heard screaming from the applicant's flat and gone to the yard. She had seen a group of men armed with automatic weapons taking a young man outside with a T-shirt pulled over his head. Some time later she had found out that this young man was Abu Khasuyev.
73. On 6 July 2006 the investigators conducted a crime scene examination in the applicant's flat. Nothing was collected from the scene.
74. On 8 November 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in criminal case No. 25410 and questioned again. The applicant provided a statement similar to the ones she had provided on 9 January 2002 and 6 September 2004.
75. On 12 December 2006 the investigators joined the investigation of criminal cases No. 25140 and No. 25170. The joined case file was assigned No. 25170.
76. On 12 December 2006 the investigators again forwarded a number of requests to various law enforcement agencies asking for assistance in carrying out investigative measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Abu Khasuyev and identifying the perpetrators. According to their responses, the efforts made by the agencies in connection with those requests had failed to produce any tangible results.
77. On 14 December 2006 the investigators questioned Mr S.G., who stated that in the evening of 30 August 2001 he had found out that a group of unidentified men armed with automatic weapons had abducted Abu Khasuyev.
78. On 15 December, 22 December and 27 December 2006, and probably on 25 June 2007 (the date is illegible) the investigators questioned Mrs A.G, Mr L.M. Mr I.I. and Mr M.Sh., each of whom provided a statement similar to that of Mr S.G.
79. On 22 June 2007 applicant was questioned again. Her statement was similar to the ones provided on 9 January 2002, 6 September 2004 and 8 November 2006.
80. On 10 April 2008 a supervisory prosecutor from the Chechnya prosecutor's office ordered the investigators to resume the suspended investigation in the criminal case. The decision stated, inter alia, the following:
"...On 12 January 2007 the investigator of the Urus-Martan district prosecutor's office decided to suspend the investigation in criminal case No. 25170 for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators...
This decision is unlawful and unsubstantiated, as in violation of Article 208 § 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code the investigation failed to take all possible measures in the absence of the culprits.
For instance, the investigation failed to establish or question the witnesses to Abu Khasuyev's abduction; to question the former head of the ROVD, as well as the head of the criminal search division of the ROVD and the head of the public safety division of the ROVD... during the questioning of Z. Khasuyeva the investigators failed to clarify a number of important circumstances surrounding her son's abduction and take other possible investigative and operational search measures.
The decision to suspend the investigation in the criminal case should be overruled and the case should be returned [for further investigation]..."
81. On the same date the supervising prosecutor issued a decision ordering the investigation to take the following actions in the criminal case:
"1. To make a plan of the investigative and operational search measures...
2. To establish the identity of eyewitnesses to Abu Khasuyev's abduction and question them about the incident.
3. ...to question the former head of the ROVD, as well as the head of the criminal search division of the ROVD and the head of the public safety division of the ROVD about the circumstances of the case; also, to find out what measures they had taken to establish the identity of the armed men who had been driving around in Urus-Martan on 30 August 2001 in a white VAZ-2107 or VAZ-2106 car, red Niva car [VAZ-2121] and a khak
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
