etent court for access to classified documents from a military archive. The decision referred to the investigation in case No. 20039 and stated that there were sufficient grounds to believe that representatives of the federal forces of Russia (servicemen, officers of security agencies or those of offices of the interior) had been involved in the Yansuyev brothers' abduction and their subsequent disappearance and that information about that special operation could be kept in one of the archives of the power structures. It went on to say that since the officers in command of the power structures, with reference to relevant regulations, had refused to submit information of a military nature stating that it was classified, it was necessary to formally order that the relevant documents containing information on the special operation of 13 February 2003 in Ioanisiani Street of the Leninskiy District of Grozny be made available.
70. According to the Government, a competent court granted that request and authorised the access to the documents.
71. On 29 January 2009 the investigation was suspended owing to the failure to establish the alleged perpetrators. The first and seventh applicants were informed of this decision in a letter of the same date.
72. On 2 February 2009 the decision of 29 January 2009 was quashed as unlawful and the proceedings were resumed. The investigating authorities were ordered to carry out a number of investigative measures and, in particular, to comply in full with the instructions of 24 November 2008. The decision of 2 February 2009 was signed by the investigator in charge and the first and seventh applicants were apprised of it on 3 February 2009.
73. On an unspecified date the supervising prosecutor of the republican prosecutor's office issued written instructions for the investigator in charge. They were similar to those of 24 November 2008. The prosecutor also drew to the attention of the investigator in charge that the latter and all the other investigators previously involved in the case had taken practically no measures to investigate it, and that the queries and requests sent by them showed that they had not studied the case file. The prosecutor thus ordered the investigator in charge to comply with his instructions fully, in time and displaying due diligence.
74. On 17 February 2009 the investigator in charge sent a repeated request, similar to that of 14 January 2009, to the district office of the interior.
75. In a witness interview of 18 February 2009, the seventh applicant confirmed her statements made on 9 April 2003.
76. On the same date the mother of Mr D. was granted victim status in case No. 20039 and questioned. She submitted, in particular, that she had heard rumours that her son and the Yansuyev brothers had been detained by officers from the Organised Crime Unit and kept in Khankala.
77. On 3 March 2009 the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to establish those responsible. The first and seventh applicants were informed of that decision in a letter of the same date.
78. The Government submitted that the investigation had then been resumed on 14 April 2009 and, on the date of the submission of their post-admissibility memorial, was underway.
B. Documents submitted by the Government
79. In June 2007, when the application was communicated to them, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file for criminal case No. 20039 opened in connection with the abduction of the applicants' relatives. The Government produced several documents but refused to submit the entire file stating that, under Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, disclosure of the documents was contrary to the interests of the investigation and could entail a breach of the rights of the participants in the criminal proceedings. Th
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
