e investigators ever tried to question the GRU servicemen despite the applicants' repeated assertions of their possible implication in the crime. It also appears that the investigators had taken no measures to question the Urus-Martan FSB servicemen prior to 28 January 2008 when they instructed the ROVD to look into the possibility of their implication in the crime. It remains unknown whether those servicemen have ever been identified and questioned.
157. The Court also notes that even though the first applicant was eventually granted victim status, he was not informed of any significant developments in the investigation apart from several decisions on its suspension and resumption. Accordingly, the Court finds that 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 (see {Oyur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
158. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation was suspended and resumed several times, so that there were lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the investigators. Such handling of the investigation could not but have had a negative impact on the prospects of identifying the perpetrators and establishing the fate of Muslim Nenkayev.
159. Having regard to the limb of the Government's preliminary 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 been repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been ongoing for over six years and has produced no tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection in this part.
160. The Government also mentioned the possibility for the applicants to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes that the first applicant indeed tried to make use of this remedy suggested by the Government. Leaving aside the question of whether the town court's failure to examine his complaint on the merits in nearly six years was due to lack of a proper signature, it considers that in any event neither the first applicant nor the other applicants, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could have effectively challenged actions or omissions of investigating authorities before a court. Furthermore, the investigation has been resumed by the prosecuting authorities themselves a number of times due to the need to take additional investigative measures. However, they still failed to investigate the applicants' allegations properly. Moreover, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative steps that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer usefully be conducted. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the remedy relied on would have had any prospects of success. Therefore, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their preliminary objection in this part also.
161. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Muslim Nenkayev, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect.
III. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
162. The applicants complained that Muslim Nenkayev had been subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had failed to investigate the ill-treatment. They further complai
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 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
