e whereabouts of Kazbek Vakhayev or identify the persons responsible for his abduction. She was invited to submit all evidence, if she had any, to the prosecutor's office.
64. On 29 June 2004 the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic informed the applicant that an investigation in case No. 24048 was underway.
65. On 10 July 2004 the investigation was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
66. On 29 September 2004 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant about the resumption of the investigation in case No. 24048.
67. On 27 October 2004 the first applicant submitted the video tape recorded on 22 August 2000 to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office, requesting that it be included in the case file.
68. On 28 October 2004 the tape was added to the case file.
69. On 29 October 2004 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office again suspended the investigation of case No. 24048.
70. On 6 June 2005 the investigation was resumed.
71. On 6 July 2006 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office again suspended the investigation.
72. On 21 July 2006 the investigation was resumed.
73. On 4 August 2006 the materials concerning the discovery of the four unidentified bodies were made part of a separate investigation, No. 57051.
74. On 21 August 2006 investigation No. 24048 was again suspended. It was resumed on the next day.
75. On 22 September 2006 the investigation was again suspended.
76. On 23 September 2006 the investigation was resumed. It was subsequently again suspended and resumed on 23 and 25 October 2006 respectively.
77. The following information concerning the progress of the investigation was submitted by the Government after the decision of 11 September 2008 on the admissibility of the application.
78. On 26 and 27 September 2006 the investigating authorities sent requests for information to the head of the FSB department in the Chechen Republic and the head of Operative-Search Bureau No. 2 at the Ministry of the Interior concerning the possible involvement of Yusup Satabayev, Mr G., Kazbek Vakhayev and Mr Ch. in illegal armed groups and their possible detention by law-enforcement authorities. According to the replies received, those authorities had no relevant information.
79. On 11 October and on 10 November 2006 the second applicant was questioned. She confirmed her previous statements and, on the basis of the video footage, identified one of the bodies found near the village of GoyChu as Kazbek Vakhayev. According to the Government, she refused to indicate his burial place so that the authorities could conduct an exhumation, since that would be in breach of Muslim traditions.
80. On 12 October 2006 Tamara Satabayeva, the mother of Yusup Satabayev, was questioned. She confirmed the account of the events provided in her previous statements and in the statements of the second applicant. She identified, on the basis of the video footage, one of the bodies found near the village of Goy-Chu as Yusup Satabayev, since he had the same stature and was wearing the same clothes.
81. On 13 October 2006 Ms G. was questioned. She submitted that her daughter-in-law had watched the above-mentioned video footage and had identified one of the bodies as Mr G.
82. On 20 and 25 November 2006 and 18 January 2007 numerous inquiries and instructions were sent to various law-enforcement authorities and detention facilities, requesting information on the fate of Yusup Satabayev, Mr G., Kazbek Vakhayev and Mr Ch. and on their abductors. According to the replies received, the addressees had no relevant information.
83. On 25 November 2006 the investigation was suspended.
84. On 28 December 2006 the investigation was resumed. The decision reiterated that the
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 21 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
