Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Магомадова (Magomadova) против России» [англ.]

sian military in the abduction and that she had pointed them out to the investigators who nonetheless had failed to establish her son's whereabouts.
41. On 12 February 2007 the applicant again requested the authorities to inform her about the progress in the investigation and provide her with copies of procedural decisions.
42. On 14 February 2007 the district prosecutor's office granted the applicant's request in part, stating that she was entitled to familiarise herself only with those documents which reflected investigative measures taken with her participation.
43. On 8 February 2008 the investigators resumed the investigation in the criminal case and informed the applicant about it.
44. On 8 March 2008 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case owing to the failure to establish the perpetrators and informed the applicant about it.
45. On 25 June 2008 the investigators resumed the investigation in the criminal case and informed the applicant about it. No other information concerning the investigation was provided to the applicant.
(b) Proceedings against law-enforcement officials
46. On 9 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Urus-Martan Town Court (the Town Court). She described the events of 12 April 2002 and complained that the investigation in criminal case No. 61074 was ineffective. The applicant sought a ruling obliging the district prosecutor's office to take a number of investigative measures and provide her with access to the investigation file. On 30 March 2005 the court rejected her complaint and on 20 April 2005 this decision was upheld on appeal.
47. On 20 May 2005 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Town Court. She sought a ruling obliging the district prosecutor's office to resume the investigation in criminal case No. 61074 and conduct it in an effective and thorough manner. On 20 June 2005 the court rejected the applicant's complaint.
48. In the summer of 2005 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Town Court. She stated that her son had been abducted by Russian servicemen who had arrived in military vehicles. She complained that the criminal investigation was ineffective, that it had been repeatedly suspended and reopened with no tangible results in more than three years. The applicant sought a ruling obliging the district prosecutor's office to resume the investigation in criminal case No. 61074 and conduct it in an effective and thorough manner. On 5 August 2005 the court allowed the applicant's complaint. It instructed the district prosecutor's office to resume the investigation in the criminal case and conduct it in an effective and thorough manner. In its decision the court stated, inter alia, the following:
"... in her request of 7 February 2005 S. Magomadova requested the investigation to take the following measures:
- to establish which power structures owned APCs and URAL vehicles in April 2002 in the Urus-Martan district and establish where those vehicles were on the night of 12 April 2002.....
- to establish the identity of and question the drivers of the above vehicles to find out where they were on the night [of the abduction]...
- to establish and question the staff of all those law enforcement agencies who in April 2002 in Urus-Martan conducted arrests of persons suspected of illegal armed activities; to establish where they were on the night [of the abduction];
- to take measures in order to establish witnesses [to the abduction] among the local population...
- to collect all relevant documentation in detention centres to establish whether her son had been detained in these centres; to question the heads of the detention centres;
- to question the heads of the military commander's office and other law enforcement agencies in



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 21 22 23

	Поделиться:	Tweet