>
27. On 20 January 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit No. 20102 (based in Khankala, the main Russian military base in Chechnya) informed the second applicant that the investigation should be conducted by the local district prosecutor's office, unless it had been established that servicemen of the Ministry of Defence or of the Interior Troops of the Ministry of the Interior had been implicated in the crime.
28. On 7 April 2003 the first applicant asked the district prosecutor's office to provide her with an update on criminal investigation No. 34001 into her brother's abduction.
29. On 3 June 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded a complaint by the fourth applicant of inefficiency of the investigation to the district prosecutor's office and instructed them to inform the Chechnya prosecutor's office about the investigation into the abduction.
30. On 20 June 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the SRJI that on 1 March 2003 the investigation in criminal case No. 34001 had been suspended due to failure to identify the culprits. The letter also stated that the ROVD had been instructed to take "active measures" to solve the crime.
31. On 29 September 2003 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor's office and asked him to grant her access to case file No. 34001.
32. On 17 December 2003 and on 6 January 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the SRJI, in identical wording, that the criminal investigation into Aslanbek Astamirov's abduction had been opened by the district prosecutor's office on 1 January 2003 and suspended on 1 March 2003. On 15 December 2003 the investigation had been reopened and all the necessary steps taken to find Mr. Astamirov and to identify the culprits.
33. On 16 February 2004 the SRJI requested the Chechnya and the district prosecutors' offices to clarify if the criminal investigation into the abduction of Aslanbek Astamirov had been opened on 6 December 2002 or on 1 January 2003. They also asked them to inform them about the progress of the investigation.
34. On 23 June 2005 the SRJI, acting on the second applicant's behalf, again asked the district prosecutor's office to give them information about the date on which the criminal investigation had been opened, to inform them about the progress of the proceedings and to allow the second applicant, as a victim, to access the case file.
35. On 12 July 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the second applicant and the SRJI that the investigation into the crime was ongoing and that she could access the case file at that office.
36. The applicants submitted that they received no further information about the investigation into Aslanbek Astamirov's abduction and that they were not aware of the exact date on which the case had been opened.
37. The applicants submitted that as a result of the severe stress following her son's disappearance the health of the second applicant had deteriorated significantly and that she had often been forced to remain in bed.
C. Information from the Government
38. In their observations the Government did not dispute the information concerning the investigation of the abduction of Aslanbek Astamirov as presented by the applicants. Relying on information obtained from the General Prosecutor's Office, they referred to a number of other procedural steps taken by the investigation which had not been mentioned by the applicants. However, despite specific requests from the Court, the Government did not submit copies of most of the documents to which they referred (see below). In reply to the Court's requests, the Government submitted the following information concerning the progress of the investigation.
39. The criminal investigation in
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
