45.  The applicants alleged that the killing of their son had been the result of deliberate acts by members of the Turkish armed forces. The circumstances of the case strongly suggested that the persons who shot Stelios Kalli Panayi had intended to kill him. Moreover, even assuming that this had not been the case, the use of force had not been “absolutely necessary” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection the applicants emphasised the following:


48.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his brother, Mr Abubakar Tsechoyev, had been abducted and subsequently deprived of his life by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the matter. He also alleged that the domestic investigation’s failure to take rapid and effective measures amounted to a violation of the obligation to protect Mr Abubakar Tsechoyev’s life. The applicant further claimed that he had no effective domestic remedies against the above violations. Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention read, in so far as relevant, as follows:


79.  The Government acknowledged that the applicants' eight relatives had been abducted from their homes and later found dead. They argued, however, that the Russian authorities were not responsible for the actions of the unidentified persons who had abducted the applicants' eight relatives and that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the federal armed forces or law-enforcement agencies had been involved in the imputed offence. They submitted that the applicants' relatives could have been abducted and killed by members of illegal armed groups, since some of them, for example Apti Murtazov, had cooperated with authorities during the armed conflict in Chechnya in 1996. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that the right to life of the applicants' eight relatives secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached by the State.


111.  The applicants Mr and Mrs Vlase alleged that their son, Nicuşor Vlase, was killed at the end of the December 1989 following the use of lethal force by State agents. They criticised the relevant authorities for failing to conduct an effective, impartial and thorough investigation, capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. In that respect, they submitted that the criminal investigation concerning their allegations of an infringement of the right to life was still pending, and complained about the Romanian authorities’ lack of diligence. They also complained about the draft amnesty law in respect of acts imputed to servicemen in the Armed Forces which occurred at the time of the events of December 1989, transmitted on 18 July 2008 to the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for consultation, by the Legal Directorate at the Ministry of Defence. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


15.  The Government contended that the application was out of the Court’s temporal jurisdiction because the event in question had taken place on 12 December 1996, whereas Croatia had only ratified the Convention on 5 November 1997. Because the State’s procedural obligation under Article 2 had been to conduct an effective investigation, which in the instant case had ended on 3 July 1997, the applicants’ complaints did not fall within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction. On the same grounds the Government argued that the application had been lodged out of the six-month time-limit because that six-month period was to be calculated as starting at the end of the police enquiry. The civil proceedings instituted by the applicants were irrelevant since such proceedings did not constitute an adequate response to the alleged violation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


201.  The Government contested that allegation. Relying on Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (9 October 1997, § 171, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑VI), they argued that the use of force by the police was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention, which allowed the use of force which could lead to the unintentional deprivation of life. It was likewise in accordance with section 14 of the Law on Police, which authorised the police to use force and special tools in particular situations. As it had been established that at the time of the events Mr Shchiborshch had posed a danger to himself and others, and had resisted the lawful demands of the police, the use of force had been justified. Furthermore, it had also been established that a number of his injuries, including those leading to his death, had been self-inflicted either intentionally or negligently through actions resulting from his mental state.


43.  The applicants in the instant case did not contest the domestic courts’ finding that the first applicant bore the primary responsibility for the occurrence of the accident. They nevertheless made two claims which may engage the respondent State’s concurrent responsibility for the death under Article <mask> of the Convention. They firstly claimed that the result of the traffic accident in question had been significantly aggravated due to the defective state of the crash barrier, which had failed to stop the car falling down into the canal, and to possible structural problems with the road. They secondly argued that neither of those contentious matters had been duly examined by the İzmir Administrative Court, which had not even ordered an expert report to assist with the determination of such technical matters.


31.  The Government stressed that in the course of the domestic investigations it had been established that driver Br. had not been working for the police at the time of the accident. The Government contended that acts committed by a private individual could not in any way engage the State’s liability under the substantive limb of Article <mask> of the Convention.


49.  The applicant complained that her husband died as a result of the insufficient health care during his detention in St Petersburg and the conditions of his detention and of his transportation to Moscow. She further complained that no adequate and effective investigation was conducted into her husband’s death. She argued that there has been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, as far as relevant, as follows:


160.  The applicant alleged that his two sons had been taken away by the security forces and that it must be presumed that they were now dead in circumstances for which the authorities were responsible. He complained that no meaningful investigation had been carried out into the disappearance and subsequent death of his sons. He invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


49.  The Government further submitted that since the applicant had failed to institute separate civil proceedings against K, as the owner of the car, “any of his civil-law claims under Article <mask> of the Convention were inadmissible in view of his failure to exhaust domestic remedies prior to his application to the Court”. In their further observations the Government added that after K’s death such a civil claim could be lodged by the applicant against “the owner of the vehicle”.


53.  The Government argued further that the applicants had not complied with the six-month time-limit. In this connection they contended firstly that the applicants had not reported the killing of Milan Zdjelar to the relevant authorities for almost six years. Moreover, the applicants should have become aware of the deficiencies in the investigation no later than 2004, when they lodged their civil action for damages, in which it was alleged that the Republic of Croatia was responsible for the war crimes committed by members of the Croatian Army. Further to this, the criminal complaint lodged on 29 May 2005 had been the result of their frustration at the lack of results in the investigation, in connection with which one of the applicants, Dragica Zdjelar, had been interviewed by the police on several occasions. Also, the applicants’ application to the Court was linked to their civil action for damages, but these proceedings could not be taken into account in connection with their complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


105.  The applicants maintained their complaints. They submitted that the arrest operation carried out by the FSB servicemen had not been properly planned. Referring to the case of Karagiannopoulos v. Greece (no. 27850/03, § 61, 21 June 2007), they emphasised that the very fact that Beslan Arapkhanov’s handcuffs had been removed demonstrated the failure to organise the operation in a manner compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


313.  The Government contended, on the one hand, that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants’ complaints concerning the disappearance of their relatives and that their complaints under this head must be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. To this end they referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, §§ 101‑09, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑III). On the other hand, they submitted that the complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. Further, the Government submitted that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the applicants’ relatives had been held under State control, or that they were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures employed had not produced any specific results, or had yielded only limited results, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an effective investigation.


64.  The Government accepted that, in the light of the Court's previous judgments (Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, 4 May 2001, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, ECHR 2001-III, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, 4 May 2001, and Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, 4 May 2001), the RUC investigation, the inquest and the Stevens inquiries did not cumulatively satisfy the procedural requirement imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out, however, that the reports following the first and second Stevens inquiries were not made public as this would have prejudiced national security.


86.  The Government argued that the investigation into the disappearance and murder of the applicants' relatives met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify those responsible. They submitted that the investigation was being carried out in full compliance with the domestic law and that a large number of investigative actions had been taken, including inspection of the crime scenes at the houses from which the applicants' relatives had been abducted, medical examination of the corpses and the sending of numerous enquiries to the federal military and security agencies to verify the possible involvement of federal servicemen in the imputed offence. The Government thus insisted that they had fulfilled their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


224.  The applicant claimed that Cyprus and Russia had violated their obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Ms Rantseva’s death. He pointed to alleged contradictions between the autopsies of the Cypriot and Russian authorities (see paragraph 50 above) and his requests to Cyprus, via the relevant Russian authorities, for further investigation of apparent anomalies, requests which were not followed up by the Cypriot authorities (see paragraphs 52 and 62 above). He also complained about the limited number of witness statements taken by the police (see paragraphs 31 and 33 above), highlighting that five of the seven relevant statements were either from the police officers on duty at Limassol Police Station or those present in the apartment at the time of his daughter’s death, persons who, in his view, had an interest in presenting a particular version of events. The applicant further argued that any investigation should not depend on an official complaint or claim from the victim’s relatives. He contended that his daughter clearly died in strange circumstances requiring elaboration and that an Article 2-compliant investigation was accordingly required. The Cypriot investigation did not comply with Article 2 due to the inadequacies outlined above, as well as the fact that it was not accessible to him, as a relative of the victim.


135.  The applicant claimed the following amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage: EUR 100,000 on account of the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of her husband; EUR 25,000 on account of the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her husband, the indifference shown by the authorities towards him and the failure to provide any information about his fate; and EUR 25,000 on account of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of her husband.


94.  The Government argued that there were no grounds to hold the State responsible for the alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. They contended that there was no conclusive evidence that the applicants' relatives were dead and that the investigation had obtained no evidence that representatives of the State had been involved in the abduction of the Yansuyev brothers. They referred, in particular, to the replies of various State bodies obtained by the investigating authorities stating that none of those bodies had detained the Yansuyev brothers or brought criminal proceedings against them, and that they had not been detained in any detention centres.


255.  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.


146.  The Government referred to the results of the forensic examination according to which the remains of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam Chagayev and Mr Ibragim Magomadov had been found at the cemetery where the bodies of the illegal armed groups’ members killed on 7 and 9 March 2002 had been buried. They submitted that the above persons had been members of paramilitary groups and had resisted the representatives of federal forces with arms and that the latter had had to apply force in response which had led to the killing of those persons. The Government stated that the special operation conducted in Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002 had been properly planned and carried out by competent State bodies in compliance with the applicable legislation, in particular, with Federal Law no. 130-FZ of 25 July 1998 on the Suppression of Terrorism. They further submitted that the force applied had been “absolutely necessary” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and, therefore, there had been no breach of the above provision.


62.  The Government argued that the domestic authorities had set up an adequate legal framework for protecting patients’ lives, for regulating the medical profession and for punishing any faulty behaviour. They underlined that all medical documents and reports had shown that the applicant’s son had been given the appropriate treatment and that no medical errors had been made in the case. Lastly, the Government contended that the criminal investigation had been comprehensive and thorough, in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. At the initial phase of the investigation the authorities might not have gathered all the evidence considered necessary by the domestic courts, but had nevertheless fully complied with the instructions given by the courts.


87.  The Government indicated that no direct reference to Article <mask> of the Convention had been made in the application form submitted by the applicants. Further, they contended that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that Aslanbek Khamidov was dead or that any State servicemen had been involved in his kidnapping or alleged killing. The Government pointed out that the applicants’ failure to promptly inform the authorities of the crime had entailed destruction of evidence and rendered the investigation more complicated. In sum they claimed that the investigation into the kidnapping of the applicants’ relative met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators.


55.  The applicant invoked Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention. However, since it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court considers that the applicant’s complaints should be examined only under Article <mask> of the Convention.


212.  The Government conceded that the proceedings had been lengthy. However, they considered that this had not stood in the way of effective observance of the procedural obligation. They argued that the length of the criminal and civil proceedings and those before the IGS could be attributed precisely to the efforts made by the competent authorities to address with rigour all the facts of the case and all the doubts expressed by the applicant. In such circumstances, the Government considered that the duration of the proceedings could not be a ground for finding a violation of the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. At most, they argued, the lengthy proceedings might breach Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which was incidentally the complaint lodged by the applicant.


125.  The applicants each claimed: 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention; EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards the procedural aspect of Article 14 of the Convention; EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards Article 13 of the Convention; EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; and HRK 26,250 (about 3,500 euros) in respect of pecuniary damage as regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.


30.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that the failure of the relevant State authorities to take the necessary protective measures in respect of the road in question, such as repairing the damaged roadside barrier, had aggravated the outcome of the accident and had resulted in the death of their wife and mother, Yeşim Çakır. They stressed in this connection that some time after the accident, the authorities had not only repaired the barrier, but had added another tier, in order to increase its capacity to protect against cars leaving the road.


58.  The Government asserted that that remedy had been effective and adequate in terms of the positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above) and that the applicant had, through her own inaction or negligence, deprived herself of a remedy which had nonetheless been available to her for four years from the time when the damage had occurred, and in respect of which she could have received advice from her lawyers. In Calvelli and Ciglio there had been no doubt that Article 2 of the Convention was applicable to a newborn child. In the instant case, in which the applicability of Article 2 was questionable, there were therefore additional reasons for considering that the possibility of using civil or administrative remedies to establish liability was sufficient. In the Government’s submission, such an action for damages could have been based on the taking of the life of the child the applicant was carrying, since the relevant case-law of the administrative courts did not appear thus far to preclude the possibility of affording embryos protection under Article 2 of the Convention (Conseil d’Etat (full court), Confédération nationale des associations familiales catholiques et autres, judgment of 21 December 1990 – see paragraph 47 above). At the material time, in any event, the issue had not been clearly resolved by the Conseil d’Etat.


26.  The Government argued that the use of force by the soldiers had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention and lawful under the national legislation because the soldiers had thought that they had encountered members of a terrorist organisation and had returned fire to apprehend the terrorists and to protect themselves from the fire opened by the terrorists.


202.  The applicant further alleged that the level of scrutiny that the domestic courts applied to a decision not to prosecute was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. This was because, pursuant to the dicta in Manning, even if a court considering a claim for judicial review concluded that a prosecution was likely to succeed, it would only have to order such a prosecution if there had been an error of law. Such an approach was inconsistent with Article 2 of the Convention.


83.  The applicants claimed BGN 10,000 for the non‑pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Nikolov on account of the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and BGN 10,000 for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by him on account of the alleged breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Ms Nikolova further claimed BGN 50,000 for the anguish which she had experienced as a result of Mr Nikolov's death. She submitted that the loss of her husband and her becoming a widow at the age of fifty‑five had caused her considerable grief. Ms Velichkova claimed BGN 30,000. She submitted that the early loss of her father had caused her sorrow. The applicants also jointly claimed BGN 20,500 in respect of the frustration sustained by them on account of the slow and ineffective investigation into the death of Mr Nikolov.


36.  The applicant complained under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been infected with HIV as a consequence of negligent actions by the medical staff of detention facilities, and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the incident. The Court will examine the present complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, § 39, 10 April 2012, with further references). Article 2, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:


77.  The applicant did not lodge a civil claim with the courts seeking compensation for the alleged medical malpractice. Meanwhile, as noted above (see paragraph 66 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, as the Government contends in their objections on admissibility.


102.  The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their relatives' disappearance. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for several years but had not brought any tangible results thus far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had failed to inform the applicants of the decisions concerning the adjournment and reopening of the investigation or its progress. The applicants' numerous requests to the authorities throughout the investigation had remained unanswered or only produced standard replies. The applicants had not been granted access to the case file. In support of their argument regarding the ineffectiveness of the investigation, the applicants also referred to the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the file in the criminal case concerning their relatives' disappearance. The applicants also argued that the investigation could not have met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention since civilian prosecuting authorities were not competent to conduct investigations involving the military and military prosecuting authorities could not be considered to be independent from the military.


