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).
94. In the present case the kidnapping of Aslanbek Khamidov was investigated. The Court must assess whether that investigation met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.
95. The Court notes at the outset that the documents from the investigation, save for one minor exception, 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 applicants and the sparse information on its progress provided by the Government.
96. The Court takes note of the Government's submission that the delay in institution of the investigation into Aslanbek Khamidov's kidnapping was attributable to the applicants, who had failed to promptly report the crime to the authorities. It observes in this respect that it is not clear on what date the first complaint concerning Aslanbek Khamidov's disappearance was lodged with the law-enforcement agencies, but the applicants have admitted that it was done with a certain delay. According to the Government, the first complaint was received by the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic on 24 March 2001 (see paragraph 26 above). Nonetheless, it follows from the letter from the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic - a copy of which has been submitted to the Court by the applicants - that this authority had been informed of the crime by 1 March 2001 (see paragraph 12 above). The investigation in case No. 39024 was instituted on 18 April 2001 (see paragraph 13 above), that is, six weeks after 1 March 2001. The Government offered no explanation for this delay, which in itself was liable to adversely affect the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action needs to be taken expeditiously. Therefore, although the applicants were responsible for the initial delay in the commencement of the investigation, the Government - in turn - are accountable for the failure to institute criminal proceedings once the crime was reported to them.
97. According to the Government, the investigation, which has been pending for eight years, has still not established which State agency was in charge of the identity check of 25 October 2000 (see paragraph 57 above). The Court is bound to consider this as major evidence of the investigation's ineffectiveness.
98. Owing to the Government's failure to provide information on the time-line of the investigation, the Court is not in a position to establish whether investigative measures referred to by the Government, such as witnesses' interviews, were taken promptly or not. However, drawing inferences from the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the investigation file in case No. 39024, it is ready to presume that at least some of those measures were delayed.
99. Moreover, it is plausible to assume that a number of requisite steps have not been taken at all. For instance, it does not follow from the Government's submissions that the investigators ever tried to find the users of the APC that had arrived at Aslanbek Khamidov's house
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
