim of the investigation had been to secure the effective implementation of the domestic law and to ensure the accountability of the State agents in respect of the deaths.


80.  The applicants contested the Government’s statement as incorrect. They pointed out that in fact they had lodged a court complaint about the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the events of 27 October 2001, which had yielded no results. The applicants contended in this connection that they were not required to pursue that remedy, since it was ineffective and, in particular, incapable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required by the Court’s settled case-law in relation to complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention.


73.  The applicants complained that the force used by the prison officers to immobilise their son had been neither absolutely necessary nor strictly proportionate for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the State had failed in its positive obligation under that provision to protect their son’s life by administering treatment capable of averting a fatal outcome. Article 2 provides:


43.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the use of force by the security forces against Murat Bektaş and Erdinç Arslan had been disproportionate and had resulted in their unlawful killing. They further maintained under the same head that the investigation and the criminal trial had been flawed and ineffective. They contended in this connection that the acquittal of Nurettin Bülbül, Fevzi Mustan and Muammer Topaç, and the deferral of the execution of the sentences imposed on Nurettin Bülbül, Haydar Erol, Eyüp Yalçınkaya and Ali Erdurucan, had undermined the deterrent role of the judicial system in preventing violations of the right to life.


25.  The Government contended that a thorough and effective investigation had been carried out in the present case, in accordance with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. More than 200 witnesses had been heard, a number of expert reports made (including an autopsy, a post-mortem psychiatric report and a report on the samples of various substances gathered from the scene of the event). Three hypotheses had been verified: that of a suicide, that of a provoked suicide and that of murder, but only the first version was consistent with the various types of evidence gathered. As to the obligation to keep the applicant informed, this was not required by law since, in the absence of a crime, she had not been recognised as a victim's representative. Despite the absence of a legal obligation, the prosecutors had kept the applicant informed (see paragraph 8 above), thus complying with their obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.


48.  The Government also argued that there had been no violation of the procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention. Further to the judgment of the Supreme Court in May 2011 (McCaughey and another, Re Application for Judicial Review ([2011 UKSC 20), the Coroner was legally obliged to, and did, conduct an inquest in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. The investigation was effective because, inter alia, that Convention compliant inquest led to a jury verdict which was sufficiently focused as to assist with the identification of a person responsible and to ensure accountability: indeed the Coroner had referred the matter to the DPP. The applicants’ reference to the lack of police witnesses was imprecise and, notably, did not indicate how that affected the conduct of the inquest. The investigation was independent as it was supervised by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints (“ICPC”) and, in any event, the applicant did not seek to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Police Ombudsman. As to public scrutiny, the next-of-kin declined to participate in the initial investigation in early 1998 but they did participate at other stages of the investigation and they fully participated in the inquest.


72.  The applicants submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in respect of their mother and close relative, Nura Luluyeva. They submitted that the circumstances of her detention and the discovery of her body in a mass grave indicated that she had been killed by federal forces. They further submitted that there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 since no effective investigation had been carried out into the circumstances of her detention and murder. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which provides:


122.  The applicant has further criticised the limited scope of the enquiry and the alleged lack of full disclosure of documents to her. As to the former, she alleged that there could be no examination of the broader context of the riots taking place at the time and the allegedly disproportionate response of the security forces to events. It is true that the Coroner is required to confine his investigation to the matters directly causative of the death and not to extend his inquiry into the broader circumstances. This was the standard applicable in the McCann inquest also and did not prevent examination of those aspects of the planning and conduct of the operation relevant to the killings of the three IRA suspects (McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 162-163). The Court does not consider therefore that the approach taken by the domestic courts necessarily contradicts the requirements of Article 2. Whether an inquest fails to address the necessary factual issues will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. The Court is not persuaded that in this case the surrounding events in the streets of Derry over the three-night period are necessarily relevant to a determination of the cause of Dermot McShane's death. Nor, since the inquest is still pending, has it been shown that any significant elements would inevitably be excluded. The inquest is not required by Article <mask> of the Convention to provide a means of ventilating criticism of the overall handling of public order in Derry over the entire period.


67.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his son, Mr Maskhud Makhloyev, had disappeared after being detained by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. The applicant further claimed that he had no effective domestic remedies for those complaints. Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:


58.  The Government further submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as regards the alleged failure by the State to comply with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they put forward two arguments. Firstly, although the pre-trial investigation into the alleged murder had been suspended and restarted several times, the applicant had not appealed to a court against the prosecutors’ decisions suspending the investigation, including the last suspension decision of 16 December 2002. The Government contended that appealing against prosecutors’ decisions to the courts, notwithstanding the nature of those decisions, had been unambiguously possible since 2 April 2002 by an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant had also been informed of the possibility of appealing against the prosecutors’ decisions in the cover letters sent with the prosecutors’ decisions dated 10 October and 3 December 2002. Nonetheless, the applicant had failed to avail himself of that right.


