Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 26.11.2009 "Дело "Устарханова (Ustarkhanova) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]





in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.

II. Relevant domestic law

53. 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

A. The parties' submissions

54. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Balavdi Ustarkhanov had not yet been completed.
55. The applicant contested that objection. She stated that the only supposedly effective remedy in her case, the criminal investigation, had proved to be ineffective and rendered any other possible remedies inadequate and illusory.

B. The Court's assessment

56. 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).
57. As regards the criminal-law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that the applicant complained to the law-enforcement authorities immediately after the kidnapping of Balavdi Ustarkhanov and that an investigation has been under way since 21 January 2003. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation of the kidnapping.
58. 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. The court's assessment of the evidence
and the establishment of the facts

A. The parties' arguments

59. The applicant maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away Balavdi Ustarkhanov had been State agents. In support of her complaint she referred to the following facts. At the material time Zakan-Yurt had been under the total control of federal troops. There had been Russian military checkpoints on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The armed men who had abducted Balavdi Ustarkhanov had Slavic features and spoken Russian without an accent, which proved that they were not of Chechen origin. The men had arrived in the vehicles commonly used by the military, late at night, which indicated that they had been able to circulate freely past curfew. The men had carried out an identity check and taken away two passports, one of which was later found in the vicinity of the local checkpoint of the Russian federal forces. They were wearing specific camouflage uniform, were armed and had portable radio sets. Since Balavdi Ustarkhanov had been missing for a very lengthy period, he could be presumed dead. That presumption was further supported by the circumstances in which he had been arrested, which should be recognised as life-threatening.
60. The Government submitted that unidentified armed men had kidnapped Balavdi Ustarkhanov. They further contended that the investigation of the incident was under way, that there was no evidence that the men had been State agents and that there were therefore no grounds for holding the State liable for the alleged violations of the applicant's rights. They further argued that there was no convincing evidence that the applicant's son was dead. The Government raised a number of objections



> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26 ... 34 35 36

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.1326 с