there is no evidence that any questions concerning the contents of their application were put to the applicants. According to the transcripts, in the course of the questioning the first applicant stated that he had not applied to the Court directly, but that he had applied to human rights' organisations. The fifth applicant stated that she had not personally applied to any organisations, including the Court, since the search for her brother was carried out by the first applicant. The Court observes that the interpretation of the applicants' replies may be twofold. They might have meant to deny the fact of their application before the Court, possibly because they did not want the authorities to be aware of it at that stage. Their answers may also be interpreted as clarifying that they did not apply to the Court personally, but through a representative. However, the Court does not find it necessary to decide on particular interpretation of the applicants' replies since, in any event, the materials available disclose no evidence that the first and fifth applicants received any threats or were subjected to any other forms of pressure in connection with their application before the Court.
149. The Court observes that in its reply of 12 April 2006 the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic referred to transcripts of the first applicant's questioning on 21 and 26 October 2005 which indeed contained no mentioning of his application before the Court. The Prosecutor's Office's failure to address the transcript of the first applicant's questioning on 25 October 2005 created certain confusion as to the exact content of the questioning, especially taking into account the Government's request to strike the application out of the Court's list of cases (paragraph 55 above). However, in view of the foregoing the Court considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, this failure on its own does not give rise to issues under Article 34 of the Convention.
150. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been no failure to comply with the respondent State's obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.
IX. Observance of Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention
151. The applicants argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court at the communication stage disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant:
"1. If the Court declares the application admissible, it shall
(a) pursue the examination of the case, together with the representatives of the parties, and if need be, undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities;
..."
152. The applicants invited the Court to conclude that the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in response to the Court's requests was incompatible with their obligations under Article 38 of the Convention.
153. The Government reiterated that the submission of the case file would be contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
154. The Court reiterates that proceedings in certain types of applications do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle whereby a person who alleges something must prove that allegation and that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted under Article 34 of the Convention that States should furnish all necessary facilities to make possible a proper and effective examination of applications.
155. This obligation requires the Contracting States to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court, whether it is conducting a fact-finding investigation or performing
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 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