102.  The applicant complained that Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in respect of Mr Sultan Isayev. She submitted that the circumstances of his detention, the absence of any news of him ever since and the discovery two weeks later of the body of one of the persons detained with him, showing signs of a violent death, indicated that he too had been killed by the federal forces. She further claimed that there had been a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect since no effective investigation had been carried out into the circumstances of her husband's detention and disappearance.


203.  The Government contended, inter alia, that the case was wholly unfounded and, therefore, there was no place to award just satisfaction. In any event, the claims were excessive, given the standard of living in Turkey of a teacher, like the applicant, and the Court’s eventual award should not lead to unjust enrichment. They submitted that no award could be made in respect of the daughter as she had not been an applicant in the case. They relied on the Court’s judgement in McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (cited above), in which no award of just satisfaction was made despite the finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


49.  The Government acknowledged that there had been significant delay but argued that it could be explained and did not breach Article <mask> of the Convention. They explained that it was initially thought that it was not a death requiring an inquest and the matter was then re-visited following receipt of the applicants’ expert report. The RUC investigation then took place. The delay between 2001 and 2009 appears largely to have been caused by the litigation, initiated both by others and by the applicants. The delay between starting and ending the inquest (January 2010 and May 2011) was caused by the necessary discharge of the jury and by the time taken to consider a further report of the applicants. Awaiting the voluminous transcript of the inquest hearing and the establishment of the new DPP in his post explained the short delay in the Coroner referring the case to the DPP.


55.  The applicant made a twofold complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended firstly that the State had failed to comply with its positive obligations in order to prevent the death of his son whilst the latter had been in prison. Secondly, the applicant argued that the State had failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances of his son’s death and that the culprits had remained unpunished.


84.  The applicant argued in her observations submitted to the Court on 10 April 2002 that her son was arrested and detained by members of the Turkish security forces and that he is to be presumed dead, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She also submitted that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearance of her son.


39.  The Government argued that the circumstances of the present case did not disclose any breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on their version of the facts and on the principles laid down by the Court in the cases of Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI); Bubbins v. the United Kingdom (no. 50196/99, ECHR 2005-II); and Olah v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 56558/00, 14 September 2004).


138.  The applicant referred to her submissions concerning the procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate Article 13 required a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective access for the complainant to the investigatory procedure. She disputed that judicial review was an effective remedy in respect of the DPP's decision not to prosecute, as the cases showed that he has a wide discretion and the courts would only overturn aberrant, inexplicable or irrational decisions.


152.  The Government submitted at the outset that the validity of the contention underpinning the applicant’s complaint – that the entire course of her deceased husband’s clinical treatment had been marked by a series of interconnected shortcomings and errors – had not been demonstrated in any of the proceedings at domestic level. It had never been proven that the death of the applicant’s husband was attributable to medical negligence. They argued that the Chamber judgment had accepted that no medical negligence had been established and that the death of the applicant’s husband had not been caused by an event occurring on 29 November 1997, an event identified and characterised by the Chamber as a lack of coordination between the ENT department and the emergency department of the first hospital. This, according to the Chamber, attested to “failings in the public hospital service” and had “deprived the patient of the possibility of access to appropriate emergency care”. Notwithstanding the absence of medical negligence and of a causal link the Chamber had deemed this finding to be “sufficient for the Court to consider that the State failed in its obligation to protect his physical integrity” in breach of the substantive aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention.


55.  The applicant argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had apprehended and taken away their relative on 9 November 2002 had represented federal forces, and that, following this apprehension, Vakhid Musikhanov had been under the control of the State. The applicants also claimed that their relative had been apprehended in life-endangering circumstances, since it was widespread practice in Chechnya that people apprehended by State agents were deprived of their lives immediately, or shortly after being apprehended, rather than being taken to detention centres. They also pointed out that the Government had failed to give any plausible explanation as regards Vakhid Musikhanov's fate. The applicants thus argued that the fact that Vakhid Musikhanov remained missing for several years proved that he had been killed, and that therefore there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on that account.


80.  The applicants submitted that the withdrawal of Vincent Lambert’s artificial nutrition and hydration would be in breach of the State’s obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. In their view, depriving him of nutrition and hydration would constitute ill-treatment amounting to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. They further argued that the lack of physiotherapy since October 2012 and the lack of therapy to restore the swallowing reflex amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of that provision. Lastly, they submitted that the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration would also infringe Vincent Lambert’s physical integrity, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.


