nts false (see paragraph 60 above). Moreover, the Government suggested that the applicants invented Mr T.'s interview of 6 February 2002 claiming that the case file contained no transcript of such an interview (ibid). The Court is unable to share the Government's view on this matter as it does not have a copy of the entire investigation file in case No. 39024 at its disposal.
74. The Government admitted that an identity check had been carried out in the village of Alleroy on 25 October 2000. They did not dispute that it had been organised by State agents but refused to provide any details of the nature of the check or the agency which had conducted it, claiming that such information was being established by the investigators (see paragraph 57 above).
75. The Court considers that in order to secure the observance of fundamental human rights any special security operations conducted by State agencies, including large-scale identity checks, should be subject to a number of rules. At the very least, such special operations should be registered in official documents in a certain manner. In the Court's view, it is disquieting that the domestic investigation has been incapable for more than eight years of establishing which State agency was behind the security check of 25 October 2000.
76. The Government suggested that Aslanbek Khamidov's kidnappers could be insurgents or mercenaries. However, this allegation was not specific and they did not submit any material to support it. The Court would stress in this regard that the evaluation of the evidence and the establishment of the facts is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see {Celikbilek} v. Turkey, No. 27693/95, § 71, 31 May 2005). Moreover, the Government's hypothesis appears to be even less probable in view of their acknowledgment of the identity check carried out on the day of the crime as it is implausible that groups of insurgents would enter a village in the presence of State agents, kidnap a person and leave unnoticed.
77. The applicants' allegation that Aslanbek Khamidov was arrested by State servicemen is supported by the following. The Government confirmed that a special operation had been conducted in Alleroy on the date of Aslanbek Khamidov's kidnapping. The domestic investigating authorities expressly referred to the fact of Aslanbek Khamidov's arrest by unknown federal servicemen in several official documents (see paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 above). The Court is not persuaded by the Government's assertion that the applicants' reference to those documents was inappropriate in any manner (see paragraph 61 above) since their authenticity has never been questioned. Moreover, it is clear from the wording of the interdistrict prosecutor's office's letter of 24 December 2001 that in the course of the investigation the military involvement in the crime had been established, not merely looked into (see paragraph 16 above).
78. Furthermore, the Court considers it very unlikely that an armoured military vehicle stolen by insurgents from the federal troops in the 1990s could have moved freely through Russian military checkpoints without being noticed.
79. Hence, the Court finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform equipped with military vehicles was able to move freely through the village on the day of a State security operation and to arrest Aslanbek Khamidov at his home strongly supports the applicants' version of State servicemen's involvement in their relative's kidnapping.
80. The Court observes that where the applicants make out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to a lack of documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corrob
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 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
