d that at the material time he had been the deputy head of the Martan-Chu village administration. On the morning of 6 July 2002 he had been told that during the night, at about 2 a.m., unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had abducted Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev. One of their relatives had complained about it to the Martan-Chu village administration. According to the witness, he had called the head of the ROVD, Mr M., and requested information about the circumstances of the abduction. The latter had told him that he had not heard about the search of the Dikayevs' house. According to the witness, he had not seen military vehicles on 6 July 2002 and he had not issued any orders to the military commander Mr G. concerning the detention of Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev.
98. On 6 September 2007 the investigation of the criminal case was transferred from the Urus-Martan district prosecutor's office to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor's office.
99. On 11 September 2007 the investigators questioned the applicants' neighbour, Mr S.A., who stated that he had found out from his fellow villagers that during the night of 6 July 2002 unidentified armed men had abducted Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev. According to the witness, he had not heard any noise which could have been caused by armoured vehicles.
100. The Government further submitted that the applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation.
101. In response to requests by the Court the Government disclosed several documents from criminal case No. 61117 stating that the investigation was in progress and therefore disclosure of other documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. The Government submitted copies of the following documents:
1) a procedural decision to institute an investigation into the abduction dated 23 August 2002;
2) two decisions to grant victim status in the criminal case to the first and the seventh applicants dated 24 August 2002;
3) decisions to suspended the criminal investigation dated 23 October 2002, 21 September 2003, 23 February 2004, 9 November 2005, and 21 June 2006;
4) decisions to resume the investigation in the criminal case dated 21 August 2003, 21 January 2004, 8 November 2005, 20 June 2006, and 7 June 2007;
5) the investigators' decisions to take up the criminal case;
6) letters informing the applicants about the suspensions and the resumptions of the investigation in the criminal case.
II. Relevant domestic law
102. For a summary of relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (No. 40464/02, §§ 67 - 69, 10 May 2007).
THE LAW
I. Joinder of the applications
103. In view of the similarity of the cases in terms of both fact and law, the Court finds it appropriate to join and examine them together.
II. The government's objection as to abuse
of the right of petition
104. The Government submitted that the applications had not been lodged in order to restore the allegedly violated rights of the applicants. The actual object and purpose of the applications was to "incriminate the Russian Federation of allegedly adopting a policy of violating human rights in the Chechen Republic" and "to place responsibility for the death of [their relatives] on the authorities of the Russian Federation and receive monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by alleged violations of the applicants' rights". They argued that the applications should be dismissed pursuant to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
105. The Court considers that the Government
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 26 27 28
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
