Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 «Дело Джамаева и другие (Dzhamayeva and others) против России» [англ.]

/> Section 15. Informing the public about terrorist acts
"...2. Information that cannot be released to the public includes:
(1) information disclosing the special methods, techniques and tactics of an anti-terrorist operation;...
(4) information on members of special units, officers of the operational centre managing an anti-terrorist operation and persons assisting in carrying out such operation.
Section 21. Exemption from liability for damage
In accordance with the legislation and within the limits established by it, damage may be caused to the life, health and property of terrorists, as well as to other legally-protected interests, in the course of conducting an anti-terrorist operation. However, servicemen, experts and other persons engaged in the suppression of terrorism shall be exempted from liability for such damage, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation."
59. Federal Law No. 1026-1 of 18 April 1991 on the Police governs various aspects of the police service.
60. Presidential Decree No. 1255c of 23 September 1999 on Measures Enhancing the Efficiency of Counter-Terrorist Operations in the Territory of the North Caucasia Region provides for the creation of the UGA and contains general provisions concerning its structure and operation. It also provides for additional measures to be taken by local authorities and the FSB to maintain public order and security in the region.

THE LAW

I. The Government's objection concerning non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies

A. The parties' submissions

61. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the applicants had failed to challenge either before a higher prosecutor or a court any actions or omissions of the investigating authorities during the investigation, as provided by Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and to appeal against the decision of 26 March 2007 to discontinue the investigation. They also pointed out that the applicants had not lodged a claim for compensation of non-pecuniary damage under Articles 1067 - 69 of the Civil Code.
62. The applicants disputed that objection. They maintained that they had exhausted all domestic remedies which could be adequate and effective. The applicants submitted that the criminal-law remedies invoked by the Government were not effective in the Chechen Republic. They pointed out that applicants in other cases raising similar issues had lodged complaints under Article 125 of the Code on Criminal procedure, but that these had been to no avail. The applicants submitted, furthermore, that they were not provided with a copy of the decision of 26 March 2007 to discontinue the investigation, which was not furnished to the Court either, and, therefore, could not have appealed against it. The applicants further argued that the civil-law remedies relied on by the Government could not be considered effective since their outcome would depend on the results of the criminal investigation.

B. The Court's assessment

63. The Court will examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia, No. 60272/00, § 73 - 74, 12 October 2006).
64. The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies.
65. As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regar



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 22 23 24

	Поделиться:	Tweet