Criminal Procedure, since the file contained personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.
C. Proceedings against law-enforcement officials
70. On 23 October 2004 the first applicant complained to the Urus-Martan town court. She sought a ruling obliging the investigators to provide her with access to the investigation file, to resume the investigation and to conduct it thoroughly and effectively. In her complaint she referred to the Constitution and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. On 22 November 2004 the town court rejected her claim. The applicant appealed.
On 8 February 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the town court's ruling. The text of the Supreme Court decision stated, inter alia, the following:
"...it follows from the contents of the investigation file that on 13 September 2000 representatives of Russian power structures had arrested M.-A. Abayev along with other persons and that in connection with this the criminal case was opened under Article 126 of the Criminal Code...
II. Relevant domestic law
71. 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. Preliminary issues
A. The second applicant's complaints
72. The Court notes that in their submission of 1 September 2008 the applicants' representatives informed it that the second applicant (Ms Raminat Zhansayeva) did not intend to pursue the application before the Court. The other applicants did not express their wish to pursue the application on her behalf.
73. Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in its relevant part, reads:
"1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that...
(c) ...it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application..."
The Court reiterates that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of a close relative who has expressed a wish to pursue the application (see Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, § 31, Series A No. 287; Karner v. Austria, No. 40016/98, § 23, ECHR 2003-IX; and Thevenon v. France (dec.), No. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III).
74. The Court finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application in respect of the second applicant. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court's list of cases in so far as it relates to this applicant.
B. The Government's objection regarding non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies
1. The parties' submissions
75. 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 Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov had not yet been completed; that the applicants could challenge in court any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities, and that they had already availed themselves of that remedy. The Government also argued that it was open to the applicants to pursue civil complaints but that they had failed to do so.
76. The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the only effective remedy in their case - criminal investigation - had proved to be ineffective and that their complaints to that effect, including their application to the domestic courts, had been futile.
2. The Court's assessment
77. The Court will exa
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
