Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.09.2009 «Дело Магомадова и другие (Magomadova and others) против России» [англ.]

lan Magomadov.
34. On 5 June 2004 the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit informed the first applicant that its Department of Counterterrorist Operations had not abducted Ruslan Magomadov.
35. On 17 June 2004 the military prosecutor's office of the UGA informed the first applicant that information concerning the investigation into the abduction of Ruslan Magomadov was available at the Chechnya prosecutor's office.
36. On 2 July 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on an unspecified date they had resumed the investigation in the criminal case.
37. On 5 July 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that information about the criminal investigation was available at the district prosecutor's office.
38. In July 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on an unspecified date they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case.
39. On 10 August 2004 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 informed a number of State authorities, including the Chechnya prosecutor's office, that the theory of the involvement of Russian military forces in the abduction of Ruslan Magomadov had not been confirmed.
40. On 31 August 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the district prosecutor's office.
41. On 30 September 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that her request had been included in the criminal case file materials and that they were taking operational search measures to establish the identity of the perpetrators.
42. On 1 February 2005 the first applicant wrote to the Chechnya military commander. She complained about her son's abduction and stated that the intruders had taken his service weapon, a hunting rifle and a folder of official papers. She also pointed out that although the criminal investigation into the abduction had been instituted on 9 February 2003, for two years the authorities had failed to establish the whereabouts of Ruslan Magomadov.
43. On 16 February 2005 the fifth applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to inform her about the progress in the investigation of criminal case No. 50010.
44. On 18 February 2005 the fifth applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to resume the investigation in the criminal case.
45. On 24 February 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the fifth applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on 22 February 2005.
46. On 22 April 2005 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 informed the first applicant that the theory of the involvement of Russian military forces in the abduction of Ruslan Magomadov had not been confirmed.
47. On 18 May 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the district prosecutor's office was conducting an investigation into her son's disappearance.
48. On 20 May 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the fifth applicant that the investigation in criminal case No. 50010 had been resumed on 22 February 2005.
49. On an unspecified date the second applicant was granted victim status in criminal case No. 50010.

2. Information submitted by the Government

50. The Government submitted that on 9 February 2003, upon a complaint by the second applicant about the abduction of Ruslan Magomadov, the Grozny prosecutor's office had instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file had been given number 5001

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