104.  The applicants complained, firstly, about the national authorities’ decision to issue a permit to operate a gold mine using the cyanidation process. Furthermore, the existence of a risk to their  <mask> and to respect for their private and family life had been established by judicial decisions. In that regard, they referred to the judgment delivered on 1 June 2001 by the İzmir Administrative Court, which held, in particular, that “the risk connected with the accumulation of heavy elements or cyanide could persist for twenty to fifty years and [was] likely to infringe the right of the area’s inhabitants to a healthy environment” (see paragraph 48 above).


50.  The Government also noted that the events under examination had occurred in 2000, when violent confrontation had taken place between the federal forces and the rebel fighters and numerous murders had been committed by members of illegal armed groups, using firearms and military vehicles. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that the  <mask> of the applicant’s husband secured by Article 2 of the Convention had been breached by the State.


69.  The applicant claimed that there was sufficient evidence to prove that his brother was killed by agents of the State and that the State had failed to protect his brother's  <mask> and to carry out an investigation to find the perpetrators. The applicant made extensive references to the Susurluk Report which concluded that his brother had been killed by agents of the State. According to the applicant, the Susuruluk Report and the statements of Mr Hanefi Avcı, former head of the intelligence service of Istanbul Police Headquarters, made it clear that the killing had taken place with the full knowledge of the Turkish authorities.


155.  The applicants alleged that the way in which the operation had been planned, controlled and executed constituted a violation of their own  <mask> and the right to life of their relatives. In their opinion, this violation was intentional, because the authorities should have known of the massive civilian presence on that road on 29 October 1999 and because the aircraft flew for a relatively long time at low altitude above the convoy before firing at it.


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


49.  The applicants complained that the State authorities had failed in their positive obligation to protect the  <mask> of the first applicant as a result of his infection with the HIV virus by blood supplied by the Kızılay, and that no effective investigation had been conducted into their criminal complaints. They invoked Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


131.  The Government submitted that the State had complied with its obligation to secure the applicant’s son’s  <mask> by having in place laws which allow combating and punishing offences against a person. Furthermore, the authorities had conducted an effective investigation: criminal proceedings had been instituted and a number of investigative measures had been ordered and taken, such as an examination of the body by the investigator, a post-mortem examination by a forensic medical expert, numerous other forensic medical examinations, as well as numerous interviews and confrontations. After a thorough and careful investigation three persons had been prosecuted and convicted under the relevant Articles of the Criminal Code, including officer V.G. and two military unit doctors. It had been established that the injury sustained by the applicant’s son had been accidentally inflicted by officer V.G. during an argument on 21 July 2002. This conclusion was confirmed by the medical experts. There had also been a thorough investigation into the possible involvement of officer K.Z., but no proof of his guilt had been found. The Government lastly insisted that the applicant’s son had an enlarged spleen as a result of malaria, which was one of the factors that led to his death, and contested the applicant’s arguments that the malaria diagnosis had been falsified.


84.  The Government acknowledged that the applicant's son had been abducted near Grozny central market on 26 November 2000 and had later been found dead, but insisted that there were no grounds for holding the State liable for the alleged violation of his  <mask>. In that connection they relied on the reply of the Prosecutor General's Office to the effect that the investigation had obtained no evidence that Aslanbek Kukayev had been abducted by representatives of the federal forces; they also relied on information provided by the Chechen Department of the FSB stating that there had been no special operation in the vicinity of Grozny central market on 26 or 27 November 2000. On the other hand, the Government relied on witness statements by four persons, including Mr Dzh., all of whom, in the Government's words, “were apprehended by the federal forces on 26 November 2000 during a special operation and were later released”. Later the Government explained that they had only mentioned the special operation in so far as it had been referred to by those witnesses during questioning. The Government also asserted that members of illegal armed formations within the territory of the Chechen Republic had on numerous occasions used forged police officers' identity cards to enter the dwellings of local residents, seize them and kill them, and that officers of the law-enforcement bodies had often become the target of rebel fighters.


105.  The Government submitted that on 29 April 2001 federal forces had conducted a special operation in Alkhan-Kala aimed at the detention of members of illegal armed gangs. On that date, during the daytime, a group of unidentified armed persons had gone to 63 Zheleznodorozhnaya Street and taken away Mr Sultan Isayev, Mr Sherip Magomadov and Mr Kh. They had also apprehended seven other residents of the village. However, the investigation into those events was still pending and, until the circumstances of Mr Sultan Isayev's disappearance had been established by the investigating authorities, there were no grounds for claiming that his  <mask> had been breached by State agents.


66.  The applicant submitted that the authorities, having been aware of H.G.’s negative characteristics, had failed to undertake the necessary measures to protect his son’s  <mask>. In particular, despite the fact that H.G. had been reprimanded several times and found not fully fit for service, he had been allowed to continue service and to carry a weapon, with which he had intentionally killed Gegham Sergoyan.


68.  The applicants alleged that their relatives’  <mask> was violated in that they were deliberately killed by village guards. The applicants, İbrahim Akan and Reşit Acar further complained that their right to life was violated as the village guards attempted to kill them. The applicants in addition claimed that the national authorities failed to comply with their procedural obligations to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the killings and attempted killings. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention which provides:


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


76.  The Government submitted that representatives of the federal forces had not violated the  <mask> of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov, Mr Khasayn Minkailov and Mr Nokha Uspanov. Mr Vakhazhi Albekov had been blown up on land occupied by the military unit and which had previously been “abandoned by members of illegal armed formations”. Mr Khasayn Minkailov and Mr Nokha Uspanov had been blown up while they were searching for Mr Albekov in the forest, where explosive devices had also been planted by members of illegal armed gangs. In the Government’s view, the fact that there had been instances where servicemen themselves had been blown up on mines showed that they had not known where the mines had been laid, which was further supported by statements from the servicemen questioned.


48.  The applicant complained about her father’s death following his arrest by the police and his deprivation of liberty in Argenteuil police station. She argued that the necessary measures for the protection of his  <mask> had not been taken. She further argued that the investigation into the facts had not been effective. She relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


199.  The applicant submitted that the existing domestic legal framework in itself failed to ensure proper protection of civilian lives. She made reference to the only disclosed legal act on which the conclusions of the military experts based their report, namely, the Army Field Manual. The Court agrees with the applicant that the Government's failure to invoke the provisions of any domestic legislation governing the use of force by the army or security forces in situations such as the present one, whilst not in itself sufficient to decide on a violation of the State's positive obligation to protect the  <mask>, is, in the circumstances of the present case, also directly relevant to the Court's considerations with regard to the proportionality of the response to the attack (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned McCann judgment, § 156).


92.  The applicant submitted that her husband had been murdered by State agents because of his journalistic activity. She also argued that the State had failed to protect her husband’s  <mask> because the State knew or ought to have known about a risk to his life. Her husband had been regularly threatened and targeted by numerous legal proceedings, and before his murder he had written in Monitor about a risk to his life.


