the investigation and to take a number of essential steps, for example to question any military personnel, and in particular Mr Ruslan Amirov who had allegedly participated in detaining the applicants' relatives.
110. The Government argued that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants' relatives met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify those responsible. They submitted that the investigation was being carried out in full compliance with the domestic law and that a large number of investigative measures had been taken, including sending numerous enquiries to the federal military and security agencies to verify the possible involvement of federal servicemen in the imputed offence, or to check whether the applicants' relatives were being kept in any detention centres. The Government also argued that the first and seventh applicants who had been acknowledged as victims in the case had received explanations concerning their procedural rights. The Government thus insisted that they had fulfilled their procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention.
2. The Court's assessment
111. The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force, in particular by agents of the State. The investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see {Ogur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III). In particular, there is an implicit requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition (see {Yasa} v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, §§ 102 - 04, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, No. 22535/93, §§ 106 - 07, ECHR 2000-III). It must be accepted that there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation. However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in the maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts. For the same reasons, there must be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results to secure accountability in practice as well as in theory. The degree of public scrutiny required may well vary from case to case. In all cases, however, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, No. 37715/97, §§ 91 - 92, 4 May 2001).
112. The Court observes that some degree of investigation was carried out into the disappearance of the applicants' relatives. It must assess whether that investigation met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.
113. The Court notes that although the first applicant lodged her written complaint concerning her sons' abduction on 13 February 2003, the criminal proceedings in this connection were not instituted until five days later, on 17 February 2003. While this delay in itself was not very long, the Court, having regard to the absence of any explanation by the Government in this respect, cannot accept that it was justified in a situation where prompt action was vital.
114. Furthermore, it does not appear that the authorities made any genuine effort to investigate the matter. The investigation has been pending for over seven years, d
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 21 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
