r 2002 had subsequently been resumed on 15 July 2003, since the investigation had been incomplete. The letter also stated that the term for the preliminary investigation had been extended until 15 August 2003, that the search for Muslim Nenkayev and those responsible for his disappearance was in progress and that the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic was closely supervising the investigation.
47. By letters of 1 and 19 August 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to update him on the latest developments in the investigation.
48. On 25 August 2003 the first applicant complained to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic that the investigation into the disappearance of his son had been suspended on 25 July 2003, that is before the time-limit for the preliminary investigation, 15 August 2003, and inquired about the results of the investigation.
49. On 15 September 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic notified the first applicant that the investigation had been resumed on 12 September 2003 and that investigative measures were being taken to find Muslim Nenkayev and the culprits.
50. Between August and October 2003 the first applicant tried on four occasions to talk to the head of the ROVD, but the latter was unavailable. At the beginning of October 2003 the first applicant talked to an officer of the ROVD who said that he was trying to find out whether Muslim Nenkayev was being held in any prison, and that he had not achieved any results so far. At some point in October 2003 the first applicant also talked to a deputy military commander of Urus-Martan, who reassured him that the search for his missing son was in progress and that he would be notified of any results.
51. On 21 April 2004 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to take certain investigative measures and to transfer the case file to a military prosecutor's office.
52. On 10 July 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office.
53. On 19 August 2004 the unit prosecutor's office informed the applicants that they had carried out an inquiry into the Nenkayev brothers' kidnapping, which had established no traces of any involvement of military personnel.
54. On 30 November 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that in the course of the investigation into the Nenkayev brothers' kidnapping various measures had been taken but had produced no results.
55. On 30 June 2005 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to update him on progress in the investigation and to resume the proceedings if they had been suspended.
56. On 28 July 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been resumed.
57. On 15 November 2005 the first applicant again requested information on the investigation from the district prosecutor's office.
58. On 16 January 2006 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been resumed.
59. On 16 January 2006 the second applicant was questioned by an investigator of the district prosecutor's office. She claimed that certain items had been stolen from her house on the night of her sons' kidnapping. The investigator refused to insert that piece of information into the record. On the same date the investigator questioned the tenth applicant, who described the circumstances of the Nenkayev brothers' kidnapping and submitted that the perpetrators had stolen her leather waistcoat, her husband's leather jacket and other items. According to the tenth applicant, the investigator did not include that information in the record.
6
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 23 24 25
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
