CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 novembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; 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 } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } .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 } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 TSUROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 29958/04)                   JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   6 November 2008   FINAL   06/04/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tsurova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 16 October 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:   PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 29958/04) 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 four Russian nationals listed below (“the applicants”), on 14   July   2004. 2.     The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO registered in the Netherlands with a representative office in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms   V.   Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 14 March 2007 the Court decided to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 4.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court dismissed it.   THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are: 1) Ms Leyla Isayevna Tsurova, who was born in 1973; 2) Mr Isa Beksultanovich Tsurov, who was born in 1948; 3) Mr Magomed Isayevich Tsurov, who was born in 1982; and 4) Ms Aminat Tarkhanovna Tsurova, who was born in 1949. They live in the village of Voznesenovskaya, the Republic of Ingushetia. 6.     The second and fourth applicants are married. They are the parents of Mr   Ibragim Isayevich Tsurov, born in 1970, and of the first and third applicants. A.     Disappearance of Ibragim Tsurov 1.     The applicants’ account 7.     On 26 April 2003 Ibragim Tsurov, an advocate admitted to the Bar of the Chechen Republic, was driving his VAZ-2110 car in the city of Grozny. He was accompanied by Mr A.S., Mr D.S. and Mr S.N. , servicemen of military unit no. 98311. 8.     Several cars which had no registration numbers, including a VAZ-2107, a VAZ-2121 and a Volga with a flashing blue light, chased Ibragim Tsurov’s car and forced it to stop. A number of masked men got out of the vehicles, pointed their machine guns at Ibragim Tsurov and his passengers and ordered them to get out of the car and lie on the ground. 9.     Ibragim Tsurov produced a special pass issued by the commander of the United Group Alignment. The armed men hit him with a machine gun butt, put him into the boot of his car and drove away. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 10.     On 26 April 2003 Ibragim Tsurov was driving the VAZ-211030 car with registration number B660PK15 from the village of Khankala, the Chechen Republic, to Vladikavkaz, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. There were three passengers in the car - Mr A.S., Mr D.S. and Mr S.N., servicemen of military unit no.   98311. At about 12.30 p.m. Ibragim Tsurov’s car was stopped by unidentified armed men wearing masks who were driving a VAZ-2107 and a VAZ-2121 cars without registration number plates. Using violence, they put Ibragim Tsurov into the boot of one of their cars and took him away to an unknown destination. They also stole his VAZ-211030 car. B.     The search for Ibragim Tsurov and the investigation 1.     The applicants’ account 11.     After Ibragim Tsurov’s abduction the applicants contacted various official bodies, both in person and in writing, trying to establish his whereabouts and fate. In particular, they applied to the prosecutors’ offices at different levels, the military commander’s office, the President of the Republic of Ingushetia, the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian President in the Southern Federal Circuit and the Russian State Duma. They were supported in their efforts by the SRJI. The complaints, even those signed by only one of the applicants, were lodged on behalf of the whole family. The applicants retained copies of some of these complaints and submitted them to the Court. The official bodies forwarded the majority of the complaints to the prosecutors’ offices for investigation. 12.     On 26 May 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”) informed the first applicant that an inquiry had established that no military personnel had been implicated in Ibragim Tsurov’s abduction. 13.     On 18 June 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the city of Grozny (“the city prosecutor’s office”) instituted an investigation into Ibragim Tsurov’s disappearance and theft of his car under Article 126 § 2 (aggravated kidnapping) and Article 162 § 2 (aggravated robbery) of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was given number 40086. 14.     On 30 June 2003 the city prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status in case no. 40086. 15.     On 18 August 2003 the investigation in case no. 40086 was suspended for failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. 16.     