CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 3 juillet 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s93373D44 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3A7479F1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.05pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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           CASE OF RUSLAN UMAROV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 12712/02)                 JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   3 July 2008   FINAL     01/12/2008 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ruslan Umarov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 12 June 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 12712/02) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Ruslan Usmanovich Umarov (“the applicant”), on 15 February 2002. 2.     The applicant was represented by lawyers of the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights and subsequently by their representative, Mrs V. Milinchuk. 3.     The applicant alleged that his relative had disappeared after being detained by servicemen in Chechnya on 27 May 2000. He complained under Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13. 4.     On 15 December 2004 the Court decided to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 5.     By a decision of 8 February 2007, the Court declared the application partly admissible. 6.     The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine ), the parties replied in writing to each other’s observations. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Grozny. A.   The applicant’s son’s apprehension 8.     At the material time the applicant lived with his family in his own house at 148 Klyuchevaya Street in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny, in the residential quarter referred to by the local residents as Ivanovo. The applicant has two sons and two daughters. The oldest son, Magomed Umarov, born in 1975, was a fourth-year student at the Grozny Oil Institute. In November 1999 the applicant and his family left Grozny because of the shelling and lived in railway carriages in a camp for internally displaced persons in Ingushetia. In February 2000 the applicant’s mother died and he and his family came back to Chechnya to bury her. They then remained in Grozny. 9.     On 27 May 2000 at around 6 a.m., when the applicant and his family were asleep at home, a group of men in camouflage uniforms arrived in a Ural military vehicle at 148 Klyuchevaya Street. In his submissions before the Court the applicant also referred to statements of his neighbours to the effect that there had been another car in the street – a UAZ vehicle with the number 469. The men were armed with automatic firearms and some of them were masked. According to the applicant, they were federal servicemen, whilst the Government claimed that they were “unidentified persons”. 10.     The men entered the applicant’s house, having broken down the door. According to the applicant, the first man who entered the house was tall and had a bright complexion and blue eyes. The applicant found out later that the man’s name was Yuriy. The men spoke Russian without an accent. They threatened the applicant’s wife and daughters with firearms, swore at them and beat the applicant. They also searched the house. The men then dragged the applicant out to the courtyard, kicked him and beat him with rifle butts. There were about 30 masked men in the courtyard. The applicant enclosed statements of his wife and daughter corroborating his account of the events. 11.     Magomed Umarov slept in an extension to the house located in the same courtyard. He rushed out into the courtyard, screaming “Why are you beating him?” According to the applicant, the men seized him, beat him and threw him into the Ural truck in which they had arrived. The vehicle had no registration plates. The men then left. Magomed Umarov was not allowed to dress or to put shoes on. Later that day the men returned and collected his son’s passport and student identity card issued by the Grozny Oil Institute. The applicant has had no news of his son since then. 12.     The applicant’s brother immediately took him to Grozny hospital no.   3 where he underwent a medical examination and was diagnosed with bruises on his face, chest and feet and the fracture of two ribs. The applicant received first aid at the hospital and was then released. 13.     In the meantime the applicant’s neighbours noted that the Ural truck in which Magomed Umarov had been taken away bore the inscription “Maestro”. According to the applicant, the inscription indicated that the vehicle belonged to the Temporary Department of the Interior of the Staropromyslovskiy District ( временный отдел внутренних дел Старопромысловского района – “ the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD ”). The Government claimed that the vehicle referred to by the applicant had not been listed among those belonging to the federal forces. 14.     The applicant’s relatives and neighbours went to the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and to the local military commander’s office, which were only 100   metres away from the applicant’s house. The officials there did not tell them anything and advised them to apply to the Grozny prosecutor’s office ( прокуратура г. Грозного ). B.   The search for Magomed Umarov and the authorities’ replies 15.     On the same day at about 9   a.m. the applicant and his relatives went to the Grozny prosecutor’s office. He met the Grozny prosecutor, B., and submitted a written complaint about the attack on his house, his beatings and his son’s detention. He requested that those responsible be identified and prosecuted and that his son’s whereabouts be established. 16.     According to the applicant, the prosecutor immediately summoned the head and senior officers of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and berated them in his presence for “dirty work in masks” and that during that meeting the deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD warned the personnel of the VOVD about the events by telephone. After the meeting the prosecutor, a senior investigator from his office, the applicant and the others went to the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and to the military commander’s office of the Staropromyslovskiy District. 17.     