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

the Urus-Martan district to establish which group of law enforcement officers obtained permission to move around in Urus-Martan on the night between 11 and 12 April 2002....
... However, from the file of criminal case No. 61074 it follows that ... the investigators conducted only ...the examination of the registration logs of persons arrested... and detained... in the Urus-Martan district department of the interior; ... ... they also forwarded requests for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of [the applicant's son] and the perpetrators [of his abduction]...
There is no indication that any other investigative measures ...stated in the [applicant's] request.... were taken by the investigators, which demonstrates the incompleteness of the preliminary investigation..."
(c) Official acknowledgement of Ibragim Uruskhanov's death
49. On 1 April 2008 the Town Court granted the applicant's claim and declared her son Ibragim Uruskhanov deceased as of 1 April 2008. The court reasoned, inter alia, as following:
"...the fact of the disappearance of Ibragim Tausovich Uruskhanov in life-threatening circumstances, or in the circumstances providing grounds to presume his death .... is proved by the evidence collected in the [criminal] case..."
50. On 21 October 2008 the Urus-Martan town registration office issued death certificate No. 588252 confirming the death of Ibragim Uruskhanov as of 1 April 2008.

2. Information submitted by the Government

51. On 12 April 2002 the applicant complained about her son's abduction to the head of the VOVD.
52. On 18 April 2002 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation of Ibragim Uruskhanov's abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 61074.
53. On 19 April 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. A copy of the applicant's witness statement was not provided by the Government.
54. On an unspecified date in April 2002 the district prosecutor's office conducted a scene of crime examination in the Michurina orchards located in the village of Goyty in the Urus-Martan district. According to the transcript, blown-up remains of four male corpses had been found on the site and forwarded for forensic examination and identification.
55. On 1 May 2002 the VOVD informed the investigators that the applicant's son was not listed as one of their detainees.
56. On 6 May 2002 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who stated that at about 12 noon on 2 May 2002 in the central square of Urus-Martan a stranger had told her that on the outskirts of the village of Goyty, in the direction of Chechen-Aul, fragments of two human bodies had been discovered. The applicant immediately had gone to the site. There she had found fragments of trousers, a black T-shirt and two pieces of the footwear her son Ibragim Uruskhanov had been wearing on the night of his abduction. According to the applicant, she recognised those items by their colours, the way they were damaged and special features such as the stripe on the legs of the trousers, the shape of the heels on the shoes and traces of brown paint on the soles. The applicant had collected the items. She was ready to provide them to the investigators for inclusion into the investigation file. It appears that the investigators did not collect the items from the applicant.
57. On 8 May 2002 the Urus-Martan FSB informed the investigators that they had not detained the applicant's son.
58. On 26 April 2004 the investigators informed the applicant that they were taking operational search measures to establish her son's whereabouts.
59. On 7 February 2005 the applicant wrote to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor. I



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 21 22 23

	Поделиться:	Tweet