30.  The applicants maintained that the respondent State had failed to protect the  <mask> of their child. In their view, by letting a seven year- old child go alone in a heavy snow storm, the school authorities had failed in their duties. The applicants further complained about the alleged ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies, as in the present case there had been no effective remedy capable of holding accountable those responsible for the death of their son, Atalay Kemaloğlu.


11.  The applicant complained about the test for prosecution in cases of putative self-defence. Under English law, a prosecution will be brought only if a conviction is “more likely than not” (see paragraphs 164 and 265 of the judgment). The majority refer in the reasoning to an interesting comparative-law report on this issue (see paragraphs 176 and 269 of the judgment). We note in this connection that the analysis of comparative-law data leads to the conclusion that the test applied under English law for prosecution is clearly more stringent than in other States Parties to the Convention. Such a stringent test may prevent the prosecution and conviction of a person who has committed an offence if the prospects of success are not correctly assessed by the prosecutor. There is a serious risk that borderline cases will escape independent judicial assessment. As a result, certain acts involving excessive use of force by the police may be covered by a de facto immunity from prosecution. In our view, for the sake of efficient protection of the  <mask>, if there are serious doubts concerning the legitimacy of lethal force used by the police in actual or putative self-defence, the final decision on the question of criminal liability should be left to the courts.


23.  The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative had been killed unlawfully by the soldiers. They submitted that the fact that his hunting rifle was still fully loaded at the time of the killing, coupled with the absence of any bullets or bullet cases which might have been discharged from the soldiers’ weapons, had shown that no armed clash had taken place at all. The applicants added that a policy of impunity prevailed in Turkey in respect of breaches of the  <mask> by law enforcement officials. Everything in this incident indicated that their relative Murat Tekdal had been an innocent civilian. However, in the documents drawn up by members of the security forces attempts had been made to portray Murat Tekdal as a member of an outlawed organisation so that members of the security forces would not be prosecuted and punished.


219.  The applicants submitted that there was a duty on States to cooperate with investigations held outside their jurisdiction or areas under their control. This arose from the primary obligation States had under Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. When jurisdictions overlapped or were concurrent, Member States were under an obligation to cooperate in order to secure the  <mask> of persons within their jurisdictions. A finding that there was no such obligation would result in a “vacuum” of protection within the “legal space of the Convention” of the right to life (relying, mutatis mutandis, on Cyprus v. Turkey, cited above, § 78).


49.  The applicant pointed out that, as the Court had held, States had “a primary duty ... to secure the  <mask> by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions” (see Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 85, ECHR 2000-III). In her submission, the new line of case-law adopted by the Court in Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy ([GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I), to the effect that where the right to life had been infringed unintentionally the judicial system did not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy, could not be followed in the instant case, because a civil remedy did not “satisfy the requirement of expressing public disapproval of a serious offence, such as the taking of life” (see the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Rozakis joined by Judges Bonello and Strážnická in the above-mentioned case). That would amount to debasing the right to life protected by Article 2. The applicant therefore considered that creating the offence of involuntary termination of pregnancy would fill the vacuum created by the Court of Cassation and would compensate for the State’s failure to fulfil its duty to protect the human being at the earliest stages of its development (see paragraph 32 above).


70.  The Government submitted that the police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training had been disciplined or criminally prosecuted, in compliance with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention to ensure, where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, an adequate response so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the  <mask> is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are repressed and punished (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004‑XII).


114.  The Government further submitted that the authorities had carried out a comprehensive investigation into the alleged ill-treatment and death of Mr Dimitrov. The Ministry of Internal Affairs had conducted an internal inquiry. In addition, criminal proceedings had been opened into the incident, and the authorities and the courts had taken a number of steps, including ordering several medical expert reports and interviewing the five officers and many other witnesses, with a view to elucidating the facts. Those proceedings had been fully adequate, had been conducted with due regard to the  <mask>, and had encompassed not only the actions of the officers but also the planning and control of the operation. The Sofia Military Court had referred the case back for additional investigation three times. The criminal case against the five police officers had been heard twice by the Sofia Military Court, three times by the Military Court of Appeal – the third entailing the gathering of additional evidence – and twice by the Supreme Court of Cassation. The final disposition of the case had been based on a comprehensive assessment of the facts.


64.  The applicants complained of a violation of the  <mask> 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 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


103.  The applicant submitted that the failure of the authorities to take reasonable steps to investigate or to protect his son whose forced disappearance had been reported to them, disclosed a failure on the part of the Government to comply with their positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to take positive steps to protect the  <mask>.


143.  The applicant alleged that State servicemen had killed her son. The Court reiterates that Article 2, which safeguards the  <mask> and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, from which no derogation is permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324).


132.  The applicant alleged that his brother, who had been arrested on 12 September 1994, had disappeared while in custody and had in all probability been killed by the security forces. He submitted that the respondent State had to be declared responsible for failing to protect his brother’s  <mask>, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention, which reads:


57.  The Government submitted on the merits of the complaint that following the death of the applicant’s son on the night of 13 April 2001, the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office had initiated a criminal investigation the very next day. The applicant’s son’s body had been subjected to a post-mortem, which disclosed multiple ante mortem injuries. Taking into account the results of that examination, the investigating authority had examined whether the applicant’s son had possibly been driven to commit suicide or whether he was murdered and his death made to look like suicide. The applicant’s son’s fellow recruits had been subjected to polygraph testing and two independent psychological autopsies had been carried out in respect of the applicant’s son. On the basis of that evidence and other material, the investigating authority had established that, being in a state of acute emotional stress which had led to depression, the applicant’s son had died from suicide by hanging. Therefore the domestic authorities cannot be held responsible for the violation alleged, namely the applicant’s son’s  <mask>.


162.  The applicant alleged that her  <mask> and the right to life of her son and other relatives was violated by the actions of the military. She also submitted that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into the attack and to bring those responsible to justice. She relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which provides:


52.  The Government objected that the applicant had failed to exhaust the effective domestic remedies available to her, as she had not brought an action against the police officers and/or the State seeking damages for her son’s death. In this connection, the Government claimed that an action for damages had already been established to constitute an effective remedy by the Court, citing the case of Butolen v. Slovenia (no. 41356/08, 26 April 2012). Secondly, they submitted that the applicant could have continued the criminal prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor, adding that private prosecutions by injured parties could, as had been established by the Constitutional Court, effectively ensure protection of the  <mask>.


160.  The Government originally maintained that the only element linking the murder of Mr Gongadze to State authorities was the audio tapes made by Mr Melnychenko. They contended that there was no evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” that the State was responsible for a violation of the  <mask> of the applicant's husband. Later, however, they informed the Court about the arrest of several police officers who had confessed to having participated in the surveillance, kidnap and murder of Mr Gongadze.


46.  The applicants maintained that there was a causal link between the prison authorities’ negligent behaviour and their son’s death, and that the authorities had failed to take the necessary steps to protect the  <mask> of their son, notwithstanding the fact that he was known to be at risk of killing himself. They submitted that, as an absolute minimum, their son could have been seen by a specialist. Furthermore, the prison authorities could have kept him under constant watch at least on that particular day on which he had injured himself - just hours before his death.


