rime by the applicants' submissions. The investigation in case No. 61146 was instituted on 3 November 2002, that is, nine days after Vakha Abdurzakov's abduction. Such a postponement per se was liable to affect the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in the first days after the event. The applicants, eyewitnesses to their son's abduction, were questioned for the first time more than a month after the kidnapping. Furthermore, the Court observes that, as can be seen from the decision of the district court, by 6 August 2004 the investigators had not questioned servicemen of the district military commander's office and other law enforcement agencies. 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).
110. A number of essential steps were never taken. Most notably, it does not appear that the investigation tried to identify and question the police officer of the VOVD named "Sergey" who had allegedly taken the money from Ms Yu. The Court takes a note of the Government's comment that it was checked whether a person "Sergey Konstantinov" had served in the FSB Department. Nevertheless, it does not transpire from the materials submitted to the Court that any measures have ever been taken to identify two policemen, "Sergey" and "Volodya", who had allegedly been in the Chechen Republic on a mission at the time of the events.
111. The Court also notes that even though the first applicant was granted victim status in case No. 61146, she was 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 interests of the next of kin in the proceedings.
112. Finally, the Court notes that the investigation in case No. 61146 was suspended and resumed three times and that there were lengthy periods of inactivity of the district prosecutor's office. In particular, no proceedings whatsoever were pending between 11 November 2004 and 7 September 2007. It appears that the investigation was resumed only after the Court had given notice of the present application to the Government.
113. The Court will now examine the limb of the Government's objection that was joined to the merits of the complaint (see paragraph 77 above). Inasmuch as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court notes that the authorities' failure to take necessary and urgent investigative measures undermined the effectiveness of the investigation in its early stages. Furthermore, the Government mentioned that the applicants had the opportunity 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 did, in fact, make use of that remedy (see paragraphs 61 - 66 above). On one occasion it even led to the resumption of the investigation (see paragraph 62 above). However, the authorities still failed to investigate the applicants' allegations properly. Moreover, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative measures that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer usefully be conducted. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants could not be required to challenge in court every single decision of the district prosecutor's office. Accordingly, the Court finds that the criminal-law remedies relied on by the Governm
> 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
