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

tuted in connection with the abduction of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev.
35. On 10 August and 28 October 2004 the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (the military prosecutor's office of the UGA) forwarded the applicants' complaints about the abduction to the Chechnya prosecutor's office for examination.
36. On 10 September 2004 the Grozny district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators.
37. On 25 October 2004 the Grozny district prosecutor's office informed the Chechnya prosecutor's office that on 21 June 2004 the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended and that the investigators had been instructed to take investigating measures and that upon their completion the case would be transferred to the Nadterechniy district prosecutor's office for further investigation.
38. On 18 February 2005 the Grozny prosecutor's office informed the applicants that on that date they had resumed the investigation in the criminal case.
39. On 18 March 2005 the Grozny prosecutor's office informed the applicants that on that date they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators.
40. On 19 April 2005 the second applicant requested the Grozny district prosecutor's office to inform her about the results of the criminal investigation of the abduction and provide her with access to the investigation file.
41. On 5 May 2005 the first applicant complained to the Chechnya prosecutor's office. He stated that his two sons, Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev, had been abducted on 29 January 2003 by representatives of the Nadterechniy district department of the FSB under the command of officer Mayrbek Kh., and that the investigation opened by the Grozny prosecutor's office had been ineffective. In particular, the applicant pointed out that the investigators had failed to comply with the court's decision of 30 December 2004 concerning the reopening of the suspended investigation and questioning of all persons involved in the abduction; that the investigation had been suspended several times in spite of the authorities' failure to establish the circumstances of the abduction. The applicant requested the Chechnya prosecutor's office to take over the investigation and to comply with the court's decision of 30 December 2004.
42. On 13 May 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed.
b. Proceedings against law-enforcement officials
43. In November 2004 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Grozny district court of Chechnya (the district court). They complained of unlawful suspensions of the investigation in the criminal case and a failure on the part of the authorities to take basic investigative measures. The applicants sought a ruling obliging the prosecutor's office to resume the investigation and question the witnesses of their relatives' abduction.
44. On 30 December 2004 the district court allowed the complaint. The court stated, inter alia, the following:
"...the court established that:
...from [the date of the opening of the criminal case] 29 September 2003 up to the present the investigation in criminal case No. 42172 was suspended three times and resumed twice owing to the applicants' numerous complaints.
On 30 November 2004 the investigator Zh.U. took the last decision to suspend the investigation for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators; this decision was taken by him after 25 November 2004, that is, [shortly] after the applicants had lodged their court complaint about his actions.




> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet