On 30 August 2007 the applicants� lawyer brought court proceedings challenging inaction of the investigating authority. By a judgment of 8 October 2007 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala dismissed the complaint. On 14 January 2008 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld the judgment.
The second applicant sought judicial review of the suspension decision of 26 February 2007. By a judgment of 25 July 2008 the District Court dismissed the complaint.
B. Investigation concerning the dispersal of the public gathering
In separate proceedings the second applicant complained to the Regional prosecutor�s office about the dispersal of the public gathering.
On 17 July 2006 a prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the alleged unlawful dispersal of the public gathering.
On 5 October 2006 the supervising prosecutor annulled this decision considering that the inquiry had not been thorough.
On 14 December 2006 the district prosecutor issued a refusal to bring criminal proceedings.
C. Proceedings before the Court
On 11 June 2008 the first applicant issued an authority form by which he authorised Ms K. Kostromina to lodge an application before the Court. On 11 July 2008 lawyers O. Mikhaylova and K. Kostromina lodged an application before the Court on behalf of the applicants. No authority form was submitted in respect of the second applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that their relative deceased in the circumstances disclosing an unlawful and excessive use of lethal force. They also contend that no effective investigation was carried out.
Lastly, the applicants allege that the circumstances of the case disclose violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the present application validly lodged by the second applicant?
In particular, did the applicants� relative�s death result from use of force which was absolutely necessary for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Article?
Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?