tance and no unidentified corpses with features similar to theirs had been found. The responses also confirmed that a unit of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior had been stationed on the premises of the former canning factory (see paragraph 30 above).
48. According to the response received from the Operational-Search Bureau No. 2 of the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit (Оперативно-розыскное бюро-2 Главного управления по ЮФО МВД РФ), their units had not conducted any special operations in Chechen-Aul and they did not have any information about the whereabouts of the abducted men.
49. According to the Government, although the investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev and the perpetrators of his abduction, it was still in progress. Additional information requests had been forwarded to various military and law enforcement agencies. The applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation.
50. Despite specific request by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents from criminal case No. 19074 stating that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
II. Relevant domestic law
51. 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
as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
A. The parties' submissions
52. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to lodge court complaints against the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities, but that the applicants had not availed themselves of that remedy. They also argued that it had been open to the applicants to pursue civil complaints but they had failed to do so.
53. The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective. Referring to the other cases concerning such crimes reviewed by the Court, they also alleged that the existence of an administrative practice of non-investigation of crimes committed by State servicemen in Chechnya rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in their case. They also pointed out that the lack of information about the criminal investigation had precluded them from complaining to domestic courts.
B. The Court's assessment
54. The Court will examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia, No. 60272/00, §§ 73 - 74, 12 October 2006).
55. The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies.
56. As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
