Code. The applicants submitted that they had learnt of the investigation only on 5 March 2003 when the first and the second applicants were questioned and granted victim status in the proceedings.
35. On 13 March 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the criminal investigation into her husband's abduction had been adjourned due to failure to identify the culprits. In response to this information, the first applicant requested the district prosecutor to allow her to have access to the case-file.
36. On 3 April 2003 the first applicant submitted a statement about a missing person to the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for rights and freedoms.
37. On 18 April 2003 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor's office and the ROVD and asked them to carry out a proper investigation into her husband's abduction.
38. On 21 April 2003 the district prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant that although the investigators had taken all possible steps to identify the perpetrators of the crime they had failed to do so. She was invited to inform the prosecutors of any new information about the kidnapping which came to her knowledge.
39. On 29 April 2003 the applicants published a notice in the Marsho newspaper, with a description of the circumstances of their relatives' apprehension and a call for any information about them.
40. On 18 June 2003 the first applicant again requested the district prosecutor to give her access to the documents of the criminal investigation. On 1 July 2003 the prosecutor's office invited the first applicant to consult the file.
41. On 10 July 2003 the military prosecutor of the United Group Alliance (UGA) in Chechnya forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit No. 20102 in Khankala.
42. On 28 July 2003 the district military commander informed the first applicant that, following an internal investigation, it had been established that his office had had no part in the apprehension of her husband and had no information about his whereabouts or the identity of the perpetrators.
43. On 30 July 2003 the first applicant appealed the adjournment of the criminal investigation to the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office. She reasoned that Leoma Meshayev, and also Bislan Saydayev, who had been detained on the same night by the same group of persons, could only have been detained by servicemen because of the use of military vehicles and the fact that these vehicles had been allowed to travel freely through the roadblock, despite the curfew in place. The first applicant requested the prosecutor to resume the investigation, to question the servicemen from the roadblock, the military commander's office and other law-enforcement bodies of the district about the details of the operation, to identify and question witnesses among local residents, and to collect and examine the bullets and cartridges left behind by the abductors who had shot at the applicant as she was trying to pursue them. He was requested to carry out the investigation urgently, before the traces of the detained men had been lost. The first applicant also requested the prosecutor to join the investigation to the one opened into the abduction of Bislan Saydayev.
44. On 4 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant that the investigation had taken all possible steps to solve the crime, but had failed to identify the culprits.
45. On 17 November 2003 the SRJI wrote to the district prosecutor on behalf of the first and ninth applicants and asked him to inform them of the state of the investigation in files Nos. 34002 and 34041. The letter further asked him to join the investigations. A copy of that letter was forwarded to the Chechnya Prosecutor's Off
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 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
