tance, the investigators failed to undertake measures to identify the military vehicles which were used in the abduction of Bekkhan Alaudinov; they failed to question the chief officers of the Urus-Martan district military commander's office ... and failed to identify and question the officer whom L. Alaudinova identified as one of her son's abductors.
In these circumstances the court finds that the applicant's request for an effective and thorough investigation is substantiated ..."
The remainder of the applicant's complaint was rejected.
61. On 27 September 2004 the applicant lodged a request for an extension of the time limit for appeal against the decision of 13 August 2004. On 12 November 2004 the town court rejected her request.
62. On 14 March 2005 the applicant lodged a new complaint with the Urus-Martan town court. She complained that in spite of the court's decision of 13 August 2004 the authorities had failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the abduction of her son. She sought a ruling obliging the prosecutor's office to conduct an effective investigation of the criminal case and provide her with access to the criminal case file.
63. On 16 March 2005 the town court rejected her complaint. On 11 May 2005 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal.
II. Relevant domestic law
64. 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 objection regarding
Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
A. The parties' submissions
65. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Bekkhan Alaudinov had not yet been completed. They further argued that the applicant had lodged a court complaint challenging the omissions of the investigators, that this complaint had been granted in part and that the absence of a desirable outcome for the applicant did not mean that these domestic remedies had been ineffective.
66. The applicant contested this objection. She stated that the only effective remedy in her case had been the criminal investigation into her son's abduction; however, this remedy had proved to be ineffective.
B. The Court's assessment
67. As regards criminal-law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that the applicant complained to the lawenforcement authorities after the kidnapping of Bekkhan Alaudinov and that an investigation into his abduction has been pending since 12 December 2001. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation.
68. Furthermore, the Court considers that the Government's objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 2. Thus, it considers that the objection should be joined to the merits and falls 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' arguments
69. The applicant maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away Bekkhan Alaudinov had been State agents. In support of her complaint she referred to the following facts. At the material time Urus-Martan had been under the total control of federal troops. The area was under a curfew. There had been Russian military checkpoints on the roads leading to and from the town. The armed men who
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
