Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.04.2009 «Дело Малсагова и другие (Malsagova and others) против России» [англ.]

the head of remand prison IZ-20/1, the ROVD and other agencies replied that they had no information on Saydi Malsagov's whereabouts.
55. On 1 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case No. 61147 for failure to identify those responsible and ordered the ROVD to take investigative measures more actively in order to solve the crime.
56. On 5 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant of the decision of 1 September 2003.
57. On 1 October 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 1 September 2003 and resumed the investigation.
58. On 15 October 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been resumed.
59. On 15 November 2004 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation for failure to identify those responsible and informed the first applicant of the decision.
60. On 6 December 2004 the district prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 15 November 2004 and resumed the investigation. On 7 December 2004 the first applicant was notified accordingly.
61. On 13 December 2004 the district prosecutor's office again questioned the first applicant. She submitted that all perpetrators had been dressed in camouflage uniforms with no insignia. They had walked to their house from the neighbours' garden. No one had seen their vehicles. The men had entered the room in which the first applicant had been together with her daughter and granddaughters and ordered them not to move. The women had been frightened and had not known whether the door was locked or not. A few minutes later the first applicant had left the room and found out that the men had taken her son away.
62. On 25 December 2004 the district prosecutor's office requested information on the case from the Chechen FSB.
63. On 26 December 2004 the district prosecutor's office sent requests for information concerning Saydi Malsagov to a number of remand prisons in different regions of Russia, including remand prison IZ-20/2 in Chernokozovo. On the same date they requested information on Saydi Malsagov from hospitals in different districts of Chechnya.
64. On 27 December 2004 an investigator of the district prosecutor's office studied a detainees' register of the temporary detention facility of the ROVD. The register contained no record of Saydi Malsagov.
65. On 28 December 2004 the district prosecutor's office questioned Mr A., the applicants' neighbour, as a witness. Mr A. submitted that he had learned of Saydi Malsagov's kidnapping on the morning of 7 January 2002. On that day he had seen prints of boots on a fresh layer of snow in his back yard. The wirenetting separating his back yard from that of the Malsagovs had been cut. He had not heard any noise on the night of 6 to 7 January 2002. Three other neighbours made similar statements.
66. On 29 December 2004 the district prosecutor's office questioned the fourth and seventh applicants as witnesses. They made statements similar to that of Mr A. On the same date the district prosecutor's office granted the fourth applicant victim status.
67. On 7 January 2005 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case No. 61147 for failure to identify those responsible and informed the first and fourth applicants of the decision.
68. On 18 January 2005 the district prosecutor's office were informed that Saydi Malsagov had not been kept in IZ-20/2. At some point they became aware that other remand prisons to which they had sent requests had no information on Saydi Malsagov's whereabouts.
69. On 27 January 2005 the Chechen FSB informed the district prosecutor's office that in 2002 Saydi Malsagov had b

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 19 20 21

0.1377 с