il 2003 the district prosecutor's office again informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended on 13 January 2003.
28. On 23 May 2003 the unit prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office and stated that there were no reasons to suspect the involvement of servicemen in the crime.
29. On 9 June 2003 the UGA prosecutor's office again forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the unit prosecutor's office.
30. On 18 June 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to allow her access to the investigation file in case No. 61147. On 20 June 2003 this permission was granted and the applicant was invited to study the file at the prosecutor's office during working hours. According to the first applicant, when she inspected the investigation file, she found in it only requests for information sent to different district departments of the interior and replies to these requests denying that they had ever detained Saydi Malsagov. The first applicant was not permitted to take copies of these documents.
31. On 3 July 2003 the unit prosecutor's office informed the applicants that they had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
32. On 23 July 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office and instructed him to conduct a careful examination of the first applicant's complaints.
33. On 1 August 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case No. 61147 had been resumed on that date.
34. On 6 August 2003 the first applicant complained to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic about the decision to suspend the investigation. She referred to the circumstances of her son's abduction and argued that he must have been detained by some representatives of official bodies, because they had arrived in a large group during curfew hours and wore uniforms similar to those used by Russian servicemen. She requested the prosecutor to oblige the district prosecutor's office to carry out a number of investigative actions, namely to question servicemen of law enforcement agencies. She also requested that other witnesses to the night raid who could have seen the vehicles in which the abductors had arrived be identified and questioned.
35. On 6 August 2003 the district prosecutor's office again informed the first applicant that the investigation had taken all possible steps to establish the whereabouts of her son, but that it had now been suspended for failure to identify those responsible.
36. On 20 August 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that, in response to her complaints, the decision to suspend the investigation into her son's abduction had been quashed on 1 August 2003 and the district prosecutor had been instructed to take a number of necessary investigative steps.
37. On 1 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been again suspended on 1 September 2003. The applicant was informed of the possibility of appeal against the said decision.
38. On 5 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office notified the applicant of the latest suspension of the investigation.
39. On 29 September 2003 the first applicant's complaint was forwarded from the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic to the district prosecutor's office with an instruction to verify the complaints.
40. On 13 November 2003 the SRJI, acting on the applicants' behalf, requested the district prosecutor's office to inform them of the current status of the criminal investigation into
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
