Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Тасатаевы (Tasatayevy) против России» [англ.]

35. On 11 March 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that their complaint of 3 March 2005 had been rejected.
36. On 14 March 2005 the investigators resumed the investigation in the criminal case.
37. On 14 April 2005 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators. The applicants were not informed about this decision.

2. Information submitted by the Government

38. Without providing copies of any relevant documents and dates of the investigating measures, the Government summarised the progress of the investigation in the criminal case as follows.
39. On unspecified dates the investigators requested information about the abducted men from various authorities, including law-enforcement agencies, the military commanders' offices and medical institutions. No information of interest was received in response to these requests. According to a letter from the Urus-Martan town administration, the disappeared Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev were attested positively by the local administration.
40. On an unspecified date the investigators conducted a scene of crime examination in the applicants' household.
41. The investigators granted three persons, including the second applicant, Ms T.D. and Ms A.U. victim status in the criminal case and questioned them about the circumstances of the abduction.
42. On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the second applicant, who stated that on the night between 31 May and 1 June 2001 she had been woken up by noise in her house. She had got out of bed and seen four unidentified armed masked men in camouflage uniforms without insignia in her room. Without any explanation the men had taken her son Aslanbek Tasatayev's passport. In the yard she had seen a large group of masked armed men in camouflage uniforms and Aslanbek and Aslan Tasatayev. She had not seen any vehicles in the yard or next to the house in the street. The unidentified men had taken away Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev. The men had told the applicant that her relatives would be released in the morning. However, Aslan and Aslanbek never returned home. The applicant did not know who had abducted her relatives and for what reasons. At some point later the second applicant was additionally questioned by the investigators and stated that her abducted relatives did not belong to any illegal armed groups; that the abductors had broken into her house through one of the windows; and that only one of them had exchanged words with her, whereas the rest communicated between themselves and with her relatives only by gestures.
43. On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicants' relative Ms T.D., who stated that on 1 June 2001 she had learnt from her parents about the abduction of Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks. According to Ms T.D. her parents had not seen any vehicles in the applicants' yard or next to the house.
44. On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicants' relative Ms A.U., who stated that on the night of 1 June 2001 a group of unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms without insignia had taken away her husband Aslan Tasatayev and her relative Aslanbek Tasatayev. The intruders also had taken away Aslanbek Tasatayev's passport. She had not seen any vehicles in the yard or next to the house. She had no idea as to the reasons for her relatives' abduction.
45. On unspecified dates the investigators questioned Mr A.T. and the first applicant whose statements were similar to the one given by Ms A.U.
46. At some point later the investigators further questioned Ms A.T., who stated that the abductors had broken into his house through a window, that they had



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 15 16 17

	Поделиться:	Tweet