een conducted in a superficial manner and had not produced any results. All her complaints about the ineffectiveness of the investigation, addressed to the supervisory bodies, had been forwarded to the district prosecutor's office. Although the latter body had replied to the complaints, none of those replies contained any information concerning investigative measures undertaken in the course of the criminal proceedings. Finally, the applicant submitted that her son's abductors must have been representatives of the State as only they could have moved freely in the town during the curfew, gone through existing checkpoints and used military vehicles.
39. On 4 August 2004 the district prosecutor's office replied to the applicant, stating that the investigation in criminal case No. 34022 had been carried out in compliance with the law. The district prosecutor's office had taken all the investigative measures which could be carried out in the absence of those to be charged with the crime. They had sent numerous requests for information to various law-enforcement agencies and hospitals. The republican prosecutor's office's (unspecified) instructions concerning the investigation had been complied with. The theory that Russian military servicemen had been involved in the abduction of Adam Khurayev had been examined but had not been confirmed. The latest decision to suspend the investigation owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators was dated 30 June 2004.
40. On 23 August 2004 the republican prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation in criminal case No. 34022 had been suspended, but operational-search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way.
41. On 2 September 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that her complaint of 1 September 2004 had been included in the case file of criminal case No. 34022.
42. On 30 September 2004 the ROVD forwarded the applicant's complaint about her son's abduction to the district prosecutor's office for examination.
43. On 15 May 2005 the applicant wrote to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor, describing in detail the circumstances of her son's apprehension and pointing out that her son had been abducted by representatives of the State. The applicant complained that the investigation into Adam Khurayev's abduction had been too lengthy, that basic investigative measures had not been taken and that she had no information about its progress. The applicant requested the authorities to resume the investigation, to provide her with access to the criminal case-file materials and with copies of basic investigative documents to which she was entitled by law.
44. On 24 June 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on 6 June 2005 they had resumed the investigation in criminal case No. 34022 and that she could obtain a copy of the decision to grant her victim status and certain other documents from their office.
45. On 30 July 2005 the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 informed the applicant that the examination of her complaint about her son's abduction had failed to confirm any involvement of Russian servicemen in the abduction of her son.
46. On 11 November 2005 the applicant wrote to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor. She described in detail the circumstances of her son's apprehension and pointed out that her son had been abducted by representatives of the State. The applicant submitted that the investigation into Adam Khurayev's abduction had been ineffective and that it had failed to produce any results for more than three years. She complained about the lack of information about the investigation, requested the authorities to grant her victim status in the criminal case, to resume the investigation and provide
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
