e as late as April 2004 (see paragraph 48 above). The investigation commenced only after that decision had been quashed by the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic. The Government provided no explanation whatsoever of the fact that the district prosecutor's office had not taken any procedural decision on a report of a serious crime for more than four months.
108. The Court is not persuaded that the applicants' move to another village within the territory of the Chechen Republic indeed impeded the investigation as suggested by the Government. Moreover, it does not accept the Government's argument that the first applicant should have applied not to the President's Administration but to the district prosecutor's office. It reiterates in this connection that the issue of whether the applicants have lodged a formal complaint about their son's disappearance with the competent investigating authorities is not decisive since the authorities' mere knowledge of a kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances gives rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident (see, mutatis mutandis, Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, § 82, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; and {Yasa} v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, § 100, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI).
109. Accordingly, the Court finds that the investigating authorities should be held responsible for the delay in commencing the investigation between 29 August 2003 and 5 August 2004. In the Court's view, this significant delay was in itself liable to affect the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in a timely fashion.
110. Furthermore, the Court notes that even after the commencement of the proceedings certain requisite investigating measures were delayed. For example, it appears reasonable to assume that the applicants, being the parents of the missing young man and eyewitnesses to his abduction, should have been considered key witnesses in the criminal case. However, the investigators questioned them for the first time several months after the proceedings had been instituted (see paragraphs 50 and 51 above). It is obvious that these interviews, if they were to produce any meaningful results, should have been conducted as soon as the investigation had commenced. Such delays, for which there has been no explanation in the instant case, not only demonstrate the authorities' failure to act of their own motion but also constitute a breach of 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).
111. The Court also points out that some crucial investigative steps have apparently not been taken. In particular, nothing in the material in the Court's possession suggests that the district prosecutor's office has ever tried to question the servicemen of military unit No. 24 who were based near the applicants' home village or to establish the owner of the APC and IBV that allegedly moved around Akhkinchu-Borzoy on 22 November 2002.
112. The Court also notes that even though the applicants were eventually granted victim status in case No. 44034, they were only informed of the suspension and resumption of the proceedings, and not of any other significant developments. Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, or to safeguard the legitimate interests of the next of kin of the victim in the proceedings (see {Ogur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
113. Lastly, the Court notes that the investigation in case No. 44034 was suspended and then resumed at least three times and that no
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
