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

ion met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.
82. The Court notes at the outset that none of the documents from the investigation were disclosed by the Government. It therefore has to assess the effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by the applicants and the information about its progress presented by the Government.
83. The Court notes that the authorities were made aware of the crime by the applicants' submissions. However, the investigation in case No. 19074 was instituted on 9 June 2001, that is, four months after Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev's abduction. Such a postponement per se was liable to affect the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in the first days after the event. It appears that after that a number of essential steps were delayed. For instance, questioning of a number of witnesses was conducted only several months after the events (see paragraphs 22, 23, 25 above). It is obvious that these investigative measures, if they were to produce any meaningful results, should have been taken immediately after the crime was reported to the authorities, and as soon as the investigation commenced. Such delays, for which there has been no explanation in the instant case, not only demonstrate the authorities' failure to act of their own motion but also constitute a breach of 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).
84. A number of essential steps were never taken. Most notably, it does not appear that upon establishing that a law enforcement unit had indeed been stationed at the former canning factory at the material time (see paragraph 30 above), the investigation had not tried to establish and question the servicemen of this unit to establish whether they had been involved in the apprehension of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev or could have seen him on the factory premises after the apprehension. Furthermore, the investigators had failed to establish the identity of the owner of the APCs that had moved around Chechen-Aul on 8 February 2001.
85. The Court also notes that the applicants were not granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and that they were only informed of the suspension and resumption of the criminal case, 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.
86. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation in case No. 19074 was suspended and resumed several times and that there were lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the district prosecutor's office when no proceedings were pending.
87. The Government referring to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioned the possibility for the applicants to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court observes that the applicants, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged actions or omissions of investigating authorities before a court. Furthermore, the investigation has been resumed by the prosecuting authorities themselves a number of times due to the need to take additional investigative steps. However, they still failed to investigate properly the applicants' allegations. 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. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the remedy relied on would have

> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 17 18 19

0.1354 с