Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.03.2009 «Дело Халитова (Khalitova) против России» [англ.]

se No. 24376 for failure to identify those responsible.
31. In the applicant's submission, since April 2004 she has not even once been informed by the authorities of the progress in the investigation in case No. 24376.
32. On 7 December 2005 the applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to carry out a number of investigative actions; in particular, to question servicemen of the military unit from the DON-100 regiment of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, who had been stationed on the north-western outskirts of Goyskoye in September 2000; to question servicemen who had been on duty at the check-point on the motorway between Goyskoye and Urus-Martan, which the alleged perpetrators had passed through after the incident; to carry out ballistic tests; and to check the firearms which had been in use by the servicemen of the DON-100 regiment, among other steps. According to the applicant, she has not received any reply to her request.

3. The applicant's attempt to gain access
to the investigation file

33. On 3 March 2004 the applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to allow her access to the investigation file.
34. On 5 March 2004 the district prosecutor's office observed that the investigation in case No. 24376 was pending and dismissed the applicant's request, stating that under domestic law access to a case file could only be allowed upon completion of the investigation.
35. On 12 March 2004 the applicant challenged the prosecutor's decision of 5 March 2004 before the Urus-Martan Town Court.
36. By a decision of 29 March 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court dismissed the applicant's complaint, stating that "during the investigation a sufficient range of investigative steps aiming at resolving the crime and identifying those responsible [had been] undertaken", that the investigation had not yet been completed but had been suspended owing to the fact that it was impossible to establish those responsible, and that therefore the decision of 5 March 2004 was well-founded, as under national law a victim could also gain access to the case file upon the completion of an investigation.
37. On 21 April 2004 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the first-instance decision.

B. The Court's request for the investigation file

38. In September 2007, when the application was communicated to them, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in criminal case No. 24376 opened in connection with the murder of the applicant's husband and Mr D. The Government refused to submit any documents from the file, stating that, under Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, disclosure of the documents was contrary to the interests of the investigation and could entail a breach of the rights of the participants in the criminal proceedings. They also submitted that they had taken into account the possibility of requesting confidentiality under Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, but noted that the Court provided no guarantees that once in receipt of the investigation file, the applicants or their representatives would not disclose those materials to the public. According to the Government, in the absence of any sanctions in respect of applicants for the disclosure of confidential information and material, there were no guarantees concerning compliance by the applicants with the Convention and the Rules of Court.
39. In January 2008 the Court reiterated its request. In reply, the Government again refused to produce any documents from the file for the aforementioned reasons. At the same time, they suggested that a Court delegation could be given access to the file in Russia, with the exception of those documents containing military and State secr

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 12 13 14