ailed to provide any explanations for the delays in the investigation; the ineffectiveness of the investigation had been recognised by the supervisory prosecutors and by domestic courts, which had ordered the prosecutor's office to resume the suspended investigation.
127. The Government stated that the investigation into the abduction and murder of Murad Khachukayev was still ongoing and that therefore it was premature to discuss its alleged ineffectiveness. They argued that the theory of the involvement of Russian servicemen in the abduction and killing of the applicant's son had not been confirmed by the investigation and that investigators were verifying the theory of possible involvement of members of illegal armed groups in the crime or the theory of an accidental death of the applicant's son as a result of being blown up by a home-made explosive device. The criminal investigation was opened in timely fashion and even though it was subsequently suspended and resumed on several occasions, these procedural decisions did not demonstrate its ineffectiveness. The applicant was informed in timely fashion about all decisions of the investigation.
128. The Court has developed a number of guiding principles to be followed for an investigation to comply with the Convention's requirements (for a summary of these principles see Bazorkina, cited above, §§ 117 - 119).
129. In the present case, the criminal investigation into the abduction and subsequent killing of the applicant's son has been pending since 12 February 2003. The Court must assess whether that investigation met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.
130. The Court notes at the outset that most of the documents from the investigation were not disclosed by the Government. It therefore has to assess the effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by the parties and the information about its progress produced by the Government.
131. The Court notes that the investigation into the abduction of the applicant's son was initiated on 12 February 2003, a week after his abduction. Further, the crime scene examination was conducted at the applicant's house only on 13 March 2004, more than thirteen months after the events. At the same time, even though the applicant consistently pointed out to the authorities that his son's remains had been discovered in February 2003 (see paragraph 38 above), and in spite of the fact that the expert evaluation of the remains had been conducted in April 2003 (see paragraph 30 above), for more than three years the investigators failed to take these facts into account (see paragraphs 37 and 43 above). They opened the investigation into Murad Khachukayev's murder only on 5 June 2006, that is only after the communication of the applicant's complaints to the respondent Government. A number of other crucial investigative steps were taken with a significant delay. In particular, a number of eyewitnesses to the abduction were questioned only in 2006 and 2008 (see paragraphs 73 - 75, 83 and 85 - 86 above) and DNA testing of the remains was ordered only in June 2008 (see paragraph 84 above).
132. A number of essential steps were never taken by the investigators. For instance, it does not appear that the investigation attempted to identify or question any of the servicemen of the local law enforcement bodies who might have been involved in the detention of Murad Khachukayev. Further, the investigators failed to establish the identity of the owners of the UAZ vehicles which had been driving around the village on the night of the abduction and to question their drivers. The investigators failed to question the Russian military servicemen who had manned the Russian military checkpoint on the eastern outskirts of Urus-Martan or to check its registration log reflecting the passage of vehicles and persons on the ni
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18 ... 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
