oup Alignment.
60. On 21 June 2005 the unit prosecutor's office resumed the proceedings.
61. On 21 July 2005 the unit prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case No. 34/33/0621-02D for failure to identify those responsible.
62. On 28 December 2005 the UGA prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 21 July 2005 because not all requisite investigative measures had been taken and forwarded the case file to the unit prosecutor's office. They referred to the same deficiencies in the investigation that had been mentioned in their decision of 27 April 2005.
63. On 15 February 2006 the unit prosecutor's office received the case file.
64. From February 2006 onwards the investigators took a number of investigative measures. In particular, they questioned two witnesses, Mr D. and the first applicant, seized a videotape with a record showing the scene of the incident after the events in question, ordered an expert examination of that videotape and requested information on military orders and other documents from the military hierarchy. They further ordered and obtained an additional examination by an explosives expert and allowed the victims of the crime to study the decision ordering the examination. The investigators also collected documents confirming the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the victims.
65. The investigation in case No. 34/33/0621-02 was ongoing and investigative measures were being taken to establish all the circumstances of the incident.
II. Relevant domestic law
66. 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 preliminary objection
A. Arguments of the parties
67. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the investigation into the killings of the applicants' relatives had not yet been completed. They also argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions by the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities during the investigation.
68. The applicants disputed that objection. In their view, the fact that the investigation had been pending for more than six years with no tangible results proved that it was an ineffective remedy in this case. They further argued that in the Chechen Republic a court appeal against a decision of an investigator would be futile and the remedy referred to was illusory and ineffective.
B. The Court's assessment
69. In the present case, the Court took no decision about the exhaustion of criminal-law domestic remedies at the admissibility stage, having found that this question was too closely linked to the merits. It will now proceed to examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia, No. 60272/00, §§ 73 - 74, 12 October 2006).
70. The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides for a distribution of the burden of proof. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), No. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
71. The Court further observes that an investigation into the killings of the applicants' relatives had been pending since 8 September 20
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 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