At the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD the applicant and his wife identified one of the servicemen who had beaten him that morning at his house. The officers of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD explained to the prosecutor that they had conducted two “special operations” in the Ivanovo quarter that morning, but that they knew nothing about the Ural truck with an inscription “Maestro”. According to the applicant, the deputy military commander of the Staropromyslovskiy District who introduced himself as Valeriy invited the prosecutor, investigators and the identified officers from the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD for a separate talk, first on the spot and then at the location of the nearest military unit in the building of a local concert hall. They questioned the officers about what they had seen or heard that morning. Thereafter the prosecutor and the investigator assured the applicant that everything would be “sorted out” and left. 18.     The applicant returned home and learnt that on the same morning two other men had been detained in their quarter, the M. brothers. They were released four days later, apparently for a ransom, and told the applicant that they had been detained in a ground pit together with the applicant’s son. There had been ten persons in the pit. The M. brothers told him that they had been brought there with bags over their heads, but believed that it was at the Khankala military base, the headquarters of the Russian military in Chechnya, because they could hear helicopters landing and taking off, and because they had crossed some railway lines on the way. Furthermore, when Magomed Umarov and two other persons had been taken out of the pit, somebody said: “Take them to the Khankala post!”. Twelve days later another young man who had been detained in a Grozny suburb on 25   May   2000 and then released met with the applicant and told him that he had been detained with his son in a pit in terrible conditions and that his son had asked him to do everything possible for his release. 19.     The applicant continued the search for his son. On numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, he applied to prosecutors at various levels, to the Ministry of the Interior, to courts and the administrative authorities in Chechnya and beyond. In dozens of letters addressed to the authorities the applicant stated the facts of his son’s detention and asked for assistance and details on the investigation. He also wrote about his son’s alleged detention at the Khankala military base, referring to the witnesses who had been released, allegedly, for a ransom. Most of the letters were submitted by the applicant during his visits to officials in an attempt to find out Magomed Umarov’s whereabouts. The applicant has submitted copies of some of those letters to the Court. The applicant was given hardly any substantive information concerning his son’s disappearance and the investigation into these events. On several occasions he received copies of letters by which his requests had been forwarded to the different prosecutors’ services. 20.     According to the applicant, during his visits to the prosecutors’ offices he had received hints on several occasions that he should not complain about his son’s abduction, but should rather, like the relatives of those who had been released, seek “middlemen” who could help him find his son, and that otherwise his son could “disappear”. The applicant allegedly tried to act through “middlemen” but failed. 21.     On 28 May 2000 a number of residents of the Staropromyslovskiy District signed a petition addressed to the military commanders of the Staropromyslovskiy District and of Chechnya, with a copy to the Russian President. They complained of a “bullying attitude” on the part of the military stationed in the Staropromyslovskiy District, which included systematic and open extortion of money, cigarettes and alcohol at check-points, disregard of traffic regulations by the drivers of large military vehicles, random shooting and shelling both day and night and robbery and beatings during so-called “sweeping” operations. They referred, in particular, to the beating of the applicant and his son on 27 May 2000 and the absence of information about the latter’s whereabouts since his apprehension. 22.     In a letter of 16 June 2000 the applicant requested the military commander of Chechnya to assist him in locating his son. The commander replied that the Grozny prosecutor’s office ( прокуратура г. Грозного ) and the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD were responsible for investigating the applicant’s allegations. He further informed the applicant that following the residents’ petition of 28 May 2000 the superiors of the local detachments of the Ministry of the Interior had discussed the issues raised and increased control over their staff at check-points. 23.     On 9 September 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic ( прокуратура Чеченской Республики – “the Republican prosecutor’s office”) informed the applicant that on 30 May 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office had opened a criminal investigation into his son’s abduction and that the criminal case file had been assigned the number   12050. 24.     On 19 September 2000 the head of the criminal investigation service of the Chechen Department of the Interior informed the applicant that his letter of 27 June 2000 had been forwarded to the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD for the purposes of organising the search for his son. 25.     By letter of 25 October 2000 the Republican prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the Grozny prosecutor’s office “for examination”. 26.     On 14 November 2000 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicant’s complaint concerning the inefficiency of the investigation into his son’s disappearance to the Republican prosecutor’s office. 27.     On 15 November 2000 and 12 February 2001 the applicant complained to the military prosecutor of the Chechen Republic ( военный прокурор Чеченской Республики ) about the attack on his house, his beatings and his son’s detention, as well as of inefficiency in the investigation and asked for help in finding his son. 28.     On 27 November 2000 the Republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that following his complaint “the decision to suspend investigation was quashed and the case file remitted for further investigation with instructions to take more active steps”. The letter did not indicate the date on which the decision to suspend the investigation had been taken or the date on which the proceedings had been resumed and contained no other details. 29.     By letter of 30 November 2000 the Republican prosecutor’s office referred the applicant’s complaint concerning his son’s detention and disappearance to the Grozny prosecutor’s office. 30.     On 19 December 2000 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 ( военная прокуратура – войсковая часть 20102 ) referred the applicant’s complaint to the Grozny Temporary Office of the Interior ( временный отдел внутренних дел г. Грозного ). The letter stated that there had been no grounds to send the applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 since it had not been established that military personnel had been involved in the abduction of the applicant’s son. 31.     On 21 December 2000 the applicant wrote to the Memorial Human Rights Centre and to the Russian Commissioner for Human Rights. 32.     According to the applicant, in late February 2001 he found out that there were a number of unidentified corpses in the premises of a nearby railway station. The applicant went there and saw around 60 bodies that had been taken from the mass grave near the village of Dachnoye. Some of them showed signs of torture, their legs and hands were tied with iron wire. One of the corpses resembled that of the applicant’s son, as it had clothes similar to those Magomed Umarov had been wearing on the day of his detention. The applicant, however, was unable to identify the body, as its head was missing. He felt unwell and left. The next day the applicant returned with his wife to study the body, but was unable to find it. He was told that the corpses had been taken to another village, situated 15-20 km way from Grozny. The applicant went there and was informed that the remains had been photographed and then buried. The applicant looked through the photographs but did not find the headless body. 33.     By letter of 1 April 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that they had studied his complaint, quashed the decision to suspend the criminal investigation and remitted the case for further investigation. The letter did not indicate the date on which the decision to suspend the investigation had been taken or the date on which the proceedings had been resumed and contained no other details. 34.     On 29 May 2001 the Republican prosecutor’s office replied to the applicant’s complaint, stating that the decision to suspend the investigation had been quashed and the case had been remitted for further investigation. The investigation was being supervised by the Republican prosecutor’s office. The letter did not indicate the date on which the decision to suspend the investigation had been taken or the date on which the proceedings had been resumed and contained no other details. 35.     In a letter of 19 June 2001 the applicant requested the Republican prosecutor’s office to question the investigator from the Grozny prosecutor’s office, who had been present on 27 May 2000 during the questioning at the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and the military commander’s office of the Staropromyslovskiy District, about the identity of the servicemen and the content of their statements made on that day. 36.     In letters of 24 August and 13 September 2001 the Republican prosecutor’s office instructed the Grozny prosecutor’s office to take more active steps in investigating Magomed Umarov’s disappearance. 37.     On 9 October 2001 the applicant wrote to the Republican prosecutor’s office, with a copy to the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic. The applicant complained that the investigation into his son’s abduction had been inadequate and plagued with shortcomings, that those responsible had not been identified so far despite compelling evidence exposing them and that he had never been notified of any steps taken during the investigation or of its progress. 38.     On 22 October 2001 the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic informed the applicant that his letter of 9 October 2001 had been forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s Office. 39.     In November 2001 the Republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the decision to suspend the investigation of the criminal case concerning his son’s abduction had been quashed and that the ongoing investigation was supervised by them. The letter contained no further details. 40.     On 18 December 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office replied to the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, with a copy to the applicant, that on 30 May 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office had opened a criminal investigation into the abduction of Magomed Umarov and the infliction of injuries on the applicant. On 30 July 2001 the investigation had been suspended owing to failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. The letter further stated that on 14   December 2001 the Republican prosecutor’s office had quashed that decision and remitted the file for further investigation and that measures aimed at establishing Magomed Umarov’s whereabouts and identifying those responsible were being taken. 41.     In a letter of 25 December 2001 the Republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the investigation into his son’s disappearance was currently under way. 42.     On 19 March 2002 the Southern Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office ( Управление Генеральной прокуратуры РФ в Южном федеральном округе ) forwarded the applicant’s complaint about the inadequate investigation into his son’s disappearance to the Republican prosecutor’s office and ordered them to submit before 1   April   2002 information regarding the investigation. 43.     On 23 May 2002 the Republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the decision of 28 January 2001 to suspend proceedings in criminal case no. 12050 had been quashed and the investigation re-opened. 44.     By letter of 6 June 2002 the Southern Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office transmitted the applicant’s complaint to the Republican prosecutor’s office. 45.     In a letter of 10 June 2002 the Republican prosecutor’s office stated that the applicant’s complaint of 29 May 2000 had been left without examination, as it had contained no new arguments other than those which had previously been examined and replied to. 46.     