143.  The applicant alleged a breach of her husband’s  <mask>. She claimed that her husband had been the victim of a hospital-acquired infection and that the medical personnel had been careless and negligent in their diagnoses and treatment and in discharging her husband from hospital. In particular, she complained of delays in providing him with treatment and of the administration of medication in excessive doses. She did not, however, call into question her husband’s discharge from hospital authorised by Dr J.V. on 3 February 1998, that decision having been taken with her assent and that of her husband. She further complained that the authorities to which she had applied had failed to elucidate the precise cause of the sudden deterioration in the health of her husband, who had previously been perfectly fit. She also complained about the length of the domestic proceedings and the fact that she had not been informed of the exact cause of her husband’s death.


54.  The applicants complained of a violation of the  <mask> in respect of their relative, Vakhid Musikhanov. They submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which his whereabouts could not be established indicated that Vakhid Musikhanov had been killed by the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into the matter. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


69.  The applicant maintained that the State was responsible for Cemal Uçar’s death in prison since they could not provide a plausible explanation for it. According to the applicant, his son was either killed by the State authorities or by the inmates of the prison ward where he had been incarcerated. He maintained in this connection that his son should not have been placed in the same ward as the other persons who had been accused of membership of the Hizbullah. The applicant further submitted that, if his son had indeed committed suicide, then the authorities should be considered liable for his death since they had failed to safeguard his son’s  <mask>.


130.  The applicant submitted that the authorities had failed to protect his son’s life while he had been under their care as a soldier performing compulsory military service. He had sustained a fatal injury to his spleen involving old and new bruises which proved that he had been ill-treated by the military officers at different periods of time. The authorities, however, had failed to carry out an  <mask> into these circumstances. In fact, they did everything not to disclose the true reasons. In order to shield the perpetrators, they put forward a false account of his son’s fatal injury, namely that it had been sustained as a result of an accidental light blow, and utilised the entire investigative machinery, including the medical expertise, to make that account look plausible, despite having numerous pieces of disproving evidence. The diagnosis of malaria, which had allegedly contributed to his son’s death, had similarly been faked. The applicant lastly submitted that the effectiveness of the investigation was to be judged not by the quantity of the investigative measures taken but by the quality of such measures.


97.  The applicants next alleged that their relatives had been ill-treated after having been detained, which constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. They referred to the medical certificate of death issued on 8 October 2001 in respect of Umar Musayev, confirming that there had been multiple stab wounds and bruises on the latter's head and chest. They further submitted that the authorities had failed to conduct an  <mask> in this respect, in violation of their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.


247.  The applicants submitted that if the protection of the right to life was to be meaningful in practice, then an  <mask> and the initiation of legal proceedings to determine whether or not a deprivation of life was lawful – followed by the imposition of punishment where it was deemed to have been unlawful – was essential. In this connection they argued that the investigation and the criminal proceedings in the present case, far from being effective, had been so defective as to amount to a perversion of justice.


64.  The applicant submitted that despite all his efforts, the criminal investigation had not been commenced until 17 November 2000, more than a year after the killing of his relatives. Since then it had been going on without producing any tangible result. The applicant stated that the steps taken during the investigation had clearly been deficient. He pointed out that even though the death certificates issued in respect of his relatives on 24 November 1999 indicated the cause of death of each of them as “multiple shrapnel wounds”, no autopsy had been performed, an assertion which was not disputed by the Government. The inspection of the scene of the incident had been superficial; the investigators had not taken photographs or collected fragments of shells. Moreover, despite the conclusion of the expert examination of 9 August 2000 that the fragments found by the applicant were those of large-calibre artillery shells, there was no evidence that the authorities had adequately investigated the possible involvement of military personnel into the killing of the applicant’s family members. It does not appear that there were any servicemen among the eighteen witnesses questioned by the investigators. Relying on the above considerations, the applicant argued that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an  <mask> into the circumstances of his relatives’ deaths.


131.  The Government submitted that the State had complied with its obligation to secure the applicant’s son’s right to life by having in place laws which allow combating and punishing offences against a person. Furthermore, the authorities had conducted an  <mask>: criminal proceedings had been instituted and a number of investigative measures had been ordered and taken, such as an examination of the body by the investigator, a post-mortem examination by a forensic medical expert, numerous other forensic medical examinations, as well as numerous interviews and confrontations. After a thorough and careful investigation three persons had been prosecuted and convicted under the relevant Articles of the Criminal Code, including officer V.G. and two military unit doctors. It had been established that the injury sustained by the applicant’s son had been accidentally inflicted by officer V.G. during an argument on 21 July 2002. This conclusion was confirmed by the medical experts. There had also been a thorough investigation into the possible involvement of officer K.Z., but no proof of his guilt had been found. The Government lastly insisted that the applicant’s son had an enlarged spleen as a result of malaria, which was one of the factors that led to his death, and contested the applicant’s arguments that the malaria diagnosis had been falsified.


91.  The applicants contended that Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment by the abductors and that no  <mask> had been conducted in this connection. The applicants further contended that their relative had been detained in violation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there were no available domestic remedies against the violations alleged, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:


215.  The applicants submitted that Turkey’s continued unwillingness to abide by its obligations was in breach of Article 46; this affected hundreds of Greek Cypriot families and threatened the effectiveness of the Convention system; they urged the Court to direct the respondent Government to conform with their legal obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention towards the applicants by conducting a prompt and  <mask> into the fate and whereabouts of the missing men, publicising the results, immediately and unconditionally releasing and repatriating any still in Turkish custody and returning the remains of those who were proved to be dead. In default of such steps, as incentive, the respondent Government should pay each applicant 24 Cypriot pounds (CYP) per day, such rate doubling for every twelve-month period that elapsed.


128.  The Government contended that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the detainees had been held under State control or that the missing persons were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary measures were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an  <mask>.


109.  The applicant submitted that his son had worked as a plumber and, as the eldest of ten children, had contributed significantly to his family’s upkeep. He claimed 12,300 euros (EUR) on behalf of the beneficiaries of the estate of Mehmet Şah Şeker, and on behalf of himself, for loss of earnings over five years and five months. He further claimed EUR 12,300 on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an  <mask>. The applicant also requested that, in the case of a finding of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, these figures be increased by 50%.


101.  The applicant argued that the authorities had failed to conduct an  <mask> into her husband’s murder. She contended that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court’s case-law on Article 2. She pointed out that it had been ongoing for almost five years without any explanations for its delay and that it had been suspended and resumed on several occasions yet had failed to produce any tangible results. The applicant alleged that the investigation into her husband’s murder should have been conducted by the unit military prosecutor’s office but it was being conducted by the inter-district prosecutor’s office, which did not have jurisdiction to investigate crimes committed by military servicemen; that the reopening of the criminal proceedings on 23 November 2004 had been just play-acting on the part of the investigators in view of the examination of the criminal case by the District Court on 24 November 2004; that the investigation had failed to establish the source of information for the newspaper article and the radio announcement about the killing of the two alleged rebel fighters as that source could only have been the military servicemen who had committed the murder of the applicant’s husband; that the applicant had not had effective access to the investigation, thus precluding her from effectively appealing against the actions of the investigating authorities; and that there had been an administrative practice of non-investigation of crimes committed by federal forces in Chechnya.


