anuary 2003; they failed to establish the identity of the owners of the tented GAZ vehicle used by the abductors, and they did not question the applicant's relatives who had been present during the abduction. Further, it does not appear that the investigators attempted to question the applicant's son Mr V.D. and the taxi drivers who had seen the abductors' vehicle driving on the premises of the ROVD shortly after the events (see paragraph 31 above). It is obvious that these investigative measures, if they were to produce any meaningful results, should have been taken immediately after the crime was reported to the authorities, and as soon as the investigation commenced. Such 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 crime (see {Oneryildiz} v. Turkey [GC], No. 48939/99, § 94, ECHR 2004-XII).
73. The Court also notes that even though the applicant was eventually granted victim status in the investigation concerning the abduction of her son, she was only informed of the suspension and resumption 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.
74. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions and that there were lengthy periods of inactivity of the district prosecutor's office when no proceedings were pending.
75. Having regard to the limb of the Government's objection that was joined to the merits of the complaint, inasmuch as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court notes that the investigation, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been pending for many years without producing tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy cited by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection as regards the applicant's failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation.
76. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Vakhit Dzhabrailov, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
77. The applicant relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that as a result of her son's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, she had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
78. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
79. The applicant maintained her submissions.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
80. The Court notes that this complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
81. The Court has found on many occasions that in a situation of enforced dis
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 13 14 15
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
