EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

testimony and forensic evidence (see, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 104 et seq., and Gül v. Turkey , no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000). Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard. In cases concerning persons who were killed by the authorities in violation of Article 2, the Court has held that the application of Article 3 is usually not extended to the relatives on account of the instantaneous nature of the incident causing the death in question (see Damayev v. Russia , no. 36150/04, § 97, 29 May 2012; Yasin Ateş v. Turkey , no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005; Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia , no. 36542/05, § 82, 21 December 2010; Khashuyeva v. Russia , no. 25553/07, § 154, 19 July 2011; and Inderbiyeva v. Russia , no. 56765/08, § 110, 27 March 2012). Nevertheless, the Court has considered a separate finding of a violation of Article 3 to be justified in situations of confirmed death where the applicants were direct witnesses to the suffering of their family members (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine , no. 28005/08, § 204, 14 March 2013, where the applicant witnessed the slow death of her son who was in detention, without being able to help him; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia , no. 23445/03, § 190, 29 March 2011, where a violation of Article 3 was found in respect of an applicant who had witnessed the killing of his entire family, but no violation was found in respect of other applicants who had only later found out about the killings; Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia , no. 3013/04, § 121, 6 November 2008, where the applicants were unable to bury the dismembered and decapitated bodies of their children in a proper manner; Musayev and Others v. Russia , nos. 57941/00, 58699/00 and60403/00, § 169, 26 July 2007, where the applicant was a witness to the extrajudicial execution of several of his relatives and neighbours; and Akkum and Others v. Turkey , no. 21894/93, §§ 258-259, ECHR 2005‑II (extracts), where the applicant was presented with the mutilated body of his son). 3. For the purpose of this article the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include: a. any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention; b. any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service; c. any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community; d. any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations. General principles of the Court Article 4 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. In assessing whether there has been a violation of Article 4, the relevant legal or regulatory framework in place must be taken into account (see, mutatis mutandis , Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 93, ECHR 2005‑VII). The Court considers that the spectrum of safeguards set out in national legislation must be adequate to ensure the practical and effective protection of the rights of victims or potential victims of trafficking. Accordingly, in addition to criminal lawmeasures to punish traffickers, Article 4 requires member Article 4 of the Convention Prohibition of slavery and forced labour 1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. 2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

44

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION