62 above). The Court notes in this connection that it is highly unlikely that the identity of those responsible for the artillery guns within the military units located in the vicinity of Chechen-Aul and involved in the attack was unknown to the authorities or that it was impossible to establish it immediately thereafter.
103. The Court points out that the investigation has remained pending since 8 September 2002, during which period it has been suspended and resumed at least six times. Its ineffectiveness and incompleteness were repeatedly acknowledged by senior prosecutors (see paragraphs 53, 59 and 62 above). However, such criticism proved to be futile as no corrective steps were taken between 27 April and 28 December 2005.
104. The Court observes that the investigation was on two occasions passed on from civilian prosecutor's offices to military prosecutor's offices, leading to delays for which no justification has been offered by the Government. For instance, it took the military prosecutors' offices five months to resume the investigation following the transfer of the case (see paragraphs 49 and 50 above). However, even after this considerable period of indolence the investigation was suspended on the following day (see paragraph 51 above). Moreover, on another occasion the case was again re-opened for one day only (see paragraph 55 above).
105. The Court further points out that no proceedings whatsoever were pending between 6 December 2003 and 27 April 2005 (see paragraphs 58 and 59 above), that is, for one year and almost five months. Such handling of the investigation could not but have had a negative impact on the prospects of identifying the perpetrators and solving the crime.
106. The Government produced no detailed information on eventual progress in the investigation made after February 2006. The Court therefore assumes that no meaningful results have been achieved in more than three years, which serves as yet further proof of the overall ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings in question.
107. The Court also notes that even though the first applicant was granted victim status, he was not informed of any significant developments in the investigation apart from several decisions on its suspension and resumption. Accordingly, the Court finds that the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings (see {Oyur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
108. Having regard to the limb of the Government's preliminary objection that was joined to the merits of the complaint, inasmuch as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court notes that the investigation, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed, and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been ongoing for over six years without producing any tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection in this part.
109. The Government also mentioned the possibility for the applicants to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhausting domestic remedies. The Court observes that the applicants, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged actions or omissions of investigating authorities before a court. Furthermore, the investigation was resumed by the prosecuting authorities themselves a number of times owing to the need to take additional investigative measures. However, they still failed to investigate the applicants' allegations properly. Moreover, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative steps
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 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
