|
Правовые акты международные
Законы
Кодексы Конвенции Пакты Соглашения Протоколы Правила Договоры Письма Постановления Распоряжения Решения Резолюции Статусы Программы Меморандумы Декларации Другие Правовые акты Российской Федерации Правовые акты СССР Правовые акты Москвы Правовые акты Санкт-Петербурга Правовые акты регионов
|
Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.02.2010 «Дело Ирисханова и Ирисханов (Iriskhanova and Iriskhanov) против России» [англ.] after the event. It appears that after that a number of essential steps were delayed and were eventually taken only several years after the events or not at all. It follows from the submitted documents that the investigation questioned a number of witnesses to the abduction only in May - June 2005, that is three years after the events in question. Furthermore, the district prosecutor's office failed to take such basic investigating steps as to establish the identity of the owners of the military vehicles used by the abductors and question their drivers, or to try to identify and question the servicemen who had been manning the checkpoints in Samashki about the passage of the APCs on 19 June 2002; they failed to question the local military commander about the possible involvement of his staff in the abduction of the applicants' sons and the subsequent detention of Zurab and Gilani Iriskhanov in his office building; they failed to verify a number of concurring witness statements concerning the helicopter's involvement in the transportation of the abducted men to Khankala and Gilani Iriskhanov's allegations concerning his detention in the military commander's office, Khankala and in the RUBOP in Grozny. 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 had begun. Such delays, for which there has been no explanation in the instant case, not only demonstrate the authorities' failure to act of their own accord 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).
|