een masked, armed and that they had had white strips on the sleeves of their uniforms. He further stated that his son's cap, with bloodstains next to it, had been found at the scene after the abductors had driven away.
41. On 4 April 2003 the district prosecutor's office initiated an investigation into the disappearance of Artur Akhmatkhanov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping).
42. On 6 April 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. He stated that his son had been abducted by servicemen who had been masked, armed with automatic weapons, had white strips on the sleeves of their uniforms and had been driving around in APCs.
43. On 4 June 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were not informed about this decision.
44. On 3 May 2004 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed and the decision concerning the suspension of the criminal proceedings was overruled by the supervising prosecutor as unlawful for the following reasons:
"...The examination of the investigation file demonstrated that the investigation in the criminal case had not been actually conducted at all as the investigator had taken only two investigating steps: he granted the father of the disappeared man victim status in the criminal case and questioned him.
No witnesses had been identified and questioned, the crime scene had not been examined, no replies had been received to the requests forwarded to various law-enforcement bodies and a number of other investigating steps had not been taken..."
45. On the same date the supervising prosecutor issued orders for the investigators of the criminal case who were to take, inter alia, the following steps:
"1. Make a plan of investigating steps to be taken...
2. Examine the crime scene...
3. From the witness statement of A. Akhmatkhanov [the second applicant] it follows that he learnt from his acquaintance named Ali that his son [Artur Akhmatkhanov] had been detained by military servicemen who had arrived in four APCs. In connection with this, it is necessary to identify the man named Ali and question him about the circumstances of the abduction.
4. Identify other witnesses of the crime, including the woman (the father of the abducted man knows her) who had also seen the military servicemen detaining and taking away Artur Akhmatkhanov and another man ...it is necessary to question her about the events.
5. Take measures to identify where the APCs were from...
6. If the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction is established, it is necessary to forward the criminal case to the military prosecutor's office for further investigation..."
46. On 10 July 2004 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 10 July 2005) the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
47. On 20 July 2004 the investigators conducted the crime scene examination. Nothing was collected from the scene.
48. On 25 July 2004 the investigators questioned Mr A.M., who stated that in the morning of 2 April 2003 he had seen a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks in four APCs. The men had dragged Artur Akhmatkhanov into one of the vehicles and had then driven away.
49. On 28 July 2004 the investigators questioned Ms Z.P., who stated that in the morning of 2 April 2003 several military APCs had arrived in her street with men who were armed, masked and in camouflage uniforms. They had put Artur Akhmatkhanov and another man into one of the APCs and taken them away.
50. On 26 May 2005 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation of 10 July 2004 as premature and unsubstantiated. The
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
