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

Given the kind of approach the investigator has taken to the execution of his work duties, it is possible that the perpetrators [of the abduction] will not be established any time soon [...] the investigator did not carry out the written orders issued by the deputy district prosecutor on 25 October 2004... even though such orders were compulsory...
In the course of the preliminary investigation it had been unequivocally established by whom and when the Mudayev brothers had been arrested and where they had been detained. From this it follows that the investigator and the supervising prosecutor must concentrate their attention on the identification of those who detained the brothers, on the examination of the lawfulness and the grounds for their detention, [and] the establishment of the actual place of their detention, which was carried out without lawful grounds...
The court decided:
1. To recognise as unlawful the actions of the investigator Zh.U. concerning the suspension of the investigation in criminal case No. 42182 under Article 208 § 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code [for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators];
2. To oblige the investigator to carry out in full the written orders issued by the [supervising] prosecutor...;
3. To question all persons involved in the arrest of the Mudayev brothers in violation of Articles 91 and 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code [grounds and procedure for detention];
4. To examine the lawfulness and the grounds for the Mudayev brothers' detention without a court order, [which took place] in violation of Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code [arrest procedure]..."
45. On 11 May 2005 the second applicant complained to the district court that the investigation into the abduction had been ineffective. She described in detail the circumstances of the abduction and pointed out that Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev had been unlawfully detained as hostages in the Nadterechniy district department of the FSB. The applicant stated that the investigation into the abduction had been suspended several times and that the last suspension had taken place on 13 May 2005. The applicant sought a ruling obliging the prosecutor's office to resume the investigation and transfer it to the Chechnya prosecutor's office.
46. On 8 June 2005 the district court rejected the applicant's complaint. On 16 August 2005 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Chechnya Supreme Court.

2. Information submitted by the Government

47. The Government submitted that the investigation of the abduction of the applicants' relatives had commenced on 29 September 2003 upon receipt on 22 September 2003 of a complaint by the applicants' relative Mr I.M. about the abduction of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev on 29 January 2003.
48. On 27 September 2003 the investigators conducted a crime scene examination at the first applicant's house. Nothing was collected from the scene.
49. On 29 September 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. According to a copy of his witness statement submitted to the Court, the applicant stated that at about 8.15 a.m. on 29 January 2003 a group of fifteen masked men in military uniforms armed with automatic weapons had broken into his house. The men had put everyone up against the wall, and then ordered everyone to lie on the floor face down. After that they had demanded everyone's passports and checked them. The men had returned all the documents, expect for the passports of his sons Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev. Immediately after the men had taken the applicant's two sons outside, put them in a light-coloured UAZ vehicle ("tabletka") and taken them to the settlement of Znamenskoye in the Nadterechniy district of Chechnya. When the applicant had asked the men about the reaso



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet