's office of military unit No. 20102 informed the applicant that her complaints did not contain any information demonstrating the involvement of Russian military forces in the abduction of Balavdi Ustarkhanov.
26. On 15 July 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor's office forwarded the applicant's complaint to the Chechnya prosecutor's office.
27. On 2 February 2004 the military prosecutor's office of the UGA informed the applicant that her complaint had been examined and the theory of the involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of Balavdi Ustarkhanov had not been confirmed.
28. Upon the applicant's request, on 24 February 2004 the interim Chechnya military commander requested the military commander of the Achkhoy-Martan district (the district military commander) to take measures to establish the whereabouts of Balavdi Ustarkhanov.
29. On 13 April 2004 the Department of the Prosecutor General's office in the Southern Federal Circuit informed the applicant that her request had been forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor's office.
30. On 20 November 2004 the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor's office. She stated that her son had been abducted by a group of armed men who arrived in an APC. The applicant expressed her version of the events, stating that those who had abducted her son must have belonged to the State power structures. She requested to be provided with information concerning the progress of the investigation and asked for the proceedings to be resumed.
31. On 11 July 2005 the Chechnya military commander requested the district military commander to take measures to establish the whereabouts of Balavdi Ustarkhanov.
32. According to the applicant, the investigators failed to question the neighbours of Mr Magomed M. who lived across the street from the crime scene and who had witnessed Balavdi Ustarkhanov being taken away in military vehicles.
2. Information submitted by the Government
33. The Government submitted that on 21 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office had opened criminal case No. 44011 into the abduction of Balavdi Ustarkhanov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The applicant was informed of this on 23 January 2003.
34. On 21 January 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene at 72 Shkolnaya Street in Zakan-Yurt. Nothing was collected from the scene.
35. On 23 January 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated that she lived in Achkhoy-Martan. On 30 December 2002 her son Balavdi Ustarkhanov had gone to visit his friends, the family of Mr Magomed M., in Zakan-Yurt. On 3 January 2003 she had been informed that on the night between 31 December 2002 and 1 January 2003 her son had been involved in a fight with local teenagers, as a result of which he had sustained a head injury. On the same date, 3 January 2003, the applicant had gone to Zakan-Yurt and taken her son to a hospital, where it was established that he had sustained concussion. The family of Magomed M. was troubled by the fact that Balavdi had received the head injury while he was their guest and they therefore asked him to stay with them until he felt better. The applicant agreed and returned to Achkhoy-Martan, while her son remained at the friends' house. On 7 January 2003 Mr Makadi M. had arrived at her house and told her about the abduction of Balavdi by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks, who had failed to explain the reasons for their actions. The investigators questioned the applicant again on 28 February 2003; no information was submitted by the Government concerning the content of the statement given on that date.
36. On 31 January 2003 the investigators questioned Mr Makhadi M., who stated that he lived at 72 Shkol
> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 ... 34 35 36
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
