gators sent requests to correctional facility No. IZ-20/1 and military unit No. 20102 and received replies stating that they had no information on Aslanbek Khamidov's disappearance.
42. The investigation failed to find those responsible for Aslanbek Khamidov's kidnapping and remained pending.
43. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose the documents from the investigation file in case No. 39024, except for a barely legible copy of the transcript of Mr T.'s interview of 12 February 2003. Relying on information obtained from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.
II. Relevant domestic law
44. 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 objection regarding
the validity of the application
45. In their observations of 14 January 2008 on admissibility and merits the Government submitted that the second applicant had not duly authorised Ms L. Khamzayeva to represent her interests before the Court and concluded that the application should therefore be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
46. The Court points out in this respect that the first applicant's power of attorney issued in the name of Ms L. Khamzayeva was enclosed with the application form of 25 March 2005. The second applicant's power of attorney was outstanding. On 6 December 2007 the second applicant duly authorised Ms L. Khamzayeva to represent her interests before the Court. On 7 February 2008 a copy of the second applicant's power of attorney was sent to the Government for information.
47. In these circumstances the Court considers that there are no grounds on which to doubt the fact that the second applicant was willing to participate in the proceedings before it through counsel or to question the validity of the present application. It thus dismisses the Government's objection.
II. The Government's objection regarding
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
A. The parties' submissions
48. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into Aslanbek Khamidov's kidnapping had not yet been completed. It was open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions of the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities, as well as to pursue civil complaints, but they had failed to do so.
49. The applicants contested that objection. They stated that they had no effective domestic remedies available to them in relation to their grievances.
B. The Court's assessment
50. The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies which are available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 § 1 also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 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
