domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used. However, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51 - 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, No. 41964/98, § 64, 27 June 2006).
51. It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan, cited above, § 65).
52. The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies.
53. As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 119 - 21, 24 February 2005). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. The Government's objection in this regard is thus dismissed.
54. As regards criminal-law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that an investigation into Aslanbek Khamidov's kidnapping has been pending since 18 April 2001. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation.
55. The Court considers that the Government's objection regarding the criminal-law remedies raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints. Thus, it decided to join this objection to the merits of the case and considers that the issue falls to be examined below.
III. The Court's assessment of the evidence
and establishment of the facts
A. The parties' arguments
56. The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away Aslanbek Khamidov were State agents. In support of their complaint they referred to the following facts. Federal servicemen had carried out a large-scale identity check on the day of Aslanbek Khamidov's disappearance. The armed men who had abducted Aslanbek Khamidov were not of Chechen origin. The villagers arrested on 25 October 2000 had been taken to the place where the federal military had been located. The abductors had used an APC and an Ural vehicle which could not be owned by private parties. Mr T. had heard Aslanbek Khamidov's voice at the Tsentoroy filtration point. The interdistict prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic had officially confirmed that Aslanbek Khamidov had been arrested by unknown federal servicemen.
57. The Government stated that an identity and registration regime check had been carried out in Alleroy on 25 October 2000. They did not specify which agency had
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 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
