>
56. On 5 May 2003 the tenth, eleventh, fourteenth and fifteenth applicants asked the district prosecutor's office to grant them victim status in the proceedings concerning the abduction of their son and brother. It is unclear if these requests were granted.
57. On 10 June 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the ninth applicant that on 10 June 2003 criminal investigation No. 34041, opened on 10 April 2003, had been adjourned due to failure to identify the culprits. The applicant was informed of the possibility to appeal.
58. On 17 June 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit No. 20102 forwarded the ninth applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office and stated that there were no grounds to suspect the involvement of military servicemen.
59. On 28 July 2003 the ninth applicant appealed against the adjournment of the criminal investigation to the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office. He reasoned that his brother could only have been detained by servicemen because of the use of military vehicles and the fact that the vehicles had been allowed to travel freely through the roadblock, despite the curfew in place. The ninth applicant requested the prosecutor to resume the investigation, to question the servicemen of the roadblock, of 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, to collect and examine bullets and cartridges left behind by the abductors who had shot at the eleventh and fourteenth applicant as they were trying to pursue them. The complaint requested that the investigation be carried out urgently, before the traces of Bislan Saydayev had been lost.
60. On 9 August 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office forwarded the ninth applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office.
61. On 29 September 2003 the ninth applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to allow him access to the materials of the adjourned criminal investigation into his brother's abduction.
C. Information from the Government
62. In their observations the Government did not dispute the information concerning the investigations as presented by the applicants. Relying on information obtained from the General Prosecutor's Office, they referred to other procedural steps 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). The Government submitted the following.
63. On 5 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office opened criminal investigation file No. 34002 concerning the abduction of Leoma Meshayev on 17 December 2002. According to a document issued on 21 June 2006 by the acting district prosecutor, the main version of the crime examined by the investigation was the involvement of "power structures and military units" ("силовых структур и воинских подразделений").
64. On 8 January 2003 the first applicant was questioned and granted victim status in the proceedings. She was also questioned again on several occasions. She stated that on the night of 16 to 17 December 2002 about five armed persons wearing military uniforms who had spoken Russian and Chechen had entered their house and abducted her husband. The second applicant was questioned on 8 January 2003 and gave similar statements; however, he stated that there had been about ten abductors.
65. On 10 April 2003 the district prosecutor's office opened criminal investigation file No. 34041 concerning the abduction of Bislan Saydayev on 17 December 2002.
66. According to the Government, on 23 April 2003 the investigators granted victim status to the ninth applicant. When questioned he stated that at a
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 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
