Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.04.2009 «Дело Хачукаев (Khachukayev) против России» [англ.]

ut this decision on the same date.
36. On 9 December 2003 the investigators reopened the investigation in the criminal case "due to incompleteness of the investigation conducted". The applicant was informed about this decision on the same date.
37. By a letter of 16 December 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on 9 December 2003 the investigation into his son's abduction had been resumed and that "the investigative actions aiming at establishing Murad Khachukayev's whereabouts and identifying the identity of the alleged perpetrators were under way".
38. On 21 December 2003, during questioning by the investigators, the applicant reiterated that he had found his son's remains and identified them by the fragments of clothes and footwear.
39. On 26 December 2003 the investigators informed the applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had taken all measures possible in the absence of those to be charged with the crime.
40. On 9 January 2004 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. According to the applicant, on 5 May 2004 an official of the Goyty village administration gave him a letter from the district prosecutor's office dated 9 January 2004, by which the applicant was informed that the investigation in case No. 34023 had been suspended on the same date for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators.
41. On 26 February 2004 the Department of the Prosecutor General's office in the Southern Federal Circuit (Управление Генеральной прокуратуры РФ в Южном федеральном округе) forwarded the applicant's request for information about the investigation in criminal case No. 34023 to the Chechnya prosecutor's office for examination.
42. On 4 March 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the applicant that his complaint concerning the abduction of Murad Khachukayev and the subsequent discovery of the latter's remains had been examined and that the search for the perpetrators was under way.
43. On 5 March 2004 the investigators resumed the investigation in criminal case No. 34023. The decision stated, inter alia, that "on 12 February 2003 in an orchard located four km from Urus-Martan in the direction of Goyty, fragments of a human body were discovered. The relatives [of the disappeared] identified M.S. Khachukayev from these fragments by the remaining footwear and portions of clothing" and further stated that "[the decision to suspend the investigation] was unsubstantiated and should be overruled and the criminal case should be returned for additional investigation". On the same date the letter informing the applicant about this decision was forwarded to his address.
44. On 13 March 2004 the investigators conducted a scene of crime examination at the applicant's house.
45. On 5 April 2004 the Urus-Martan prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. It appears that the applicant was not informed about this decision.
46. On 6 May 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint against the investigators with the Urus-Martan Town Court (the Town Court). He challenged the decision of 9 January 2004 to suspend the investigation and requested the court to order the investigators to resume the criminal investigation, carry it out in a thorough and effective manner, take a number of necessary investigative measures and provide him with access to the case file. The applicant also complained that the investigators had failed to reply to his previous request.
47. On 14 May 2004 the Town Court ordered the investigators to reply to the applicant's request and dismissed the remainder of his complaint.
48. On 24 August 2004, on an appeal by the applica



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet