Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.05.2010 «Дело Джабраиловы (Dzhabrailovy) против России» [англ.]

rements of Article 2 of the Convention.
78. The Court notes at the outset that most of the documents from the investigation file were not disclosed by the Government. It therefore has to assess the effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by the parties and the information about its progress presented by the Government.
79. Turning to the facts of the case, it has already been established that no proper investigation has taken place into the abduction and subsequent killing of Valid Dzhabrailov. The Court notes that the authorities were immediately made aware of the incident through the applicants' submissions. The investigation was opened on 18 February 2003, that is, two days after the abduction occurred. This delay in itself was liable to affect the investigation of a crime such as abduction in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in the first hours or days after the event. In spite of the fact that within the first two days of the investigation the crime was inspected and the first and third applicants were questioned, after that a number of crucial steps were not taken at all, even in order to verify the detailed information obtained as a result of questioning.
80. In particular, the Court notes that the investigators did not make any attempts whatsoever to establish the owners of the vehicles used by the abductors; they did not question representatives of local military structures about their possible involvement in the abduction and subsequent killing; they did not verify whether any military bases with helicopters were located in the area within an hour's drive of the applicants' house; they did not seek to retrieve the bullet shot by the abductors in their attempt to kill the first applicant; they did not question the two men who had given the first applicant a lift from the premises of the former chemical plant; they did not conduct a forensic examination of Valid Dzhabrailov's body or the first applicant's head after his submission concerning the gunshot wound inflicted on him by the abductors.
81. It is obvious that these measures, if they were to produce any meaningful results, should have been taken immediately after the crime had been reported to the authorities, and as soon as the investigation had commenced. These delays, for which there has been no explanation in the instant case, not only demonstrate the authorities' failure to act of their own motion but also constitute a breach of the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious matter (see {Oneryildiz} v. Turkey [GC], No. 48939/99, § 94, ECHR 2004-XII).
82. The Court also notes that, even though the first and third applicants were granted victim status, they were only informed of the suspension and reopening of the proceedings, and not of any other significant developments. Accordingly, 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.
83. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation was suspended and resumed a number of times and that on several occasions the supervising prosecutors overruled the decisions to suspend the proceedings and ordered basic investigative steps to be taken, but it appears that these instructions were not complied with.
84. The Government raised the possibility for the applicants to make use of the judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes that the applicants, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged actions or omissions of investigating authorities before a court. Furthermore, the investigation has bee



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet