Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.09.2010 «Дело Искандаров (Iskandarov) против России» [англ.]

g.

B. The Government's account of events

61. On 1 December 2004 the Russian Prosecutor General's Office received a petition for the applicant's extradition from the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office.
62. On 9 December 2004 the applicant was arrested in Moscow.
63. On 17 December 2004 the Russian Prosecutor General's Office received an official request for the applicant's extradition, citing the charges of terrorism, gangsterism, unlawful possession of arms, embezzlement and unlawful hiring of bodyguards.
64. On 1 April 2005 the Russian Prosecutor General's Office refused to extradite the applicant on the basis of Article 19 of the Minsk Convention owing to the fact that he had applied for asylum.
65. On 4 April 2005 the applicant was released from custody.
66. On 6 July 2005 the Korolev town prosecutor's office instituted criminal proceedings in relation to the applicant's abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code ("aggravated kidnapping"). The case was assigned number 27807.
67. The investigation established that at about 11 p.m. on 15 April 2005 the applicant had been walking along a street in the vicinity of the house at 14 Sovetskaya Street, Korolev, and had presumably been kidnapped by unidentified persons.
68. Later it became known that the applicant had been arrested in Dushanbe by the Tajik authorities.
69. The investigators questioned Mr L. and his son and daughter, as well as police officers who had been on duty on the night of 15 April 2005 in the vicinity of Sovetskaya Street and the applicant's son.
70. On 8 July 2005 Mr L. stated that the applicant, a friend of his daughter, had been staying in their home since 12 April 2005. On 15 April 2005 Mr L. had gone outside to walk his dog; the applicant had accompanied him to have a cigarette. Mr L., a non-smoker, had walked in the opposite direction to the applicant. At some point he had stumbled upon two men wearing police uniforms and talked to them for some fifteen minutes. Then he had returned home; the applicant was not there. Mr L. and his daughter, Ms L., had searched for the applicant and checked with police stations but in vain. After a while Ms L. had read on the Internet that the applicant had been arrested in Tajikistan.
71. Ms L. and Mr L.'s son made identical depositions.
72. The investigators checked whether the applicant had been taken away by plane from Chkalovskiy Airport. No proof of this hypothesis was found.
73. On 20 June 2005 the Korolev prosecutor's office granted the applicant victim status in criminal case No. 27807.
74. On 18 July 2005 the Korolev prosecutor's office, pursuant to Articles 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Minsk Convention, requested the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office to establish the applicant's whereabouts and to question him about his abduction and transfer from Russia.
75. On 24 August 2005 the Russian authorities requested the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office to question the applicant and to allow him to study the decision to grant him victim status. On 29 December 2005 Mr Kh., an investigator of the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office, replied that on several occasions he had visited the applicant in the remand prison of the Tajik Ministry of Security in connection with criminal case No. 27807 but that the applicant had refused to make any statements or to study the decision to grant him victim status.
76. The investigation did not establish that any officers of the Russian law-enforcement agencies had been involved in the applicant's kidnapping.
77. On 3 October 2008 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify those responsible.

II. Relevant domestic law

A. Constitution of

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 17 18 19