no criminal proceedings had ever been brought against Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov, he had not been arrested by any of those law-enforcement agencies, nor kept in any detention centres, there was no information as to whether he had participated in illegal armed groups, he had not been found among unidentified corpses and had never applied for assistance to any medical institutions. The replies also stated that the federal forces had not conducted any special operation in the Urus-Martan District on 10 April 2003, and that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov's whereabouts could not be established despite steps taken to find him.
35. In the Government's submission, at present investigative actions are being taken aiming at resolving the crime and punishing those responsible.
3. The applicant's complaints to the judiciary
36. On 26 January 2004 the applicant complained to Urus-Martan Town Court that the investigators were taking no action in case No. 34051. She also requested that she be admitted to the proceedings as a victim and a civil party and be allowed access to the investigation file. It is unclear whether Urus-Martan Town Court replied to that complaint.
37. On 22 March 2004 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic that the investigation was ineffective and requested that she be admitted to the proceedings as a victim and a civil party and be allowed access to the investigation file.
38. On 12 May 2004 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicant's complaint to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic to be examined in compliance with the subject matter jurisdiction rules.
39. It is unclear whether the applicant's complaints have been examined by domestic courts.
B. The Court's request for the investigation file
40. In September 2007, when the application was communicated to them, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in criminal case No. 34051 opened in connection with the abduction of the applicant's son. The Government refused to submit any documents from the file, stating that under Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure disclosure of the documents was contrary to the interests of the investigation and could entail a breach of the rights of the participants in the criminal proceedings. They also submitted that they had taken into account the possibility of requesting confidentiality under Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, but noted that the Court provided no guarantees that once in receipt of the investigation file the applicant or her representatives would not disclose these materials to the public. According to the Government, in the absence of any sanctions in respect of the applicant for the disclosure of confidential information and materials, there were no guarantees concerning compliance by the applicant with the Convention and the Rules of Court.
41. In December 2007 the Court reiterated its request. In reply, the Government again refused to produce any documents from the file for the aforementioned reasons. At the same time, they suggested that a Court delegation could be given access to the file in Russia, with the exception of those documents containing military and State secrets, and without the right to make copies of the case file.
II. Relevant domestic law
42. For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Kukayev v. Russia, No. 29361/02, §§ 67 - 69, 15 November 2007.
THE LAW
I. The Government's objection regarding
exhaustion of domestic remedies
43. The Government argued that the investigation into the abduction of the applicant's son had not been completed, and that therefore the domestic remedies had not been exhausted
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
