Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.05.2009 «Дело Ненкаев и другие (Nenkayev and others) против России» [англ.]

ly suspended and resumed. The authorities had failed to promptly update the applicants on any progress made in the investigation.
151. The Government claimed that the investigation into the kidnapping of Muslim Nenkayev and the third applicant met the Convention requirement of effectiveness. The investigators had taken numerous steps to find Muslim Nenkayev, but in vain.

2. The Court's assessment

152. The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann and Others, cited above, § 161, and Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I). The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, No. 24746/94, §§ 105 - 09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
153. The Court notes at the outset that the majority of the documents from the investigation were not disclosed by the Government. It therefore has to assess the effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by the parties and the sparse information on its progress presented by the Government.
154. Turning to the facts of the case, the Court notes that, according to the applicants, they applied to the authorities for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Muslim Nenkayev immediately after his abduction, that is on 8 June 2002. The Government did not contest this information. However, the investigation was opened on 15 August 2002, two months and seven days later. This important delay, for which no explanation was provided, was in itself liable to affect the investigation of a crime such as abduction in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action must be taken promptly.
155. The Court further observes that the investigators failed to take such basic investigative measures as conducting witnesses' interviews in a timely fashion. For instance, the second and fourth applicants were questioned for the first time on 15 and 16 November 2003. The first applicant was not questioned until 1 August 2005. The State officials who had allegedly provided the applicants with important information on Muslim Nenkayev's abduction were questioned as late as 16 January 2006, three years and five months after the commencement of the investigation.
156. The Court observes that in the present case the investigating authorities not only did not comply with 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), but failed to take the most elementary investigative steps. Most notably, there is no information that the crime scene was ever inspected. Moreover, nothing in the materials at the Court's disposal allows the conclusion that th



> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 23 24 25

	Поделиться:	Tweet