Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 12.05.2010 «Дело Шахабова (Shakhabova) против России» [англ.]

located at the time of the abduction, and where and on whose order it had been used [at the time of the abduction]";
- the commanders of units equipped with APCs at the time of the abduction and the drivers of the APCs were not interviewed;
- the logbooks of the departments keeping records of the use of military vehicles at the time of the abduction were not examined;
- the heads of the military commander's office, the district department of the FSB and the district department of the Interior were not questioned with a view to establishing who had been granted authorisation to pass through Urus-Martan on 23 November 2002 at night during the curfew;
- the logbooks of detention facilities were not seized and checked and the persons responsible for detainees were not questioned with a view to verifying whether the abducted person was being or had been held in any detention facility."
72. On 5 July 2006 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the decision on appeal.

II. Relevant domestic law

73. 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

74. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Adam Khurayev had not yet been completed. They also pointed out that the applicant had not lodged a claim for compensation of non-pecuniary damage under Articles 1069 - 70 of the Civil Code.
75. The applicant contested that objection. She stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that her complaints to that effect had been futile. With reference to the Court's practice, she argued that she was not obliged to apply to civil courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies.

B. The Court's assessment

76. The Court will examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia, No. 60272/00, §§ 73 - 74, 12 October 2006).
77. 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.
78. 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 (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 119 - 121, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others, cited above, § 77). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicant was not obliged to pursue civil remedies. The Government's objection in this regard is thus dismissed.
79. As regards criminal-law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that the applicant complained to the law-enforcement authorities shortly after the kidnapping of Adam Khurayev and that an investigation has been ongoing since 14 February 2003. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation of the kidnapping.
80. The Court considers that this limb of the Government's objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaints. Thus, it decides to join this objectio



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 19 20 21

	Поделиться:	Tweet