HE LAW
I. The Government's preliminary objection
A. Arguments of the parties
52. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the abduction and the subsequent killing of Valid Dzhabrailov had not yet been completed. The Government further argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions of the investigating authorities and that it was open to them to pursue civil remedies but they had failed to do so.
53. The applicants contested that objection. With reference to the Court's practice, they argued that they had not been obliged to lodge civil claims in order to exhaust domestic remedies. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that their complaints to that effect, including their complaint to the district court, had been futile.
B. The Court's assessment
54. The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely, civil and criminal remedies.
55. As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 119 - 121, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others, 60272/00, § 77, 12 January 2007). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. The preliminary objection in this regard is thus dismissed.
56. As regards criminal law remedies, the Court observes that the applicants complained to the law enforcement authorities immediately after the abduction of the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov and that an investigation has been pending since 18 February 2003. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation.
57. The Court considers that this limb of the Government's preliminary objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints. Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention.
II. The Court's assessment of the evidence
and the establishment of the facts
A. The parties' arguments
58. The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had broken into their home and taken away the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov had been State agents. In support of their complaint they referred to the following evidence which was not challenged by the Government: the abductors had been armed and were wearing camouflage uniforms, they had arrived in several vehicles, spoken unaccented Russian and told the applicants that they would check the brothers' identity at the ROVD and release them afterwards; the Dzhabrailov brothers had been taken to a military base where they could hear the sound of military vehicles and helicopters; Valid Dzhabrailov had been killed by the abductors and the first applicant had been questioned by the abductors about h
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
