period she had been cohabiting with Mr M., who, according to him, had been an officer of the Federal Security Service ("the FSB"). At some point Mr M. had had a quarrel with the Yansuyev brothers and threatened that they would "rot in a pit".
30. The Government submitted that on 29 April 2004 the investigating authorities had again interviewed the first applicant who had confirmed that Mr M. and her sons had had a quarrel. She had also referred to Ms P.'s words to the effect that Mr M. had told her that the Yansuyev brothers were not being kept in Khankala, and that he had searched for the intelligence officer Mr Ruslan Amirov so as to obtain information concerning their abduction.
31. On 27 May 2004 the district prosecutor's office stayed the investigation in case No. 20039 for failure to identify those responsible.
32. On 7 June 2004 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 informed the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic ("the republican prosecutor's office") that they had carried out an inquiry which had not established any trace of military personnel having been involved in the abduction of Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. They had forwarded the case materials to the republican prosecutor's office pursuant to subject-matter jurisdiction rules.
33. On 2 February 2005 the SRJI asked the district prosecutor's office to update them on the state of proceedings in case No. 20039 and to inform them whether the first applicant had been granted victim status. On 25 February 2005 the district prosecutor's office replied that the first applicant had been granted victim status and that the investigation had been stayed on 27 May 2004.
34. On 8 April 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case No. 20039 instituted on 17 February 2003 had been resumed on 20 April 2004 and that the search for her sons, as yet fruitless, was underway.
35. On 11 April 2005 the republican prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that investigative measures were being taken in case No. 20039 and invited her to send further queries to the district prosecutor's office.
36. On 20 June 2005 the SRJI asked the district prosecutor's office to update them on the progress of case No. 20039 and to resume the investigation if it had been suspended.
37. On 28 April 2006 the decision of 27 May 2004 to suspend the investigation into the disappearance of the Yansuyev brothers was set aside and the proceedings were resumed. The first and sevenths applicants were informed accordingly.
38. The Government submitted that on 10 May 2006 the investigating authorities had questioned Mr B., the applicants' neighbour, who had submitted that on 13 February 2003 at about 4 a.m. his wife had woken him up and said that she had heard voices speaking Russian. He had looked through a peephole of his flat door and had seen on the staircase around fifteen men armed with automatic firearms who had broken the door of the Yansuyevs' flat and shortly after had taken the Yansuyev brothers and another man out of the flat with them. The applicants' two other neighbours interviewed on 12 and 15 May 2006 had made similar submissions. One of them had also stated that she had seen the men who had taken the applicants' relatives leaving in the direction of the Kirov Avenue.
39. According to the Government, on 6 June 2006 the criminal proceedings were stayed for failure to establish the identity of the alleged perpetrators. The first and seventh applicants were duly informed.
40. On 3 August 2007 a supervising prosecutor ordered the investigation to be resumed. The relevant decision stated that the investigating authorities had not taken the measures necessary for establishing the whereabouts of those missing and had not taken steps whi
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 21 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
