Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 14.05.2009 «Дело Тайсумов и другие (Taysumov and others) против России» [англ.]

presentatives of the parties, and if need be, undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities;
..."
127. The applicants invited the Court to conclude that the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in response to the Court's requests was incompatible with their obligations under Article 38 of the Convention.
128. The Government reiterated that the submission of the case file would be contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
129. The Court reiterates that proceedings in certain types of applications do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle whereby a person who alleges something must prove that allegation and that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted under Article 34 of the Convention that States should furnish all necessary facilities to make possible a proper and effective examination of applications.
130. This obligation requires the Contracting States to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court, whether it is conducting a fact-finding investigation or performing its general duties as regards the examination of applications. It is inherent in the proceedings relating to cases of this nature, where individual applicants accuse State agents of violating their rights under the Convention, that in certain instances it is only the respondent State that has access to information capable of corroborating or refuting these allegations. A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their possession without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention. In a case where the application raises issues as to the effectiveness of the investigation, the documents of the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of the facts and their absence may prejudice the Court's proper examination of the complaint both at the admissibility and at the merits stage (see {Tanrikulu} v. Turkey [GC], No. 23763/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IV).
131. The Court notes that despite its repeated requests for a copy of the entire investigation file opened into the killings of the applicants' relatives, the Government refused to produce such a copy, having provided only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status, several interview transcripts and the undated military commission report. Moreover, they failed to provide a copy of the expert report referred to in their written submissions. The Government explained their unwillingness to disclose material from the investigation, relying on Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this reference insufficient to justify refusal (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 123).
132. Considering the importance of a respondent Government's cooperation in Convention proceedings, and mindful of the difficulties associated with the establishment of facts in cases of such a nature, the Court finds that the Government fell short of their obligations under Article 38 § 1 of the Convention because of their failure to submit copies of the documents requested in respect of the killings of the applicants' relatives.

VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

133. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Part

> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18 ... 19