Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Абаева и другие (Abayeva and others) против России» [англ.]

plained to the district prosecutor's office. She stated that in spite of all the information she had provided to the authorities they had failed to instigate an investigation into her son's disappearance. The applicant further provided the names and the addresses of the witnesses to the abduction and requested that the authorities instigate an investigation into the abduction of Magomed-Ali Abayev. She requested the authorities to question the servicemen who had been manning the checkpoint on 13 September 2000.
27. On 19 August 2002 the Chechnya department of the interior forwarded the fourth applicant's complaint to the ROVD, seeking a search for Anvar Shaipov to be set up.
28. On 28 August 2002 the district prosecutor's office summoned the first applicant for questioning.
29. On 22 January 2003 the fourth applicant complained to the Urus-Martan district military commander's office (the district military commander's office). She described in detail the circumstances of her son's abduction and requested assistance in the search for Anvar Shaipov.
30. On 6 February 2003 the district prosecutor's office forwarded a letter to the first applicant stating that on the same date they had instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file had been given the number 34013. According to the applicants, they were informed about this decision only on 11 March 2004 (see paragraph 51 below).
31. On 18 February 2003 the district prosecutor's office granted the fourth applicant victim status in the criminal case.
32. On 9 March 2004 the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office. She stated that Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov had been arrested by Russian servicemen; that their removal had been witnessed by a number of her neighbours and relatives; and that, in spite of her numerous complaints to the district prosecutor's office, the latter had failed to establish the whereabouts of the disappeared men. The applicant requested the authorities to take the following measures: to initiate an investigation into the abduction of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov, to grant her victim status in the criminal proceedings and conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance.
33. On 11 March 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on 6 February 2003 they had instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov and that on 7 April 2003 the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators.
34. On 12 April 2004 the first applicant requested the investigators to inform her about the progress of the investigation and take meaningful measures to establish the whereabouts of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov.
35. On 6 October 2004 the first applicant requested the investigators to provide her with access to the investigation file and to resume the investigation in the criminal case.
36. On 11 October 2004 the investigators informed the first applicant that under Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code she was entitled to familiarise herself with the investigation file only upon completion of the investigation. The letter also stated that the investigation had been suspended for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators.
37. On 12 June 2008 the investigators informed the applicants that on the same date they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators.

2. Information submitted by the Government

38. Referring to several witness statements, which are summarised below, and copies of

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 19 20 21