71.  The Government denied the factual basis of the applicant’s allegation that his son had been killed while in prison. They further submitted that the investigation carried out by the security directorate and the public prosecutor’s office in Diyarbakır into his death had revealed that Cemal Uçar had committed suicide. They maintained that the authorities had not been and could not have been aware of the psychological problems of Cemal Uçar, especially because he had committed suicide only fifteen days after he was placed in Diyarbakır E‑type prison. The Government finally submitted that the domestic authorities fulfilled their obligation to conduct an  <mask> into the death of Cemal Uçar.


45.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the first applicant’s life had been put at risk and that he had been ill-treated by police officers, who had beaten him with truncheons, had punched and kicked in the face, head, stomach and back. They further complained under this Article that there had been no  <mask> into his allegations. Relying on Article 13, they complained that there had been no effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. Lastly, they complained under Article 6 that they had been denied the right of access to court due to the failure of the public prosecutor to reject the criminal complaint by means of a formal decision. The Court considers that this last complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, as it concerns a particular aspect of the right to an effective remedy under this provision. It further considers that the applicants’ complaint concerning the risk to the first applicant’s life should be examined under Article 2 of the Convention. Articles 2 (the applicability of which the Court will examine, see below), 3 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:


37.  The Government acknowledged a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 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  <mask>.


59.  The Government contended that the domestic investigation had not obtained evidence proving that the applicant’s sons were dead or that they had been held or killed under State control. At the same time, in their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application the Government stated that the applicant’s sons could have been detained by State representatives (see paragraph 33 above). The Government further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to carry out an  <mask>.


51.  The applicant submitted that she had used all existing remedies in order to obtain the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for her husband’s death. It was only because of her determination that the prosecutor had finally indicted the civil servant responsible for the maintenance of municipal trees and shrubs. She had also attempted to bring a civil action for compensation, but it had never been examined. Moreover, she had lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings – but it had not led to the acceleration of the proceedings. In sum, the authorities had been trying to conceal the truth and had failed to conduct a thorough and  <mask> into her husband’s death. Thus, the existing remedies had proved to be ineffective.


65.  The applicants complained that the Slovak authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an  <mask> into the racial overtones of the crime committed against them. They furthermore challenged the lack of reasoning in the sentencing judgment, which had rendered it impossible to demonstrate any accountability for the racist motive for the crime. They relied on Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention, which read as follows:


90.  The applicant further relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that her husband had most likely been tortured during his detention and that no  <mask> had been carried out on that account. The applicant also claimed that as a result of her husband’s disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate those events properly, she had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


43.  The Government submitted that the police officers had acted on receipt of information that there were terrorists in the flat in question and that the operation had been planned in order to minimise the use of lethal force. They noted that the police had used firearms acting in self-defence and in accordance with the requirements of the Law and Regulation on Duties and Powers of the Police. In their view, the death of Taşkın Usta resulted from a use of force which was no more than absolutely necessary. It was also established by the domestic courts that the police officers had started firing only after the deceased had opened fire and in order to protect themselves. Furthermore, the authorities had carried out an adequate and  <mask> into the impugned events.


141.  The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an  <mask> into the circumstances of their relatives’ deaths. 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 almost three years and during that period it had been suspended on at least five occasions. The applicants argued that a number of investigative measures had not been taken, or had been taken after considerable delay. Throughout the investigation the first two applicants had requested that the status of victim of a crime be granted to them, but had received no replies to their requests. The authorities had never kept the applicants abreast of developments in the investigations or informed them as to what investigative measures had been taken and repeatedly denied them access to the criminal investigation file. Moreover, a copy of the decision of 24 April 2003 by which the criminal proceedings in connection with the death of the applicants’ relatives had been discontinued had never been served on them.


213.  The applicant contended that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention by both the Russian and Cypriot authorities on account of the failure of the Cypriot authorities to take steps to protect the life of his daughter and the failure of the authorities of both States to conduct an  <mask> into her death. Article 2 provides, inter alia, that:


93.  The applicant argued that the authorities had failed to conduct an  <mask> into the circumstances of his father’s death. He contended that the authorities had been informed of the killings immediately and that the officers of the law-enforcement bodies had been present at the scene from the very beginning on 17 September 2000, which had given rise to an ipso facto obligation to carry out an effective investigation (the applicant referred to Salman v. Turkey, cited above, § 104). Despite that, they had failed to question the witnesses and victims of the crimes, to collect and secure important evidence or to carry out an autopsy or a forensic report on the bodies. The authorities had failed to inform the victim’s family members of the proceedings. The fact that the investigation had been going on for such a long time without producing any known results and that it had been reopened just a few weeks after the communication of the present complaint to the Russian authorities served, in the applicant’s view, as further proof of its ineffectiveness.


83.  The Government further argued that there were inconsistencies in the applicants' and the witnesses' accounts of the events regarding the time of the abduction, the number of the abductors and their vehicles and the colour of the vehicles and that their statements contradicted the statements by M.B. that the abduction had taken place at about 4.20 p.m. and that the second vehicle was violet in colour. They challenged as untrustworthy the applicants' submissions regarding their alleged contacts with the FSB officials and the information so obtained because the applicants had failed to provide any details about their interlocutors, such as their names or ranks in the FSB or any evidence that they existed at all. In any event, the Government considered that State officials would not have behaved the way described by the applicants. They particularly stressed that the third applicant had concealed the information on those alleged meetings from the investigation. The third applicant informed the investigation only about the call he had allegedly received in December 2004, being silent on the events which had preceded it. By withholding that information, the third applicant had intentionally hindered the  <mask> of the case. As regards L.T., he had been interviewed by the investigator and had submitted that on 18 December 2003 he had been at his place of service in Kostroma and that he had not known anything about the abduction of Bashir Mutsolgov. L.T.'s statements during his interview had not raised any doubts as to their truthfulness and thus there had been no need for their verification.


86.  The applicants alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an  <mask> into the circumstances of Nura Luluyeva's abduction and death, in violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2. They argued that the investigation fell short of the standards of the European Convention and of the national legislation. They pointed to the delay in opening the investigation, its repeated and unfounded suspensions and its duration for over six years without significant progress. They emphasised that the second applicant, who had alerted the authorities on the day of his wife's detention, was formally questioned as a witness and granted victim status as late as in December 2000, that is, six months after the incident. On the basis of documents from the investigation file submitted by the Government, they questioned the relevance and effectiveness of the measures taken to investigate the case; they also complained that the authorities had failed to verify all possible investigative versions, and in particular the one implicating State servicemen.


86.  The applicants further relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that the first applicant had been tortured after his abduction, but that no  <mask> had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that, as a result of Valid Dzhabrailov's death and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


45.  The Government considered this complaint to be inadmissible and argued that the gendarmes and a public prosecutor had acted promptly and secured the evidence. A post-mortem examination of the body had been carried out by expert doctors and the office of the Governor had asked to be informed as to whether anyone had seen Mr Epözdemir in the town on the day he was killed. Thus, each national authority had fulfilled its obligation to carry out an  <mask> into the circumstances of the killing.


88.  The applicants complained that no  <mask> had been conducted by the national authorities into the killing of their relatives. In that connection they referred to the document drawn up by the Ovacık prosecutor on 18 June 2005, in which it was stated that that prosecutor had not gone to the area where their relatives had been killed because of security concerns. The applicants pointed out that that document clearly disproved the Government’s submissions according to which “immediately after the armed clash had ended the prosecutor had gone to the incident area, conducted an on-site inspection, prepared an incident report and opened an investigation” (see paragraph 17 above and paragraph 103 below). The applicants questioned the validity of the prosecutor’s concerns for his security in connection with a visit to an area where the operation had ended and which was under the control of the soldiers.


150.  The applicants also claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an  <mask> into the circumstances of Muslim Nenkayev’s 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 more than six years without any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed. The authorities had failed to promptly update the applicants on any progress made in the investigation.


109.  The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that, as a result of their relative's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured psychological distress in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The second applicant also complained under this Convention provision that she had been subjected to ill-treatment by the servicemen who had abducted Isa Aytamirov and that the authorities had not carried out an  <mask> of the alleged ill-treatment. Article 3 reads:


217.  The Government contended that none of the domestic investigations had obtained evidence proving that the applicants’ relatives had been held or killed under State control. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to carry out an  <mask>.


84.  The Government contended that the complaint should be rejected as unsubstantiated, as the investigation into the disappearance had not obtained any evidence that State agents had killed Mr Aslan Dudayev, that Mr Ali Dudayev had been abducted by them or that he was dead. They further noted that all the necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an  <mask> into the killing and the abduction.


96.  The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an  <mask> into the circumstances of their relatives’ deaths. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for more than six years and during that period it had been repeatedly suspended. The authorities had not kept the applicants abreast of developments in the investigation or informed them as to what investigative measures had been taken and had repeatedly denied them access to the criminal investigation file.


110.  The applicants challenged the Government's claim that the complaint should be declared inadmissible on account of a failure to exhaust the domestic remedies. They argued that an action under the Protection against Discrimination Act was not a remedy that they were required to exhaust because it was neither effective nor available. The applicants noted that the Court had repeatedly held that there is no requirement that remedies that are neither adequate nor effective should be used (see, mutatis mutandis, Sakık and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 26 November 1997, Reports 1997‑VII, p. 2625, § 53) and that an individual must have clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act which is an interference with his or her rights (see De Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253‑B, p. 43, § 34 and Bellet v. France, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333‑B, p. 42, § 36). In respect of the lack of availability of the remedy claimed by the Government, the applicants noted that the Protection against Discrimination Act entered into force close to four years after they had lodged their complaints with the Court. With regard to its effectiveness, they argued that an action for damages, be it based on anti-discrimination legislation or general tort law, could not remedy the substance of their complaint before the Court, which was that the authorities had failed to conduct an  <mask> into the death of their relative and to prosecute the perpetrators. Moreover, an action under the Act would be directed against the investigation authorities and would require the applicants to prove discriminatory treatment by them on the basis of race, of which there was no direct evidence. Thus, the applicants claimed that there was no clear link between the complaints they raised before the Court and the remedy suggested by the Government.


70.  The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective. As regards the Government's argument concerning the second applicant's victim status, they stated that it was the authorities' obligation to conduct an  <mask>, without leaving the initiative to the next of kin of the missing person. In any event, that remedy could be hardly considered effective, given that the applicants had not been provided with the basic information concerning the investigation. They also stressed that under the decision of 26 March 2008 the second applicant would only have access to her own interview records and the decisions to institute, suspend and reopen the investigation. However, while the content of those procedural acts was known to the applicants, they were unaware of any other steps taken by the investigation, or of their results.


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


22.  The Government submitted that the police had used firearms acting in self-defence and in accordance with the requirements of the Law and Regulations on the duties and powers of the police. In their view, the death of Ayşe Gülen Uzunhasanoğlu had resulted from a use of force which had been no more than absolutely necessary. They stressed that the domestic courts had established that the police officers had only fired their guns in order to protect themselves after the deceased had opened fire. The Government contended that the authorities had carried out an adequate and  <mask> into these events.


98.  The applicant submitted that the abduction and torture of his son by State agents or person acting with their support, knowledge or acquiescence, and the suffering which he endured on account of his son’s disappearance between 5 October and 2 November 1999, was in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. He further maintained that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and  <mask> into the abduction and torture of his son. The applicant finally contended under Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 of the Convention that Cemal Uçar had been kept in police custody for nine days without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and that there was no remedy in domestic law to obtain compensation for his son’s unlawful detention.


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


140.  The applicant argued that she had provided sufficient evidence to prove that her husband, Mehmet Şen, had been abducted, tortured and killed by security forces. She requested the Court to find that the death of her husband and the authorities’ failure to carry out an  <mask> were in violation of Articles 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention.


53.  The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that their complaints to that effect had been futile. Seeking judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities would be pointless in their case since that remedy could not bring about an  <mask>. With reference to the Court’s practice, they argued that they were not obliged to apply to civil courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies.


39.  The applicant argued that the investigation had been pending for a long time without producing any tangible results. That remedy had proved to be ineffective and her complaints, as well as any other potential remedies, had proved futile. She further argued that she had complied with the six-month rule and there had been no excessive or unexplained delays in the submission of her application to the Court. In particular, she submitted that after the initiation of the criminal investigation she had had no reason to doubt its effectiveness. She pointed out that the armed conflict in the region had led her to believe that delays in the investigation were inevitable. Moreover, owing to her poor command of Russian, her lack of legal knowledge and funds to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of information concerning the Convention standards for an  <mask>, she had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the pending criminal proceedings. As soon as she had been able to obtain legal advice from the pro bono lawyer, she had realised that the investigation was ineffective and had applied to the Court.


103.  The Government submitted that the domestic authorities had conducted a thorough and  <mask> into the circumstances of the applicant’s death. The district prosecutor heard six doctors who had been involved in the applicant’s treatment. The prosecution’s case file included the post-mortem examination and the applicant’s medical file and had been analysed by the experts. The Government considered that the prosecutor’s decisions had been considerably influenced by the expert opinion, which had found no negligence in the applicant’s treatment. That expert opinion was exhaustive and answered all questions put by the prosecutor. The Government maintained that it had rightly served as a basis for discontinuation of the investigation concerning the applicant’s death.


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  <mask> had been conducted into their relative’s disappearance. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


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  <mask>. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


131.  The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, claiming that Ibragim Tsurov had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen and that there was no  <mask> into the ill-treatment. They further complained under this heading that as a result of their relative’s disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


63.  The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an  <mask> into the circumstances of the life-threatening attack on her, in violation of the procedural obligation under Article 2. She argued that the investigation had fallen short of the standards established by the Convention and national legislation. She argued that the investigation had not been prompt because of the delay in opening it and in taking important steps. A number of investigative actions had never been taken, such as securing the relevant evidence and questioning the servicemen who could have been involved. The applicant noted, in particular, the authorities' failure to investigate the events in the Staropromyslovskiy district in January 2000 in their entirety, even though there had been clearly a pattern to the killings and the information about them had already been available in January and February 2000. She referred to other investigation files, such as that produced by the Government in the case of Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, which was opened in 2000 and which had contained information about the applicant's case and other similar incidents.


