ctors, as well as a cap with traces of blood next to it. The witness did not remember whether the investigators had collected the evidence from the scene, but he had personally taken photographs. He did not know whether the expert evaluation of the collected evidence had been carried out at all, but stated that no such evaluation had been carried out by the Shali expert evaluation centre, where he worked at the time.
78. On 18 and 19 April 2007 the investigators questioned the applicants' relatives, Ms Z.A. and Ms T.M., whose statements concerning the events were similar to the ones given by Mr A.Ch. and Mr S.Sh. (see paragraphs 72 and 74 above).
79. On 17 April 2007 the investigators collected from the first applicant a photograph of Artur Akhmatkhanov for inclusion in the investigation file.
80. On 13 June 2007 the MVD of the Russian Federation informed the investigators that no special operations had been conducted by their branches in Shali on 2 April 2003.
81. On 11 May 2007 the investigators questioned the applicants' relative Ms B.Sh. whose statement concerning the events was similar to the one given by Mr S.Sh.
82. On 9 and 15 May 2007 the investigators questioned police officers Mr A.M., Mr S.Sh. and Mr V.S., who stated that in April 2003 they had worked in the Shali ROVD, but they did not remember whether they had participated in the crime scene examination on 2 April 2003.
83. On 7 August 2007 the investigators questioned the former investigator of the district prosecutor's office Mr Ka., who stated that due to the passage of time he did not remember the details of the crime scene examination of the place where Artur Akhmatkhanov was abducted, and that he did not remember the conversation with the applicants concerning the collected evidence.
84. On 17 May 2007 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators.
85. On 2 November 2007 the supervisory prosecutor issued a decision "On remedial actions to be taken in connection with violations of the federal criminal procedure regulations during the investigation of the criminal case". He criticised the investigation of the abduction and ordered the investigators to take the following measures:
"...the investigation of the criminal case has been conducted superficially, without taking all necessary steps... in violation of Article 208 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
...it has not been established for what reasons the investigator Ka., who had visited the crime scene on 3 April 2003, had subsequently conducted a crime scene examination only on 22 July 2004...
...the investigators still have not questioned the officers of the ROVD who had gone to the crime scene [on 2 April 2003], that is Mr R.Kh., Mr T. and Mr R.M.
...from the witnesses' statements it is clear that there had been gunfire during the special operation of the military servicemen and the abduction of Artur Akhmatkhanov... a large number of local residents had witnessed the military servicemen cordoning off the area around the former medical storehouse. However, the investigators did not take any steps to identify additional witnesses and obtain information about special operations conducted by the military units...
...no instructions were issued for Mr D.Sh., the member of the investigators' team from the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20116, in order to check the theory of the involvement of military servicemen [in the abduction]..."
86. On 22 November 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 investigative actions and ordered the steps be taken (see the above paragraph) and that the investigators found and included
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 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
