t notes that the authorities were immediately made aware of the crime by the applicants' submissions. However, the police officially refused to institute formal proceedings due to lack of a crime on 25 December 2002, that is nine days after Khava Magomadova's disappearance (see paragraph 63 above). The Court considers that the ROVD servicemen should have looked more carefully into the possibility of kidnapping in a case where a married woman with stable employment disappeared without a trace and remained missing for nine days in a row.
116. The district prosecutor's office launched the investigation in case No. 52007 on 12 February 2003 (see paragraph 64 above), that is, almost two months after Khava Magomadova's abduction. Such a delay per se was liable to affect the investigation into the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in the first days after the event.
117. The Court observes that the ROVD inspected the crime scene immediately after the incident had been reported to them (see paragraphs 18 and 62 above). However, other investigative measures were taken with a considerable delay. In particular, the first witness interviews were carried out on 19 February 2003 (see paragraphs 65 and 66 above). Several other witnesses were questioned on 5 March 2003 (see paragraphs 67 and 68 above). These delays, for which there has been no explanation in the instant case 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).
118. Furthermore, certain investigative steps were not taken at all. For instance, the domestic investigation has never tried to establish the identity of the users of the UAZ vehicles that were circulating around Chervlennaya village on 16 December 2002. Neither did they question the servicemen who had been manning the special task force checkpoint located in the railway station.
119. The Court also notes that even though the first applicant was granted victim status, he was only informed of certain decisions to suspend and resume the investigation. It appears that he was not informed of any other significant developments. Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation had received the required level of public scrutiny or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings (see {Oyur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
120. Lastly, it follows from the meagre information at the Court's disposal that the investigation was repeatedly suspended and then resumed (see paragraphs 42 and 45 above). Moreover, it appears that the proceedings had not been pending for more than a year after they had been suspended on 14 January 2004 (see paragraph 47 above). The Government failed to provide a detailed account on progress in case No. 52007 made since 2003. The latest update on the course of the investigation submitted by the applicants indicates that by 21 October 2005 the proceedings had once again been resumed (see paragraph 60 above). The Government stated that the investigation was still ongoing but provided no time-line mentioning at least major investigative steps recently taken. In such circumstances the Court is ready to assume that there have been considerable periods of inactivity by the investigators in case No. 52007 between 21 October 2005 and the present moment. This protracted manner of conducting the investigation could only be detrimental to the prospects of establishing the fate of the applicants' wife and mother.
121. Having regard to the part of the Government's objection that was joined to the merits of the complaint, inasmuch as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court notes that the investigation, having being repeatedly su
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
