Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Магомадова (Magomadova) против России» [англ.]

commander's office). None of them had any information concerning the arrest or the whereabouts of Ibragim Uruskhanov.
20. On 12 April 2002 the applicant complained about her son's abduction to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor's office (the district prosecutor's office) and the VOVD and requested assistance in establishing his whereabouts. In her complaints to the authorities she stated that on the night of 12 April a group of masked men in camouflage uniforms had broken into her house and taken Ibragim Uruskhanov away.
21. On 18 April 2002 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Ibragim Uruskhanov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 61074.
22. On 19 April 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.
23. On 23 April 2002 the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor's office. She complained that her son had been abducted by a group of fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms, and requested assistance in establishing his whereabouts.
24. On 27 April 2002 the applicant wrote to the military prosecutor of an unspecified military unit. She complained that her son had been abducted by a group of fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms and requested assistance in establishing his whereabouts.
25. On 4 June 2002 the Chechnya department of the Federal Security Service (the Chechnya FSB) informed the applicant that they had forwarded her complaint about her son's abduction to the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 for examination.
26. On 18 June 2002 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators.
27. On 22 June 2002 the head of the VOVD informed the applicant that they had opened an operational search file to establish her son's whereabouts. The letter also stated that the search measures undertaken by the VOVD had failed to produce any results.
28. On 4 July 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the applicant's complaint about her son's abduction to the district prosecutor's office for inclusion in the criminal case file materials.
29. On 20 January 2003 the applicant wrote to the district military commander's office. She stated that on 12 April 2002 a group of officers from law enforcement agencies of the Urus-Martan district had abducted her son; that they had neither identified themselves nor produced any documents and that they had not informed her whether any charges had been brought against her son. The applicant pointed out that she had complained about her son's abduction to a number of State authorities, but none of them had provided any information concerning her son's whereabouts and the identities of the perpetrators. Finally, she requested to be informed whether any criminal charges had been brought against Ibragim Uruskhanov and asked for assistance in the search for his whereabouts.
30. On 13 May 2003 the Department of the Prosecutor General's office in the Southern Federal Circuit informed the applicant that her complaint about the abduction and subsequent disappearance of her son had been forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor's office for examination.
31. On 19 February 2004 the Pyatigorsk town prosecutor's office informed the applicant that Ibragim Uruskhanov was not detained in the No. 2 pre-trial detention centre (СИ-2 УИН МЮ РФ по СК).
32. On 25 March 2004 the applicant wrote to the Chechnya FSB requesting assistance in the search for her son.
33. On 6 April 2004 the Chechnya FSB replied to the applicant stating that they had no information concerning the reasons for her son's abduction, his whereabouts or the identities of his abductors.

> 1 2 3 4 ... 21 22 23