<\/a>Chechen Republic).<\/span><\/p>\nOn 17 April 2000 the applicants\u2019 16-year-old son, Ayub Salatkhanov, was walking towards the village market when a Russian serviceman, Ch., part of a military convoy, took aim at him and shot him in the heart. Ayub died on the way to hospital. A criminal investigation was launched following which Grozny Garrison Military Court found Ch. guilty of murder and sentenced him to ten years\u2019 imprisonment. That judgment was upheld on appeal.<\/span><\/p>\nRelying on Articles\u00a02 (right to life) and\u00a013 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained about their son\u2019s murder and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their complaint.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Court noted that the domestic investigation had been launched on the day of the shooting and, in the days that followed, the authorities had taken significant measures such as questioning numerous witnesses and examining the crime scene and the vehicles which had been part of the military convoy. That investigation resulted in a trial which led to Ch.\u2019s conviction and imprisonment. The Court therefore found that the investigation had been effective and that the resulting conviction had amounted to acknowledgement by the authorities of a violation of Ayub Salatkhanov\u2019s right to life. As regards redress, Ayub\u2019s father had withdrawn his claim for damages in the criminal proceedings and, in any event, both applicants were still entitled to claim compensation in civil proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that the applicants could no longer claim to be \u201cvictims\u201d of the alleged violation of Article\u00a02. Given that finding, the Court held that no separate issues arose under Article\u00a013. Finally, the Court noted that the Russian Government had submitted documents with detailed information on the progress and results of the investigation which had considerably facilitated its examination of the applicants\u2019 case. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no failure to comply with Article\u00a038 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(a). (The judgment is available only in English.)<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The ECHR case of Salatkhanovy v. Russia (application no. 17945\/03).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-cases"],"views":1106,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/419","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=419"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/419\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":421,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/419\/revisions\/421"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}