On 25 June 2002 the Republican prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that they had taken up the case opened in connection with the injuries inflicted on him and the disappearance of his son. 47.     By letter of 21 October 2002 the Chechen Department of the Interior informed the applicant’s wife that all necessary measures aimed at establishing Magomed Umarov’s whereabouts and identifying those involved in his abduction were being taken. 48.     On 21 August 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Staropromyslovskiy District ( прокуратура Старопромысловского района г. Грозного – “the Staropromyslovskiy prosecutor’s office”) notified the applicant that the proceedings in criminal case no. 12050 had been suspended on 30   August   2002 and then resumed on 18 August 2003. In a letter of 27   January 2004 they further informed the applicant that the proceedings had been adjourned on 3 September 2003 in view of the failure to establish the alleged perpetrators. C.     Official investigation 49.     The Government submitted, with reference to the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office, the following information concerning the investigation into the events of 27 May 2000. 50.     On 30 May 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the infliction of bodily injuries on the applicant and the abduction of his son, under Articles   126 (2) (aggravated abduction) and 286 (3) (aggravated abuse of power) of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was assigned the number 12050. 51.     The investigating authorities took a number of steps during the investigation. In particular, on 23 June 2000 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination which established abrasions and bruises on his face, chest and left foot. In the Government’s submission, those injuries had “caused no harm to the applicant’s health”. 52.     The applicant was granted victim status on 30 May 2000 and questioned on that date and on 27 February 2001. His numerous requests were included in the case file. The applicant’s wife was interviewed on 21   June 2001. 53.     On 24 March 2001 and 18 January 2002 the investigators questioned one of the M. brothers, who had also been detained on 27 May 2000. M.   stated that at around 5 a.m. on the date in question he had been abducted from his house in Klyuchevaya Street by unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms and armed with automatic firearms, taken outside Grozny and put in a pit approximately two metres deep. In the pit he had seen Magomed Umarov who had then been taken away. 54.     On 28 March 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office received information to the effect that the personnel of the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD had not carried out any operations in the vicinity of Klyuchevaya Street on 27   May 2000. 55.     On 6 November 2001 the investigators questioned the military commander of the Staropromyslovskiy District, who stated that his office had been organised on 22 June 2000 to replace the temporary military commander’s office and that he had no information regarding documents of the temporary commander’s office. 56.     On 23 September 2003, 19 and 29 January and 18, 20 and 24   June   2005 the investigating authorities also questioned ten other witnesses, who “gave no information relevant for establishing the circumstances of Magomed Umarov’s abduction”. 57.     According to the Government, in the context of the investigation into the applicant’s beatings and his son’s disappearance, the investigators inspected the scene of the incident at 148 Klyuchevaya Street on 14   October   2004 and 27 June 2005, but those inspections “brought no positive results”. 58.     During the investigation, the Chechen Department of the Federal Security Service of Russia ( Управление Федеральной службы безопасности РФ по Чеченской Республике ) submitted information to the effect that Magomed Umarov had never participated in illegal armed formations. 59.     The investigating authorities sent a number of queries concerning the operation of 27 May 2000, those responsible for the abduction of the applicant’s son, or those who had information about the events of 27   May   2000, to various official bodies and sought lists of persons who had been serving in the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD in May 2000. They also checked registers of unidentified corpses, medical establishments and detention centres so as to establish whether Magomed Umarov was listed or kept there, but to no avail. 60.     On 18   June 2005 the investigating authorities questioned K. A., apparently the applicant’s neighbour, who submitted that on the day of Magomed Umarov’s abduction he had seen two Ural vehicles and men wearing camouflage uniform near the Umarov household. He had learnt about the abduction later. 61.     On 20 June 2005 the investigating authorities questioned I. H., apparently also a neighbour, who submitted that he had learnt about Magomed Umarov’s abduction from other neighbours. 62.     On 24 June 2005 the investigating authorities questioned T. M., the applicant’s neighbour. She submitted that at approximately 4 a. m. she had heard the sound of engines and had gone outside. Near 148 Klyuchevaya Street she had seen servicemen in camouflage uniform and had returned home. Later she had learnt that the servicemen had taken Magomed Umarov with them. 63.     On 18 August 2006 the investigating authorities questioned S. B., on 26 August 2006 they questioned F.D. and on 4 September 2006 S.-E. M., but those individuals submitted that they knew nothing about Magomed Umarov’s abduction. It is not clear who they were and why their statements could have been relevant. 64.     According to the Government’s submission, the investigation had been suspended and resumed on eighteen occasions, but had failed to date to identify the alleged perpetrators or to establish Magomed Umarov’s whereabouts. After the most recent resumption on 21 April 2007 the investigation was being carried out by the Staropromyslovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and supervised by the Prosecutor General’s Office. D.   Proceedings against law-enforcement officials 65.     