Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.07.2010 <Дело Ахматхановы (Akhmatkhanovy) против России» [англ.]

in the investigation file the cartridge cases collected from the crime scene.
87. On 23 December 2007 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators.
88. On 6 February 2008 the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated. He pointed out that the investigators had failed to take a number of investigative actions and ordered that those actions be taken (see paragraph 85 above).
89. On 18 February and 1 June 2008 the investigators questioned Mr R.Kh. and Mr N.T., officers of the ROVD, who stated that due to the passage of time they did not remember the details of the crime scene examination of the place where Artur Akhmatkhanov was abducted.
90. On 29 February 2008 the investigators again questioned the second applicant, who provided them with the names of Artur Akhmatkhanov's closest friends.
91. On 1 March 2008 the investigators questioned the applicants' neighbours Mr A.T. and Mr A.Ch. Both of them stated that they had learnt from their neighbours about Artur Akhmatkhanov's abduction by military servicemen.
92. On 7 March 2008 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators.
93. On 21 March 2008 the supervisory prosecutor again issued a decision "On remedial actions to be taken in connection with violations of the federal criminal procedure regulations during the investigation of the criminal case". He criticised the investigation of the abduction and ordered the investigators to take a number of investigative actions.
94. On 13 April 2008 the investigators resumed the investigation in the criminal case.
95. On 24 April 2008 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators.
96. The investigating authorities sent numerous requests for information to the relevant State agencies and took other steps to have the crime resolved. The investigation found no evidence to support the involvement of Russian servicemen in the crime. The law-enforcement authorities had never arrested or detained Artur Akhmatkhanov on criminal or administrative charges; no criminal proceedings had been initiated against him. No special operations had been carried out in respect of the applicants' relative.
97. The Government further stated that even though the investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of Artur Akhmatkhanov, it was still in progress.
98. Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose the full contents of criminal case No. 22054, providing only "the main documents" from the investigation file, running to up to 222 pages. They 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 personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.

II. Relevant domestic law

99. 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

100. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the investigation into the abduction of Artur Akhmatkhanov had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to lodge court complaints about any acts or omissions of the investigating authorities or pursue civil remedies.
101. The applicants contested that objection stating



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet