Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.07.2010 <Дело Ахматхановы (Akhmatkhanovy) против России» [англ.]

osecutor's office, were searching for Artur Akhmatkhanov.
31. On 17 May 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor's office again forwarded the applicants' request for assistance in the search for Artur Akhmatkhanov to the district prosecutor's office for examination. In response, on 3 July 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that on 3 July 2004 they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case.
32. On 19 October 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that their complaint had been examined and included in the investigation file.
33. On 20 March 2006 the Chechnya prosecutor's office again forwarded the applicants' request for assistance to the district prosecutor's office for examination.
34. On 5 May 2006 the Russian Federal Service of the Execution of Punishment informed the applicants that Artur Akhmatkhanov was not being held in their detention centres.
35. In December 2006 the first applicant visited the district prosecutor's office to request information about the progress of the investigation. The investigator, who was in charge of the case at the time, Mr R.Ya., told her that the investigation file did not contain any information about the collection of the blood samples and the cartridge cases from the crime scene.
36. On 10 January 2007 the second applicant wrote to the district prosecutor. He described in detail the circumstances of his son's abduction and stated that during the crime scene examination the investigators had collected cartridge cases and blood samples; that the investigator, Mr Ka., had told him that this collected evidence had been forwarded to the expert evaluation centre in Rostov-on-Don and that the results were supposed to be received in forty-five days; that the investigator had explained to him that the cartridge cases would allow the experts to identify the weapons used during the shooting, as the latter were supposed to be individually registered. The applicant requested the district prosecutor to provide him with a copy of the crime scene examination report of 3 April 2003 and a copy of the decisions ordering the expert evaluation of the evidence collected at the crime scene.
37. On 16 January 2007 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the applicants that on the same date they had resumed the investigation in the criminal case.
38. On 25 January 2007 the ROVD informed the applicants that on 13 April 2002 (it appears that the date is incorrect) they had opened search file No. 71442 to establish the whereabouts of Artur Akhmatkhanov and that a search for the applicants' relative was under way.
39. On 26 February 2007 the second applicant again wrote to the district prosecutor. He stated that in spite of the numerous pieces of evidence, such as the cartridge cases left by the perpetrators, the APCs and the fact that on 2 April 2003 the Shali law enforcement agencies had conducted a special operation to find a leader of illegal armed groups, Mr R.Ch., the investigators had failed to identify the servicemen who had conducted this operation and abducted Artur Akhmatkhanov. He further stated that his son's whereabouts had not been established for several years and that the investigation file in the criminal case did not contain the evidence collected from the crime scene on 3 April 2003. The applicant requested the prosecutor to provide him with access to the investigation file, to allow him to make a copy of its contents and to resume the investigation in the criminal case. No reply was received from the authorities.

2. Information submitted by the Government

40. On 2 April 2003 the second applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office that his son had been abducted "by military servicemen in four APCs". He wrote that the servicemen had b

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 18 19 20