im's family and carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition. It should also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether or not the force used in such cases was lawful and justified in the circumstances, and should afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, No. 24746/94, §§ 105 - 109, 4 May 2001, and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
68. The Court notes at the outset that no documents from the investigation file were disclosed by the Government, apart from copies of two procedural decisions and notifications sent to the applicant on ten pages. 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.
69. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that, according to the applicant, she notified the authorities about the abduction on 30 October 2002. This is not disputed by the Government. The investigation into the abduction was instituted on 11 November 2002, that is twelve days after Mr Abu Aliyev's abduction. Such a delay 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.
70. The Court further has to assess the scope of the investigative measures taken. According to the Government, apart from the applicant, six other witnesses were questioned. Ms B. was questioned on an unspecified date and five other witnesses were questioned in October 2003. Furthermore, a number of requests were sent to various State authorities with a view to establishing Mr Abu Aliyev's whereabouts. However, the Government have produced no documents, such as inspection reports, transcripts of questioning or copies of the requests and responses, to corroborate their submissions. Accordingly, not only is it impossible to establish how promptly some of those measures were taken, but whether they were taken at all.
71. Even assuming the accuracy of the Government's submissions, the Court notes that five witnesses, including the applicant's neighbours and her daughter, were questioned for the first time a year after the events. 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, and as soon as the investigation commenced.
72. Furthermore, it appears that a number of crucial steps were never taken. In particular, there is no evidence that the crime scene was ever inspected or that any officials of local law-enforcement and military authorities were questioned. Neither the identity of the owners of the vehicles that had moved around Grozny on the night of 29 October 2002 nor their itinerary were established.
73. The delays and omissions, 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 crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, No. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II).
74. The Court also notes that even though the applicant was granted victim status in the investigation concerning the abduction of their relative, she was 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.
75. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation was ad
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
