Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.03.2009 «Дело Халитова (Khalitova) против России» [англ.]

ets, and without the right to make copies of the case file.

II. Relevant domestic law

40. 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

41. The Government argued that the investigation into the murder of the applicant's husband had not been completed, and that therefore the domestic remedies had not been exhausted in respect of her complaints.
42. The applicant called into question the effectiveness of the investigation, stating that in her case it was not a remedy under Article 35 of the Convention. She also asserted that an administrative practice consisting of the authorities' continuing failure to conduct adequate investigations into offences committed by representatives of the federal forces in the Chechen Republic rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in her case. In this connection she relied on applications submitted to the Court by other individuals claiming to be victims of similar violations.
43. The Court considers that the Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies raises issues which are closely linked to the question of the effectiveness of the investigation. It therefore decides to join this objection to the merits of the applicant's complaint under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

44. The applicant complained that her husband had been killed by unidentified Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

A. Admissibility

45. The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. Alleged failure to protect the right to life

(a) Submissions by the parties
46. The applicant insisted that it was beyond reasonable doubt that her husband had been killed by servicemen of the federal armed forces. She claimed to that end that at the material time the territory where her husband had been murdered had been under the firm control of the federal forces, that the alleged perpetrators had arrived in armoured personnel carriers, such heavy military vehicles being in exclusive possession of the State, and that after the murder the alleged perpetrators had passed a military unit located on the north-western outskirts of Goyskoye and then gone through a federal check-point on the motorway between Goyskoye and Urus-Martan.
47. The applicant further argued that the Government had not advanced any convincing argument to suggest that Mr Lecha Khazhmuradov had been killed by any persons other than federal servicemen. She also pointed t



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 12 13 14

	Поделиться:	Tweet