eply of the military prosecutor's office of the UGA of 9 March 2004 stating that on 10 June 2002 their sons had been brought to Kh., the deputy prosecutor of the Shatoy inter-district prosecutor's office, whereas Kh. had died five months before that date.
72. On 21 March 2005 the decision of 24 October 2004 to suspend the investigation was quashed and the investigation was resumed.
73. On 15 June 2005 the Shalinskiy district military commander replied to the third applicant that, according to the information available, no servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior troops deployed in the territory within the jurisdiction of the military commander's office had been involved in the abduction of her sons.
74. According to the Government's observations of 10 October 2007, the investigation was under way.
3. Proceedings concerning the inaction
of the investigating authorities
75. On 25 October 2004 the third applicant lodged a complaint concerning the inaction of the military prosecutor's office with the Military Court of the Groznenskiy Garrison.
76. On 10 June 2005 the Military Court of the Groznenskiy Garrison allowed the complaint, finding that the suspension of the investigation on 24 October 2004 had been unlawful. The court noted that the investigation had been resumed on 21 March 2005.
C. Proceedings for compensation for non-pecuniary damage
77. In April 2003 the first, fifth and seventh applicants brought claims against the Ministry of Finance for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the abduction of their sons by State agents.
1. Proceedings concerning the first applicant's claim
78. On 23 December 2003 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the first applicant's claim. The court found that on 9 June 2002 the applicant's son had been apprehended in Duba-Yurt by unknown servicemen and then taken away to an unknown destination. The court further held that the evidence presented at the hearing did not show that the disappearance of Mr Suliman Malikov had been caused by any unlawful actions on the part of the State authorities. The first applicant appealed.
79. On 26 October 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.
2. Proceedings concerning the fifth applicant's claim
80. On 14 July 2003 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow stayed the proceedings concerning the fifth applicant's claim on account of her omission to pay the court fees and enclose supporting documents. The applicant was ordered to rectify the omission by 28 August 2003. The fifth applicant appealed against this decision.
81. On 16 June 2004 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal.
82. On 25 February 2005 the Basmanniy District Court returned the fifth applicant's claim without examination as she had not rectified the omission to comply with the procedural requirements within the time-limit set by the court.
3. Proceedings concerning the seventh applicant's claim
83. On 15 June 2004 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the seventh applicant's claim. The court found that on 9 June 2002 the applicant's son had been apprehended in Duba-Yurt by unknown persons and that his whereabouts were unknown. The court further held that the evidence presented at the hearing did not show that the disappearance of Mr Mansur Ismailov had been caused by any unlawful actions on the part of the State authorities. The seventh applicant appealed.
84. On 25 February 2005 the Moscow City Court stayed examination of the seventh applicant's appeal on account of her failure to comply with certain procedural requirements for lodging an appeal. The applicant had to rectif
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
