ch could have been carried out in the absence of those responsible. In particular, the investigating authorities had not checked the information provided by the first applicant which claimed that servicemen of regiment No. 531 of the Russian Ministry of the Interior and a certain Mr Amirov Ruslan had been involved in her sons' abduction. They had furthermore not checked the information concerning the involvement in the said offence of Mr M. despite witness statements to that end, nor had they verified the information of the possible participation of the Yansuyev brothers in illegal armed groups, nor the information to the effect that the first applicant had attempted to establish her sons' whereabouts with the assistance of a certain Mr R.
41. On the same date the supervising prosecutor ordered a number of investigative measures to be taken during further investigation. In particular, he instructed the investigating authorities to verify whether Mr M. had been implicated in the abduction of the Yansuyev brothers, whether servicemen of regiment No. 531 of the Russian Ministry of the Interior and Mr Amirov Ruslan had been involved in that offence, whether those missing had been involved in the activities of illegal armed groups, to establish whether a curfew had been in place in Grozny in February 2003, to establish the identity of Mr R. and to obtain documentary evidence confirming his death, and to take other necessary steps.
42. The first and seventh applicants were informed of the decision of 3 August 2007 in a letter of 8 August 2007.
43. On an unspecified date in August 2007 the republican prosecutor's office forwarded the materials of case No. 20039, along with the prosecutor's instructions of 3 August 2007, to the district prosecutor's office for further investigation.
44. On 8 August 2007 the district prosecutor's office instructed the Office of the Interior of the Leninskiy District of Grozny ("the district office of the interior") to carry out investigative measures as was indicated in the instructions of 3 August 2007.
45. On 16 August 2007 the district prosecutor's office sent another request to the district office of the interior similar to that of 8 August 2007.
46. During a witness interview of 18 August 2007, Mr B. made statements similar to those of 10 May 2006. He added that at the time of the incident he had heard the noise of engines and suggested that those had been military vehicles. According to him, he had learnt from his neighbours the next day that there had been APCs in the courtyard of their block of flats.
47. In a letter of 26 August 2007 the district office of the interior informed the district prosecutor's office that the version of the alleged involvement of federal servicemen in the Yansuyevs' abduction was being checked and that any relevant information obtained during that inquiry would be communicated to the district prosecutor's office.
48. On 6 September 2007 the criminal proceedings were stayed. The relevant decision stated that, despite the measures taken, it had not been possible to establish the alleged perpetrators.
49. By a decision of 11 January 2008 the supervising prosecutor ordered the criminal proceedings to be resumed. The decision stated that until that time the investigating authorities had not taken the measures necessary for establishing the whereabouts of those missing and had not taken steps which could have been carried out in the absence of those responsible.
50. In written instructions of 25 January 2008 the investigator in charge was ordered to carry out investigative measures similar to those indicated in the instructions of 3 August 2007.
51. In letters of 4, 6 and 8 February 2008 the investigator in charge asked the district office of the interior to verify information concerning the involvement of Mr M. in
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 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
