rnment, or not at all. In particular, the Court notes that the fourth applicant was questioned for the first time on 20 February 2004, that is three years after the events. The fifth applicant and the applicants' neighbours were questioned for the first time in October 2005, that is over four years after Mr Magomed Dokuyev's disappearance. Furthermore, it appears that information from the UGA and the Temporary United Alignment of Agencies and Units of the Ministry of the Interior concerning special operations in Novye Atagi as well as replies from remand prisons in Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria and the Stavropol Region were only obtained in 2006. It is obvious that these 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.
92. Furthermore, from the materials available to the Court it appears that a number of essential steps were never taken. Most notably, there is no information that the crime scene had ever been inspected. Nor was there an inspection of the place where the first applicant had been dumped by his captors on 15 February 2001. Apparently no meaningful efforts had been made to trace the APCs after they had left Novye Atagi. Finally, it appears that the third and seventh applicant were never questioned.
93. 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 measures.
94. The Court also notes that even though the first applicant was granted victim status shortly after the institution of the investigation, he was not informed of any significant developments in the investigation apart from several decisions on its suspension and resumption. Furthermore, the second applicant was granted victim status more than four years later. 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.
95. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation was adjourned 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 Mr Magomed Dokuyev.
96. 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 notes that the investigation, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been ongoing for many years having produced no tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection in this part.
97. The Government also 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 measures. However, they still failed to investigate the applicants' allegations properly. Moreover, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative steps
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 22 23 24