97.  The applicant contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that his deportation to Iran had exposed him to various deadly hazards, such as being kidnapped by people smugglers and being shot by border guards. The applicant further complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by security forces during his deportation to Iran on 12 September 2008. He claimed under Article 8 of the Convention that his deportation had infringed his right to respect for private and family life. He complained under Article 14 that he had been discriminated against by the State authorities because of his nationality. Lastly, he contended under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 that he and the other Uzbek asylum seekers had been deported collectively and in breach of the procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens.


42.  The applicants alleged that the respondent State had failed to ensure appropriate medical treatment for their daughter, which had led to heart and lung damage and finally to her death. The civil proceedings they had instituted had not resulted in the effective and prompt establishment of the cause of death and the liability of the medical profession. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:


23.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the delay in transferring Toğay Gültekin to the hospital from his regiment had delayed his access to appropriate treatment and had thus caused his death. They argued that, as Toğay Gültekin had been under the authority of the military administration during his compulsory military service, the State should be held responsible for his death which, they believed, had been caused as a result of the authorities’ negligence. The applicants also relied on Article 6 of the Convention and argued that the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Military Court had not been conducted fairly. In this connection, they stated that their objection to the medical expert report had not been taken into account and that the Military Administrative Court had failed to interpret the facts of the case correctly and that no effective investigation had been carried out.


99.  The Government submitted that there had been no doubt that the death of the applicants’ relative had been the result of an accident which had occurred while the children had been playing. In their view the domestic authorities had reacted properly and expeditiously, and the applicants’ relative had been provided with appropriate medical treatment, particularly given the general social situation and the war in Vinkovci at the time, which the Government analysed in great detail. Therefore, the Government considered that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


65.  The applicant submitted that, in view of the grave danger to life which an enforced disappearance involved and the urgent need to locate the person, the authorities' failure to initiate a prompt and effective investigation into the disappearance of his son had directly endangered his son's life and constituted a violation of the State's positive obligation to protect life pursuant to Article <mask> of the Convention.


87.  The applicants Sonia Biga, Augustin Biga, Carol Ciorcan, Sorin Ciorcan, Costel Ciorcan, Edith Csiki (Biga) and Ildiko Kalanyos (Biga), namely the sons and daughters of the deceased Susana Ciorcan, complained that the State agents had used excessive force against their mother, which had put her life in danger, and that the national authorities had failed to subsequently conduct an adequate and effective investigation. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


67.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that the use of force employed by the security forces against İsmet Erdoğan and Elmas Yalçın was disproportionate and resulted in their unlawful killing. They further complained, under the same head, that the investigation and the subsequent criminal proceedings brought against the four police officers were fundamentally flawed and, as a result, were not capable of being effective, in violation of the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention. They further complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the proceedings in question were not concluded within a reasonable time.


46.  The applicant submitted that the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention concerned all aspects of an incident involving the unlawful killing of a citizen by a State agent. That Article imposed a duty on the State to carry out an effective investigation into allegations of abuse of power by the police – particularly if there was reasonable suspicion of accomplice liability, as in the present case. There had been serious shortcomings in the investigation, which had affected the determination of the circumstances that had led to M.N.’s killing and the role of Z.J., P.K., V.B. and D.I. The effect of those shortcomings on the effectiveness of the investigation could have been established only in adversarial judicial proceedings. Therefore, the charges brought against those persons were to be considered as falling within the ambit of the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. This was so since the procedural obligation concerned not only the direct perpetrator of the crime (I.S.), but also the other four persons who had allegedly acted as accomplices by helping I.S. avoid criminal liability and obstructing the investigation.


45.  The Government, referring to the case of Caraher v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000‑I), submitted that applicants who had received compensation for the breach of their Convention rights could no longer claim to be victims of a violation. The possibility of obtaining compensation for the death of a person constituted in principle sufficient redress for an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Not only had the applicants been awarded the compensation they had asked for in full, but the authorities had charged and convicted the police officers responsible for Mr Nikolov's death. Concerning the officers' penalties, the national courts had had regard to the gravity of their offence, their motives for committing it, and all other aggravating and mitigating circumstances. All levels of jurisdiction had given full reasons for their rulings on this point. The penalties were adequate if compared to the constant practice of the domestic courts in respect of such offences, where the average sentence was three years and two months, as could be seen from the published case‑law of the Supreme Court of Cassation. The sentences meted out to the officers could thus not be considered unduly lenient.


40.  The applicant complained that the State authorities were responsible for the accident of 30 November 1998 and had violated her daughter's right to life. She also complained that the State authorities had failed to investigate the accident of 30 November 1998 effectively and to punish those responsible for it. In this respect she relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which reads as follows:


65.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies with regard to her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. Firstly, she had not started separate civil proceedings against the State, which she should have done if she considered that its authorities, including the police, a prosecutor or the courts had not acted with due care when examining the circumstances of her son’s death, or had not ensured the proper and timely execution of the judgment convicting A.G. In support of their argument, the Government relied on certain provisions of the Civil Code, as well as on the Supreme Court’s case-law to the effect that the State’s civil liability might arise because of a failure on the part of one of its officers to act diligently.


58.  The applicant complained about the death of her son, Yevgeniy Geppa, while he was serving his prison sentence. She alleged that his death was caused by a combination of regular beatings by the colony officials, a lack of medical care in respect of the injuries sustained, and his previously acquired medical conditions. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads in so far as relevant as follows:


83.  The Government attributed the delay in commencing the investigation to the applicants arguing that the first applicant had filed a complaint with the city prosecutor’s office only on 5 August 2002. The Court considers in this respect that the issue of whether members of Aslanbek Khamzayev’s family or others have lodged a formal complaint about his disappearance with the competent investigating authorities is not decisive. The mere knowledge of the disappearance in life-threatening circumstances on the part of the authorities gave 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 1998‑IV, and Yaşa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, § 100, Reports 1998‑VI). The Government did not contest the applicants’ assertion that the lawyers from Memorial had reported the crime to the city prosecutor’s office on 28 June 2002. Accordingly, the Court finds it established that the competent investigating authorities were notified of Aslanbek Khamzayev’s disappearance shortly after it took place. In such circumstances, they and not the applicants were responsible for the substantial delay in commencing the investigation. In the Court’s view, this delay was in itself liable to affect the investigation into the disappearance in life-threatening circumstances, when crucial action was required in the first days.


162.  The applicant alleged that her husband had been tortured and killed, following his abduction by agents of the State, and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his killing. She made these claims on behalf of her late husband and, as indirect victims, on behalf of herself and her daughter. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:


100.  The applicants submitted that the refusal to allow them to use the product had been in breach of their right to life. They highlighted the similarities and differences between their case and previous cases in which the Court had dealt with complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to health care. They argued that, properly framed, the issue in their case was whether the State had taken appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those under its jurisdiction. In their view it had not, because the rules governing “compassionate use” were not adequate, in that they did not allow the authorities to have regard to specific circumstances. All individuals in Bulgaria who, like the applicants, had cancer which was terminal and which was no longer responding to conventional treatment, were being denied access to experimental medicinal products. In the applicants’ case, this was not justified by lack of budgetary resources, because the company which had developed the product was willing to provide it free of charge. There were indications that the condition of some cancer patients had improved as a result of its use. This had given the applicants hope that it might help them as well.


