Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.04.2010 «Дело Хатуева (Khatuyeva) против России» [англ.]

ed, by letter of 19 February 2005, that the investigation concerning criminal file No. 04600054 was still ongoing.
29. On 20 February 2005 the investigation was discontinued given the failure to identify the persons against whom the charges were to be brought (Article 208, part 1, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and the applicant was informed thereof by letter of 5 March 2005.
30. On 5 May 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sunzhensky District Court ("the district court") under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She requested the court to declare the inaction of the prosecutor's office unlawful, to quash the prosecutor's decision adjourning the investigation and to order a thorough and effective investigation into Sultan Khatuyev's abduction.
31. On 24 May 2005 the district court dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court noted in particular that the investigation authorities had questioned certain officers of the Sunzhensky ROVD, including A.G., and complied with the plan of investigation measures. The court also noted that the necessary measures had been taken to secure the questioning of FSB officer M.Ye., but the latter had failed to appear due to circumstances beyond the investigator's control.
32. On 4 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Ingushetia reviewed the applicant's cassation appeal against this decision. The court quashed and remitted the decision of 24 May 2005, with an instruction to the investigation authorities to question Mr M.Ye.
33. The applicant received no further information about the proceedings in the case concerning her husband's abduction. In 2008 she informed the Court that she had been threatened by unnamed representatives of the security forces, who had allegedly told her to stop complaining. They threatened to plant drugs or arms on her teenaged sons or accuse them of being involved with illegal armed groups. The applicant and her family left Russia and sought asylum in another country.
34. The applicant submitted that her health had deteriorated significantly since the events of 2 August 2004 and the disappearance of Sultan Khatuyev. Without presenting any documents, she claimed that in 2008 she had been diagnosed with a benign tumour, which she thought was a result of the endured stress.

2. Information submitted by the Government

35. With reference to the information provided by the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government submitted that the investigation of the abduction of Sultan Khatuyev had commenced on 20 August 2004.
36. On unspecified dates the investigation questioned the applicant and Sultan Khatuyev's parents. The applicant was granted victim status on 25 August 2004.
37. The Government stated that two servicemen of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD had been questioned in the course of the investigation. They testified that on 2 August 2004 their office had assisted the FSB and the criminal police of Ingushetia in the security operation in Ordzhonikidzevskaya. One serviceman had taken part in this operation, while the other one had not. The aim of the operation had been to identify members of illegal armed groups and to check that the inhabitants of the settlement of internal migrants from Chechnya were complying with residence rules. The participating serviceman had been aware of the detention of four men, the identities and the reasons for detention of whom he had not known. The other serviceman (presumably, this was A.G., questioned on 3 September 2004 - see paragraph 31 above) had learnt of Sultan Khatuyev's detention from the latter's relatives. The witnesses had no other information about Sultan Khatuyev.
38. It also appears from Government's observations that on an unspecified date the investigators questioned U.I., who refused to submit any complaints about th



> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet