e either. No special operations were being conducted by the federal forces in Grozny on the date in question. The investigation did not establish that servicemen were involved in the crime. Operational search measures were being taken in the criminal case.
38. The Government provided documents related to the investigation on ten pages, including copies of the decisions to institute the investigation and to grant the applicant victim status and of notifications sent to he application concerning the institution, suspension and resumption of the investigation. The Government enclosed no transcripts of questioning and no other documents concerning the investigative measures allegedly taken.
C. Judicial proceedings against the investigators
On 22 December 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny. She requested that the decision on suspension of the investigation be quashed and that the investigators' inactivity be found unlawful.
On 16 June 2004 the applicant requested the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny to inform her whether the complaint of 22 December 2003 had been examined.
On 15 July 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny dismissed the applicant's complaint having found that the investigators had taken all requisite measures to resolve the crime.
On 22 July 2004 the applicant appealed against the court's decision.
On 15 September 2004 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the applicant's appeal, finding no flaws in the investigation.
II. Relevant domestic law
39. For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (No. 40464/02, §§ 67 - 69, 10 May 2007).
THE LAW
I. The Government's objection regarding
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
40. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies since the investigation into the disappearance of Mr Abu Aliyev had not yet been completed. The applicant stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that her complaints to that effect, including her application to the district court, had been futile.
41. The Court will examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia, No. 60272/00, §§ 73 - 74, 12 October 2006). The Court observes that the applicant complained to the law enforcement authorities shortly after the kidnapping of Mr Abu Aliyev and that an investigation has been pending since 11 November 2002. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation of the kidnapping.
42. The Court considers that the Government's objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaints. Thus, it decides to join this objection to the merits of the case and considers that the issue falls to be examined below.
II. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention
The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative had been deprived of his life by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the matter. Article 2 reads:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force whic
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 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