53.  The applicant disputed that objection. In her view, the fact that the investigation had been ongoing for seven years with no tangible results proved that it was an ineffective remedy in this case. She further claimed that she could not effectively challenge actions or omissions of the investigating authorities because she had not been duly informed of its progress during the five years that it had been under way. Furthermore, those complaints that she had lodged remained unanswered. 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.


28.  The applicants emphasised that twenty-six years after the death of their relatives, the related criminal investigation had still not identified those responsible and sent them for trial. They submitted that the duration of the investigation had been excessive and that the authorities had not complied with the requirements set forth in the Court’s case-law on Article <mask> of the Convention.


52.  The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate and adequate steps to investigate the death of their parents and to bring the perpetrators to justice. They also claimed that their parents had been killed because of their Croatian 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 the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:


58.  The Government denied the factual basis of the applicant’s allegation under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that Mehmet Şah Şeker was not taken into custody by the police as alleged. They contended that there was no reason to arrest the applicant’s son since he had not been involved in any criminal offence. However, in their post‑admissibility observations, the Government maintained that a search was conducted for the applicant’s son, both as a missing person and as a suspect, and that, had he been arrested, this fact would have been entered in the custody records. The Government submitted that the domestic authorities fulfilled their obligation to take effective steps to discover the whereabouts of the applicant’s son.


154.  The Government contended on one hand that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants’ complaints concerning the disappearance of their relatives and that their complaints under this head must be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. To this end they referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 101-09, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑III. On the other hand, they submitted that the complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. Further, the Government submitted that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the applicants’ relatives had been held under State control or that they were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures employed had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an effective investigation.


77.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their relatives had been deliberately killed by the security forces and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their deaths. The applicants also maintained that they had not been provided with an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention.


27.  The applicant submitted that he had exhausted the domestic remedies available to him and that he had lodged the complaint with the Court within the time-limit set by Article 35 § 1. He made reference to the Court’s case-law in this regard, with particular emphasis on the Court’s approach to applying the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. The applicant submitted that he had officially asked the judicial police officer in charge of investigating his brother’s death to carry out an investigation with a view to clarifying the circumstances of his brother’s death. This had constituted a formal request to bring charges under Article 59 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition, the mere fact that his brother had died, had given rise ipso facto to an obligation on the part of the authorities under Article <mask> of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation.


31.  The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate and adequate steps to investigate the death of J.T. and to bring the perpetrators to justice. They also claimed that J.T. had been killed because of his Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. 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 the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:


64.  The Government pointed out that the remedies to be exhausted under the Convention included not only judicial ones, but also administrative ones. The Court had taken into account police inquiries in the “TRNC” in cases similar to the present one and had examined whether such investigations were effective and sufficient. It would be illogical to argue, as the third-party intervener had, that, in violation of the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention, no inquiry had been carried out in the “TRNC” into the death of Anastasios Isaak and that the “TRNC” could not carry out such an inquiry because it was not a legal State. In any event, an inquiry had indeed been carried out. However, it had not been possible to complete it since the Greek-Cypriot authorities had refused to cooperate, claiming that such cooperation would amount to recognition. For instance, no autopsy report had been forwarded to the Turkish-Cypriot authorities. In this connection, the Government pointed out that in a criminal prosecution the State should prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that everyone should be presumed innocent until proved guilty.


36.  The applicant alleged that the death of his son had been caused by an excessive use of force. In his view, 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 without it being absolutely necessary. He further complained that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into the death. He relied in this connection on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


107.  The Government submitted that the first head of claim was exorbitant and far above the awards made by the Court in previous cases in which it had found breaches of Article <mask> of the Convention due to actions of the police. The second head of claim was likewise exorbitant. In the Government’s view, in the present case the finding of a violation would amount to sufficient just satisfaction.


137.  The applicant submitted that her son, Said-Khuseyn Imakayev, was detained by servicemen on 17 December 2000 and that he was killed by servicemen in circumstances that lacked any justification under Article <mask> of the Convention. She based this assertion on the circumstances surrounding his detention, the fact that more that five years after his apprehension no information was available about his whereabouts and the failure of the authorities to provide a plausible version of his disappearance. The applicant further drew the Court's attention to the specific features of individual disappearances in Chechnya, whereby many persons detained by the military or security forces were later found dead without any records of their detention or release ever being produced. The applicant referred to the reports by human rights NGOs and to the individual applications alleging such violations pending before the European Court.


43.  The Government finally reiterated that an effective investigation implied an obligation of means and not of result. In their view, in the present case the investigation authorities had taken all possible steps for the investigation into the applicant’s wife’s death to be an effective one. Therefore, there was no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case.


125.  The Government have referred to the fact that there are pending civil proceedings which the applicant is not taking steps to expedite. While, civil proceedings would provide a judicial fact finding forum, with the attendant safeguards and the ability to reach findings of unlawfulness, with the possibility of an award of damages, it is however a procedure undertaken on the initiative of the applicant, not the authorities, and it does not involve the identification or punishment of any alleged perpetrator. As such, it cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the State's compliance with its procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention (see also Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 141).


161.  The applicant maintained that, at the time of lodging her application with the Court, she had not been certain of her husband's fate or the identity of the body found in Tarashcha. Therefore, she had based her complaint on his disappearance. Whilst she no longer claimed that her husband had disappeared, she alleged that he had been killed in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


33.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Ms Aleksandrovich had died as a result of intentional mistreatment in the police custody and that the State authorities had not discharged their obligations to provide medical treatment for her and to undertake a thorough and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death. Article 2 of the Convention provides as follows:


43.  The applicant complained of the lack of protection of the unborn child under French criminal law and argued that the State had failed to discharge its obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention by not allowing the offence of unintentional homicide to cover injury to an unborn child. She further submitted that the remedy available in the administrative courts was ineffective as it was incapable of securing judicial acknowledgment of the homicide of her child as such. Lastly, the applicant asserted that she had had a choice between instituting criminal and administrative proceedings and that, while her recourse to the criminal courts had, unforeseeably, proved unsuccessful, the possibility of applying to the administrative courts had in the meantime become statute-barred.


283.  The applicants further submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention should not be understood as outlawing only deliberate homicide; there did not exist a right or authorisation to take somebody’s life under any circumstances. The death in question should engage the responsibility of the State irrespective of the classification of the impugned acts by the domestic courts (see, for example, Leonidis, cited above, §§ 58 and 59). The applicants also stated that, despite the internal investigation’s refusal to elucidate O.M.-ov’s role in Sandro Girgvliani’s death, the Government’s failure to submit to the Court the relevant criminal case materials in their entirety further corroborated the assumption that the homicide had been committed on orders given by the offenders’ superiors from the Ministry of the Interior who had been present in the Café Chardin on the night in question.


28.  The applicant complained under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention that the inquiry into the circumstances leading to the serious deterioration of her health was not effective. Regard being had to the seriousness of the applicant’s condition and the damage to her health, the Court will examine her grievances from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 45, 9 November 2010), which, is so far as relevant, reads as follows:


279.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention given that, firstly, the results of the meticulous investigation of the case conducted by the relevant domestic authorities had established that the life of the applicants’ son had not been taken “intentionally”, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that provision. The absence of intent was confirmed by the fact that when, at Okrokana cemetery, the applicants’ son had escaped his attackers, one of them had fired a gun in the air and not in his direction.


