Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.04.2009 «Дело Малсагова и другие (Malsagova and others) против России» [англ.]

he Government.
121. Turning to the facts of the case, the Court notes that, according to the applicants, they applied to the authorities asking for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Saydi Malsagov immediately after his abduction, that is, on 7 November 2002. The Government did not contest this. However, the investigation was opened on 13 November 2002, that is six days later. This delay, for which no explanation was provided, was in itself liable to affect the investigation of a crime such as abduction in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action must be taken promptly.
122. The Court further observes that the investigators failed to take such basic investigative measures as conducting witnesses' interviews in a timely fashion. For instance, the first applicant was questioned for the first time on 19 November 2002. Ms S., Saydi Malsagov's wife and an eyewitness to his abduction and the seventh applicant were questioned for the first time on 1 August 2003, which is almost nine months after the events. Mr A. and three other neighbours of the applicants were questioned on 28 December 2004. The fourth applicant was questioned for the first time on 29 December 2004, that is, over two years after Saydi Malsagov's disappearance. Ms Z.T., an eyewitness to the crime, was questioned for the first time as late as 26 March 2006, that is three and a half years after her uncle's abduction.
123. The Court observes that in the present case the investigating authorities not only did not comply with the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, No. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II), but failed to take the most elementary investigative steps. Most notably, there is no information that the crime scene had ever been inspected. It also appears that Mayrsolt Malsagov, the father of the missing man and an eyewitness to the abduction, was never questioned. His death in itself could not justify such an omission, as it occurred almost a year after the commencement of the investigation. Lastly, nothing in the materials at the Court's disposal allows the conclusion that the investigators ever tried to question military servicemen who had been stationed in Urus-Martan or manned the checkpoints in its vicinity on the night of the abduction.
124. The Court also notes that even though the first applicant was granted victim status two months after the commencement of the investigation, she was not informed of any significant developments in the investigation apart from several decisions on its suspension and resumption. Furthermore, the fourth applicant was granted victim status more than two years after the crime. Accordingly, the Court finds that 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 (see {Oyur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
125. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation was suspended and resumed several times. Such handling of the investigation could not but have had a negative impact on the prospects of identifying the perpetrators and establishing the fate of Saydi Malsagov.
126. Having regard to the limb of the Government's preliminary objection that was joined to the merits of the complaint, inasmuch as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court observes that the investigation, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been ongoing for over six years having produced no tangible results. For the purposes of evaluation of the effectiveness of the remedy relied on by the Government it considers irrelevant the fact that the present application was lodged seven months after the commencement of the investigat

> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 19 20 21

0.165 с