Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.10.2009 «Дело Сатабаева (Satabayeva) против России» [англ.]

onstitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court.
90. Article 161 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the rule that data from the preliminary investigation cannot be disclosed. Part 3 of the same Article provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation. It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of the participants in criminal proceedings without their permission.
91. Presidential Decree No. 1815 of 2 November 1993 on Measures for the Prevention of Vagrancy and Mendicancy provided for the reorganisation of the system of "reception and distribution centres" for persons detained by the bodies of the Ministry of the Interior for vagrancy and mendicancy into centres of social rehabilitation for such persons. Section 3 of the Decree provides:
"Placement of persons engaged in vagrancy and mendicancy in centres of social rehabilitation is permitted subject to the prosecutor's authorisation, for a term not exceeding ten days."

THE LAW

I. The Government's preliminary objection

92. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies since the investigation of the disappearance of Yusup Satabayev had not yet been completed.
93. The applicant disputed that objection. In her view, the fact that the investigation had been pending for eight years with no tangible results proved that it was an ineffective remedy in this case.
94. In the present case, the Court took no decision about the exhaustion of domestic remedies at the admissibility stage, having found that this question was too closely linked to the merits. It will now proceed to 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).
95. The Court observes that the applicant complained to the law-enforcement authorities shortly after the disappearance of Yusup Satabayev and that an investigation has been pending since 18 October 2000. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation.
96. The Court considers that the Government's preliminary objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaints. Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

97. The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that her son had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 provides:
"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 which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

A. Alleged violation of Yusup



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 19 20 21

	Поделиться:	Tweet