together with Mr E., whilst Mr Lecha Khazhmuradov and Mr D. had been working in the nearby wood. Then servicemen in two armoured personnel carriers had arrived and opened indiscriminate shooting from automatic firearms. Fifteen or twenty minutes later the soldiers had ceased fire, then five or six of them had crossed the river and entered the wood in which the applicant's husband and Mr D. had been working. Mr Lit. had heard the soldiers curse, then several shots followed, and then he had seen the soldiers throw the dead bodies of Mr Lecha Khazhmuradov and Mr D. into the river. After the soldiers had left in their armoured personnel carriers in the direction of the motorway, Mr Lit. and Mr E. had taken the corpses out of the river and delivered them to their homes.
21. In the Government's submission, Mr A. had given similar oral evidence.
22. The Government also submitted, without specifying the date, that the investigating authorities had also questioned the applicant, who had stated that on 11 September 2000 her husband and Mr D. had left to get some firewood to the north of the village near the river. Some time later she had heard machine-gun fire coming from that direction, and some time later the dead bodies of her husband and Mr D. had been brought back by other residents of their village who had seen the incident and had stated that her husband and Mr D. had been killed by Russian servicemen.
23. In their additional memorial of 8 May 2008 submitted in reply to the applicant's observations, the Government further stated that the investigating authorities had also questioned a certain Mr L., a serviceman who had been on duty at a check-point in the vicinity of the scene of the incident on 11 September 2000. According to the Government, Mr L. had submitted that on the date in question at about 6 p.m. two armoured personnel carriers had passed through the check-point, their registration numbers being covered with cartridge boxes, and that some time later local residents had arrived in several cars and had stated that unidentified persons had shot down their fellow-villagers. In the Government's submission, Mr L. was unable to recall whether the local residents mentioned that the murder had been committed by servicemen.
24. In the applicant's submission, she had regularly visited the district prosecutor's office and requested that she be informed of any progress in the investigation, but in vain.
25. On 29 August 2003 the applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to inform her of any progress in the investigation and allow her to join the proceedings as a victim and a civil claimant.
26. On 1 October 2003 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case No. 24376 for a failure to identify those responsible. The applicant was not promptly informed of the decision.
27. On 23 January 2004 the applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to inform her of the progress in the investigation and to admit her to the proceedings as a victim and a civil claimant.
28. On 18 February 2004 the district prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 1 October 2003 for the reason that the investigation was incomplete and resumed the proceedings in case No. 24376. They noted, in particular, that Mr Lecha Khazhmuradov and Mr D. had been killed "for no good reason" by "servicemen of an unknown military unit".
29. On 20 February 2004 the district prosecutor's office decided to allow the applicant to join the proceedings as a civil claimant. On 26 February 2004 they also granted her the status of victim of a crime. It was mentioned in both decisions that Mr Lecha Khazhmuradov and Mr D. had been killed "for no good reason" by "servicemen of an unknown military unit".
30. On 19 March 2004 the district prosecutor's office again stayed the proceedings in ca
> 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
