on in Kalanchakskaya Street, had taken their son away. The applicant, her husband and some of their neighbours had rushed to the site but found nobody there. After that they had gone to the VOVD, where they had been told that the VOVD had not taken away their son.
59. The Government submitted that according to the letters received from the military prosecutor's office of the UGA and military unit No. 6779 no special operations had been conducted in Urus-Martan on 27 August 2001.
60. On 6 October 2004 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about this decision.
61. On 22 November 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful (see paragraph 68 below).
62. On 8 December 2004 the interim Urus-Martan district prosecutor ordered the investigators to resume the investigation in the criminal case. The applicant was informed about this decision.
63. On 6 July 2005 the investigation in the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about this decision.
64. On 7 June 2006 the applicant requested the deputy Urus-Martan district prosecutor to resume the investigation in the criminal case. On the same date the authorities rejected her request and informed her about this decision.
65. The Government further submitted that although the investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of Khizir Tepsurkayev, it was still in progress. The investigating authorities had sent requests for information to a number of competent State agencies, such as the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior, the Urus-Martan district military commander and military unit No. 6779, and taken other steps to solve the crime. The investigation had found no evidence to support the involvement of military servicemen, the law enforcement officers or other State representatives in the crime. The law enforcement authorities of Chechnya had never arrested or detained Khizir Tepsurkayev on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in his respect. No special operations had been carried out in respect of the applicant's son and his body had not been found.
66. Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents of criminal case No. 61008. The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.
C. Proceedings against law enforcement officials
67. On 25 October 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Urus-Martan Town Court ("the Town Court"). She described the events of 27 August 2001 and complained that the suspension of the investigation in criminal case No. 61008 had been unlawful, that the investigative authorities had failed to undertake basic investigative measures and to examine a number of her requests as well as to provide her with access to the criminal case file. The applicant requested a reopening of the investigation and asked that it be conducted in a thorough and unbiased manner. She also requested to be provided with access to the criminal case file.
68. On 22 November 2004 (in the submitted documents the date is also stated as 20 November 2004) the Town Court partially granted her claim. The court's decision stated, inter alia, the following:
"...on 27 August 2001, during a sweeping operation in Urus-Martan, officers of the power structures in an APC under the command of the head of the platoon Mr V.V. from military unit No. 6779 detained Khizir Tepsurkayev....
On 18 August 2004 [the applicant] again req
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
