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

ion and that its suspension had been unjustified.
42. On 11 May 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote to the Grozny district prosecutor's office and the Grozny town prosecutor's office. They described in detail the circumstances of Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov's abduction and their subsequent detention. In particular, they described the beatings and the ill-treatment to which the brothers had been subjected by the abductors and the abductors' attempt to kill the first applicant. They further complained that the investigations into the abduction and the murder had been ineffective and that there had been a lack of information about the progress of the proceedings, and asked to be provided with copies of a number of procedural decisions.
43. On 14 June 2005 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that on an unspecified date the investigation into the abduction had been joined with the investigation into the murder and the joint criminal case had been given the number 30034.
44. On 21 July 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote to the Zavodskoy district prosecutor's office complaining that the investigation in the joint criminal case had been ineffective and that there had been a lack of information about the steps taken by the investigators. In particular, they pointed out that they had received no information as to whether an expert evaluation of the evidence discovered at the crime scene or a forensic examination of Valid Dzhabrailov's body had been carried out. They further asked that the first applicant be provided with access to the investigation file.
45. On 27 October 2005 and 25 June 2008 the decisions to suspend the investigation were overruled by the supervisory prosecutors for failure to take necessary investigative steps and the proceedings were resumed.
46. The applicants submitted that the authorities had failed to provide them with information concerning the investigation into the abduction and the subsequent killing of their close relative.
47. The Government submitted that the investigation in criminal case No. 30034 was still in progress. The perpetrators of the abduction and the killing had not been identified, but the domestic authorities were taking steps to have the crime resolved. The applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation.
48. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case No. 30034. They submitted copies of several documents and 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 because the file contained personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.

C. Proceedings against law-enforcement officials

49. On 23 September 2005 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 23 September 2003 and 11 October 2005) the first applicant complained to the Zavodskoy district court of Grozny. He described in detail the events of 16 - 18 February 2003, including the beatings to which he had been subjected by the abductors, and complained that the investigation in criminal case No. 30034 had been ineffective and that its suspension had been unjustified. The applicant sought a ruling obliging the authorities to resume the investigation and provide him with access to the investigation file.
50. On 28 October 2005 the Zavodskoy district court rejected the complaint stating that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on 27 October 2005.

II. Relevant domestic law

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

T



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet