CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 mars 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBBEDD775 { margin-left:47.21pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sF4E2F6FE { margin-left:50.2pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A3E02A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications nos. 27238/03 and 35078/04 by Zainap Khadushovna DZHAMBEKOVA and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13   March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications lodged on 10 July 2003 and on 19 August 2004, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants in application no.   27238/03 are: Ms Zaynap Khadushovna Dzhambekova, born in 1959; Mr Adlan Lukayevich Dzhambekov, born in 1953; Ms Markha Adlanovna Dzhambekova, born in 1998; Mr Islam Adlanovich Dzhambekov, born in 1990; Ms Aminat Dodayevna Ependiyeva, born in 1949; Mr Ali Magomedovich Soltymuradov, born in 1992; Ms Toita Dodayevna Soltymuradova, born in 1954; Ms Aysha Magomedovna Soltymuradova, born in 1997; Ms Madina Magomedovna Soltymuradova, born in 1990; Mr Uvays Soltymuradovich Soltymuradov, born in 1930; Ms Zulpa Uvaysovna Soltymuradova, born in 1958; Ms Umisat Dodyevna Nakayeva, born in 1965; Ms Ayza Shaidovna Tokayeva, born in 1966; Ms Zara Baidovna Tatariyeva, born in 1940; Ms Kheda Rezvanovna Tatariyeva, born in 2000; Ms Zura Shamsudinovna Tatariyeva, born in 1967. Ms Marina Dukvakhayevna Islamova, born in 1980. The applicants in application no.   35078/04 are: Vakha Salmanovich Visaitov, born in 1944; Zulay Sayd-Khasanovna Magomadova, born 1949. They are Russian nationals and live in the Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. They were represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. Detention of the applicants’ relatives The applicants belong to four families, four of whose relatives were detained in three separate episodes in 2001 and 2002 in the town of Urus-Martan or in villages in the Urus-Martan district. The four men disappeared following their detention, and the families have been conducting the search for them together. (a) Apprehension of Imran Dzhambekov The first four applicants are relatives of Imran Dzhambekov, born in 1979. The first two applicants are his mother and father, and the third and fourth applicants are his younger sister and brother. The Dzhambekov family live in their own house at 209 Sovetskaya Street in the village of Goyty in the Urus-Martan district. In March 2002 Imran Dzhambekov was a second-year student at the Grozny Oil Institute, in the faculty of Construction Management and Economics. The local police office in Urus-Martan certified that he had no problems with the law and was known to his neighbours and co-students as a responsible member of the community. In May 2003, at the first applicant’s request, the Goyty village policeman certified that there was no reason to suspect Imran Dzhambekov of involvement with illegal armed groups. On the evening of 19 March 2002 the first four applicants and Imran Dzhambekov were at home. At about midnight the first applicant heard someone trying to open the entrance door. She walked to the door, which opened, and a man wearing camouflage and a mask entered and pointed a machine gun at her. He turned on the light, and then about twelve more servicemen entered the house. They were all armed and masked. They spoke Russian without any accent and the first applicant noticed blue eyes and light features through the openings in the masks. The first applicant asked them what they wanted but they told her to keep silent. They did not explain anything to the applicants and did not produce any papers. The servicemen asked the first applicant to indicate who was in which room of the house. The first applicant pointed to the room where her husband, the second applicant, was sleeping and to the room where her elder son Imran Dzhambekov was sleeping. One serviceman went into the second applicant’s room, and about ten of them went into Imran’s room. The first applicant managed to get past the servicemen into her son’s room and saw him lying on the floor face down, his hands tied behind his back. Her son was wearing a short-sleeved T-shirt and shorts in which he had been sleeping. The military ordered him to be silent and asked the first applicant her son’s name and date of birth. Then they ordered her to fetch his passport and other documents, which she did. In the meantime the first applicant’s two minor children, the third and the fourth applicants, started to cry and one of the soldiers took the children and the first applicant and escorted them into the second applicant’s room. Then they closed the door and pushed some furniture against it to block it from the outside. The second applicant received several blows from the military in the face and in the stomach, and for some time lay on the floor in pain. When the applicants managed to open the door after about ten minutes, the servicemen had already left and taken Imran Dzhambekov with them. The first applicant ran along the street crying out her son’s name. She saw a group of servicemen walking towards two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and one UAZ vehicle stationed on the crossroads of Sovetskaya Street and Titova Street. The second applicant in the meanwhile grabbed a metal rod and started to knock on a gas pipe pillar in order to wake up the neighbours. By the time the first applicant reached the crossroads, the military had mounted the vehicles and left along Titova Street. The first applicant tried to catch up with them but they turned into Pushkina Street. In the meantime, the second applicant took his car and also tried to catch up with the military vehicles. At some point he picked up his wife, the first applicant, in the street and together they continued along the tracks left by the APCs until they reached the main road, from where there were two directions out of the village – to the north towards Grozny, or to the south towards Urus-Martan. Both exits were controlled by Russian military roadblocks. The applicants first went to the roadblock at the exit towards Grozny. They personally knew a military serviceman who served there, Sergey from St. Petersburg, and the first applicant walked up to the roadblock and called him by name. When he came out she told him that some military in APCs had detained her son, and Sergey told her that there had been no traffic into the village that night from their side, and that they should go to the roadblock towards Urus-Martan. The applicants then went to the house of the local policeman and asked him to go with them, but he refused. He told them to go and wait for the military vehicles at the roadblock until 6 a.m. because nobody would be allowed to travel during the curfew. Then the applicants went to the house of the head of the village administration, but did not find him. After that the applicants went to the roadblock leading towards Urus-Martan. There, at about 1.30 a.m., they saw two APCs and a UAZ vehicle heading towards Urus-Martan. The applicants clearly noted the identification number of one APC as 237, and a long dent and strokes of white paint on the back of the UAZ. Later the neighbours told them that they had noted the APC identification numbers as 237 and 246, and the UAZ number plate as “378-t”. The first and second applicants returned home and decided to continue the search in the morning, after the end of the curfew. In the street in front of their house they found Imran Dzhambekov’s shoe and socks. They realised that he had been taken away in his shorts and T-shirt and barefoot, despite the cold weather. In addition to their own detailed statements of facts, the applicants submitted witness statements from their neighbours about the events of the night of 19-20 March 2002, which corroborated their submissions. One witness testified that she had seen bruises on the second applicant’s face from the blow he had received that night. The neighbours testified that they had heard the first applicant crying out her son’s name and the knocking by the second applicant, and had seen the military in two APCs and a man in underwear whom they had put into an APC. The applicants also submitted a hand-drawn map of Goyty indicating the places to which they referred. The applicants have had no news of their son and brother Imran Dzhambekov since that night. The Government in their observations did not dispute most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 19 March 2002 at about 12   a.m. unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with automatic weapons had entered the applicants’ house at 209 Sovetsakaya Street in Goyty and taken away Imran Dzhambekov. (b) Apprehension of Magomed Soltymuradov Applicants five to thirteen are relatives of Magomed Dodiyevich Soltymuradov, born in 1969. The fifth, seventh and twelfth applicants are his sisters; the sixth, eighth and ninth applicants are his son and daughters; the tenth applicant is his uncle and the eleventh applicant is his cousin. The thirteenth applicant is Magomed Soltymuradov’s wife. The applicants live in two private houses located in Urus-Martan at nos. 5 and 7 Polevaya Street. Magomed Soltymuradov, his wife and three children lived in house no. 5, while his uncle and his cousin, the tenth and eleventh applicants, live in no. 7. In addition, there is another building in the same household where the fifth applicant lives. Magomed Soltymuradov is an economist by training. Before the hostilities started he had worked in a bank. Between November 1999 and December 2001 Magomed Soltymuradov lived as an internally displaced person with his wife and three children in the Volgograd Region. Since his return to Urus-Martan he had been unemployed, while his wife, the thirteenth applicant, worked as a medical worker in a hospital. The applicants submitted that Magomed Soltymuradov had suffered from an ulcer since childhood and required constant medical treatment. On the night of 10-11 January 2002 the thirteenth applicant was in the hospital where she was working the night shift. The sixth, eighth and ninth applicants were at home with their father, Magomed Soltymuradov. They slept through the night, and in the morning at 7 a.m. when the ninth applicant woke up and was getting ready for school, she found out that her father was not at home and that the front door was broken. The eleventh applicant testified that at about 2 a.m. on 11 January 2002 she had heard some noise at the front door of her house. She walked to the door and turned on the lights. She asked in Russian who it was, and was told in Russian to open the door for a document check. Once she opened the door, four armed men in camouflage uniforms and wearing masks entered the house. They told her to produce her passport and searched her room, including the bed and the wardrobe. They then proceeded to search the room of the tenth applicant, her father. After about twenty minutes they left. The tenth and eleventh applicant heard a car leaving from the crossroads of Polevaya Street and Chekhova Street, from the direction of the house of Magomed Soltymuradov. The fifth applicant submitted that in the middle of the night she had heard some noise in her house but had not understood what was going on. She looked out into the courtyard, but it was dark and she could not see anything. She then fell asleep. On 11 January 2002 at about 7 a.m. the ninth applicant, Madina Soltymuradova, the daughter of Magomed Soltymuradov, alerted the tenth and eleventh applicants to her father’s absence. The relatives inspected the fresh snow in the courtyard, where they could clearly see traces of military boots with the marking “USSR”. There were also imprints of sports shoes. The applicants estimated that there must have been about twenty persons in the courtyard. The imprints led to houses nos. 5 and 7, and inside the houses. In both buildings the front doors were broken. Magomed Soltymuradov’s room and bed were in disorder. The applicants also realised that 4,000 roubles (RUR) they had in cash had gone missing. The applicants submitted a hand-drawn map of the neighbourhood indicating the buildings to which they referred and the traces left by boots. The applicants have not had any news of Magomed Soltymuradov since 11 January 2002. The Government in their observations did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 11 January 2002 at about 3   a.m. unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with automatic weapons had entered the household at no. 5 Polevaya Street in Urus-Martan and taken away Magomed Soltymuradov, whose whereabouts remained unknown. (c) Apprehension of Rizvan Tatariyev Applicants fourteen to seventeen are relatives of Rizvan Shamsudinovich Tatariyev, born in 1977. The fourteenth applicant is his mother, the fifteenth applicant is his daughter, the sixteenth applicant is his sister and the seventeenth applicant is his wife. The applicants live in two private houses joined by a common courtyard, located at 16 Bolnichnaya Street in Gekhi, Urus-Martan district. Six other family members of Arbi T., Rizvan Tatatriyev’s brother, live in the same household. Rizvan Tatariyev was a construction worker. In May 2003 the Gekhi village policeman and the head of the village administration certified that there was no reason to suspect Rizvan Tatariyev of involvement with illegal armed groups. On the night of 22 December 2001 the applicants and other members of their family were at home sleeping. At about   3 a.m. a large group of servicemen forcibly entered the household. There were about twenty men, armed with hand pistols, automatic weapons and truncheons and wearing camouflage uniforms and masks. They were tall and well-built and spoke Russian without any accent. They wore head lamps, so the applicants could not see their faces clearly, but the applicants submitted that they belonged to the special forces. The applicants were awoken by the soldiers who were already in the house and had spread out in the rooms. They first went to the room of Rizvan Tatariyev’s nephew, Ruslan T., who at that time was 21 years old. They put him on the floor and held him there using their feet and truncheons. One of the female relatives fetched his passport at the request of the servicemen, who inspected it and said to another “It’s not him.” They then proceeded to the room where the fourteenth applicant and her son Rizvan Tatariyev had been sleeping. Several servicemen threw Rizvan Tatariyev on the floor and started to kick him, then tied his hands behind his back. They inspected his driving licence and said “It’s him”. They did not ask for his passport. In the meantime the fourteenth applicant tried to get to her son, but the military pushed her away. Then they escorted Rizvan Tatariyev outside through the back door and left one by one. They warned the applicants not to go outside the house or they would shoot. The applicants submitted that, according to their neighbours’ statements, the military had arrived with an APC and two UAZ vehicles which they had left about 80 metres away from the house. When the applicants came out of the house some time after the departure of the armed men, they found the gates open, but the military had already left. In addition to their own statements of facts and statements of facts by their relatives who lived in the same household, the applicants submitted a hand-drawn map of the area and of the two houses, noting the places to which they referred. In the morning they learnt that on the same night the servicemen had detained and taken away another man in Gekhi, Sharpudi Visaitov. The applicants have not seen or heard from their relative Rizvan Tatariyev since the night of 21-22 December 2001. The Government in their observations did not dispute most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 22 December 2001 at about 4   a.m. unidentified armed men wearing masks had taken Rizvan Tatariyev away from his home, and that his whereabouts remained unknown. (d) Apprehension of Sharpudi Visaitov The eighteenth and nineteenth applicants are married. They are the father and mother of Sharpudi Vakhayevich Visaitov, born in 1980. The applicants live with their eight children, their daughter-in-law and two grandchildren in a private house at 20 Nuradilova Street in Gekhi, Urus-Martan district. Their son Sharpudi Visaitov worked as a car mechanic. In May 2003 the Gekhi village policeman and the head of the village administration certified that there was no reason to suspect Sharpudi Visaitov of involvement with illegal armed groups. On the night of 21 to 22 December 2001 the applicants and their family members were at home sleeping. At about 4 a.m. a large group of men in camouflage uniforms forcibly entered their house. The servicemen were armed with machine guns and spoke Russian without any accent. Some of them wore masks, while others did not and had typically Slavic features. They were wearing helmets with head lamps. The military did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations. The applicants were woken up by the servicemen who were in their room and aimed automatic rifles at them. They told them to be quiet, not to wake up the children and to produce their identity documents for a check. They also asked them if there were any weapons in the house, to which the eighteenth applicant replied in the negative, and how many men there were in the house. They proceeded to search the rooms, inspecting the passports