re, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.
C. Judicial proceedings against investigators
1. The applicants' account
113. On 15 April 2003 the first applicant lodged a complaint against the district prosecutor's office with the Urus-Martan Town Court ("the town court"). He complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the kidnapping of his sons and sought to have the decision of 15 October 2002 to suspend the investigation quashed and the criminal proceedings in case No. 61116 resumed.
114. On 31 December 2003 the first applicant requested the town court to notify him of the date on which his complaint of 15 April 2003 would be examined.
115. On 1 March 2004 the first applicant went to the town court and enquired about his complaint. He did not manage to meet the judge, who was absent, but talked to officials of the town court's registry who told him that on 19 April 2004 a letter had been sent to his address. The officials were unable to provide any information as to the contents of that letter.
116. On 25 January 2006 the first applicant went to see the president of the town court. The latter said that the complaint about the investigators had not been examined because of a fire in the town court building, and requested that the first applicant provide him with a copy of the complaint. On the following day the first applicant delivered the required copy to the president of the town court.
2. Information submitted by the Government
117. On 25 April 2003 the town court received the first applicant's complaint against the district prosecutor's office dated 15 April 2003. In the body of the complaint the first applicant's last name was spelled on one occasion as "Nenkev" and then as "Nenkayev". The complaint was not signed.
118. On 28 April 2003 the town court sent a copy of the complaint to the district prosecutor's office and summoned the first applicant. Later the first applicant was repeatedly invited to the town court to sign the complaint properly but never did so.
119. On an unspecified date the town court returned the complaint to the first applicant for failure to sign it.
120. The president of the town court claimed that he had never met the first applicant in person and had not had any conversations with him.
II. Relevant domestic law
121. 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 preliminary objection
A. Arguments of the parties
122. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the investigation into the abduction of Muslim Nenkayev and the third applicant had not yet been completed. They also argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions by the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities during the investigation. The first applicant could not be considered to have used this remedy because, when lodging the complaint with the town court, he had misspelled his last name as "Nenkev" and had failed to sign his complaint. The Government further argued that the third applicant had not made any complaints concerning his alleged unlawful detention. Lastly, the Government asserted that the applicants had failed to complain about the allegedly unlawful search to the investigators in due time and had not lodged any relevant court actions.
123. The applicants disputed that objection. In their view, the fact th
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 23 24 25
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