In June 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint against the inactivity of the military and law-enforcement authorities, during the investigation into his son’s abduction and his own beatings, with the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny. In August 2001 the applicant was summoned to that court, which at the time was situated in the village of Beno-Yurt in the Nadterechny District of Chechnya, about 100 kilometres from Grozny. According to the applicant, during a meeting a judge asked him to withdraw his complaint, and then promised to help him obtain free legal aid in the proceedings. The judge allegedly explained to him that his complaint could not be examined because he had not indicated the names and positions of the officials against whom he complained. She also told him that the court would issue a procedural decision rejecting his complaint. 66.     On 18 September 2001 the applicant wrote to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court. He enquired whether he could benefit from legal aid in his case and whether the aforementioned procedural decision had been issued and requested the court to furnish him with a copy of it. He received no reply to that letter. 67.     On 1 November 2001 the applicant wrote to the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, complaining about the lack of progress in his case lodged in June 2001 with the Staropromyslovskiy District Court. 68.     On 5 December 2001 the applicant received a letter from the Staropromyslovskiy District Court, in which the judge informed him that, upon his request, his submissions to that court had been forwarded to the “Novaya Gazeta” newspaper and suggested that he contact a journalist from that newspaper. According to the applicant, he had never given his consent to the transfer of his submissions to the said newspaper. 69.     On 23 January 2002 the applicant addressed a letter to the Supreme Court of Russia. He complained about the failure to act on the part of the Staropromyslovskiy District Court and the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic. He also complained about the inefficiency of the investigation and referred to the fact that five investigators had been in charge of the case. He stated that all his complaints had been forwarded to the Grozny prosecutor’s office with the result that the criminal investigation file consisted almost entirely of his own complaints to various authorities. It appears that the applicant received no answer to that letter. E.     The Court’s request to submit the investigation file 70.     Despite specific requests made by the Court on several occasions, the Government did not submit a copy of the investigation file concerning the abduction of Magomed Umarov. They submitted case-file material on 44   pages, which contained mostly decisions on suspension and resumption of the investigation and records of interviews with the applicant and another witness. Copies of those records were of very poor quality and almost illegible. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in criminal proceedings. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted, with the exception of “the documents [disclosing military information and personal data of the witnesses], and without the right to make copies of the case file and to transmit it to others”. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 71.     Until 1 July 2002 criminal-law matters were governed by the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR. On 1 July 2002 the old Code was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (the new CCP). 72.     Article 125 of the new CCP provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court. 73.     Article 161 of the new CCP stipulates that evidence from the preliminary investigation may not be disclosed. Part 3 of the same Article provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator, but only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation. It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission. THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION A.     Arguments of the parties 74.     The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Magomed Umarov had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicant to lodge complaints with a court about the allegedly unlawful detention of his son. 75.     The applicant contested that objection. He stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that his complaints to that effect, including the application to the court, had been futile. He also alleged the existence of an administrative practice of non-investigation of crimes committed by State servicemen in Chechnya and referred to the other cases concerning such crimes reviewed by the Court, and also to reports of various NGOs and international bodies. This, in his view, had rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in his case. B.     The Court’s assessment 76.     In the present case, the Court took no decision about the exhaustion of domestic remedies at the admissibility stage, having found that this question was too closely linked to the merits. It will now proceed to examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for an existing summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia , no. 60272/00, §§   73-74, 12 October 2006). 77.     Inasmuch as the Government’s preliminary objection concerns the applicant’s failure to complain of his son’s unlawful detention, the Court observes that after he was taken away by armed men on 27 May   2000, the applicant actively attempted to establish his whereabouts and applied to various official bodies, whereas the authorities denied that they had ever detained Magomed Umarov. In such circumstances, and in particular in the absence of any proof to confirm the very fact of the detention, even assuming that the remedy referred to by the Government was accessible to the applicant, it is more than questionable whether a complaint to a court about the unacknowledged detention of the applicant’s son by the authorities would have had any prospects of success. Moreover, the Government have not demonstrated that the remedy indicated by them would have been capable of providing redress in the applicant’s situation, namely that it would have led to the release of Magomed Umarov or the identification and punishment of those responsible. 78.     Inasmuch as the Government’s objection relates to the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court observes that the applicant complained to the law enforcement authorities immediately after the detention of Magomed Umarov and that an investigation was subsequently opened. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation. The Court considers that this limb of the Government’s preliminary objection raises issues which are closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaints. Thus, it finds that this matter falls to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention (see paragraphs 109-110 below). II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 79.     The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that his son had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 reads: “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” A.     Alleged violation of Magomed Umarov’s right to life 1.     Arguments of the parties 80.     The applicant maintained his complaint and argued that his son had been detained by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for several years. 81.     The Government referred to the fact that the investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that this person was dead, or that representatives of the federal forces had been involved in his abduction or alleged killing. 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     General principles 82.     In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events, the Court is inevitably confronted when establishing the facts with the same difficulties as those faced by any first-instance court. When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exclusive access to information able to corroborate or refute the applicants’ allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations (see Taniş and Others v. Turkey , no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR   2005 ‑ ...). 83.     The Court points out that a number of principles have been developed in its case-law when it is faced with a task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree. As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence confirming the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” in its assessment of evidence (see Avşar v. Turkey , no.   25657/94, §   282, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII). Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. In this context, the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Taniş and Others , cited above, §   160). 84.     The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000). Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis , Ribitsch v.   Austria , 4   December   1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avşar v. Turkey , cited above, § 283) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place. 85.     Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, such as in cases where persons are under their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Tomasi v.   France , 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11; Ribitsch , cited above, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no.   25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V). 86.     These principles apply also to cases in which, although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities, it is possible to establish that he or she entered a place under their control and has not been seen since. In such circumstances, the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible explanation of what happened on the premises and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities, but left the premises without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty (see Taniş, cited above, § 160).   (b)     Establishment of the facts 87.     The applicant alleged that on 27 May 2000 his son, Magomed Umarov, had been apprehended by Russian servicemen and then disappeared. He invited the Court to draw inferences as to the well-foundedness of his allegations from the Government’s failure to provide the documents requested from them. The applicant relied on statements by several witnesses, including his wife, daughter and neighbours, who were eyewitnesses to the apprehension, and of several detainees held together with his son but later released. The witnesses provided a coherent account of the events and stated that Magomed Umarov had been apprehended by the servicemen involved in the operation. 88.     The Government did not deny that Magomed Umarov had been abducted by unknown armed men on the same date. However, they referred to the absence of conclusions from the pending investigation and denied that the State was responsible for the disappearance of the applicant’s son. 89.     The Court notes that despite its repeated requests for a copy of the investigation file concerning the abduction of Magomed Umarov, the Government have failed to produce it. The Government referred to Article   161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva   v. Russia , no.   7615/02, §   123, ECHR 2006 ‑ ... ). 90.     In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the principles cited above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government’s conduct in this respect. It considers that the applicant has presented a coherent and convincing picture of his son’s detention on 27 May 2000. He was himself an eyewitness to the events and relied on statements by other eyewitnesses, collected by the applicant himself and by the investigation, including his daughter, wife and neighbours, which referred to the involvement of the military or security forces in the abduction. The applicant and the other witnesses stated that the perpetrators had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation – they had checked the residents’ identification papers and had spoken Russian without any accent. Furthermore, the applicant and his wife had identified one of the men involved in the abduction at the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD. The applicant referred also to the fact that several other residents had been apprehended on that date. Some of them were released later and stated that they had been held together with Magomed Umarov in a pit in Khankala, and when the latter had been taken out of the pit together with two other persons, they had heard somebody saying “Take them to the Khankala post!”. In his applications to the authorities the applicant consistently maintained that his son had been detained by unknown servicemen and requested the investigation to look into that possibility. 91.     The Court finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform, equipped with military vehicles and able to move freely through military roadblocks, proceeded to check identity papers and apprehend sever