unit No. 194 KTG was not carried out promptly. It follows from the Government's submissions that it was ordered on 16 June 2003 - that is, five days after the discovery of Umar Zabiyev's dead body (see paragraph 36 above). However, the fingerprints of those servicemen were taken only on 3 February 2004 (see paragraph 47 above). The Government produced no explanation of the fact that a vital investigative measure capable of identifying persons involved in a killing had been delayed by seven months.
107. Furthermore, nothing in the Government's submissions warrants the conclusion that the servicemen of military unit No. 194 KTG have ever been questioned, although it was crucially important for the investigation to clarify whether they had indeed participated in the armed clash with insurgents referred to by the Government (see paragraph 52 above).
108. Accordingly, the Court considers that the domestic investigative authorities demonstrably failed to act of their own motion and breached their obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such serious crimes as murder and kidnapping (see {Oneryildiz} v. Turkey [GC], No. 48939/99, § 94, ECHR 2004-XII).
109. The Court also notes that the applicants were not promptly informed of significant developments in the investigation and considers therefore that 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 (see {Ogur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
110. Lastly, the Court notes that the investigation into the murder of Umar Zabiyev was repeatedly suspended and then resumed, which led to lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the investigators. For instance, no proceedings whatsoever were pending between 19 June 2004 and 2 February 2006, that is, for one year and seven months (see paragraph 25 above). It also appears that no meaningful investigative measures have been taken since 19 June 2004. Such handling of the investigation could not but have had a negative impact on the prospects of identifying the perpetrators.
111. Having regard to the limb of the Government's objection that was joined to the merits of the complaint concerning the alleged violation of Umar Zabiyev's right to life, in so far as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation into his murder is still pending, the Court notes that the investigation in case No. 23600032, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been ongoing for almost six years and has produced no tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their objection in this part.
112. The Government also mentioned that the applicants had the opportunity to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies and to complain to higher prosecutors. The Court observes that, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative steps that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer be usefully conducted. The Court finds therefore that it is highly doubtful that the remedies relied on by the Government would have had any prospects of success and considers that they were ineffective in the circumstances of the case. It thus rejects the Government's objection in this part as well.
113. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the killing of Umar Zabiyev, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
114. The applicants complained that as a
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
