d the mission to the Ingushetiya Republic (see paragraphs 22 and 61). From the same angle, a failure to conduct a confrontation between L.T. and Ch. deprived the domestic authorities of an opportunity to dispel any doubts about the quality of the investigation, legitimately expressed by the applicants, in the Court's opinion.
115. As to the applicants' alleged concealing of information from the investigation, the Court observes that in his complaints to various authorities the second applicant referred to the impugned information in detail, those complaints having been routinely transferred to the town prosecutor's office (see paragraphs 29 and 33 - 36 above). However, there is no indication that the investigating authorities took any steps in that connection. In the same vein, as soon as the third applicant received information concerning L.T. he immediately contacted the prosecutor's office with a request that it be checked. In sum, the Government's argument that the applicants hindered the effectiveness of the investigation by withholding important information does not stand.
116. Having regard to its considerations above, the Court cannot but observe that the information at its disposal shows the incomplete and inadequate nature of the domestic investigation. This is particularly striking in view of the substantial body of evidence which was available to the authorities and which they simply chose to disregard, for reasons the Court finds utterly unconvincing. The authorities' behaviour in the face of the applicants' well-substantiated complaints gives rise to a strong presumption of at least acquiescence in the situation and raises strong doubts as to the objectivity of the investigation carried out by the town prosecutor's office (compare Utsayeva and Others v. Russia, No. 29133/03, § 164, 29 May 2008).
117. The Court further notes that only the third applicant was eventually granted victim status in connection with criminal case No. 23520016. Furthermore, from the third applicant's repeated and unsuccessful requests for information, it follows that the applicants were not notified about the progress in the investigation beyond the most general information about its suspension or reopening. Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation was subjected to the required level of public scrutiny, and to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings (see {Ogur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
118. Lastly, the Court notes that the investigation has been pending for over six years and was suspended and resumed several times, resulting in lengthy and unjustified periods of inactivity on the part of the investigators, the only reason for its reopening on several occasions being the applicants' requests to that effect.
119. Having regard to the limb of the Government's objection that was joined to the merits of the application, inasmuch as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court notes that the investigation, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been ongoing for over six years and has produced no tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their objection in this regard.
120. The Government also mentioned, in the context of the exhaustion of the domestic remedies, that the applicants had had the opportunity to request the investigating authorities to take specific measures and apply for judicial review of their decisions. In this connection the Court refers in the first place to its findings concerning the third applicant's requests for a photofit image of one of the abductors, in respect of which, though it had been granted on paper, there is no indication that it had been
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 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
