en suspended for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators. The whereabouts of the Tasatayevs had not been established, even though their arrest had been carried out by representatives of power structures. The following facts confirm this:
- the arrest had been carried out by a group of about thirty military servicemen, during curfew... not far away from the town centre of Urus-Martan, in an open manner...;
- the military servicemen who had carried out the arrest... were wearing camouflage uniforms, were well-armed and spoke clear [unaccented] Russian;
- a shepherd dog had been used during the arrest;
- the military servicemen had used a portable radio to call for a UAZ tabletka car, which had arrived ten minutes later;
- the car had taken the arrested men to the town centre, where the VOVD, the ROVD and the FSB were situated;
- not far away from the Tasatayevs' house were two guard posts set up by local residents, who had been on duty that night. Before cordoning off the Tasatayevs' household the military servicemen had gone to one of the guard posts where two Chechens were on duty, pulled their hats down over their faces and told them: "You did not see us. We did not see you". At the other guard post, at the mosque, the federal servicemen had locked the Chechen watchmen in the mosque. There are witnesses who saw the car with the arrested men in it going into the yard of the military commander's office.
The above and other facts had not been investigated by the prosecutor's office...
...the investigator's decision to suspend the investigation in the criminal case cannot be considered as lawful and justified for the following reasons:
the investigation failed to identify and question those residents who had been on duty at the guard posts... the investigation failed to establish the identity of the UAZ tabletka vehicle used during the abduction...; the investigators failed to identify and question the witnesses who saw the car with the arrested men in it driving into the yard of the military commander's office... the investigators failed to question the supervisor from the military commander's office and the Urus-Martan temporary district department of the interior, who had been on duty on the date of the abduction..."
The court instructed the investigators to conduct an effective investigation into the abduction and take all possible measures to solve the crime. The remainder of the complaint was rejected. On 6 June 2005 the town court upheld this decision on appeal.
II. Relevant domestic law
56. 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
57. 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 Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev had not yet been completed. They also argued that it had been open to the applicants to pursue civil complaints but that they had failed to do so.
58. The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the only effective remedy in their case, the criminal investigation, had proved to be ineffective and that their complaints to that effect, including their applications to the domestic court, had been futile.
B. The Court's assessment
59. 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
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