47.  The applicant disputed the Government’s arguments. He claimed that the fact that the investigation into the killing of his family members was still pending called into question its effectiveness rather than indicating that his complaints were premature. The applicant also contended that the Government had not demonstrated that the remedies to which they had referred were effective and, in particular, were capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required by the Court’s settled case-law in relation to complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention.


103.  The applicant submitted that the failure of the authorities to take reasonable steps to investigate or to protect his son whose forced disappearance had been reported to them, disclosed a failure on the part of the Government to comply with their positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to take positive steps to protect the right to life.


43.  The applicants submitted that the State was responsible for the death of Alexei Vlasi since his shooting had not been warranted by the circumstances. He had not been armed and presented no threat to the life or health of the police officers. After fatally shooting him, the police officers had attempted to falsify evidence to make it appear like self-defence. For that purpose one of them had hurt the other with a knife and had planted the knife in the dead victim’s hand. The applicants relied on the statements of the witnesses which supported that version of events. Lastly, the applicants submitted that the investigation into the circumstances of the victim’s death had not been effective as required by Article <mask> of the Convention.


54.  The Government maintained that, since the domestic investigation established that the applicant’s son had committed suicide, Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable. They relied in this respect on the Court’s statement in the Pretty case that “[Article 2] is unconcerned with issues to do with the quality of living or what a person chooses to do with his or her life” (Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 39, ECHR 2002‑III).


124.  The applicant submitted that it had to be concluded that the Coroner failed to appreciate the breadth of the inquiry required by Article <mask> of the Convention, since he excluded all evidence relating to the planning of the operation, with the result that the ambit of the inquest was restricted to the narrow issues of “who, where, when and how” the deceased met his death. This deficiency was further compounded by the Coroner's decision to leave the jury with only one verdict, thus denying the jury the possibility of returning an independent verdict which may have been critical of the overall planning and execution of the police operation.


68.  The applicants alleged that their relatives’ right to life was violated in that they were deliberately killed by village guards. The applicants, İbrahim Akan and Reşit Acar further complained that their right to life was violated as the village guards attempted to kill them. The applicants in addition claimed that the national authorities failed to comply with their procedural obligations to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the killings and attempted killings. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which provides:


54.  The applicants submitted that to comply with its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention the State had to do more than adopt laws mandating the investigation and punishment of homicide. It also had to carry out effective official investigations of all instances of homicide. The investigation in the case at hand had not been effective; on the contrary, it had been tainted by a number of grave omissions, which had completely undermined its ability to establish both the exact circumstances in which Mr Ivaylo Zashev had been killed and the identity of the persons responsible for his death. The most serious error had been the loss of the cartridges impounded from the crime scene, as well as the failure to provide protection to Mr V.K., which had been both possible and indispensable, and the lack of which had led to his changing his statements several times. Other deficiencies had been the substandard inspection of the crime scene, the belated conducting of interviews with the neighbours, the belated commissioning of DNA and ballistic expert reports, and in general the excessive length of the investigation, which had lasted almost eight years. The applicants also criticised the passive conduct of the prosecution during the trial, in the course of which it had made only one – poorly substantiated – request for further evidence to be gathered. In addition, in its appeal against the acquittal the prosecution had not raised any additional arguments and had not made further evidentiary requests; nor had it sought later to appeal on points of law.


235.  The applicants maintained their complaints, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances that violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set out in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, the applicant in Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) noted the Government’s failure to provide the Court with an entire copy of the investigation file.


91.  The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office and argued that the Russian authorities were not responsible for the actions of the unidentified persons who had abducted Artur Bersunkayev and that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the federal power structures had been involved in the imputed offence. They submitted to that end that members of illegal armed formations within the territory of the Chechen Republic resorted to various methods of concealing the fact of their participation in such groups and that of recruitment of new members, such as “deliberate dissemination of false information concerning their disappearances from the places of their permanent residence and implication of the federal forces in such disappearances”. Moreover, the aforementioned false information was also used by “representatives of international terrorist organisations, leaders of illegal armed groups and their emissaries abroad for the purpose of propaganda against the State agencies of Russia”. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Artur Bersunkayev’s right to life secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached.


28.  The Government submitted that they were aware of “the potential impact of the lack of a separate investigation into the killing of the applicants’ relative on the obligation to conduct an effective investigation”. The Government invited the Court to hold that Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated under its substantive aspect and left the assessment of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention to the Court’s discretion.