132.  The applicant claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her son. She further claimed that the State’s failure to conduct an  <mask> into her son’s death and the Government’s refusal to submit a copy of the entire investigation file to the Court had caused her emotional suffering and distress, which required compensation in the above amount.


67.  The Government further objected that the applicant's complaints were inadmissible as they were lodged on 15 June 2001. In particular, the applicant had found out about the alleged violation of her rights in August 2000, when she had complained for the first time to the General Prosecutor's Office of the lack of an  <mask> into her son's death. However, she should have lodged this complaint within six months from the moment at which she had found out about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the case.


73.  The Government contended that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the detainee had been held under State control or that he was dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary measures were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an  <mask>.


174.  The applicant disagreed. She contended that the mere number of investigative measures could not be the decisive factor. The conviction of two law enforcement officers for negligence in the investigation clearly demonstrated its ineffectiveness. Moreover, after some progress in the investigation in 2003, the proceedings had again been impeded after the dismissal of Mr Piskun from the position of Prosecutor General. These facts, according to the applicant, showed that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to conduct an  <mask> into her husband's murder.


93.  The applicants alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an  <mask> into the circumstances of Shamil Akhmadov's detention and death, in violation of their procedural obligations under Article 2. They argued that the investigation fell short of the standards of the European Convention and of the national legislation. They pointed to the passage of considerable time – more than five years – without the investigation producing any known results. Relying on the Government's submissions they argued that the investigators had failed to take the necessary steps immediately after the detention occurred, and then again after the discovery of the body. A number of investigative actions had occurred only after the communication of the complaint to the Russian Government, and other important steps were never taken, such as the questioning of other witnesses of the detention, the identification and questioning of those in charge of the military operation and the ordering of a forensic examination. The authorities had systematically failed to inform the applicants of the proceedings and the applicants had been given no information about important procedural steps. Their own attempts to intensify the investigation had resulted in them being subjected to intimidation and violence.


50.  The applicant argued that, in case the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his brother had been killed in police custody, this had to be considered established on the balance of probabilities, which, he suggested, was the appropriate test in cases of deaths in custody. The duties and resources of the authorities were such that they alone, and not the family of his brother, were in a position to obtain evidence of the cause of his death. The family was reliant upon the authorities to carry out an  <mask>. However, the investigation had been utterly inadequate and therefore, as a result of the failings of the responsible authorities, the family were not in a position to produce further evidence.


117.  The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an  <mask> into the circumstances of Saydi Malsagov’s 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 six years without any tangible results, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed. The main investigative steps had been taken after the communication of the present application to the Government, which, according to the applicants, once again proved the overall ineffectiveness of the investigation. The first applicant had not been granted victim status until two months after the opening of the investigation; she had not been promptly informed of all developments in the case.


67.  The Government also rejected the applicants’ complaints and argued that an  <mask> had been carried out by the authorities. The prosecutor had arrived at the incident scene early in the morning following the incident and had inspected the area. The requisite forensic examinations had been carried out by the relevant independent authorities. At the end of the investigation a decision had been taken by the military prosecutor not to bring criminal charges against the soldiers. That decision, which was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and was properly reasoned, was capable of establishing that the force used by the soldiers had been justified.


68.  The applicants complained that it was very likely that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment and that no  <mask> had been conducted in this connection. They also submitted that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relative’s disappearance and on account of the State’s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The applicants referred to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


125.  The applicant claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an  <mask> into the circumstances of her husband's disappearance. She argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for over six years but had not achieved any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had failed to inform the applicant of the decisions to adjourn and reopen the investigation, or of its progress. Throughout the investigation the applicant had requested to be granted crime victim status, but had received no replies to those requests. In support of her argument regarding the inefficiency of the investigation, the applicant also referred to the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the file of the criminal case concerning her husband's disappearance. In her observations submitted after the Court's decision as to the admissibility of the application the applicant contended that she still had not been granted the victim status.


63.  The Government contended that the domestic investigations had revealed no evidence that the detainees were held under State control or that they were dead. They further averred that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary measures were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an  <mask>.


23.  The applicant alleged that he had been forced to drink drugged tea and was deliberately thrown out the window by the police officers. As a result of this incident, he was seriously wounded and had to stay in the hospital for three months. The applicant further maintained that the domestic authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an  <mask> into his allegations.


38.  The Government argued that the killing of the applicant's husband had occurred in 1991, during the Homeland War in Croatia, probably at the hands of members of the occupying forces and on territory outside the control of the Croatian authorities. Croatia had regained control over that territory in January 1998 and until that time it had been very difficult to conduct an  <mask>.


51.  The Government also claimed that an  <mask> had been conducted by the authorities. It had not been possible to inform the family promptly because the authorities had been unable to contact them. The second applicant had been contacted on 3 January 2005 and called to the hospital to identify the body of his son. Afterwards the applicants had been in a position to take an active part in the investigation.


38.  The Government submitted that the applicants' complaints were inadmissible for failure to observe the six-month rule within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They pointed to the applicants' allegations that the authorities failed to conduct an  <mask> into the alleged killing. In this connection, the Government claimed that, even if the applicants are correct in this allegation, which they contest, they should have been aware of this situation much earlier and should not have waited for ten years to lodge their application with the Court (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002‑III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002). The Government also reiterated the Court's case-law that if no remedies are available or if they are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, 10 January 2002). They thus asserted that the application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 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 2 of the Convention to carry out an  <mask>.


363.  The Government contended 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 had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were 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  <mask>.


79.  The applicant further maintained that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an  <mask> into the circumstances of her daughter’s death. She submitted that the initial investigation had lasted from 7 June to 7 August 2003. During these two months the investigator had questioned her and granted her victim status in the proceedings and had sent out a number of requests, following which the investigation had been suspended. There had been no investigative activity between August 2003 and December 2006. The cooperation between the investigative and other State authorities had been insufficient. In particular, none of the requests addressed by the investigator to the military prosecutor, the central archives of the Ministry of Defence, the temporary district police, the commander of the UGA or the district military commandant with a view to establishing whether the mortar batteries used on 7 June 2003 belonged to the military units and divisions deployed in the Vedenskiy District had led to results capable of shedding light on the events in question. The applicant further pointed out that it had taken the District Prosecutor’s Office nine months to comply with the court’s decision of 14 April 2008 instructing it to resume the investigation. The decisions suspending the investigation had contained very scarce information as to the evidence collected. The applicant had had a feeling that the investigation process had been a mere formality with a predictable outcome, since over a span of several years the investigating authority had failed to carry out all the possible investigative measures that could have been taken in the absence of the accused. Not all eyewitnesses had been identified and questioned. The official who had given the order to use mortars without a precise calculation of the target area or cordons being formed around that area beforehand had also not been identified. As a result, many issues remained unascertained. Lastly, the applicant had been completely denied access to the case file until 2010. In view of the foregoing, the applicant concluded that the domestic authorities had not complied with their procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention.


