Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.07.2010 <Дело Бенуева и другие (Benuyeva and others) против России» [англ.]

that their dead bodies had not been found.
65. On 22 May 2003 the investigators requested information on vehicles used by the ROVD between 10 November 2002 and 25 May 2003 from the head of the ROVD. According to the reply received, the ROVD owned twenty-eight vehicles, none of which was an UAZ-469.
66. On 8 July 2003 an ROVD officer questioned the second applicant and Mr U., a relative of the Benuyevs. They both stated that at about 11 p.m. on 24 November 2002 armed men speaking Russian had arrived at their house in two UAZ vehicles - one grey and one khaki - and had taken away Sayd-Selim Benuyev.
67. On 14 September 2003 ROVD officers presented seven UAZ vehicles used by the ROVD for the first applicant to identify. She did not recognise any of those as the vehicle used by her son's kidnappers.
68. On 20 September 2003 the investigation into the kidnapping was suspended for failure to identify those responsible.
69. The investigation into the kidnapping of Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev was repeatedly suspended and then resumed. The proceedings were pending and the required investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime.
70. Despite specific requests from the Court, the Government refrained from disclosing most of the documents from the investigation file in case No. 61161, except for copies of the decision to institute the investigation, transcripts of witness interviews, a record of the first and tenth applicants' identification of UAZ vehicles and the court judgments of 18 March and 6 April 2005. Relying on information obtained from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.

C. Judicial proceedings instituted by the applicants

71. On 14 April 2003 the first applicant complained to the Urus-Martan District Court that the district prosecutor's office was taking no action in case No. 61161. It is unclear whether the complaint has been examined.
72. On 28 December 2004 the first and tenth applicants challenged the lawfulness of the decision on suspension of the proceedings of 20 September 2003 before the Urus-Martan District Court.
73. On 27 January 2005 the Urus-Martan District Court upheld the decision arguing that the district prosecutor's office had taken all the required investigative measures. The applicants appealed.
74. On 16 February 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic allowed the first and tenth applicants' appeal, quashed the judgment of 27 January 2005 and remitted the case for fresh examination at the first instance.
75. On 18 March 2005 the Urus-Martan District Court again dismissed the first and tenth applicants' complaint reproducing the reasoning of the judgment of 27 January 2005 verbatim.
76. On 6 April 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the judgment of 18 March 2005.

II. Relevant domestic law

77. For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (No. 40464/02, §§ 67 - 69, 10 May 2007).

THE LAW

I. The Government's objection regarding
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies

A. The parties' submissions

78. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the kidnapping of Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev had not yet been completed. They further submitted that the applicants could have also



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 17 18 19

	Поделиться:	Tweet