039;s office joined the investigation in criminal case No. 34023 with the investigation in case No. 57031. The joined criminal case was assigned number 34023.
61. On 6 June 2006 the applicant was questioned by the investigation in criminal case No. 34023.
62. On 13 June 2006 the applicant's two relatives were questioned by the investigators.
63. On 5 July 2006 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators.
64. On 27 July 2006 the investigators reopened the investigation in criminal case No. 34023. The applicant was not informed about this decision.
65. At some point in 2008 the investigation of criminal case No. 34023 was transferred from the Urus-Martan district prosecutor's office to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor's office.
66. On 27 May 2008 the investigators exhumed Murad Khachukayev's remains for a post-mortem examination. The applicant was not informed about the results of the examination.
2. Information submitted by the Government
67. Referring to the information provided by the Prosecutor General's office, the Government submitted that the applicant's first complaint that his son had been abducted had been received by the district prosecutor's office on 11 February 2003, that the criminal case in this respect had been instituted on 12 February 2003 under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping) and that it had been assigned number 34023. In connection with the discovery on 12 February 2003 of fragments of a human body which, according to the relatives, was that of Murad Khachukayev, the district prosecutor's office opened criminal case No. 57031 under Article 105 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated murder). The investigation of this case had been joined with the investigation in criminal case No. 34023.
68. On 12 February 2003 the investigation questioned witness Mr A.E., who stated that he had been present during the examination of the place of discovery of the remains and identified them as belonging to his cousin Murad Khachukayev. In addition, the investigation questioned five witnesses who had been present in the applicant's house during Murad Khachukayev's abduction and who had confirmed that their relative had been taken away by unidentified persons. The Government submitted that although the applicant and his relative had information about the two UAZ vehicles driving around in the village on the night of the abduction, they had failed to provide this information to the investigation.
69. On 21 February 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned about the circumstances of his son's abduction. According to his account, on 5 February 2003 a group of unidentified armed men had broken into his house and taken away his son; on 12 February 2003 he had found out about the discovery of the fragments of his son's body near the village of Goyskoye.
70. According to the information from the Prosecutor General's office, the investigative authorities undertook, inter alia, the following measures: on 12 February 2003 they had examined the place where the remains were discovered and, as a result, had collected portions of the clothing and two metal objects for analysis. On 4 March 2003 ballistics analysis had established that one of these metal objects was a shell splinter and that the other was not part of an explosive device. According to the forensic expert evaluation of Murad Khachukayev's remains, dated 7 April 2003, it had been impossible to establish the cause of his death.
71. According to the Government, the newspaper article submitted by the applicant about the discovery of several corpses in the Urus-Martan district had no connection with the applicant's case
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 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