153.  The Government, referring to the Court’s case-law (Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 104, 27 June 2006; Eugenia Lazăr v. Romania, no. 32146/05, §§ 68-72, 16 February 2010; Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 130, ECHR 2014; and Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000‑V), maintained that in the area of health care the positive obligation arising for the Contracting States under Article <mask> of the Convention with a view to preventing death caused by medical negligence was essentially of a procedural nature and involved a duty to put in place a regulatory structure requiring that hospitals, be they private or public, take appropriate steps to ensure that patients’ lives were protected. In view of the facts of the case and the Court’s case-law, the Government submitted that the conclusion of the Chamber judgment raised serious doubts in that regard.


120.  The applicants claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention; EUR 10,000 as regards the complaint under Article 5 of the Convention; EUR 10,000 each as regards the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention; and EUR 12,000 as regards the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.


150.  The applicant maintained that the imposition and/or execution of the death penalty constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention – which should be interpreted as no longer permitting capital punishment – as well as an inhuman and degrading punishment in violation of Article 3. He also claimed that his execution would be discriminatory and, therefore, in breach of Article 14. The relevant parts of these provisions provide:


22.  The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate and adequate steps to investigate P.M.’s death and bring his killers to justice. They also submitted that P.M. had been killed because he was of Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. They 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:


51.  The applicant contended that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov could be presumed dead, given that he had been taken away in life-threatening circumstances, that he had remained missing for several years and that there had been no news of him since the date when he was abducted. She submitted that the Government had advanced no reasons to justify the taking of her son’s life, and that therefore they should be held responsible for the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect.


86.  The applicant argued that there could be no reasonable doubt that State servicemen had been responsible for the killing of her relatives, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. She relied on numerous documents submitted to the Court in the course of the present case and other cases which supported this allegation. She also submitted that there existed overwhelming and compelling evidence that extrajudicial killings by soldiers had been widespread in Grozny at the beginning of 2000.


104.  The applicant thus stressed that her husband had been apprehended in life-endangering circumstances and argued, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the fact that he had remained missing since 29 April 2001 proved that he had been killed. She 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 of the Convention.


85.  The applicant submitted that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article <mask> of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, established a positive obligation on States to investigate complaints of disappearance effectively and to apply effective sanctions against the perpetrators of enforced disappearances.


28.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been the victim of a life-threatening action taken by R.D., a State official. He also complained under Article 6 that the domestic courts had failed to recognise the State’s responsibility. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005), considers that the applicant’s submissions under this head raise an issue only under Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


37.  The Government acknowledged a violation of the substantive aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that “a violation of Shamkhan Abubakarov and Badrudi Abubakarov’s right to life guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention is confirmed by the criminal case material”. They further contended that the investigation into the deaths of the applicants’ husbands complied with the Convention requirement for an effective investigation.


114.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into her son’s death. She claimed, in particular, that she had been excluded from the investigation at its initial stage as a result of the investigator’s refusal to grant her victim status, and that, even after the decision granting her victim status had been taken, her requests to be informed of the progress of the investigation had been refused. The applicant referred to Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention in connection with her complaints. The Court shall examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


71.  The applicant argued that he had exhausted all domestic remedies. He pointed out that he had had two sets of proceedings at his disposal – civil and criminal – and that he had opted for criminal proceedings. He noted that after the death of his sister he had suffered profound grief that could only have been alleviated by establishing all the circumstances of the case and not by compensation of damages. He also argued that, even if he had not expressly cited Article <mask> of the Convention, his complaints both before the Court and before the Constitutional Court had in substance concerned the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.


29.  The applicants made a twofold complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended firstly that the State had failed to comply with their positive obligations in order to prevent the deaths of M.T. and V.T. and secondly that the State had failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the possible responsibility of their agents for the deaths of M.T. and V.T.


60.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that there was no evidence proving the State agents’ involvement into the killing as “nothing in the present case speaks of a possible violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in its substantive limb”. They further contended that the investigation into the incident was effective as the authorities “discharged their procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention.


80.  The Government also contended that the investigation of A.Č.’s death had complied with the State’s obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. The criminal investigation had been promptly opened upon the prosecutor’s initiative. The applicant and his wife had been involved in the proceedings. Although the investigation had been suspended and reopened several times, the suspensions were warranted because the perpetrators of the crime could not be identified. Nonetheless, the suspensions had only been temporary and for objective reasons. For example, on one occasion blood samples from two suspects had been unsuitable for expert examination and new samples had therefore had to be taken. Moreover, given that suspension of criminal proceedings was abolished with effect from 1 May 2003, the investigation has not been suspended since that date. On the contrary, the case shall remain in progress until new circumstances come to light.


115.  The Government submitted that, as was clear from the results of the domestic investigation, Private Alekseyev had died of a stab wound that he had inflicted on himself with a bayonet, which had constituted suicide. At the same time, the materials obtained by the investigation, including statements of numerous witnesses, had contained no evidence that Private Alekseyev had been subjected to any form of pressure. In particular, it had not been shown that he had been asked to pay for the car. On the contrary, he had been aware that under the applicable regulations College students did not bear financial liability for the cars at the aerodrome parking lot. Hence, it had not been possible to hold someone responsible for Private Alekseyev’s suicide, and therefore, the State’s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been engaged.


43.  The applicant complained that if extradited to Belarus he could be subjected to capital punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 3 of the Convention that there was a risk of his being subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment by the Belarusian law-enforcement authorities. In particular, the applicant complained that the prospect of possible capital punishment caused him intense moral suffering. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that if extradited to Belarus he would face an unfair trial.


63.  The applicant further maintained that the State agents had deliberately and unlawfully prevented timely medical aid from being given to her and her husband, despite the serious injuries they had suffered. Due to the Government’s failure to provide the entire criminal investigation file to the Court, the burden of proof shifted from the applicant to the State to demonstrate that its agents were not responsible for the death of the applicant’s relative and her own injuries (see Özalp and Others v. Turkey, no. 32457/96. 8 April 2004, § 35). The deprivation of the life of her husband was arbitrary as it did not result from “the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary” according to Article <mask> of the Convention.


68.  The applicants argued that the investigation into the killings of their relatives was neither impartial nor adequate for the purposes of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, the applicants submitted, in particular, that the autopsy had not established which specific weapon had caused each of the injuries. Furthermore, neither the military prosecutor, who carried out the investigation, nor the Diyarbakır Military Court, which upheld the military prosecutor's decision not to prosecute, could be regarded as independent or impartial. The military prosecutor had, in effect, investigated a possible offence committed by his hierarchical superiors.


52.  The Government argued that there were no grounds to hold the State responsible for the alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. They contended that there was no conclusive evidence that the applicant’s son was dead, as his corpse had never been found, and that the investigation had obtained no evidence that representatives of the State had been involved in his abduction. They referred, in particular, to the replies of various State bodies obtained by the investigating authorities to the effect that none of those bodies had detained Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov or brought criminal proceedings against him, that he was not held in any detention centres, and that no special operations had been conducted in Goyty during the relevant period.


