Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 14.05.2009 «Дело Тайсумов и другие (Taysumov and others) против России» [англ.]

of Chechen-Aul by the federal troops. The letter then referred to the results of expert examination No. 615-C conducted on 12 September 2002 and stated that the above hypothesis had proved to be unfounded. The experts had found fragments of detonating devices for artillery shells of 122-mm calibre in the shell craters, but it had been established that those shells had been transformed into home-made explosive devices and dug into the ground by members of illegal armed groups rather then launched from artillery ordnance. Moreover, the federal troops stationed in Khankala had not conducted any artillery shelling on 7 September 2002 and, in any event, they had no shells of 122-mm calibre. The letter concluded that "the series of explosions" in Chechen-Aul was due to "terrorist activities of members of illegal armed groups, who had buried and then blown up the explosive devices", but not to artillery shelling by the federal military forces. In the absence of any evidence of the involvement of military personnel in the crime, the case file had been transmitted to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic on 27 May 2003. The letter also informed the first applicant about the decision of 9 September 2002 by which he had been granted victim status, and enclosed a copy of that decision.
29. According to the first applicant, he first became aware of the expert examination of 12 September 2002 upon receipt of the above letter but had no access to the results of that examination.
30. On 4 June 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the unit prosecutor's office.
31. On 9 July 2003 the SRJI, acting on the first applicant's behalf, requested an update on progress in the investigation into the killing of the Taysumov family from the unit prosecutor's office. They also requested that the first applicant be admitted to the proceedings as a victim.
32. On 14 August 2003 the unit prosecutor's office replied that by decision of the district prosecutor's office of 9 September 2002 the first applicant had been granted victim status and then questioned.
33. On 24 October 2003 the SRJI applied on the first applicant's behalf to the district prosecutor's office arguing that the expert examination of 12 September 2002 had been improperly conducted and its results were rather controversial. In that connection, the SRJI requested the investigating authorities to carry out a new expert examination in the presence of the first applicant, his representative and an independent expert.
34. According to the first applicant, at some point a group of investigators visited his house and examined the destroyed minibus, but did not explain their actions.
35. On 20 November 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant and the SRJI that the investigation into the deaths of the applicants' relatives had been instituted on 8 September 2002 and that case file No. 56136 had been referred to the unit prosecutor's office on 15 October 2002.
36. On 3 October 2005 the SRJI requested the unit prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic to carry out a new expert examination in the presence of the first applicant, his representative and an independent expert.
37. On 17 October 2005 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the SRJI's letter of 3 October 2005 to the UGA prosecutor's office, which in turn forwarded it to the unit prosecutor's office.
38. On 19 January 2007 the SRJI requested the unit prosecutor's office to carry out a new expert examination and to reply to their previous letter.
39. On 15 March 2007 the unit prosecutor's office informed the SRJI that the case file was provisionally with the UGA prosecutor's office.

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