ation about its progress presented by the Government.
136. The Court notes that the authorities were made aware of the crime by the applicants' submissions. The investigation in criminal case No. 61117 was instituted on 23 August 2002, that is one month and twenty-one days after the abduction of Lech Basayev and Lema Dikayev. Such a postponement per se was liable to affect the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening 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 (see paragraphs 59, 86, 90 above) and were taken either several years later or not at all. For instance, the investigators had failed to establish and question the employees of the military commander's office who might have participated in the apprehension of the applicants' relatives and the employees of the ROVD who could have seen Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev in the corridor on 6 July 2002; they had failed to establish and question four other residents of Martan-Chu who, according to the applicants, had been abducted on the night of 6 July 2002 and released on the following day; the investigators had failed to establish the identity of the owners of the APCs used on the night of the abduction or to question their drivers; they had failed to identify or question the servicemen who were manning the checkpoints in Martan-Chu on the night in question or to check the registration logs of the passage through the roadblocks during the curfew. 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 and omissions, 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).
137. The Court also notes that even though the first and seventh applicants were granted victim status in case No. 61117, they were only informed about the suspensions and resumptions of the proceedings, and not of any other significant developments. Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings.
138. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation in the criminal case was suspended and resumed several times and that there were lengthy periods of inactivity of the district prosecutor's office when no proceedings were pending.
139. Having regard to the limb 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 suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been pending for several years with no tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their objection as regards the applicants' failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation.
140. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.
VI. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
141. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that Lema Dikayev had been subjected
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 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