14.  The applicants complained that the domestic authorities have not carried out within a reasonable time an effective investigation into the events of December 1989 occurred in Bucharest, Brașov and Vișina, during which they were injured or their close relatives were killed by gunfire. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. In so far as relevant, this provision reads as follows:


29.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the allegedly inadequate investigation of the death of Ms P. Referring to Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (a), (b), as well as Article 13 of the Convention, he further complained about the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant also complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 about his inability to challenge on appeal the rejection by the investigator and by the trial court of his numerous petitions. He next complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the confiscation of his gun. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 about the lengthy restriction on his liberty on account of the obligation not to leave his place of residence.


143.  The Government maintained that the prosecutor had conducted an investigation which was in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and that in doing so he had not ignored any small detail or evidence and had conducted the entire investigation swiftly, completing it within one year. In doing so, the prosecutor had taken into consideration all the allegations made by the relatives of the deceased and had met all their demands.


112.  The Government argued that the circumstances of the attack of 12 September 1999 had been duly investigated by the domestic authorities, which, having carried out the investigation, had decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings “in the absence of any lawful grounds for holding anyone criminally liable”. The Government submitted that the fact that the investigation had been discontinued did not prevent any of the applicants from seeking compensation in civil proceedings for the damage caused, this right having been explained to the individuals who had been declared victims in the present case. The Government further pointed out that the first three applicants had availed themselves of that right and had obtained compensation in connection with their relatives’ deaths. The Government thus insisted that in such circumstances the investigation in the present case had met the standard of effectiveness established in relation to Article <mask> of the Convention.


70.  The Government argued that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to find Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov and to identify those responsible. They submitted that the investigation was being carried out in full compliance with the domestic law and that a large number of investigative actions had been taken, including sending of numerous enquiries to the federal military and security agencies to verify the possible involvement of federal servicemen in the imputed offence, or to check whether the applicant’s son was kept in any detention centres. The investigation was repeatedly suspended and reopened, which, in the Government’s view, was evidence of the authorities’ effort to resolve the crime rather than of the ineffectiveness of the investigation. According to the Government, the investigation was ongoing at present. The Government also argued that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s relatives who had been acknowledged as victims in the case had received explanations concerning their procedural rights, and in particular of the opportunity to gain access to the case file upon the completion of the investigation. The Government thus insisted that they had fulfilled their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


56.  The applicant complained firstly of acts of torture inflicted on her husband by the authorities responsible for his custody and which led to his death in 1980. Secondly, she complained of various shortcomings in the criminal proceedings which came to an end in 2003, resulting in the de facto impunity granted to her husband’s torturers and murderers. According to the applicant, such impunity in itself contravened the very essence of the right enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention and the absolute prohibition laid down in Article 3. These Articles are worded as follows:


139.  The applicants submitted that there was overwhelming evidence to conclude that their relatives had been intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances that violated Article <mask> of the Convention. Basing themselves on the Government's admission that on 5 February 2000 a special operation had been carried out in the neighbourhood by the federal forces, they asked the Court to conclude that the “unidentified men in military uniforms armed with automatic weapons” must have been the same members of the federal forces who had conducted the operation. They referred to the eyewitnesses' accounts, to the press and NGO reports, to the videotape filmed on 9 February 2000, and to the official documents, which all pointed towards the servicemen of the federal forces as the perpetrators of the killings. They argued that the Government had not suggested any other version of the events. They submitted that the failure to identify the servicemen responsible lay with the deficient investigation and did not exempt the State from responsibility under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention.


36.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about ineffective investigation into the accident and insufficient funding of his medical, educational, rehabilitation, and other needs and under Article 13 of the Convention about lack of the effective remedies in this regard. Lastly he complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the civil proceedings.


57.  The Government contended that the applicant could no longer be considered a “victim” of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34, since the authorities had acknowledged the breach and afforded him redress. The case was therefore inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of Article 34 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


221.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the death of the applicants’ son had fully met the requirements of impartiality and thoroughness, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The obligation to conduct that investigation was one of means only, not of result. As regards impartiality, they argued that the Ministry of the Interior had been competent to carry out the investigation between 28 January and 5 March 2006 by virtue of Article 62 of the CCP, given that not the slightest suspicion implicating an agent of that Ministry had existed at that time. Such a suspicion emerged only on 5 March 2006, and the case was then immediately transferred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.


51.  The Government argued that the applicant did not have an arguable claim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She was not suggesting that the medical personnel knew or ought to have known of a risk of suicide but rather, as alleged before the County Court, that they had been negligent in their assessment and care of her son. However, even if there had been medical negligence, the Powell decision made it clear that this would be insufficient to establish a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.


50.  The applicants argued that the force used by the soldiers against their two relatives had not been absolutely necessary and that the excessive nature of the use of force showed that the soldiers had in fact intended to kill them. Indeed, the conclusion reached by the three experts appointed by the military prosecutor, i.e. that “the soldiers had carried out their duty satisfactorily”, was another indication of the existence of an intention to kill their relatives in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


46.  The applicant complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of her son, Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov. She submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish his whereabouts indicated that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov had been killed by representatives of the federal forces. The applicant also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into her son’s disappearance. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


46.  The Government added that limitation periods were the strongest possible affirmation of the right to a speedy and equitable trial, as they prevented undue delays before conviction and expired when it was no longer imperative for a sentence to be imposed for the purposes of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. In that regard, the Government referred to the decision of the European Commission of Human Rights in Dujardin and Others v. France (no. 16734/90, Commission decision of 2 September 1991, Decisions and Reports (DR) 72, p. 236). The Government said that it would make no sense to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the instant case, since the fact that the prosecution of the offence had become time-barred had not prevented the facts from being established, or the doctor being held liable and ordered to pay damages.


98.  The Government contested, firstly, the applicability of Article 13, disputing that the applicant had an arguable claim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they relied on the Commission's finding, which was endorsed by the Court above, that it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that any State agent had been implicated, directly or indirectly, in the events at issue. In any event, as regards the issue of compliance with Article 13, the Government prayed in aid, as they did with respect to the duty to investigate under Article 2, the Commission's finding that the supplementary investigation measures ordered by the prosecution during the phase of the proceedings before the State Security Court had been appropriate.


56.  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 unidentified persons who had abducted Vakhid Musikhanov. In their submission, there was no evidence in the materials of the criminal investigation file that representatives of the federal forces or security agencies had been stationed, or that any special operations had been carried out, in the vicinity of the Musikhanov family's home during the relevant period. The Government also argued that the second applicant had never informed the investigating authorities about his conversations with local officials who had allegedly confirmed the fact of Vakhid Musikhanov's detention (see paragraph 13 above). The Government insisted that until the circumstances of his abduction, and the identity of the persons involved, had been established, there were no grounds to claim that Vakhid Musikhanov's right to life secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached by the State. 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 facts of their participation in such groups and recruitment of new members, such as “deliberate dissemination of false information concerning their disappearance from the places of their permanent residence and the implication of federal forces in such disappearance”. 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”.


68.  The applicant alleged that his brother had been tortured and killed following his abduction by undercover agents of the State or by persons acting under their express or implicit instructions. He also complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his brother's killing. Finally, the applicant alleged that he received life-threatening messages from unknown persons and as a result he had to leave Turkey and go to Germany to live. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


79.  The Government observed that the investigation and criminal proceedings had constituted an effective domestic remedy for the applicant’s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. If she found them to be inadequate, she was able to, and did, lodge respective complaints with the prosecutors or a domestic court. Following such repeated complaints, the prosecutors and courts had overturned the impugned decisions. Therefore, the Government asserted that the applicant had had at her disposal accessible and effective domestic remedies for her complaints under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 of the Convention and that she had successfully availed herself of such remedies.


111.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that her son’s life was in peril; under Article 3 of the Convention that she had been subjected to degrading treatment while waiting in queues to get into the circuit bailiffs’ office premises; and under Article 10 of the Convention that journalists willing to cover her story had been experiencing pressure from State officials.


94.  The Government argued that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the Russian federal forces had been involved in the abduction of Abu Khasuyev. They argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Abu Khasuyev’s right to life, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, had been breached by representatives of the Russian power structures. The Government further claimed that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators.


31.  The applicants argued that the Russian authorities had failed to establish the circumstances of Mr Antonov’s death and, as a result, had not fulfilled the obligations imposed on them by Article 2. In their opinion, there had been sufficient evidence to show that Mr Antonov had not hanged himself and that he had been killed by unidentified perpetrators. In particular, the forensic medical expert had documented several injuries on Mr Antonov’s body. The Government had not provided any explanation as to their origin. The official date of Mr Antonov’s death had been different from the one indicated in the course of the authorities’ inquiry. There had been no official records confirming that Mr Antonov had been provided with the bed linen that he had allegedly used to hang himself. It had not been established with certainty in which cell Mr Antonov had been held at the time of his death. In any event, the applicants considered that the authorities, having been aware of Mr Antonov’s unstable condition, had failed to take all reasonable measures in order to secure his life. He had been left in a cell alone without any supervision or medical aid. The applicants further argued that the investigation conducted by the authorities had not met the minimum standards of effectiveness and had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The investigation had not been speedy or effective. The initial inquiry had been perfunctory. Subsequently, the prosecutor had quashed refusals to open a criminal investigation into Mr Antonov’s death on nine occasions, stating each time that the inquiry had been incomplete or that the dismissal of the case had been premature. At no time had an official criminal investigation been instituted. The evidence had not been secured effectively immediately after Mr Antonov’s death and with the lapse of time it had become virtually impossible to establish what had really happened. The applicants had been unable to participate in the investigation. They had been repeatedly denied access to the case file. Lastly, the applicants submitted that they had not had at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.


108.  The Government submitted no comments on the issue of compensation being paid to twelve applicants. On the other hand, they agreed that, should the Court find violations of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case, the applicants could be awarded just satisfaction, with the exception of the applicants in complaints nos. 21200/09 and 24693/09. These two complaints concerned deaths which had already been the subject of findings and awards in Musayev and Others, cited above.


69.  The Government submitted that, in having instituted a criminal investigation into Ayub Salatkhanov’s murder, the Russian authorities had admitted that there had been a violation of his right to life. However, the violation had been the result of the actions of a particular individual and not of State agencies. The investigation conducted had met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. Its long duration had been due to the fact that the suspect had absconded and it had taken some time to establish his whereabouts. Serviceman Ch. could not have been arrested directly after the incident, because it had been necessary to establish the circumstances of the incident first. In particular, another serviceman was under suspicion and certain versions of the events advanced by the accused, such as the claim that the bullet had ricocheted, required time-consuming investigative experiments. In the Government’s view, the long duration of the investigation alone could not lead to the conclusion that it was ineffective, especially taking into account that it had led to the culprit being convicted and sentenced by domestic courts.


64.  The Government contended that the national authorities had complied with their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.  The applicants’ parents had been killed in territory outside the control of the Croatian authorities. Once those authorities had regained control over the territory, an investigation into the killing of the applicants’ parents had been launched. However, the evidence gathered by the authorities of the “Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina” had been the result of police inquires which, under Croatian law, could not serve as valid evidence in criminal proceedings in Croatia. The Croatian authorities had taken all available steps in order to identify the perpetrators. However, the two suspects, X and Y, were unavailable to the Croatian authorities.


102.  The applicant submitted that the criminal investigations in the case had not been conducted efficiently, as required by the Court’s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention. The authorities had failed to take appropriate measures in order to establish the circumstances of his wife’s death. The investigations had been discontinued several times and it was only the applicant’s determination and his repeated efforts to have them resumed which had resulted in their being conducted anew.


64.  The applicants complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of their close relative, Isa Zaurbekov. They submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish his whereabouts indicated that Isa Zaurbekov had been killed by the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into their relative’s disappearance. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


108.  The Government submitted that a legal distinction should be drawn between two situations: one in which a violation of the Convention occurred during a period falling outside the Court’s temporal jurisdiction, and a second in which a violation of the Convention “did not legally exist at all” because at the material time the Convention had not existed. In their view, this distinction was crucial, as only a “legally existing” violation of Article 2 in its substantive aspect – which might nevertheless have taken place outside the Court’s temporal jurisdiction – could trigger the State’s procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1. In the cases previously examined by the Court, the events that triggered the duty to investigate had occurred after the adoption of the Convention. In the instant case the alleged violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb not only fell outside the Court’s temporal jurisdiction but also had not existed de jure, since the “Katyn events” had preceded the adoption of the Convention on 4 November 1950 by ten years and its ratification by Russia on 5 May 1998 by fifty-eight years. In the Government’s view, this precluded the Court from examining Russia’s compliance with its procedural obligations. Furthermore, the Government asserted that the Court had no competence ratione materiae to characterise the Katyn massacre as a “war crime” from the standpoint of international humanitarian law.


56.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to prove he had actually sustained pecuniary damage. They also averred that the non‑pecuniary damage should be limited to the object of the case, that is, Article <mask> of the Convention, and considered that the amount requested by the applicant was excessive. In their view the finding of a violation could constitute sufficient compensation in the case.


55.  The Government submitted that the penalties imposed on the three officers had been proportionate and fully in line with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The authorities had first carried out a prompt and effective investigation. They had gathered and duly assessed all relevant evidence, and had on its basis carefully considered what penalties to impose on the officers. In fixing the penalties, the Kazanlak District Court had taken into account the requirements of both domestic law and Article 3 of the Convention. On appeal, the Stara Zagora Regional Court had, of its own motion, examined the proportionality of the penalties, including with regard to the point that the officers’ act had infringed the applicant’s human rights, and had not found them manifestly unjust. That, coupled with the disciplinary penalties imposed on two of the officers and the award of damages obtained by the applicant, showed that this was not a situation in which police officers had been able to encroach with impunity on the rights of those under their control.


106.  The applicant complained that the unlawful taking and demolition of his house, accompanied by pressure and threats by government officials, had amounted to ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained that his eviction from his house and forcible removal to the new flat given to him against his will had been in breach of his right to freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and had also amounted to a violation of Article 18 of the Convention.


34.  The applicant further complained under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention on account of the outcome of the proceedings instituted in 1996. Under the same heading, she alleged a violation on account of the events that allegedly took place on 13 September 1995 and 15 April 1997. Additionally, she claimed a violation of Articles 5 § 1 and 17 of the Convention as regards the latter event. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, she also complained on account of the criminal prosecution brought against her. Under Article 4 § 1 of the Convention, she complained that she was unlawfully dismissed from work. She further alleged a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the courts’ assessment of evidence and interpretation of the national law challenging the outcome and reasonableness of length of all the proceedings. Additionally, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, she complained of the Supreme Court’s refusal to examine her second appeal in cassation. The applicant further complained, referring to Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention, that no disciplinary proceedings were instituted against unspecified persons. Lastly, relying on Article 14 of the Convention, she complained on account of not being redeployed to another post in 1996.


