son had been abducted to the military prosecutor of military unit No. 20102. On 16 and 22 May 2003 the latter informed the applicant that "[her] request did not contain any information concerning the involvement of military personnel in the abduction of Abu Khasuyev".
45. On 2 September 2003 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor that her son had been abducted. In her letter she stated that Abu Khasuyev had been abducted by representatives of law-enforcement agencies, who had arrived in a red VAZ-2121 car and a white VAZ-2107 car with blackened windows and without registration numbers and that her son had been taken away in the white car. Further, the applicant complained that the officers from the military commander's office who had been on duty that day had failed to stop the abductors. The applicant pointed out that she had spoken with the military commander General Gadzhiyev, who had told her that her son had probably been taken to the Chernokozovo detention centre. No response was given to this complaint.
46. On 4 October 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators.
47. On 20 January 2004 the investigators informed the applicant that on 4 October 2003 they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case.
48. On 27 April 2004 the Urus-Martan prosecutor's office rejected the applicant's request for access to the investigation file, stating that access could be granted only upon completion of the criminal investigation.
49. On 7 June 2004 the investigators informed the applicant that they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case owing to the expiration of the time-limits and failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators.
50. On 7 August 2004 the applicant requested the Urus-Martan prosecutor's office to inform her about the progress of the investigation in the criminal case. No response was given to this request.
51. On 15 August 2004 the Urus-Martan prosecutor's office resumed the investigation in criminal case No. 25170. The applicant was informed about the decision on the same date.
52. On 3 December 2004 the applicant requested the Urus-Martan prosecutor's office to inform her of progress in case No. 25170; to question the officers who had been manning the checkpoint located in the vicinity of the applicant's house and to resume the investigation. No response was given to this request.
53. On 15 June 2004 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court ("Town Court") that the investigation in the criminal case was ineffective. She requested the court to order the prosecutor's office to resume the criminal investigation, carry it out in a thorough and effective manner, take necessary investigative measures, and authorise her access to the investigation file.
54. On 16 June 2005 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor that her son had been abducted by servicemen of the Urus-Martan power structures (силовых структур). In her letter she pointed out that employees of the Urus-Martan district military commander's office had witnessed the abduction as they had been on watch duty in close proximity to her house. The applicant pointed out that she had already submitted her account to this effect to the investigative authorities but the latter had failed to establish the whereabouts of her abducted son. The applicant complained about the lack of information concerning the investigation and requested to be informed in writing of what measures were being taken by the prosecutor's office. No response was given to this complaint.
55. On 29 June 2004 the Town Court allowed the applicant's complaint in part and ordered the prosecutor's office to carry out a thorough and effective investigation. As regards the request fo
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