of the occupants. In the meantime a group of soldiers stayed in the courtyard, keeping aim at the windows. Then the military ordered four sons of the applicants, including Sharpudi Visaitov, to go into the courtyard. They were not permitted to dress or to put on shoes. After a while Sharpudi’s three brothers were released and returned to the house one by one. The servicemen left after about thirty minutes and took Sharpudi Visaitov with them. Before leaving they told the applicants to remain inside the house for twenty minutes because the house was being watched by snipers and they would be shot at if they disobeyed. After the departure of the servicemen the applicants realised that they had taken Sharpudi Visaitov’s passport and some family photos. In the morning of 22 December 2001 the applicants found Sharpudi Visaitov’s slippers in the courtyard and saw the imprints of bare feet in the snow, which they concluded were his. They found an opening cut in the metal wire fence around their vegetable patch, through which the servicemen had arrived and departed. In the morning they discovered that on the same night another person from the village had been detained, Rizvan Tatariyev. The Tatariyevs’ house is situated in Bolnichnaya Street, which is parallel to Nuradilova Street, so that the two households border each other’s back gardens. The applicants submitted a hand-drawn map of the area and of the house. The applicants also identified witnesses among neighbours who testified that they had seen a large group of servicemen in the Visaitovs’ house on that night at about 4 a.m., as well as an APC and another vehicle stationed in the neighbouring Kirova Street. These statements were attached to their application. The applicants submitted that two days after the detention of Sharpudi Visaitov an APC and a UAZ vehicle had arrived at their house. A group of military servicemen told them to give up their weapons or they would take away other men, as they had done with Sharpudi. The applicants had no weapons to surrender, and the military searched the house and left without taking anything. They did not identify themselves or present any papers. The applicants submitted that the vehicles had left in the direction of Urus-Martan. The Government in their observations did not dispute most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 22 December 2001 at about 4   a.m. unidentified armed men wearing masks had taken Sharpudi Visaitov away from his home, and that his whereabouts remained unknown. 2. Search and investigations into the “disappearances” Immediately after the detention of their family members the applicants started to search for them. They coordinated their actions and conducted part of the search together. The search was primarily carried out by the women in the families, either by the mothers or sisters of the detained men. At some point in 2003 the applicants set up a non-governmental organisation called the “Society of War Victims”, headed by the first applicant. Part of the search was conducted on behalf of this NGO. On numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, they applied to the prosecutors at various levels, to the Ministry of the Interior, to the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, to military commanders, the Federal Security Service (FSB), the administrative authorities in Chechnya and to the media and public figures. The applicants also personally visited detention centres, police stations, military bases and prisons in Chechnya as well as further afield in the Northern Caucasus. Besides personal visits, the applicants addressed numerous letters to the prosecutors and other authorities in which they stated the facts of their relatives’ detention and asked for assistance and details on the investigation. The applicants submitted copies of some letters they had written. The applicants received hardly any substantive information from official bodies about the investigations into the disappearances. On several occasions they were sent copies of letters by means of which their requests had been forwarded to different prosecution services. Below is a summary of the letters retained by the applicants and the replies they received from the authorities, and of other relevant developments. (a) Search for Imran Dzhambekov Imran Dzhambekov was detained in the early hours of 20 March 2002. Once the curfew was over at 6 a.m. the first and second applicants, the parents of the detained man, took warm clothes for him and went to Urus-Martan, in the direction taken by the military vehicles that had detained him. They personally visited the Urus-Martan temporary district department of the interior (VOVD) and the military commander’s office. They were not allowed to enter the buildings, but the officers denied that Imran Dzhambekov had been detained by them. On 20 March 2002 the applicants submitted a written application to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor, complaining of the unlawful arrest of their son by military servicemen in two APCs. The applicants were received by the district prosecutor, who in their presence called the VOVD, the military commander’s office and the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior special operations division no. 100 (referred to as DON-100). These services denied that their vehicles or servicemen had been involved in any operations in the village of Goyty on that night and stated that they had not detained Imran Dzhambekov. On the same day at about 2 p.m. the first and second applicants talked to officer Ya., deputy military commander of the Urus-Martan district, who allegedly told them that a detainee “from the left side of Sovetskaya Street in Goyty” had been taken that night to the “boarding school”. The applicants submitted that the Urus-Martan VOVD had been located in the premises of the former boarding school. Also on 20 March 2002 the applicants, while standing in front of the gates of the VOVD, noticed a UAZ vehicle and identified it by the signs of white paint and a dent on the back as the one which had been involved in their son’s arrest. They also noted the vehicle’s number plates. On 21 March 2002 the applicants again went to Urus-Martan. They submitted that they had been informed by an officer of the military commander’s office that their son was currently detained and being questioned in the VOVD, and that he would be released in a day or two. On 23 March 2002 the applicants, through a middleman, contacted the chief of staff of the district military commander’s office A., who told them that they should look for their son at Khankala (the main Russian military base in Chechnya) and that he had been in the custody of the Regional department for combating organised crime (RUBOP). On the same day the second applicant talked to a police detective from the VOVD, Alik Kh., who confirmed that the UAZ vehicle belonged to the head of the VOVD and advised him to look for his son at the RUBOP branch in Grozny. In early April an officer at the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office also told the applicants that their son had been detained by the Grozny branch of RUBOP. On 24 March 2002 at about 10 a.m. the second applicant talked to the head of the criminal investigation department of the VOVD, K., in the courtyard of the VOVD building. The second applicant showed him the UAZ vehicle, but the officer said that the car could have been taken without the VOVD knowing it; he again denied any knowledge of Imran Dzhambekov’s detention. On 25 March 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) opened criminal investigation file no.   61058 into the kidnapping of Imran Dzhambekov. On the same day the first applicant communicated all the known details of the APCs and the UAZ vehicle to the prosecutor’s office. At the end of March 2002 the first applicant talked to investigator Sergey L. from the district prosecutor’s office, who was in charge of her son’s case. He told her that he could not question anyone in the military commander’s office but that he had carried out checks and established that the APCs with the said numbers belonged to the district military commander’s office and the UAZ to the VOVD. He also said that when he had tried to put some questions to a serviceman from the commander’s office he had been threatened. The same investigator later told the applicants that he had visited the VOVD personally and had not found Imran Dzhambekov, but “that there were only four cells there to which he had access”. On 8 April 2002 the head of the Urus-Martan district administration informed the first applicant that her letters concerning an illegal search at her house and detention of her son on the night of 19-20 March 2002 had been forwarded to the military commander of the district to establish who had been responsible. The applicants submitted that on 15 April 2002 the second applicant had again met with the head of the criminal investigation department of the VOVD, K., at the VOVD and that the latter had denied that Imran Dzhambekov had ever been detained there. As proof, the officer showed the second applicant the log of detainees. The second applicant noted the name “Dzhanashvili” and suggested that it could have been his son, but that his name had been deliberately misspelled. The officer said that he could not show him that man either and refused to assist the applicants in the future. The applicants also submitted that they had attempted to find a middleman among the military servicemen in order to pay money and obtain the release of their son, but had been told that it was impossible. Some time in April the applicants also contacted a man who worked in Khankala and who told them that Imran Dzhambekov had allegedly been detained there, that he had been charged with crimes related to terrorism and that he had been transferred to Rostov-on-Don on 18 or 24 April with a group of other detainees. On 24 April 2002 the first applicant wrote a letter to the Chechnya Prosecutor asking him to conduct an investigation and to establish her son’s whereabouts. On 16 May 2002 the first applicant applied in person to the acting Chechnya Prosecutor, Mr Chernov. He invited her to a meeting in his office with a senior military prosecutor, Mr Kolomeyets. The first applicant recounted the story of her son’s detention to both men, who assured her that, since details such as the APC and the UAZ numbers were known, the case would certainly be resolved. The military prosecutor assured the applicant that he too would take the case under his personal supervision. On 18 May 2002 the first applicant submitted another application to the Chechnya Prosecutor. On 20 May 2002 the first applicant’s letter was forwarded to the district prosecutor’s office for investigation. On 24 May 2002 the first applicant wrote to the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD and asked him to investigate her son’s disappearance and the involvement of the two APCs and the UAZ vehicle, the numbers and other details of which she indicated. On 28 May 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal investigation into her son’s abduction. On 10 June 2002 the first applicant again requested the Chechnya Prosecutor to organise an effective investigation into her son’s abduction. She stated in the letter the known details of the vehicles that had taken him away and requested that it be established to which authority they belonged. On 11 June 2002 the district prosecutor’s office replied to the applicants and stated that all the necessary investigative measures had been carried out, but that they had not led to identification of the culprits. On 22 June 2002 the head of the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (ROVD) informed the first applicant that their office had opened a search file on her missing son and that she would be informed of the results. On 9 July 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that their office had examined the criminal investigation file concerning her son’s abduction, quashed the decision to adjourn the criminal investigation and forwarded the case for further investigation to the district prosecutor’s office. On 24 July 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office forwarded a similar letter to the first applicant and told her to direct further queries to the district prosecutor’s office. On 2 September 2002 the first applicant wrote a letter to the Urus-Martan military commander’s office giving details of her son’s abduction and including a request to carry out an investigation and find out his whereabouts. In January 2003 the first applicant wrote letters to the President of the Russian Federation, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the military prosecutor’s office and other authorities. Most of her complaints were forwarded to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office. On 23 January 2003 the Chechnya department of the FSB informed the first applicant that they had no information regarding Imran Dzhambekov and that he was not suspected of participation in illegal activities. Her letter was further forwarded to the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (UGA) in the Northern Caucasus. On 31 January 2003 the military prosecutor of the UGA forwarded the first applicant’s letter to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102, based in Khankala, and instructed him to verify whether the UAZ vehicle with the number plate indicated by the applicant belonged to the VOVD of Urus-Martan. On 3 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation of criminal case no.   61058 into her son’s abduction had been adjourned on 25 May 2002 owing to a failure to identify the culprits, and had been reopened on 30 January 2003. On 14 February 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that the investigation in criminal case no.   61058 had been resumed on 30 January 2003 and that the investigation was checking the information concerning the APCs and the UAZ vehicle communicated by her. On 18 February 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that her application had been forwarded to the military prosecutor of the Northern Caucasus military circuit. On 18 February 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 responded to the first applicant, informing her that her application, as her previous applications, was not a matter for the military prosecutor’s office. The letter further informed her that the criminal case into her son’s abduction would only be transferred from the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office to the military prosecutor’s office if it had been established that military servicemen had been implicated in the crime. On 17 March 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office wrote to a member of the State Duma, Mr Nikitin, in reply to his enquiry concerning missing persons and crimes against civilians in Chechnya. The letter stated that 1,250 criminal investigation files had been opened in respect of 1,802 kidnapped or missing persons. In 2002 alone 565 criminal cases had been opened in respect of 738 missing persons. 559 persons had been found. The letter listed a number of steps taken by the prosecutor’s office in order to prevent disappearances and to effectively investigate such cases, including a number of instructions and coordination meetings between various bodies. The letter also contained a list of missing persons, which included Imran Dzhambekov, Magomed Soltymuradov, Rizvan Tatariyev and Sharpudi Visaitov, and stated that criminal investigations were pending into each of those cases. The involvement of servicemen of the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of the Interior had not been established in any of the cases, and the investigation into all the cases had been adjourned. Measures to solve the crimes continued. On 3 April 2003 Mr Nikitin forwarded the response of the Prosecutor General’s Office to the first applicant for information. On 5 April 2003 the military prosecutor of the UGA forwarded the first applicant’s letter to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102. On 8 April 2003 the first applicant submitted applications to the Minister of the Interior and to the Speakers of the two Chambers of the Federal Assembly, asking them to take into account the situation of the “disappeared” persons when working on the draft document on granting amnesty in Chechnya. On 17 April 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office wrote to the first applicant in response to her complaint. The letter stated that following her son’s kidnapping by unknown persons wearing camouflage on 20 March 2002, criminal case no.   61058 had been opened on 25 March 2002 by the district prosecutor’s office under Article 126, part 2 of the Criminal Code. On 25 May 2002 the investigation had been adjourned owing to failure to identify the culprits. On 30 January 2003 the investigation had been reopened and accepted for further examination by an investigator of the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office. During this additional investigation the first applicant had been granted victim status and the second applicant and other witnesses had been questioned about the circumstances of the crime. The letter further stated that the investigation had forwarded requests for information to the various military and police authorities in order to identify APCs nos.   237 and 246 and the UAZ vehicle