|
Правовые акты международные
Законы
Кодексы Конвенции Пакты Соглашения Протоколы Правила Договоры Письма Постановления Распоряжения Решения Резолюции Статусы Программы Меморандумы Декларации Другие Правовые акты Российской Федерации Правовые акты СССР Правовые акты Москвы Правовые акты Санкт-Петербурга Правовые акты регионов
|
Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Магомадова (Magomadova) против России» [англ.]circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in the first days after the event. It appears that after that a number of essential steps were delayed and were eventually taken only several years after the abduction. Furthermore, the Court notes that, as can be seen from the decision of the local court of 5 August 2005, for almost three and half years of the investigation the investigators had not identified or questioned any servicemen, they had not established the owners of the APCs and URAL vehicles that had moved around Urus-Martan on the night of 12 April 2002, and that they had failed to establish and question witnesses of the abduction (see paragraph 48 above). In addition, only in November 2006 the investigators collected the pieces of clothing and the footwear found on the site of the discovery of human remains in April 2002 (see paragraph 96 above) and it is unclear whether any measures were taken to establish to whom they belonged. 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).
|