he investigators ordered the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD to establish the witnesses of the abduction and question the neighbours of Mr Magomed M. about the circumstances of the crime.
43. According to the Government, between 22 and 25 February 2003 the investigators questioned nine residents of Zakan-Yurt, who provided similar statements concerning the abduction. None of them had witnessed the events; all of them had learnt from fellow villagers that at about 7 a.m. on 7 January 2003 a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had abducted a young man who had been visiting Mr Magomed M. and that this man had been taken away in a UAZ vehicle and a ZIL lorry without registration numbers.
44. On 27 February 2003 the investigators requested that the Achkhoy-Martan district department of the Federal Security Service (the Achkhoy-Martan department of the FSB) inform them whether they had any information which discredited Balavdi Ustarkhanov. According to their reply of 20 March 2003, no such information was available.
45. On 27 February 2003 the investigators forwarded a number of information requests to various detention centres in the Northern Caucasus. According to their responses, Balavdi Ustarkhanov was not detained on their premises.
46. Between 5 and 19 March 2003 the investigators questioned eight residents of Achkhoy-Martan and on unspecified dates they questioned a further twenty residents of Achkhoy-Martan, all of whom provided similar statements concerning the abduction. None of them had witnessed the abduction; all of them had found out from their fellow villagers and Khava Ustarkhanova that at about 7 a.m. on 7 January 2003 a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had abducted the applicant's son, who had been visiting his friend in Zakan-Yurt.
47. On an unspecified date the investigators obtained information that the applicant had been approached by an intermediary, who had offered to assist her in establishing the whereabouts of Balavdi Ustarkhanov and obtain his release in exchange for 6,000 US dollars. During an informal confidential conversation with the investigators the applicant confirmed that she had been approached by the intermediary, but refused to provide his name saying that in the search for her son she and her relatives had resorted to the help of military servicemen and civilians who could have had information about the whereabouts of Balavdi Ustarkhanov.
48. On 1 March 2008 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who stated that some time after her son's abduction a man had come to her house. He had refused to introduce himself and told her that if she paid 6,000 US dollars, he would bring her son home. The applicant had agreed to pay the sum only after her son had been returned. Three days later the man had come over again, but she had not been at home. The applicant had never seen this man again.
49. On 14 March 2008 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators and informed the applicant of this.
50. On 4 May 2008 the decision to suspend the investigation was overruled by the supervising prosecutor, the proceedings were resumed and the investigators were provided with instructions on the steps to be taken in the proceedings.
51. According to the Government, although the investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of Balavdi Ustarkhanov, it was under way and all measures envisaged by national law were being taken. The investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions, and has so far failed to identify those responsible for the abduction of the applicant's son.
52. Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents from criminal case No. 44011. They stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be
> 1 2 3 ... 23 24 25 ... 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
