fying the perpetrators. However, those measures had failed to produce any results.
48. On 15 June 2004 the UGA military prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102 for examination. They informed the first applicant by a letter of 17 July 2004 that the examination of her complaint about her son's abduction had not established any implication of the Russian military forces in the crime.
49. On 29 July 2004 the district prosecutor's office provided the first applicant with a certificate to the effect that on 4 December 2000 Mayrudin Khantiyev had been abducted from his flat in Grozny; that a criminal case had been opened into his abduction and that his whereabouts had not been established.
50. On 24 August 2005 the ROVD provided the third applicant with a statement concerning the investigation into her husband's abduction. The document stated that on 1 January 2003 they had opened an operational and search file No. 043064 in that connection, but the whereabouts of the applicant's husband had not been established.
51. On 18 April 2006 the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about the lack of information concerning the investigation into her son's abduction and requested the authorities to inform her about the progress of the investigation in criminal case No. 12368.
52. It appears that on 21 April 2006 the district prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant that on an unspecified date they had suspended the investigation in criminal case No. 12368 for failure to identify the perpetrators.
53. On 27 October 2006 the first applicant wrote to the prosecutor of the Staropromyslovskiy district, seeking information on the progress of the investigation.
54. On 30 October 2006 the prosecutor of the Staropromyslovskiy district replied to the first applicant that on 24 May 2006 the investigation in case No. 12368 had been suspended. However, on an unspecified date that decision was set aside and the investigation resumed.
2. Information submitted by the Government
55. On 5 December 2000 unspecified authorities inspected the third applicant's flat. The inspection established that the door lock was damaged and that several pieces of stucco were missing from the doorway. No objects were seized from the crime scene and no photographs were taken.
56. On 17 December 2000 the ROVD forwarded the third applicant's complaint about the abduction of her husband to the prosecutor's office of the Shalinskiy District, which transmitted it on an unspecified date to the town prosecutor's office.
57. On 27 December 2000 the town prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev under Article 126 § 1 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case was assigned the number 12368.
58. On 20 January 2001 the third applicant was granted victim status in connection with the proceedings in case No. 12368 and questioned. She submitted that she had been living in the same flat as her husband Mayrudin Khantiyev and their two children. On the night of 4 December 2000 she had been woken up by a noise coming from the entrance door. Four armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had burst into the flat and tied her husband up with adhesive tape. From their conversation she had understood that they were not Russian. They had told her that they would question her husband and then release him after which they had taken him outside. The third applicant then saw a white Niva vehicle without licence plates drive away from the house. Having heard the third applicant's calls for help, several neighbours and her mother-in-law who resided in the same block of flats had come out
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
