36. On 22 July 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on 25 March 2002 the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators; that on 22 July 2003 the interim prosecutor of the Urus-Martan District had overruled this decision on the ground that the investigation was incomplete; that the investigative authorities had received due instructions from their superiors; and that the investigation's time-limit had been extended until 22 August 2003.
37. On 23 July 2003 the military prosecutor's office of the UGA informed the applicant that her request for help in finding her son had been forwarded to the military prosecutor's office of military unit No. 20102.
38. On 27 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that her request of 22 April 2004 had been examined. The letter stated that on 25 January 2002 the district prosecutor's office had instituted an investigation in criminal case No. 61008; that during the investigation the authorities had taken all possible measures to identify the perpetrators and establish her son's whereabouts; that on 22 August 2003 the investigation in criminal case No. 61008 had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators; and that the district department of the interior was to step up its search for the culprits.
39. On 28 April 2004 and 27 May 2005 the military prosecutor's office of the UGA informed the applicant that information concerning the investigation could be obtained from the district prosecutor's office.
40. On 17 May 2004 the VOVD informed the applicant that the investigators had forwarded requests for information concerning the whereabouts of Khizir Tepsurkayev to a number of law enforcement agencies. The letter also stated that the applicant would be promptly informed about any developments in the case.
41. On 24 May 2004 the applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office. In her letter she described her son's abduction and pointed out that it had been carried out by representatives of the Russian federal forces under the command of V. Vasiliy. She stated that three employees of the VOVD had witnessed the abduction and provided their statements to the district prosecutor's office. The applicant complained that she had been given no information concerning the investigation in criminal case No. 61008. She requested the prosecutor to resume the investigation in the case, to undertake all possible measures for its completion and to permit her to study the case file materials and make copies of the documents.
42. On 27 May 2004 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor informed the applicant about the examination of her request. The letter stated that the investigating authorities had undertaken all possible measures to identify the perpetrators and establish her son's whereabouts, that the authorities had been undertaking unspecified measures to identify the employees who had witnessed the abduction of her son, and that commander V. Vasiliy had died on 26 May 2003. The letter also stated that the investigation in case No. 61008 had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
43. On 18 August 2004 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor. In her letter she stated that her husband had asked the investigators in case No. 61008 to include the accounts of the three employees of the VOVD who had witnessed Khizir Tepsurkayev's abduction in the criminal case file, but that the authorities had ignored his requests. The applicant provided the names of the three witnesses: Mr A. Ruslanbek, Mr A. Aslan and Mr K. Ramzan. She emphasised that the investigative authorities had failed to identify the servicemen of V. Vasiliy's group who had participated in her son's abduction and that the suspension of the investi
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
