5. On 25 March and 8 April 2005 the Chief Military Prosecutor's office forwarded the applicant's complaints about her relatives' killing to the military prosecutor's office of the UGA and the military prosecutor's office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit.
56. On 7 April 2005 the military prosecutor's office of the UGA forwarded the applicant's complaint to the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 for examination.
57. On 17 May 2005 the military prosecutor's office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit replied to the applicant stating that the investigation into her relatives' killing had been transferred to the military prosecutor's office of the UGA.
58. On 26 May 2005 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 informed the applicant that criminal case No. 14/33/0332-01 had not been transferred to their office from the military prosecutor's office of the UGA.
59. On 4 July 2005 the military prosecutor's office of the UGA informed the applicant that the criminal case had been forwarded to their office from the military prosecutor's office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit. The case file was on the way and they were waiting for its arrival to have her complaints examined.
60. On 8 June 2005 the applicant wrote to the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102. She requested to be informed about the progress of the investigation, to be provided with access to the case file and asked for information about the measures taken in respect of the two servicemen who had been suspected of her relatives' killing. She received no reply.
61. On an unspecified date the district prosecutor's office issued a document certifying the death of Ramzan Suleymanov, Petimat Aydamirova and Ibragim Suleymanov.
62. According to the applicant, the authorities failed to provide her with information about the progress of the investigation into her relatives' killing.
63. According to the Government, the investigation of the killing has not been completed to date, but all measures envisaged by national law were being taken to have the crime resolved. In spite of the Court's request, they refused to furnish the Court with copies of any documents from the investigation file on the ground that the investigation in the criminal case was ongoing.
II. Relevant domestic law
64. For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Khatsiyeva and Others v. Russia (No. 5108/02, §§ 105 - 107, 17 January 2008).
THE LAW
I. The Government's objection regarding non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies
A. The parties' submissions
65. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the killing of the applicant's relatives had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicant to challenge in court any acts or omissions of the investigating authorities, but that she had not availed herself of that remedy. They also argued that it had been open to her to pursue civil complaints but that she had failed to do so.
66. The applicant contested that objection. She stated that the only effective remedy in her case - the criminal investigation - had proved to be ineffective. With reference to the Court's practice, she further argued that she was not obliged to apply to civil courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies.
B. The Court's assessment
67. 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 Est
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 14 15 16
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
