plied to the Court. According to them, the investigator had put in the transcripts the statements they had never made and then had misled them into signing the transcripts. They also pointed out that while the first applicant's complaint to the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic concerned the transcript of his questioning on 25 October 2005, the Prosecutor's Office failed to address this issue and instead referred to the transcripts of 21 and 26 October 2005. The applicants contended that, in view of the above, the Government had failed to comply with their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention.
B. The Court's assessment
143. The Court reiterates that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted by Article 34 that applicants or potential applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, cited above, § 105, and Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2288, § 105). In this context, "pressure" includes not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy (see Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, § 159, Reports 1998-III).
144. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that no evidence has been presented to it to prove that the transcripts of the first applicant's questioning on 25 October 2005 and of the fifth applicant questioning on 26 October 2005 were forged. Both transcripts were signed by the first and fifth applicants respectively and contained a record to the effect that they had read the transcripts, done in their own hand. It is not alleged that their signatures or handwriting were forged. The Court finds the first applicant's allegation that he signed the transcript without having read it "because he trusted the investigator" and later discovered that it contained statements he had not made not to be sufficiently plausible to cast doubt on the accuracy of the transcript. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the transcripts contain accurate records of the first and fifth applicants' questioning on 25 and 26 October 2005 respectively.
145. The Court has next to decide whether the fact that questions were put to the first and fifth applicants with regard to their application to the Court is compatible with Article 34 of the Convention.
146. The Court reiterates that in Akdivar and Others (cited above, §§ 104 - 105) the Court has found that direct questioning of persons thought to be applicants about an application to the Court which is filmed and in the course of which they are asked to make statements declaring that no such applications had been made constitutes a hindrance of the effective exercise of the right of individual petition. At the same time, in Imakayeva (cited above, § 206) the Court found that questioning of the applicant with regard to the application before the Court did not constitute a breach of the State's obligation under Article 34 since the applicant herself did not refer to any particular threats or other attempts to dissuade her from applying to the Court.
147. In the present case the applicants did not allege that any pressure was put on them in connection with their application before the Court. Indeed, they denied that any questions were put to them in this regard at all. At the same time, from the transcripts of questioning it appears that a question with regard to the fact of applying to the Court was put to the first and fifth applicants.
148. The Court notes that, in so far as the transcripts of questioning are concerned,
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
