Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Хачукаев (Khachukayev) против России» [англ.]

gal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies.
99. As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 119 - 121, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others, cited above, § 77). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicant was not obliged to pursue civil remedies. The preliminary objection in this regard is thus dismissed.
100. As regards criminal law remedies, the Court observes that the applicant complained to the law enforcement authorities after the abduction of Murad Khachukayev and that an investigation has been pending since 12 February 2003. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation.
101. The Court considers that the Government's preliminary objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaints under Article 2. Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the relevant substantive provisions of the Convention.

II. The Court's assessment of the evidence
and the establishment of the facts

A. The parties' submissions

102. The applicant argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Murad Khachukayev had been abducted on 5 February 2003 by representatives of Russian federal forces, this fact being confirmed by eyewitness statements. The applicant pointed out that thereafter his son had not been seen alive and his remains had been discovered several days later. He further stressed that Murad Khachukayev had been killed while in the hands of State representatives. He further alleged that the State had failed to advance any plausible version of the events or to disclose documents from the criminal investigation file which could shed light on the circumstances of his son's abduction and death, and invited the Court to draw the relevant inferences.
103. The Government argued that the Russian authorities were not responsible for the actions of unidentified persons who had abducted and murdered Murad Khachukayev and that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the Russian federal forces had been involved in the imputed offence. No information had been obtained by the investigation about the carrying out of special operations in Goyty on that night. Finally, the Government stated that the investigation was verifying the theory of Murad Khachukayev's murder by members of illegal armed groups or the theory of his accidental death by being blown up by a home-made explosive device.

B. Article 38 § 1 (a) and consequent inferences
drawn by the Court

104. The Court has on many occasions reiterated that the Contracting States are required to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court and that a failure on a Government's part to submit information which is in their hands, without a satisfactory explanation, may reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see {Timurtas} v. Turkey, No. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI).
105. In the present case the applicant alleged that his son had been illegally detained and then killed by servicemen. He also alleged that no proper investigation had taken place. In view of these allegations, the Court asked the Government to produce documents from the criminal case file opened in relation to the abduction and murder. The evidence contained in that file was regarded by the



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet