Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Товсултанова (Tovsultanova) против России» [англ.]

e file was assigned the number 05600034.
17. On 27 June 2005 the district prosecutor's office granted the applicant victim status in the criminal case.
18. On 2 November 2005 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators. The decision stated that the investigators had: questioned three neighbours of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov, as well as several salespersons from the kiosks located next to the place of his abduction; put Said-Magamed Tovsultanov's VAZ-2107 car on the search list; checked the registration log of the "Volga-20" border police checkpoint concerning the passage of vehicles on the day of the abduction; and forwarded information requests to various law-enforcement agencies in various regions of the Northern Caucasus. The applicant was informed about the suspension of the investigation on the same date.
19. On 29 January 2007 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the applicant that they had forwarded her complaint about the abduction to the Ingushetia prosecutor's office for examination.
20. On 7 February 2007 the Ingushetia prosecutor's office forwarded the applicant's complaint about her son's abduction to the district prosecutor's office.
21. On 14 February 2007 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on 2 November 2005 they had suspended the investigation of her son's abduction.
22. On 12 February 2008 the applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about the ineffectiveness of the investigation of the abduction and requested to be provided with access to the investigation file.
23. On 28 February 2008 the district prosecutor's office rejected the applicant's complaint, stating that under Articles 215 and 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code a victim in a criminal case could be provided with access to an investigation file only upon completion of the investigation.
24. On 15 April 2008 the applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into her son's abduction and requested to be provided with access to the investigation file. She received no reply.

2. Information submitted by the Government

25. The Government submitted that on 14 February 2005 the applicant had complained about the abduction to the Russian President and not the competent law-enforcement authorities.
26. On 6 May 2005 the district prosecutor's office requested the Sunzhenskiy district department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and the Ingushetia FSB to inform them whether they had arrested or detained the applicant's son. According to their replies of 16 and 18 May 2005 no special operations in respect of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov had been conducted and no criminal proceedings had been pending against him.
27. On the same date the district prosecutor's office requested the Information Centre of the Ministry of the Interior (the MVD) to inform them whether Said-Magamed Tovsultanov was on the authorities' search list and whether they had information concerning his whereabouts.
28. On 1 June 2005 the applicant complained about her son's abduction to the district prosecutor's office.
29. On 2 June 2005 the district prosecutor's office initiated a criminal investigation of the abduction.
30. On 27 June 2005 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated that on 14 June 2004 a boy had come by her house in Katar-Yurt and handed her a note. According to the boy, this note had been given to him by someone from a passing bus who had asked him to pass it on to the relatives of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov. The applicant had gone straight to her son's flat in Sle



> 1 2 3 4 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet