ey 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 these materials to the public. According to the Government, in the absence of any sanctions in respect of applicants in the event that they disclosed confidential information and materials, there were no guarantees of the applicants' compliance with the Convention and the Rules of Court. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation could be given access to the file in Russia, with the exception of those documents containing military and State secrets, and without the right to make copies of the case file.
80. The documents submitted by the Government included:
(a) a decision of 17 February 2003 to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the abduction on 13 February 2003 of Ilyas Yansuyev, Isa Yansuyev and Mr D. by a group of men in camouflage uniforms and masks, armed with automatic firearms;
(b) a prosecutor's decision of 3 April 2003 to transfer case No. 20039 from one investigator to another;
(c) investigators' decisions of 3 April 2003, 27 April 2004 and 6 August 2007 to take up case No. 20039;
(d) transcripts of witness interviews of the first and seventh applicants dated 11 March and 9 April 2003 respectively;
(e) decisions of 17 April 2003, 27 May 2004 and 6 June 2006 suspending the investigation of case No. 20039 and a decision of 20 April 2004;
(f) letters of 17 April 2003, 27 April and 27 May 2004, 6 May and 6 June 2006, and 6 August 2007 informing the first and seventh applicants of the suspension and resumption of the investigation of case No. 20039.
81. In September 2007 the Court reiterated its request. In reply, the Government refused to produce any documents other than those submitted earlier for the aforementioned reasons.
82. On 5 March 2009 the application was declared partly admissible. At that stage the Court once again invited the Government to submit the investigation file and to provide information concerning the progress of the investigation after August 2007.
83. In May 2009 the Government produced a number of documents running to 172 pages. These documents, in so far as relevant, are summarised in paragraphs 40 - 51, 53 - 69 and 71 - 77 above. The Government refused to produce any other materials, referring to Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.
II. Relevant domestic law
84. For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, §§ 67 - 69, 15 November 2007.
THE LAW
I. The Government's objection regarding
abuse of the right of petition
85. The Government submitted that the application had not been lodged in order to restore the allegedly violated rights of the applicants. The actual object and purpose of the application was clearly political as the applicants were willing to accuse the Russian Federation of being a State which allegedly had a policy of violating human rights in the Chechen Republic. The Government concluded that there had therefore been an abuse of the right of petition on the part of the applicants.
86. The Court observes that the complaints the applicants brought to its attention concerned their genuine grievances. Nothing in the case file reveals any appearance of an abuse of their right of individual petition. Accordingly, the Government's objection must be dismissed.
II. The Government's objection regarding the exhaustion
of domestic remedies
87. The Government argued that the investigation into the abduction of the app
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 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