111.  The applicant further relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that he and his son had been beaten by servicemen and that no  <mask> had been carried out on that account. He alleged furthermore that his son had been subjected to ill-treatment after his apprehension as well. The applicant also claimed that as a result of his son’s disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate those events properly, he had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


127.  The applicant made no claims in respect of pecuniary damage. As for non-pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed 80 000 euros (EUR) under this head for the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her husband. She further stated that State agents had slandered her husband by providing the mass-media with information about his alleged involvement in a serious crime he had not committed. She further claimed that the State’s failure to conduct an  <mask> into her husband’s murder and the failure of the State to submit a copy of the investigation file to the Court had caused her emotional suffering and distress, which required compensation in the above amount.


70.  The applicant further alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an adequate and  <mask> into the death of Cemal Uçar in Diyarbakır E-type prison. In particular, the autopsy carried out on the body of Cemal Uçar was far from adequate. In this connection, the applicant maintained that the Court had found other autopsies and medical examinations conducted by the medical expert in question to be inadequate in its judgments of İkincisoy v. Turkey (no. 26144/95, § 79, 27 July 2004), Elci and Others v. Turkey (nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 642, 13 November 2003), and Kişmir v. Turkey (no. 27306/95, § 85, 31 May 2005). Furthermore, no photographs of the body were taken and there was no impartial observer present, independent of the authorities, during the autopsy. The applicant also maintained that the public prosecutor who had conducted the investigation had not given appropriate consideration to alternative causes of death. The investigation was too brief and limited in scope.


68.  The applicants alleged that their relatives’ right to life was violated in that they were deliberately killed by village guards. The applicants, İbrahim Akan and Reşit Acar further complained that their right to life was violated as the village guards attempted to kill them. The applicants in addition claimed that the national authorities failed to comply with their procedural obligations to carry out an adequate and  <mask> into the killings and attempted killings. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention which provides:


74.  The applicants stated that State agents had abducted and killed their relative Mr Ibragim Kushtov and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter effectively. They referred, in particular, to the life‑threating nature of the incident in the light of its circumstances and the overall situation in the region at the material time. Referring to the Court’s case‑law, they submitted that the in <mask> of disappearances perpetrated in Ingushetia at the material time represented a systemic problem (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, §§ 217-19).


94.  The Government submit that the proper approach is for the Court to examine the full range of remedies which were available. The applicants had a combination of mechanisms by which the responsibility of any public authority for the death of their son could be established, in particular the independent inquiry, which provided a thorough and  <mask> into the circumstances surrounding his death. The applicants could have brought a claim for negligence against the prison or other authorities on behalf of his estate. The applicants also had a remedy available for any loss of dependency. They argue that the fact that a person could not bring a case because of legal advice that it was not economic did not mean that an effective remedy was not available or that the Contracting State had failed to comply with its obligation under Article 13. Nor, in their view, was there any right to a particular form of remedy or any particular amount of compensation. Article 13 left a certain discretion to the Contracting States as to how they complied with its requirements.


148.  The Government contended that the complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. They also submitted that no evidence had been obtained in the domestic investigations to suggest that the applicants’ relatives had been held under State control, or were dead. They pointed out that the mere fact that the investigative measures taken 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  <mask>.


59.  The applicant submitted that the authorities had failed to conduct an  <mask> into his daughter’s death. He argued, in particular, that the investigating authority had neither included nor addressed the evidentiary material submitted by him in the case file. Furthermore, the investigator decided that it was not necessary to institute criminal proceedings − despite the fact that the emergency doctor and the nurse had given contradictory statements − notwithstanding the evidence that the doctor had falsified documents. Also, the ambulance doctor and the nurse had not been questioned by the courts. In conclusion, the applicant maintained that the State had failed to put in place an effective judicial system, capable of holding accountable those responsible for his daughter’s death.


64.  The applicant argued that no  <mask> had taken place following her complaint and that she had had no remedies in respect of the prosecutor’s decision to adjourn the proceedings. The applicant stated that she had been in a vulnerable position after her injury. She alleged that she had not had genuine access to the file, in spite of the victim status accorded to her. She also stated that, following the adoption by the State Duma of the Decree of 7 June 2003, declaring an amnesty for persons responsible for certain crimes committed during the anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya, she had had no right to challenge its application to anyone found responsible for committing a crime against her. She also referred to a general problem of non-investigation of crimes allegedly committed by State agents in Chechnya.


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


167.  The applicants emphasised the Government's failure to present the Court with a copy of the investigation file, which they considered to be a direct attempt to hamper the latter's efforts to establish the facts of the case and the truth surrounding the events leading up to Mr Bekirski's death. They further considered that that had created a presumption in their favour because the Government, by not presenting the said file, had failed to effectively refute the facts and evidence attesting to the violations claimed. In any event, the fact that the said investigation file had not been presented should have been sufficient to prove that there had been a procedural violation of Article 2 and 3 of the Convention because it attests to the fact that the authorities had failed to demonstrate to the Court that they had conducted an  <mask> into the allegations of ill-treatment and abuse which had led to Mr Bekirski's untimely death.


58.  The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an  <mask> into the circumstances of their relative’s disappearance. They argued that it had been ongoing since 8 November 2000 but had not brought any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had failed to inform the applicants about the decisions concerning the adjournment and reopening of the investigation or its progress. In this latter respect the applicants stressed that the Russian authorities had not informed them of the developments in the investigation even after the present case had been declared partly admissible. 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 inefficiency 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 relative’s disappearance.


40.  The applicants argued that they had complied with the six-month rule and there had been no excessive and unexplained delays in the submission of their application to the Court. In particular, they submitted that after the initiation of the criminal investigation they had had no reason to doubt its effectiveness. They pointed out that the armed conflict in the region had led them to believe that delays in the investigation were inevitable. Moreover, owing to their lack of legal knowledge and funds to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of information concerning the Convention standards for an  <mask>, they had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the pending criminal proceedings. Referring to Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, the applicants further argued that the six-month rule did not apply to “continuing situations” such as cases of enforced disappearances.


114.  The applicant referred to Article 3 of the Convention, claiming that her son had been beaten when being apprehended and that she had serious grounds to believe that he had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment in detention. She further complained that no  <mask> had been conducted into the matter. Under this heading the applicant also submitted that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with her son’s disappearance and on account of the State’s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The respective Article reads as follows:


60.  The applicants contended that the fact that the investigation into the circumstances of their relative’s disappearance was still pending cast doubt upon its effectiveness rather than indicating that their complaints were premature. They further stressed that they had on numerous occasions complained to law-enforcement bodies, including various prosecutors, about the events of 11 February 2003. In this connection the applicants referred to the Court’s established case-law, stating that the authorities were under an obligation to carry out an  <mask> of their own motion once the matter had been brought to their attention. The applicants also claimed that an administrative practice consisting in the authorities’ continuing failure to conduct adequate investigations into offences committed by representatives of the federal forces in Chechnya rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in their case. In this connection the applicants relied on applications submitted to the Court by other individuals claiming to be victims of similar violations, and on documents by human rights NGOs and the Council of Europe.


