gation in the criminal case was unjustified. The applicant asked the prosecutor to resume investigation in case No. 61008 and to question the three employees of the VOVD as well as other servicemen who had participated in Khizir Tepsurkayev's abduction, to conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation in the case, to request from the VOVD the statements of the three witnesses and to include them in the criminal case file. Finally, she asked for permission to study the case file materials and to make copies of them.
44. On 6 October 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant's husband that the investigation in case No. 61008 had been suspended on 6 October 2004 for failure to identify the perpetrators.
45. On 15 November 2005 the applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to provide her with information concerning the criminal investigation into her son's abduction.
46. On 21 November 2005 and 3 March 2006 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
47. On 7 June 2006 the applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to provide her with information concerning the criminal investigation into her son's abduction and to resume the proceedings if they had been suspended.
48. On 22 October 2007 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor that the investigation into her son's abduction was incomplete. In particular, she pointed out that the investigators had failed to identify and question the servicemen from the unit under the command of V. Vasiliy who had witnessed and participated in her son's abduction, as well as the servicemen who had driven the APC.
49. On 14 November 2007 the applicant again complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor. She provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding her son's abduction and pointed out that he had been taken away in a UAZ vehicle to the VOVD and that the abductors had acted under the command of officer V. Vasiliy from military unit No. 6779.
50. At some point in 2007 criminal case No. 61008 was transferred to the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor's office for further investigation.
51. On 20 May 2008 the investigators questioned the applicant.
52. According to the applicant, by August 2008 she had received no further information about the progress of the investigation into her son's abduction.
2. Information submitted by the Government
53. Without providing the relevant dates or copies of the documents, the Government submitted that the investigators had questioned the applicant's husband, who had also been granted victim status in the criminal case. According to his witness statement, on 27 August 2001 his son had left home to go and get a job. At about 10.30 a.m. a boy had come to his house and told him and his wife that Khizir Tepsurkayev had been detained by military servicemen during a sweeping operation. At some point later the investigators had questioned the applicant's husband again. According to his additional witness statement, at the material time his son had not been employed; early in 2001 he had volunteered at the VOVD and therefore was acquainted with many police officers. According to the applicant's husband, while searching for his son he had approached a number of the VOVD officers. One of them had told him that on 27 August 2001 Khizir Tepsurkayev had gone to a local judge to obtain employment at the Town Court. On the way to the judge Khizir had met a member of the Wahhabi movement, Mr B. Mairbek, who was killed at some point later in 2002. B. Mairbek had offered the applicant's son a lift to the town centre. The car had been stopped by servicemen from milit
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 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
