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

ed through the checkpoint; the driver had been captain V.K., who had produced service identification document No. 121884; the cars had been travelling in the direction of Achkhoy-Martan-Nazran...
[in the light of this information] we ask you [to take the following measures]:
1. Establish whether Mr V.K. is an employee of a law-enforcement agency in the Achkhoy-Martan district and whether he has service identification document No. 121884.
2. Question Mr V.K. as a witness about the following:
- the purpose of his trip to Ingushetia on 14 June 2004;
- who accompanied him on this trip and their names;
- whether he knows S.-M. Tovsultanov;
- whether he participated in operational-search measures against S.-M. Tovsultanov and if so, what the reasons for S.-M. Tovsultanov's arrest were and what his current whereabouts are.
3. Question the persons who accompanied Mr V.K. on his trip [on 14 June 2004] and ask them the same questions..."
It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request.
50. On 17 August 2005 the investigators questioned Ms P.T. who stated that she owned a kiosk located on the corner of Pobeda and Rabochaya Streets, that she had not witnessed the abduction and that at some point in the summer of 2004 a Chechen woman had arrived at her kiosk and asked her for help in establishing the circumstances of the abduction.
51. On 19 August 2005 the investigators forwarded a number of additional information requests concerning the possible detention of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov, discovery of his body or registration of his car to various law-enforcement agencies in Kabardino-Balkaria.
52. On 8 September 2005 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who provided a statement similar to the one given on 27 June 2005 and added that Said-Magamed Tovsultanov had not been a member of illegal armed groups, that he had not had enemies and that she had not been asked to pay a ransom.
53. On various dates in September and October 2005 the investigators questioned four neighbours of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov, Ms Kh.D., Mr. S.Kh., Mr Z.A. and Mr I.Dzh., who gave positive character references for the applicant's son and stated that they had no knowledge pertaining to the circumstances of his abduction.
54. On 2 November 2005 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about it on the same date.
55. On 28 April 2009 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed by a decision of the head of the investigations department. The document stated:
"...on 2 November 2005 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
As it follows from the investigation file, the above decision was taken prematurely and should be overruled for the following reasons.
For instance, the investigation failed to establish [the identity of] the person who had informed S.-M. Tovsultanov's neighbours about his abduction and the person who had informed his relatives in Katar-Yurt about it;
In addition, the investigators failed to question the aunt of S.-M. Tovsultanov and her husband [in whose house he had lived] about the abduction...
...it is necessary to request information from military units in Chechnya and Ingushetia asking them whether they had arrested or detained S.-M. Tovsultanov..."
56. The Government submitted that even though the investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov, it was still in progress and all measures envisaged under the domestic law were being taken. The investigation had not established the involvement of law-enforcement agencies in the abduction; no special operations had been carried out against the applicant's son. The law enforcement authoriti



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet