rs of that authority had arrested the applicants' relative (see paragraph 68 above). The Court has already stressed in a similar situation that once the law-enforcement authorities are duly and promptly made aware of the disappearance, it is incumbent on them to organise cooperation between various State agencies in such a manner that would guarantee the effectiveness of the investigation (see Takhayeva and Others v. Russia, No. 23286/04, § 90, 18 September 2008). Bearing this in mind, the Court is particularly struck by this laxity on the part of the town prosecutor's office at the critical time when urgent action was needed from them, having regard to the applicants' submission, uncontested by the Government, that upon receipt of the applicants' complaint about the abduction, the investigator, in the third applicant's presence, immediately called the Ingushetiya department FSB and received a reply to the same question which had allegedly prompted the seven-day delay in launching the investigation. Hence, the Court cannot agree with the Town Court's findings and considers that the investigating authorities failed to promptly commence the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in the first days after the event.
112. The Court further notes with grave concern the investigating authorities' failure to take, at the initial and crucial stage of the investigation, such basic steps as examining the crime scene and interviewing a number of eyewitnesses - the passengers in the minivans and the driver of the second minivan - the last omission being particularly striking because identifying those persons should not have presented a major or insurmountable problem. In the Court's opinion, the explanation advanced by the Government for those omissions (see paragraph 84 above) cannot but give rise to a serious doubt as to whether the investigating authorities intended from the outset to elucidate all relevant facts. The same holds true for the investigation's failure to take any steps to identify the abductors' vehicles, despite the existing information in that respect, and the delay in interviewing one of the key witnesses, M.B., particularly in the absence of a convincing explanation for those omissions put forward either by the Government or the domestic courts (see paragraph 68 above).
113. A further element in the investigation which calls for comment is the town prosecutor's office's failure to make use of Ch.'s statements, with a view to identifying the abductors of the applicants' relative. In this respect the Court is particularly surprised that it was not until almost a year after the abduction and only after the third applicant's request that the town prosecutor's office agreed to compile a photofit image of one of the perpetrators whom officer Ch. had been able to describe and identify at the initial stage of the investigation (see paragraph 32 above). In any event no evidence was submitted to the Court to suggest that that investigative step had actually been carried out. In this connection the Court considers particularly worrisome the Government's submission that when questioned further Ch. had allegedly declared to be unable to describe the abductor.
114. Having regard to the nature of the information on the alleged implication of L.T. in the abduction of the applicants' relative and even assuming that there might have been legitimate questions as to the reliability of that information and its source, the Court nonetheless considers that it merited an independent verification. However, it appears that the authorities limited themselves to interviewing L.T. and accepting his statement at face value, despite non-negligible coincidences between his submissions and the applicants' information as to his rank, the permanent place of service an
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 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
