estigation into the kidnapping of Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev at its disposal is highly inadequate. It observes that the applicants, who themselves were not updated on the progress of the case, could not provide it with a list of investigative measures taken by the domestic authorities.
117. The Government, in their turn, vaguely referred to the investigative steps taken to solve the kidnapping of Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev. However, it follows from the information which they submitted that there were considerable delays in carrying out those measures.
118. For instance, the first applicant, her husband and Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev were questioned for the first time more than two weeks after the investigation began (see paragraphs 60 and 61 above). The Court is struck by the fact that the second applicant and another eyewitness to Sayd-Selim Benuyev's kidnapping were questioned for the first time only on 8 July 2003 (see paragraph 66 above), that is, more than seven months after the investigation had been opened. The investigators also failed to demonstrate due diligence when requesting information about vehicles employed by the ROVD six months after the events (see paragraph 65 above) and presenting the ROVD vehicles to the first applicant for identification ten months after the crime (see paragraph 67 above). It is obvious that these investigative measures, if they were to produce any meaningful results, should have been taken immediately after the crime was reported to the authorities, and as soon as the investigation began (see Gekhayeva and Others v. Russia, No. 1755/04, § 105, 29 May 2008).
119. Furthermore, a number of important investigative steps were never carried out. For instance, it does not appear that such a basic measure as the inspection of the crime scene has ever taken place. Moreover, nothing in the materials at the Court's disposal warrants the conclusion that the investigators tried to question the servicemen who had manned the checkpoints in Martan-Chu on the night of the abduction or to collect the registration logs of the passing vehicles.
120. Accordingly, the Court considers that the domestic investigative authorities demonstrably failed to act of their own motion and breached their obligation to act with exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with a crime as serious as kidnapping (see {Oneryildiz} v. Turkey [GC], No. 48939/99, § 94, ECHR 2004-XII).
121. The Court also notes that the applicants were not promptly informed of significant developments in the investigation and considers therefore that the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings (see {Ogur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
122. Lastly, the Court notes that the investigation into the kidnapping of Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev was repeatedly suspended and then resumed, which led to lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the investigators when no proceedings were pending. Owing to the Government's failure to submit the entire case file, the Court is unable to establish the exact timeline of the investigation. However, it is not disputed between the parties that no proceedings have been pending since 20 September 2003, that is, for more than six years. Such handling of the investigation could only have had a negative impact on the prospects of identifying the perpetrators and establishing the fate of the applicants' relatives.
123. Having regard to the limb of the Government's objection concerning the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending which was joined to the merits of the application, the Court notes that the investigation, which was opened on 27 November 2002, has produced no tangible results to date. Accordingly, the Court finds that the re
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
