Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Исраилова и другие (Israilova and others) против России» [англ.]

thorities.
108. The applicants alleged that the persons who had abducted Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov on 30 December 2002 were State agents.
109. The Government suggested in their submission that the persons who had detained Adlan Dovtayev, Sharpuddin Israilov and the other six men could be members of paramilitary groups. However, this allegation was not specific and they did not submit any material to support it. The Court would stress in this regard that the evaluation of the evidence and the establishment of the facts is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see {Celikbilek} v. Turkey, No. 27693/95, § 71, 31 May 2005). Moreover, the Court emphasises that M.A. - one of the kidnapped police officers - was questioned while in detention about the terrorist attack on the House of the Government of the Chechen Republic (see paragraph 18 above) and considers that the nature of the information sought from M.A. suggests that the interview was not carried out by insurgents.
110. The Court notes that little evidence has been submitted by the applicants, which is easily understandable in the light of the investigators' reluctance to provide the relatives of the missing men with copies of important investigation documents. Nonetheless, it observes that the applicants' allegation of military involvement in the crime was supported by the eye-witness's official statements. Owing to the Government's refusal to provide any copies of the investigation file, the Court is not persuaded by their argument that M.A.'s explanation and interview record submitted by the applicants were not included in the investigation file and thus should not be considered valid evidence. It therefore accepts that on 4 January 2003 M.A. described the circumstances of the abduction and subsequent detention to the police officer in the course of an interview (see paragraphs 34 and 35 above).
111. The Court further notes that the domestic investigation considered the possibility of participation by State servicemen in the abduction of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov. For instance, the Government admitted that at some point the investigators took steps to verify M.A.'s account of the events by examining the site identified by the witness as the place of detention (see paragraph 70 above).
112. Moreover, the Court notes that, according to the report submitted by the applicants, the investigation questioned some FSB servicemen in an attempt to establish whether they had carried out any special operations in respect of the missing persons (see paragraph 82 above). At the same time it has had regard to the fact that this report was neither signed properly nor dated and takes note of the Government's allegation that it was not included in the investigation file. However, the nature of the report's contents suggests in itself that the document was drafted by a State agency involved in the investigation. The Government have not asserted that the applicants forged this document and the Court has no reasons to doubt its authenticity. Accordingly, it regards the report as valid evidence.
113. The Court also observes that, having undertaken an inquiry into the incident of 30 and 31 December 2002, the city prosecutor's office established that federal servicemen had been involved in the crime and transferred the case to a military prosecutor's office for further investigation (see paragraph 53 above). The Court takes note of the Government's assertion that such transfer in itself did not prove any servicemen's guilt. Nonetheless, it considers that the findings by the city prosecutor's office are capable - at the very least - of rendering the applicants' hypothesis more persuasive.
114. The Court emphasises that the Government have offered no explana



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 22 23 24

	Поделиться:	Tweet