Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Абаева и другие (Abayeva and others) против России» [англ.]

tion's requirements (for a summary of these principles see Bazorkina, cited above, §§ 117 - 119).
102. In the present case, the kidnapping of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov was investigated. The Court must assess whether that investigation met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.
103. The Court notes at the outset that most of the documents from the investigation were not disclosed by the Government. It therefore has to assess the effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by the parties and the information about its progress presented by the Government.
104. The Court notes that the authorities were made aware of the crime by the applicants' submissions by 1 October 2000 as on the latter date the district prosecutor's office forwarded the fourth applicant's complaint to the ROVD and requested them to open an operational-search file to establish the whereabouts of Anvar Shaipov (see paragraphs 20 - 22 above). The investigation in case No. 34013 was instituted on 6 February 2003, that is more than two years and four months after Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov's abduction. Such a postponement per se was liable to affect the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in the first days after the event. It appears that after that a number of essential steps were not taken at all. For instance, the investigators had failed to establish which military units had been stationed at the former clothing factory in Urus-Martan at the material time; they had not identified and questioned the servicemen who had been manning the checkpoint on 13 September 2000. Furthermore, it does not appear that the investigators had attempted to identify and question the owners of the UAZ vehicle which had driven on the checkpoint's premises at the time of the incident. The Court also notes that the investigators questioned the fourth applicant only in February 2007 (see paragraph 61 above); they had questioned the majority of witnesses to the abduction (see paragraphs 53, 57, 59, 60 - 64 above) only in 2006 and 2007 that is more than three years after the opening of the criminal investigation. Even then, having obtained the fourth applicant's statement concerning the possible detention of her son at the Chernokozovo detention centre in 2002 (see paragraph 61 above), the investigators failed to check this submission and request information from the centre. 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, as soon as the investigation commenced and the relevant information was obtained. 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 matter (see {Oneryildiz} v. Turkey [GC], No. 48939/99, § 94, ECHR 2004-XII).
105. The Court also notes that even though the first and fourth applicants were granted victim status in the criminal case concerning the abduction of their relatives, they were only informed of the suspensions and resumptions 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.
106. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation was suspended and resumed on numerous occasions and that there were lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the prosecutor's office when no proceedings were pending.
107. Having regard to the limb of the Government's preliminary objection that was



> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 19 20 21

	Поделиться:	Tweet