of the incident denied the allegations and stated that they had fired warning shots in the air to stop Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov who had been trying to run away.
59. The APCs used in the special operation were examined in the course of the investigation. No traces of blood were found on them.
60. The bullets and cartridges found at the scene of the incident had not been fired from the servicemen's weapons.
61. The investigation failed to prove the involvement of federal servicemen in the crime or to establish the whereabouts of the missing men. The criminal proceedings related to the disappearance of Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov in case No. 34/33/0405-01 have been pending before a military prosecutor's office.
62. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose any documents from the investigation files in cases Nos. 19109, 14/00/0019-01 and 34/33/0405-01, except for a copy of the decision of 19 January 2005 by the unit prosecutor's office. They stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the files contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in criminal proceedings.
C. Proceedings against law-enforcement officials
1. The applicants' account
63. On 7 March 2004 the fourth applicant lodged with the Military Court of the North Caucasus Circuit ("the circuit court") a complaint concerning the disappearance of Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov and that there had been no effective investigation.
64. On 15 March 2004 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the circuit court about the disappearance of Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov, also alleging an ineffective investigation,
65. On 2 April 2004 the circuit court forwarded the fourth applicant's complaint to the Military Court of the Grozny Garrison ("the Grozny court") for examination on the merits.
66. On 6 May 2004 the Grozny court returned the complaint about "the decision of the [circuit] prosecutor's office to suspend investigation in case No. 14/33/0405-01" to the second applicant for lack of jurisdiction. It explained that the complaint should be lodged with a district court of general jurisdiction.
67. On 1 June 2004 the Grozny court informed the fourth applicant that a hearing of his complaint would be held on 4 June 2004.
68. On 4 June 2004 the Grozny court, relying on the rules of territorial jurisdiction, decided to forward the fourth applicant's complaint to the Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison ("the Rostov court").
69. On 8 July 2004 the Rostov court summoned the fourth applicant to attend a hearing of 9 July 2004 to clarify his claims.
70. On 2 August 2004 the Rostov court informed the fourth applicant that it had requested the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic to report on the location of the case file and the progress in the investigation.
71. On 30 July 2004 the first, second and fourth applicants lodged a complaint with the Rostov court that the investigative authorities had taken no action and requested that the decision to suspend the investigation of 18 June 2002 be quashed.
72. On 8 September 2004 the Rostov court summoned the first, second and fourth applicants to attend a hearing scheduled for 10 September 2004.
73. On 22 November 2004 the fourth applicant was summoned to attend a hearing of the Rostov court on 24 December 2004. In reply the first, second and fourth applicants agreed to have the case examined in their absence and asked to be informed of the eventual outcome of the hearing.
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