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


57.  The applicant complained that the ill-treatment her husband was probably subjected to while he was unlawfully held in detention and her anguish at the uncertainty about his fate, coupled with the authorities' indifference to her persistent efforts to request information and an  <mask> constituted a breach of her rights and those of her husband under Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:


120.  The applicants maintained their submissions. They stressed, in particular, that they feared for their lives. In their observations of 7 April 2008 on the admissibility and merits of the case they also complained for the first time that Idris Gakiyev had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen prior to his death and that there had been no  <mask> into the ill-treatment.


117.  The applicants further referred to two factors which corroborated the argument regarding the Court’s competence to adjudicate on Russia’s compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 2. Firstly, the Council of Europe and the Convention had come into being as democratic political and legal alternatives to the violations of human dignity committed on a massive scale by two totalitarian regimes, namely Nazism and Stalinism. The Katyn massacre had been carried out by a totalitarian regime whose aims and values radically contradicted those of the Convention. If the Convention was to be protected in a real and effective manner, the current Contracting Parties had to conduct effective investigations into totalitarian crimes. Secondly, an  <mask> into the Katyn massacre was a prerequisite for the “rehabilitation” of the murdered persons as victims of political repression and to increase public awareness of totalitarian crimes.


183.  The applicant complained that his son had been tortured before his death. He also asserted that the failure to enter Ferhat in any custody record had violated his right to security of person and that the violation was aggravated by the incommunicado detention. He further alleged that the authorities had failed to carry out an independent, thorough and  <mask> into his complaints. He relied on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.


76.  The Government argued that the domestic authorities had conducted an  <mask> into the fatal accident. The investigation had started without delay, with the inspection of the crime scene performed immediately after the accident had occurred. The investigation had been conducted by the prosecutor's office, which was independent from the police. The prosecutor had commissioned six expert opinions, which had been made by independent experts. He had also questioned twenty witnesses. Although the investigation had been discontinued on several occasions, it had subsequently been resumed, which, in the Government's opinion, showed that the domestic authorities had been intent on correcting possible shortcomings in the investigation and bringing those responsible to justice. Indeed, Mr T. had been charged and committed for trial. The fact that he had eventually been acquitted had not made the investigation and the judicial proceedings ineffective. The trial court had carefully examined all the circumstances, had heard both prosecution and defence witnesses and had examined evidence submitted by all parties, including the applicant. The Court had no reason to question the findings made by the domestic courts.


24.  The applicant complained in essence of the lack of an  <mask> into her son's death. She noted that she had been presented with a corpse in an advanced state of decomposition which she was not sure to have identified as her son. Moreover, the photos of the corpse suggested that the victim had received a blow to the head and revealed two strangulation marks, suggesting that he had been hanged from the tree after being asphyxiated. She had expressed her doubts to the authorities and asked for an exhumation in order to verify that information, but this had been refused.


313.  The Government contended, on the one hand, that Article 2 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  <mask>.


56.  The applicant alleged that the circumstances surrounding the abduction and disappearance of Mehmet Şah Şeker gave rise to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. He further contended that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and  <mask> into the circumstances of his son’s disappearance. Article 2 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows:


188.  The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an  <mask> into the circumstances of the disappearance of the applicants’ family members. In particular, it had been pending for several years without any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. They further noted that those applicants who had not been granted victim status in the proceedings had not even had a formal opportunity to have access to the information concerning the investigation. The applicants argued that their right to be informed of the progress of the investigation had been violated, in particular, by the State’s refusal to submit the investigation file to the Court. They further submitted that they had no information about the investigating measures that had been taken by the authorities, in particular, whether all witnesses to the unlawful detention of their relatives, including servicemen, had been identified and questioned.


114.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an  <mask> 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 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


112.  The applicant contested that objection. He stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that complaints to that effect had been futile. With reference to the Court's case-law, he argued that he was not obliged to apply to civil courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies. The applicant also argued that he had complied with the six‑month time-limit as provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, since he had become aware of the ineffectiveness of the domestic investigation in May 2005, when the cassation court in Ingushetia had refused to consider his appeal against the decision of the trial court in relation to his civil claim for damages (see paragraphs 105-106 above). The applicant considered that those civil proceedings had a direct bearing on the  <mask> of his brother's murder.


120.  The applicant sought an award for non-pecuniary damage for the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her elderly mother and her brother, the failure to carry out an  <mask> into the killings and the indifference shown by the authorities towards her grief. She also stressed that she had suffered immense frustration and helplessness as a result of her inability to obtain any information about the investigation into her family members' deaths. She left the amount to be determined by the Court.


83.  The Government listed a number of investigative steps that had been taken to solve the deaths of the applicant’s family members. For instance, they claimed that the applicant and three other individuals had been questioned as witnesses (see paragraph 28 above), the scene of the incident had been inspected twice (see paragraphs 26 and 29 above), different expert examinations had been carried out (see paragraph 30 above) and the dead bodies had been exhumed (see paragraph 32 above). However, in the absence of detailed information on those steps, the Court cannot reach the conclusion that the measures taken were prompt and sufficient for an  <mask> to have been carried out.


93.  The applicants dispute that a remedy could still be regarded as effective where it would not be economic to bring the claim. Article 13 should be interpreted so as to make its guarantee practical and effective and genuine practical obstacles to bringing a claim undermined the effectiveness of the procedure. The Human Rights Act 1998 was of no assistance either, since it only covered events which took place after the Act came into force on 2 October 2000. While the Wright case (see paragraph 43 above) indicated that the courts could apply the Act even though the death had occurred before that date, where the circumstances were still the subject of active and ongoing controversy, this was not so in the present case. Damages would only have been available for the failure to provide an  <mask> after that date and not in relation to the death itself. Finally, the Health and Safety Executive investigation, which was still ongoing, was a mere administrative procedure which could not be an effective remedy for the purpose of Article 13.


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


64.  The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an  <mask> into the circumstances of Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev's detention and disappearance, in violation of their procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention. She argued that the investigation had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. She contended that the investigation had not been prompt because of the delay in opening it and in taking important steps. Referring to the Government's submissions, she argued that it appeared that certain important steps had never been taken, such as reviewing custody records and operational plans, identifying and questioning those responsible for the arrest of Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, and examining the alleged place of detention. The authorities had systematically failed to inform her of the proceedings and she had no information about important procedural steps. The Government's failure to disclose in full the materials of the investigation to her or to the Court served, in her view, as further proof of the ineffectiveness of the investigation.


138.  The applicant referred to her submissions concerning the procedural aspects of Article 2 of the Convention, claiming that in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate Article 13 required a thorough and  <mask> capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective access for the complainant to the investigatory procedure. She disputed that judicial review was an effective remedy in respect of the DPP's decision not to prosecute, as the cases showed that he has a wide discretion and the courts would only overturn aberrant, inexplicable or irrational decisions.


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  <mask> had been conducted into her son’s disappearance. She relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows: