Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.01.2009 «Дело Долсаев и другие (Dolsayev and others) против России» [англ.]

cant had stated that the intruders had initially enquired whether there were any weapons in the house, whereas according to the second applicant, the intruders had not asked any questions.
24. The Government also expressed their doubts concerning the reliability of the witness statement provided by the applicants' neighbour Ms A.M. In particular, they questioned her inability to distinguish between a tank and an APC and emphasised that she had not witnessed the Dolsayev brothers being placed in the vehicles.
(b) Subsequent events
25. The Government did not dispute that the applicants had seen the soldier with the knife which had been taken away by the abductors. However, they contended that the first and second applicants had provided inconsistent accounts of these events: according to the second applicant's witness statement of 14 August 2003, the events in question had taken place about a week after the abduction and the soldier had been walking alone, whereas according to the first applicant's witness statement given at a later date (the Government did not specify the date), the events in question had taken place about a month after the abduction and the soldier had been accompanied by two other servicemen.
26. The Government further stated that the applicants' failure to submit this information to the authorities in a timely manner had impeded the investigation into the abduction of the Dolsayev brothers.

B. Search for Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev
and the investigation into their disappearance

1. The applicants' account

(a) The official investigation into the disappearance of the applicants' relatives
27. Since 21 October 2002 the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies. They have been supported in their efforts by the SRJI. In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to their relatives' abduction and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. Mostly these enquiries have remained unanswered, or purely formal replies have been given in which the applicants' requests have been forwarded to various prosecutors' offices. The applicants submitted to the Court some of their letters to the authorities and their replies. These documents are summarised below.
28. On 21 October 2002, immediately after the detention of her sons, the second applicant wrote to the prosecutor's office of the Urus-Martan district ("the district prosecutor's office") describing in detail the circumstances of their abduction and asking for assistance in releasing them. In particular, she pointed out that on the morning after the abduction she and members of her family had discovered APC tyre marks next to their family's vegetable garden.
29. On 30 October 2002 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev under Article 126 § 2 (aggravated kidnapping) of the Russian Criminal Code. The case was assigned No. 61144. No investigative measures, other than the questioning of the first and second applicants on 2 November 2002, were taken following the opening of the criminal proceedings.
30. On 22 November 2002 the second applicant wrote to the military commander of the Urus-Martan district ("the district military commander"), the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (ROVD) and the district prosecutor's office. She stated that her four sons had been abducted by servicemen of law-enforcement agencies of the Urus-Martan district and requested assistance in establishing her sons' whereabouts.
31. On 11 December 2002 the military prosecutor's office of the North-Caucasus military circuit informed the second applicant that her complaint had been forw

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 20 21 22