Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Тасатаевы (Tasatayevy) против России» [англ.]

mander, the Chechnya military commander, the Chechnya prosecutor's office, the district prosecutor's office and the Urus-Martan ROVD. They stated that their sons had been abducted by a group of twenty-five to thirty masked military servicemen, who had communicated with each other by gesturing and acted as a group with chain of command; that the servicemen had refused to explain the reasons for the arrest of the applicants' sons and promised to release them on the following morning. According to the applicants, this evidence indicated that their sons had been abducted by servicemen of Russian security services. The applicants further stated that their complaints to various State bodies had failed to produce any results and requested assistance in the search for their abducted sons.
25. On 20 December 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the applicants that the criminal investigation had been suspended on 8 September 2001 for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators.
26. On 19 April 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.
27. On 7 May 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor's office forwarded the applicants' complaint about the abduction of their sons by Russian servicemen to the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (the military prosecutor's office of the UGA) for examination.
28. On 9 April 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about this decision on 9 May 2003.
29. On 12 May 2003 the department of the Prosecutor General's office in the Southern Federal Circuit informed the applicants that their complaint, that the investigation in the criminal case had been ineffective, had been forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor's office for examination.
30. On 24 June 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the applicants that they had examined their complaints about the abduction of Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev. The letter stated that on 8 September 2001 the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended; that on two occasions, that is on 9 April and on 21 June 2003, the decisions to suspend the investigation had been overruled by the acting district prosecutor due to the incompleteness of the investigation. The letter further stated that on an unspecified date the investigation had been resumed and that measures aimed at identifying the perpetrators were under way.
31. On 11 July 2003 the military prosecutor's office of the UGA forwarded the applicants' complaint about the abduction of their sons to the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 for examination; the latter was to look into possible involvement of Russian military servicemen in the abduction of Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev.
32. On 23 July 2003 the investigators again suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators. The applicants were not informed about this decision.
33. On 4 September 2003 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 informed the applicants that the examination of their complaint had established that on 31 May 2001 during special operations conducted in the Urus-Martan district Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev had not been abducted by Russian military servicemen.
34. On 3 March 2005 the applicants wrote to the district prosecutor's office describing the circumstances of their sons' abduction and pointing out that there was evidence of the involvement of Russian military forces in the incident. The applicants also complained that the investigation in the criminal case was ineffective and that there was no information about it, and requested access to the investigation file.

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 15 16 17