ding to the replies received, no such operations had been conducted and there was no information on Khava Magomadova's arrest.
72. The investigators sent a request to a commander of the special unit of the Ministry of the Interior of Chuvashiya who, while on mission in the Chechen Republic, had been duty at the checkpoint over the Terek River on 16 December 2002.
73. On an unspecified date in March 2003 the commander of the special unit of the Ministry of the Interior of Chuvashiya informed the district prosecutor's office that no Gazel vehicle had appeared in the registration log for vehicles passing checkpoint KPP-162 over the Terek River.
74. Police officers of the special unit of the Ministry of the Interior of Chuvashiya who had been on duty at checkpoint KPP-162 on 16 December 2002 were questioned as witnesses and stated that they had no information on Khava Magomadova's disappearance or Gazel and UAZ vehicles.
75. The investigation into Khava Magomadova's kidnapping remains pending.
76. Despite specific requests by the Court the Government refused to disclose the entire investigation file in case No. 52007. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. The Government provided copies of the following documents: the decision to open the investigation of 12 February 2003, the decision of 19 February 2003 to grant the first applicant victim status, transcripts of the first applicant's interviews of 19 February, 23 June and 19 November 2003, transcripts of interviews of Ms L., Ms G., Mr M., Mr D., Ms B., Ms M. and Ms S.B., and the report of March 2003 by the commander of the special unit of the Ministry of the Interior of Chuvashiya. They requested the Court to treat the documents submitted as confidential pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Court.
II. Relevant domestic law
77. For a summary of 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
78. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into Khava Magomadova's disappearance had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court or before higher prosecutors any acts or omissions of the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities, however, the applicants had not availed themselves of that remedy. They also submitted that it had been open to the applicants to file civil claims for damages but they had failed to do so.
79. The applicants contested that objection and stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective.
B. The Court's assessment
80. The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies which are available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 § 1 also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 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
