Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.07.2010 <Дело Ахматхановы (Akhmatkhanovy) против России» [англ.]

him away.
56. On 29 June 2005 the investigators questioned the applicant's neighbour Mr R.A., who stated that on the morning of 2 April 2003 he had been at work in the ROVD when Artur Akhmatkhanov had dropped by, looking for his relative Mr A.A. The latter had not been in the office and Artur had left. In the evening the witness had learnt that military servicemen had abducted Artur Akhmatkhanov.
57. On the same date the investigators questioned Ms R.G., who stated that at about 10 a.m. on 2 April 2003 she had seen a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms; the men had been of Slavic appearance and had been in APCs. They cordoned off her street along the perimeter of the former medical storehouse. Then she had seen the men beating and forcing her neighbour Artur Akhmatkhanov into one of the APCs. It appeared that Artur had been wounded in the leg.
58. On 3 July 2005 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators.
59. On 12 April 2006 the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated. He pointed out that the investigators had failed to take a number of investigative steps and ordered that the investigation be resumed.
60. On 14 May 2006 the investigators again suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators.
61. On 16 January 2007 the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated. He pointed out that the investigators had failed to take a number of investigating steps, such as:
"...The investigation file contains information concerning the use of automatic weapons by the abductors. However, the investigation did not take measures to establish whether any of the cartridge cases had been found [at the scene] by the relatives and the neighbours of the disappeared man;
The investigators failed to request and include in the file information concerning the possible conduct of a special operation in Shali on 2 April 2003 by military units stationed in Chechnya.
The investigators did not take steps to establish the identity of the man who had been abducted with Artur Akhmatkhanov..."
62. On 10 January 2007 the second applicant complained to the Shali prosecutor and requested to be granted access to the investigation file (see paragraph 36 above).
63. On 19 January 2007 the investigators rejected his request, stating that the applicant was entitled to have access to the file only on completion of the investigation.
64. On 12 February 2007 the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case and questioned her. She stated that on 2 April 2003 her son Artur Akhmatkhanov had been abducted from the former medical storehouse by armed men in APCs; that she and her relatives had complained about it to the prosecutor's office and that the investigators had arrived at the scene on the same date. She further stated that in her presence and that of a number of her neighbours the investigators had collected from the scene a number of cartridge cases and that at some point later the investigator Ka. had told her that the collected evidence would enable the authorities to identify the firearms used by the abductors and would assist in establishing their identities. The applicant stated that her son had most probably been abducted as a result of a special operation conducted against Mr R.Ch., a leader of illegal armed groups, who lived near the storehouse.
65. On 27 February 2007 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators.
66. On 13 March 2007 the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated. He pointed out that the investiga



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet