ght of the abduction. Nor did they question the local military commander about those who had obtained his permission to drive around after curfew on the night of the abduction.
133. Furthermore, it does not appear that the investigation fully established the circumstances of Murad Khachukayev's death. Even though a forensic examination of his remains was carried out (see paragraph 30 above) it does not appear that it established the time and the cause of his death. The investigators failed to question the residents of Urus-Martan and the nearby villages who had heard the explosion on the night of Murad Khachukayev's abduction (see paragraph 23 above) or to establish the identity of the witnesses who might have seen the perpetrators on the site of the explosion.
134. The Court also notes that even though the applicant was granted victim status, he was only informed of the suspensions and resumptions of the proceedings, and not of any other significant developments. Accordingly, 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.
135. Lastly, the Court notes that the investigation was suspended and resumed at least seven times and that there were long periods of inactivity during the years when it was pending.
136. The Government raised the possibility for the applicant to make use of judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes that the applicant, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged the actions or omissions of investigating authorities before a court (see paragraphs 46, 51 and 54 above). Furthermore, the investigation was resumed by the prosecuting authorities themselves a number of times owing to the need to take additional investigative steps (see paragraphs 34 and 36 above) or after the local court had granted the applicant's complaint in that respect (see paragraph 54 above). However, the prosecutor's office still failed to investigate the applicant's allegations properly. Moreover, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative measures that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer usefully be conducted. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection as regards the applicant's failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation.
137. In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the abduction and subsequent killing of Murad Khachukayev.
IV. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention
138. The applicant further stated that Murad Khachukayev had been detained in violation of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
...
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance
> 1 2 3 ... 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
