Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.01.2009 «Дело Долсаев и другие (Dolsayev and others) против России» [англ.]

secutor's office. She requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be provided with information concerning its progress.
57. On 27 November 2006 the district prosecutor's office informed the second applicant that it had rejected her request of 24 November 2006.
58. On 28 November 2006 the district prosecutor's office informed the second applicant that on the same date it had suspended the investigation owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators.
59. On 19 March 2007 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor's office. He complained about the lack of information concerning the investigation and requested that the investigation be resumed and that he be allowed to study the case file.
60. On 22 March 2007 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that "as a person who has witness status in the criminal case, [he did] not have the right to lodge the request [to study the case file]...".
61. On 10 May 2007 the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about the lack of information concerning the investigation and requested to be granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
62. On 10 May 2007 the second applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about the lack of information concerning the investigation and requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be allowed to study the case file.
63. On 14 May 2007 the district prosecutor's office partly allowed the second applicant's complaint. Its decision stated that the applicant would receive permission to study the material in the case file "which would not divulge investigative secrets".
64. On 16 May 2007 the district prosecutor's office granted the first applicant victim status in criminal case No. 61144.
65. On 5 July 2007 the district prosecutor's office conducted a crime scene examination at the applicants' household. No evidence was collected from the scene.
66. On 5 July 2007 and 17 July 2007 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor's office that he be granted the status of a civil plaintiff in the criminal case. No response was given to these requests.
67. On 20 July 2007 the applicants' lawyer Mr M.A. submitted to the SRJI a written statement concerning his study of the investigation file in case No. 61144. In this letter he described the following:
"... the criminal case file comprises one volume. The case was opened on 30 October 2002... Makka Dolsayeva was granted victim status and questioned. Kursolt Dolsayev was also questioned. No other investigative measures were taken. The investigation forwarded information requests to law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya asking whether the latter had apprehended the Dolsayev brothers; according to the responses, the brothers had not been apprehended [by the law-enforcement agencies].
On 30 December 2002 [the prosecutor's office] decided to suspend the investigation owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators; the investigator's decision stated that all possible investigative measures in the absence of anyone to be charged with the crime had been taken.
... the crime scene examination was not conducted. Therefore it is possible to conclude that from the very beginning the investigation in the criminal case led to a dead-end; one could not possibly talk about its effectiveness.
For instance, in their witness statements Kursolt and Makka Dolsayev stated that after the abduction they had seen tyre marks of military vehicles on the ground; however, the investigation did not find that it was necessary to examine the crime scene [although] traces of the criminals or any other evidence left [by the culprits] could have been discovered there...
The investigation did not question all the w

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 20 21 22

0.1259 с