uring the inspection.
65. With a view to examining the possibility that representatives of the State had been involved in the applicant's son's abduction, on unspecified dates the investigating authorities made enquires with various State bodies, including the commander of military unit No. 6779, the military commander of the Urus-Martanovskiy District, the ROVD, unspecified remand prisons, detention centres and hospitals in the region as to Adam Khurayev's whereabouts. From the replies of those State authorities it followed that their officials had not arrested Adam Khurayev, had not instituted criminal proceedings against him and had no information on his whereabouts. According to those replies, he had not been held in detention and had not applied for medical assistance.
66. On an unspecified date the detention logs of the ROVD and its temporary detention ward were examined. No information concerning Adam Khurayev was found.
67. On 6 July 2005 the investigation in case No. 34022 was suspended.
68. On 18 November 2005 the investigation was resumed and the applicant was notified of that decision.
69. Despite a specific request by the Court, the Government did not disclose most of the contents of the file in criminal case No. 34022, providing only copies of the records of the witness interviews described in paragraphs 53 - 63 above. The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.
C. Court proceedings against the investigators
70. On 3 March 2006 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martanovskiy Town Court ("the Town Court") about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the abduction of her son. She requested that the investigation be resumed and the necessary investigative measures be taken and also sought access to the case file.
71. By a decision of 30 March 2006 the Town Court allowed the applicant's complaint in part. In particular, it held that the district prosecutor's office had unlawfully refused to provide the applicant with information concerning the developments in the investigation, which had prevented her from challenging the investigator's acts or inaction in court. The court ordered the district prosecutor's office to provide for the applicant's access to the case file, subject to the restrictions applicable under the rules of criminal procedure. Lastly, the court declared unlawful and unfounded the decision to suspend the investigation in case No. 34022 and ordered the district prosecutor's office to carry out an effective investigation. The decision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"...It emerges from the materials of case file No. 34022... that on 23 November 2002 at about 10 p.m. unidentified masked persons carrying submachine guns broke into the household of [M.M.]'s family... and abducted Adam Khurayev.
The investigation took steps aimed at solving the crime and identifying the perpetrators. In particular, M.M., I.M., Z.S., Z.Ch., R.B., M.Ch. and A.Ch. were interviewed as witnesses...
...The investigation failed to identify the persons who had abducted Adam Khurayev or establish his whereabouts. In that connection it had been suspended... on numerous occasions and then reopened again. The latest decision to suspend the investigation is dated 18 December 2005.
However it transpires from the case file that the investigator failed to take all relevant investigative steps. In particular:
- it was not established which [military] units or power structures on the territory of the Urus-Martanovskiy District were equipped with APCs; where each military vehicle had been
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
