requests to establish the owners of the UAZ minivan used by the abductors. However, the Government did not specify either where the requests had been forwarded or whether any response had been given to them.
39. The Government stated that the investigation into the abduction of Vakhit Dzhabrailov had not established the involvement of federal forces in the incident.
40. The Government further submitted that although the investigation had failed to establish either the whereabouts of Vakhit Dzhabrailov or the perpetrators of his abduction, it was still in progress.
41. Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents of criminal case No. 22015. The Government stated that a copy of the investigation file could not be submitted to the Court owing to the absence of any guarantees on the part of the Court of non-disclosure of the secret data contained in the investigation file. In this respect the Government referred to Article 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, since the file contained information concerning participants in criminal proceedings. They also cited, by way of comparison, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998 (Articles 70 and 72) and the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Articles 15 and 22) and argued that these instruments provided for personal responsibility for a breach of the rules of confidentiality.
II. Relevant domestic law
42. 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
43. 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 Vakhit Dzhabrailov had not yet been completed. They also argued that it had been open to the applicant to pursue civil complaints but that she had failed to do so.
44. The applicant contested that objection. She stated that the only effective remedy in her case was the criminal investigation, which had proved to be ineffective.
B. The Court's assessment
45. 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).
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. As regards criminal-law remedies, the Court observes that the applicant complained to the law-enforcement authorities shortly after the kidnapping of Vakhit Dzhabrailov and that an investigation has been pending since 27 January 2003. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation of the kidnapping.
49. The Court considers that the Government's objection raises issues concerning the effectivenes
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 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