327.  The applicants alleged that the lack of immediate assistance after Carlo Giuliani had fallen to the ground and the jeep had driven over his body had contributed to his death and amounted to inhuman treatment. They referred to paragraphs 5 and 8 of the UN Principles (see paragraph 154 above) and relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


83.  The Government went on to observe that, in an order of 7 April 2010, the Varna regional public prosecutor’s office had decided not to commence criminal proceedings against the police officers who had entered the applicants’ home. The prosecuting authorities had noted, inter alia, that the police officers’ actions had not constituted any criminal offence. They further argued that the actions in question had in no sense been intended to undermine the applicants’ dignity or cause them any psychological harm; accordingly, they did not amount to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government’s view, the applicants could not therefore claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under that Article.


41.  The applicant complained that his prolonged detention on remand in poor conditions, leading to liver disease and tuberculosis, had amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Before he had been sent to a prison to serve his punishment, he had been kept in detention on remand for about three years and seven months. He had been detained for almost five months in the Jõgeva Arrest House and for 38 months in the Central Prison (including ten months in the Central Prison hospital).


104.  The applicant maintained that he had suffered severe mental distress and anguish falling within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the fact that for several months he had had no information about his son and that his attempts to find Aslanbek Kukayev and later to have his death investigated had been paid scant attention by the State authorities.


106.  The applicant referred to the relevant case-law of the Court arguing that he had not had a fair trial, because his conviction had been based on unlawfully obtained evidence, namely his statement of 16 August 2005 obtained in violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Despite the fact that the courts had admitted other evidence, the authorities had failed to take reasonable measures to adduce evidence in order to establish the credibility of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.


21.  The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He contested the allegation that he had been the leader of a collective protest. He had never been charged with or convicted of such an act. He admitted to having refused, on one occasion, to eat his breakfast while at the Opole Lubelskie Prison.


52.  The Government asserted that the applicant’s asylum claim had been examined in substance at two levels of jurisdiction based on extensive country reports that allowed for an evaluation of the security and human rights situation in the country of origin. The Federal Asylum Office and the Asylum Court had both thoroughly considered the applicant’s arguments and concluded after examining all the statements and evidence that the applicant would not be subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if returned to Togo. The information on the general situation in Togo after the parliamentary elections in 2007 had not suggested that there was a real and concrete risk for the applicant. The applicant had not succeeded in the domestic proceedings in sufficiently substantiating his reasons for fleeing Togo.


40.  The Government argued that the alleged ill-treatment did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention as it had not attained a minimum level of severity. They further stated that the said treatment had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt as pointed out by the 19th Chamber of the Ankara Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction. In this connection, the Government maintained that the doctor who had examined the applicant had not had a work permit. They indicated that in any event, the applicant had stayed at the Security Headquarters merely for one hour and had not wanted to see his lawyer during that time.


135.  The applicant submitted that she had reasons to believe that Mr Sultan Isayev had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention following his arrest and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter. The applicant also complained that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish amounting to ill-treatment falling within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


29.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of his alleged ill-treatment in custody. He further complained under the same provision and under Article 13 of the Convention that the investigation into his complaints had not been thorough as its conclusions had been based on the statements of the implicated police officers. The authorities had not examined any individuals who could have confirmed or refuted the above statements and had made no effort to identify any eyewitnesses of his apprehension.


76.  The applicant complained of a violation of both the material and procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to her son. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, § 161 in fine).


55.  The Government have not sought to invoke convincing security reasons requiring the applicant’s isolation and have not said why it was not possible to revise his regime so as to permit adequate possibilities for human contact and meaningful occupation outside the cell. It appears also that this situation is to a great extent a result of the automatic application of the legal provisions regulating the applicant’s prison regime. In its recent judgment in Harakchiev and Tolumov (cited above, §§ 203-09), the Court found that such automatic isolation, in application of the relevant provisions of the Execution of Punishments Act 1969 and later of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009, as well as the regulations for their application, was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. It sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present case.


105.  The applicant submitted that despite numerous complaints to the SIZO administration regarding his medical condition, he had had no medical assistance between 26 February and 21 March 2008. On 21 March 2008 he had been examined by a SIZO general practitioner for the first time, yet the doctor had only given him an anaesthetic. The applicant further maintained that during his detention in the SIZO he had suffered from severe pains, but had only been provided with treatment for his symptoms. In response to the Government’s observations, he submitted that he had refused to be treated at the Emergency Hospital on 4 November 2009 (see paragraph 56 above) because he had not trusted the hospital doctors, having previously had a negative experience of treatment there. After the operation performed in January 2010 (see paragraph 68 above), his rehabilitation had been difficult and lengthy, since his navel area had been purulent all the time. Lastly, the applicant noted that the Government’s failure to provide medical documentation for the period after 26 February 2010 relating to his medical rehabilitation (see paragraph 69 above) was another reason to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


70.  The applicant submitted that the proceedings against the police officers had been flawed in several respects. The courts had failed to convict the officers and had rejected his civil claim despite the availability of clear and overwhelming evidence of the unjustified use of force against him. The courts had also failed to properly examine the causal link between the beating and the ensuing surgical removal of his kidney. The approach adopted by Supreme Court of Cassation, leading to the officers' acquittal, had been in clear conflict with the standards under Article <mask> of the Convention, whereas the investigation required under this provision had to be based on criteria comparable to those developed by the Court.


75.  The applicant claimed 113,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, consisting of EUR 100,000 for the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, EUR 7,000 for the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 5, EUR 1,000 for the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 and EUR 5,000 for the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention. He argued that he had suffered very serious physical pain as a result of his ill-treatment at the hands of the police. He had also endured severe mental and emotional suffering as a result of the treatment he had been subjected to and the injuries sustained.


38.  The applicant complained that the refusal to grant him drug substitution therapy in prison, which had made him suffer considerable pain and had caused damage to his health, and the refusal to have the necessity of drug substitution therapy examined by an external medical expert amounted to inhuman treatment. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


26.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him. In particular, they maintained that he did not make use of the provisions of the Constitution and the Civil Code to claim compensation for the alleged poor conditions of detention. Moreover, he could have invoked directly Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their submission the Government relied on the case-law of the domestic courts (see paragraphs 19-22 above).


44.  The applicant complained that, taking into account the conditions created in the punishment cell in Grīva Prison while he was under the disciplinary penalty imposed on him on 5 September 2000, he had been subjected to inhuman treatment and torture. He furthermore alleged that there had been no effective investigation in that respect. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


44.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of being made to wear handcuffs whilst being taken from official buildings to court during his pre-trial detention. The press had been present and had immediately started to ask him questions about his detention. He considered that this treatment had been disproportionate and had not been necessary in the circumstances of the case.


93.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that when he had been deported from Sweden to Estonia he had not been granted a residence or work permit and thus had had no possibility of getting social aid for subsistence or medical expenses. He further argued that his deportation to the Russian Federation had also been in breach of Article 3 because of his lack of ties with that country and owing to his illness and need for continuous medical treatment.