used by members of law-enforcement bodies, and that he had recognised one of the abductors as an FSB officer, whom he had previously met during an investigation into another crime.
94. The Government denied that State agents had been involved in the abduction of the applicants' relative and challenged the applicants' and the witnesses' statements as inconsistent.
95. The Court notes at the outset that despite its requests for a copy of the investigation file into the abduction of Bashir Mutsolgov, the Government produced no documents from the case file. They referred to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, No. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
96. In view of this and bearing in mind the principles cited above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in this respect. The Court will thus proceed to examine the crucial elements in the present case that should be taken into account in order to decide whether the applicants' relative's disappearance should be attributed to the State authorities and whether he should be presumed dead.
97. The Government submitted that the applicants' and the witnesses' submissions as to the time of the abduction, the exact number of the abductors and their vehicles and the colour of the vehicles were inconsistent and differed from the statements made in that respect by M.B.
98. In this connection the Court notes in the first place that the Government failed to provide M.B.'s statement. The statement by M.B. produced by the applicants fully confirms their own and other witnesses' account of the events surrounding the abduction and, in particular, the number and the colour of the abductors' vehicles. Apart from the alleged differences between the statements by M.B. and the applicants, mentioned above, the Government failed to point to any other inconsistencies in the applicants' submissions. Having carefully examined those submissions and the documents furnished by the applicants, the Court itself does not find any inconsistencies of the sort indicated by the Government. On the contrary, it notes that in those documents the applicants and the witnesses consistently submitted that Bashir Mutsolgov had been abducted at approximately 3 p.m. by five to eight armed men in masks and uniforms, who had arrived in two vehicles - a white Niva and a dark blue VAZ (see paragraph 15 above). In sum, the Court is satisfied that, contrary to the Government's assertion, the applicants presented a coherent, consistent and convincing picture of the events surrounding their relative's abduction.
99. The Court further observes that the Government failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to support their submissions that they had verified officer Ch.'s statement that one of the abductors had been an FSB officer or that his submission in that respect had not been confirmed, as alleged by them. In this connection the Court emphasises that the Government disputed neither the existence of Ch.'s statement to that effect nor its content. Similarly, the Government produced no elements to demonstrate that the investigation had indeed interviewed officer L.T. and had validly discarded the thesis of his presumed participation in the applicants' relative's abduction.
100. The Court is also not persuaded by the Government's submission that Bashir Mutsolgov might have been abducted by private persons from "the criminal structures" or because of a personal feud, for which assertion no evidence had been produced. Moreover, it finds no elements in the case file to suggest that the investigating authorities seriously pursued that thesis, i
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 27 28 29
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
