llows from the handwritten numbering of the documents submitted that the case file contained at least 150 pages. They explained their unwillingness to produce the entire investigation file, referring to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, No. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-...).
85. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the principles cited above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in this respect.
86. The Court considers that the applicants have presented a coherent and convincing picture of the events in question. Their account of the events was supported by the domestic investigation from its very beginning (see paragraph 40 above). As early as on 10 September 2002, that is, two days after the commencement of the proceedings, the domestic investigation considered it established that the federal military forces were responsible for the deaths of the applicants' relatives (see paragraph 44 above).
87. The Court takes note of the Government's hypothesis that the deaths of the applicants' relatives had been caused by the explosion of self-made explosive devices made by insurgents. However, it observes that the applicants' neighbours who had been admitted to the proceedings as victims had allegedly witnessed an artillery attack and had seen shells falling (see paragraph 43 above). Furthermore, it is rather dubiously assumed that explosive devices dug into the upper layers of soil could have fallen from above to punch a hole in the roof of Mr Yu.'s house.
88. Moreover, the Court observes that, according to the Government, the hypothesis of artillery shelling of the applicants' house had been disproven in the course of the investigation. Indeed, it follows from the undated report by the commission composed of the military hierarchy that the deaths of the three members of the Taysumov family had been caused by a terrorist attack (see paragraph 46 above). That version was reproduced in the decision of 26 November 2002 by the unit prosecutor's office (see paragraph 47 above).
89. Nevertheless, the Court points out that on 11 December 2002 the investigation was found to be deficient as it had sought to whitewash the military units that had allegedly fired the artillery shells (see paragraph 62 above). It is clear from the documents submitted by the Government that the assumption of military involvement in the artillery shelling of the applicants' house was again used by the investigators as a working hypothesis in 2003 (see paragraphs 54 and 58 above). It appears that this version has not been dismissed as implausible by the investigators to date. The Court considers therefore that implication of federal troops in the crime has not been disproven throughout the proceedings. In such circumstances it is not persuaded by the Government's assertion that the investigators merely cited in the official documents the applicants' allegations that the village of Chechen-Aul had been fired at by the artillery on 7 September 2002.
90. The Court further points out that in their submissions the Government relied heavily on the undated scene-of-incident inspection report by the military commission (see paragraph 76 above). The Court assumes that this is the same report of which a copy has been submitted by the Government (see paragraph 46 above). However, it remains unknown what authority established the military commission and on what date its report was drawn up. The Court is thus disinclined to consider this document as irrefutable evidence to support the allegation that the Taysumovs' house had been destroyed by self-made explosive devices rather than by artillery shelling. Moreover, it is no
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 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