with number plates 378-02, involved in the abduction. Additional information requests had been forwarded to the Orenburg Region. The letter concluded that, unfortunately, the said investigative steps had not led to the identification of the culprits and to the establishment of Imran Dzhambekov’s whereabouts. The investigation had again been adjourned, but measures to solve the crime continued. On 18 April 2003 the first applicant, acting in her capacity as the head of the NGO “Society of War Victims”, forwarded a list of missing persons who had disappeared following their detention by the “power structures” in the Urus-Martan district and elsewhere in Chechnya to the head of the Urus-Martan ROVD, and asked for his assistance in finding them. On 20 April 2003 the first applicant requested the prosecutor of the Urus-Martan district to give her a detailed update on the investigation of the criminal case concerning her son’s abduction. On 21 April 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 again informed the first applicant that the case was being investigated by the district prosecutor’s office and that the military prosecutor would only be involved if military servicemen had been implicated in the crime. On 21 April 2003 the military prosecutor of the UGA informed the applicants that, according to the information obtained from the military and police authorities of the Urus-Martan district, APCs with the identification numbers 237 and 246 and the UAZ vehicle with number plates R378-02 did not belong to any of these authorities. No special operations had been carried out in Goyty in the Urus-Martan district on the night of 19-20 March 2002 and Mr   Dzhambekov had not been detained by servicemen of the federal forces. The letter further advised the first applicant to direct further queries to the district prosecutor’s office in charge of the case. On 22 April 2003 the SRJI, acting on the first applicant’s behalf, wrote to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor and to the Chechnya Prosecutor and asked them to provide an update of the criminal investigation into Mr   Dzhambekov’s disappearance, including the results of the checks concerning the number plates of the vehicles involved. On 29 April 2003 the head of the Urus-Martan district administration wrote to the first applicant and informed her that the district administration was struggling to cope with the number of “enforced disappearances”. The letter stated that between 1 January and 22 April 2003 alone 27 cases of “disappearances” had been recorded in the district, and that as a result of the efforts made by the authorities four persons had been released and three bodies had been found. On 10 June 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that on 10 June 2003 their office had reopened the investigation into her son’s abduction. On 31 July 2003 the first applicant again wrote to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor and the Chechnya Prosecutor and asked for details of the investigation into her son’s abduction. On 20 August 2003 the second applicant wrote a detailed complaint to the Chechnya Prosecutor. He restated the known circumstances of his son’s detention on 20 March 2002, including the details of the vehicles involved. He also referred to the information collected by him and his wife in the weeks following the abduction, according to which the APCs had passed through the military checkpoints without any problems and the UAZ vehicle belonged to the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD. He further complained that when he had been questioned on 31 January 2003 by an investigator from the district prosecutor’s office, the latter had refused to enter in the minutes of the interview full information about the number plates of the vehicles involved. The second applicant submitted that when he had accessed the minutes later he observed that the investigator had noted the APC number as “23”, even though he had given the number as “237”, and had failed to record the number plates of the UAZ. The second applicant requested the prosecutor to resume the investigation of criminal case no.   61068 and to carry out the actions necessary to identify the servicemen responsible, as well as to transfer the case for investigation to the military prosecutor’s office in view of the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction. On 15 September 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the second applicant that following his complaint the decision of 10 July 2003 to adjourn the investigation had been reversed and on 12 September 2003 the investigation had been resumed in the district prosecutor’s office. It appears that the investigation was adjourned again on 12 October 2003. In January 2004 several applicants, including the first applicant, joined the open letter to President Putin signed by 131 relatives of persons who had “disappeared” in Chechnya. They referred to the information that in most known cases the disappeared persons had been taken away by State agents, judging from the use of military vehicles and their ability to travel unhindered in groups through military and security roadblocks. They deplored the absence of any official information about their family members following such detention and asked the President to ensure that investigations be conducted into such crimes. At some point the applicants requested the district prosecutor’s office to grant them access to the case file as victims in the proceedings. On 15 April 2004 the district prosecutor’s office rejected the first applicant’s request for access to the file, on the ground that the investigation was pending. The applicants appealed the refusal to the district court, and on 6 August 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court partially allowed the first applicant’s complaint against the district prosecutor’s office based on the latter’s failure to take effective steps and investigate her son’s abduction. The Town Court ordered the district prosecutor’s office to resume the investigation and to carry out a number of investigative actions as requested by the applicants, such as questioning the former head of the Urus-Martan VOVD and other servicemen from that office named by the applicants, identifying detainee “Dzhanashvili” who had been at the VOVD in March 2002, and so on. The court refused to grant the applicants access to the case file, stating that that right was accorded to victims only on completion of the investigation, and not when the proceedings were adjourned. On 24 August 2004 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld this decision. On 12 October 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been resumed on 5 October 2005. The first applicant submitted that since the abduction of her son her health had deteriorated and that she suffered from a number of chronic illnesses that were made worse by the stress she had been under. (b) Search for Magomed Soltymuradov Magomed Soltymuradov disappeared from his house on the night of 10   to 11 January 2002. The applicants submitted that he had been detained by the same military servicemen who had searched the neighbouring house occupied by his relatives, the tenth and eleventh applicants. On 11 January 2002 at about 9 a.m. the fifth and tenth applicants, Magomed Soltymuradov’s sister and uncle, applied in person to the district prosecutor’s office, the district administration and the military commander’s office. On the same day they submitted to these offices written applications stating the circumstances of Mr Soltymuradov’s detention and asking for assistance in finding him. The applicants submitted their application in person to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor, who together with the applicants went to the Urus-Martan VOVD. When the prosecutor came out of the VOVD building he told the applicants that “the local guys did not do this, we do not work at night. These must be GRU [the Army’s Main Intelligence Service] or the FSB.” The prosecutor advised the applicants to look for Mr Soltymuradov at the military commander’s office or through the administration. On 11 January 2002 the head of the district administration forwarded the applicants’ complaint to the district military commander and asked him to find out the reasons for Mr Soltymuradov’s detention and obtain his release. Also on 11 January 2002 the fifth applicant wrote to the head of the Chechnya administration, Mr Kadyrov, and asked for his assistance in finding her brother. Throughout the following week Magomed Soltymuradov’s relatives maintained a vigil in front of the district prosecutor’s office, hoping that he would be released. The applicants also personally contacted several officials in the district administration and the former head of the Grozny administration, Vahid M., who allegedly had good contacts among the military. They did not obtain any information about their relative. On 17 January 2002 the fifth applicant again wrote to the district military commander. She stated the circumstances of her brother’s detention by military servicemen and asked for the commander’s assistance in obtaining his release. On 21 January 2002 the seventh applicant, Magomed Sotymuradov’s other sister, wrote to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor, the military commander, the head of the VOVD, the Memorial Human Rights Centre and the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic. In her letter she stated the known circumstances of her brother’s detention, referred to his medical problems and stated that since his apprehension his relatives had received no information whatsoever about the reasons for his detention and the authority which had carried it out. She asked for assistance in finding her brother. On 21 January 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the fifth applicant’s letter to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office. On 25 January 2002 the district prosecutor’s office opened criminal investigation no.   62004 into the abduction of Magomed Soltymuradov by unknown persons. On the same day the fifth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal investigation concerning her brother’s abduction. On 27 January 2002 the fifth applicant wrote to the head of the Chechnya department of the FSB and asked for his assistance in finding her brother and obtaining his release. The letter was co-signed by dozens of their neighbours. On 2 February 2002 the fifth applicant wrote to the NGO Russian-Chechen Friendship Society and asked for their help in finding her brother. On 22 March 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor replied to the fifth applicant that the criminal case pending with that office concerning her brother’s abduction had failed to identify the culprits. On 4 April 2002 the applicants received a handwritten note requiring “the relatives of Magomed Soltymuradov to come to the VOVD boarding school building at 3 p.m. on 5 April 2002” and to report to Alik Kh. On 5 April 2002 the fifth, seventh and twelfth applicants, sisters of the missing man, went to the VOVD. At the entrance they were met by an operational detective, Alik Kh., who confirmed that he had sent the note, and invited only the fifth applicant to come in. Inside he brought her into a room with another officer of the VOVD and told the fifth applicant that her brother had been killed in Grozny on 5 January 2002. The fifth applicant was upset and confused by this statement, because her brother had only been detained on 11 January 2002. She asked if they had any papers confirming his death and if they could obtain the body for b