uested the prosecutor's office to resume the investigation in the criminal case, to question witnesses, namely employees of the Urus-Martan district department of the interior and military servicemen from the platoon of officer V.V. who had participated in her son's detention, and to conduct an effective and objective investigation of the criminal case... [the applicant] believes that the death of officer V.V. should not serve as the basis for the suspension of the criminal investigation as he had acted [during the abduction] with other military servicemen.... [according to the applicant] the investigation had failed to identify or question the officers who had been in charge of the security operation conducted on 27 August 2001 in Urus-Martan, the heads of all power structures who had participated in the special operation, as well as persons responsible for placement of detainees... and military servicemen from the platoon of officer V.V...
...[the applicant] requests that the prosecutor's office decision to suspend the investigation in criminal case No. 61008 be recognised as unlawful and unjustified; that the Urus-Martan district prosecutor's office be obliged to conduct a full, thorough and effective investigation of the criminal case and provide her with access to the criminal case file....
...From the case file materials it follows that the investigation in the criminal case has not been conducted in full. For instance, the investigators failed to take measures to clarify the circumstances provided by Z. Mutsayeva in her request of 18 August 2004. If these circumstances will be confirmed [by the investigation], in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction, the criminal case should be forwarded for further investigation to the military prosecutor's office. Under such conditions the court finds that the applicant's requests for a full and effective investigation are substantiated..."
The court ruled that the investigators' decision to suspend the investigation in the criminal case was unjustified and instructed the authorities to examine the applicant's requests. The remainder of the applicant's claim was rejected.
69. On 2 December 2004 the applicant appealed against the decision of 22 November 2004. In her appeal she referred, inter alia, to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. On 25 January 2005 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the decision of 22 November 2004.
II. Relevant domestic law
70. 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
71. 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 Khizir Tepsurkayev had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicant to challenge in court any acts or omissions of the investigating or other law enforcement authorities. They also argued that it had been open to the applicant to pursue civil complaints but that she had failed to do so.
72. 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
73. 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).
74. T
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
