owledged detention by State servicemen. In the absence of any justification put forward by the Government, the Court finds that his death can be attributed to the State and that there has been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Balavdi Ustarkhanov.
(b) The alleged inadequacy of the investigation of the kidnapping
78. The Court has on many occasions stated that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force. It has developed a number of guiding principles to be followed for an investigation to comply with the Convention's requirements (for a summary of these principles see Bazorkina, cited above, §§ 117 - 119).
79. In the present case, the kidnapping of Balavdi Ustarkhanov was investigated. The Court must assess whether that investigation met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.
80. The Court notes at the outset that none of the documents from the investigation were disclosed by the Government. It therefore has to assess the effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by the applicant and the information about its progress presented by the Government.
81. The Court notes that the authorities were immediately made aware of the crime by the applicant's submissions. The investigation in case No. 44011 was instituted on 21 January 2003, that is, fourteen days after Balavdi Ustarkhanov's abduction. Such a postponement 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. It appears that a number of essential steps were subsequently either delayed or were not taken at all. For instance, the Court notes that although, according to the Government, the domestic investigation questioned a number of persons about the circumstances of the abduction, it appears that the vast majority of them were residents of Achkhoy-Martan (see paragraph 46 above) and not of Zakan-Yurt, where the abduction had taken place; that the eight residents of Zakan-Yurt questioned by the investigators had not witnessed the events (see paragraph 43 above); that the investigators also failed to question the neighbour of Mr Magomed M. who lived across the street and those relatives of Mr Madomed M. who were present during the abduction (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above). Further, the Court observes that the investigators did not identify or question any representatives of law-enforcement agencies or the military who could have had information about the group driving around in Zakan-Yurt during the curfew hours, or that they identified and questioned the servicemen who had manned the checkpoints in the vicinity of Zakan-Yurt. 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. Such delays, 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).
82. The Court also notes that although the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case, she was only informed of the suspension and resumption 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.
83. Finally, the Cour
> 1 2 3 ... 28 29 30 ... 34 35 36