On 28 August 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny (“the district prosecutor’s office”) sent the first applicant a progress report on the investigation in case no. 40086. According to the report, the investigative authorities had sent requests concerning the fate of Ibragim Tsurov to the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) and the police, questioned the first applicant and witnesses to the kidnapping, collected references concerning Ibragim Tsurov’s character, given specific orders to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”) and the unit prosecutor’s office and initiated a search for Ibragim Tsurov’s car. 17.     In a letter of 30 August 2003 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that an investigation into her brother’s kidnapping in case no.   40086 had been opened on an unspecified date. 18.     On 9 September 2003 the department of interior the Oktyabrskiy District (“ROVD”) informed the first applicant that an investigation of Ibragim Tsurov’s kidnapping had been commenced in case no. 40086 and that investigative measures were being taken to establish his whereabouts and identify those responsible. 19.     In a letter of 21 October 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation into Ibragim Tsurov’s kidnapping had been suspended and then resumed. 20.     On 24 October 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 40086 was pending before the district prosecutor’s office and was being supervised by the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 21.     On 1 December 2003 the applicants requested the district prosecutor’s office to inform them of progress in the investigation. 22.     In a letter of 8 January 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the SRJI that the investigation of Ibragim Tsurov’s disappearance was under way and that investigative measures were being taken to resolve the crime. 23.     On 18 January 2004 the Department of the FSB of the Republic of Ingushetia informed the second applicant that the FSB had no jurisdiction to investigate his son’s disappearance and that they had no information on Ibragim Tsurov’s whereabouts. 24.     On 12 February 2004 the district prosecutor’s office sent the first applicant a progress report on the investigation in case no. 40086. According to the report, the investigative authorities had sent requests concerning the fate of Ibragim Tsurov to the FSB and the police, questioned the first applicant and witnesses to the kidnapping, collected references concerning Ibragim Tsurov’s personality, given specific orders to the UGA prosecutor’s office and the unit prosecutor’s office and initiated a search for Ibragim Tsurov’s car. The first applicant was also informed that the investigative measures had not led to the identification of the alleged perpetrators and that the investigation had been suspended. 25.     On 1 June 2004 the applicants wrote to the district prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic enquiring about progress in the investigation. On the same date the first applicant requested the investigative authorities to question Mr A.S. and Mr   D.S. as witnesses and to search for Ibragim Tsurov’s car. 26.     On 29 June 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the applicants that the investigation was pending. 27.     On 9 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office endorsed a plan of investigative measures to be taken by 1 August 2004 in case no. 40086 envisaging searching for the VAZ ‑ 2107, VAZ-2121 and Volga cars, questioning Mr   D.S. and Ibragim Tsurov’s relatives and dispatching requests for information to various official bodies. 28.     On 12 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office requested the commander of the United Group Alignment to explain why he had issued Iragim Tsurov with the special pass. 29.     On 23 July 2004 the first applicant requested information on progress in the search for her brother’s car from the ROVD. On the same date she requested from the district prosecutor’s office an update on the progress in the investigation in case no. 40086 and a copy of the decision to suspend the investigation. 30 .     On 26 July 2004 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Ingushetia informed the first applicant that Ibragim Tsurov had been wanted by the department of the interior of the Kirovskiy District of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania for aggravated extortion and therefore had been arrested by officers of the department of the interior of the town of Malgobek. It was stated that those officers’ actions had been lawful. The first applicant was invited to apply for further information to the department of the interior of Kirovskiy District. 31.     On 24 February 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that there were no reasons to resume the investigation in case no. 40086. On 10 May 2005 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic sent the first applicant a similar letter. 32.     On an unspecified date Ibragim Tsurov’s disappearance was reported to the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (“the Working Group”). The Working Group requested information on the matter from the Government. 33.     On 15 September 2005 the Government submitted to the Working Group their account of the circumstances of Ibragim Tsurov’s abduction. They mentioned that there had been three white cars at the scene of incident – a VAZ-2107, a VAZ-2121 and a Volga car with a flashing light. 2. Information submitted by the Government 34.     On 2 June 2003 the city prosecutor’s office received the first applicant’s request to take measures to search for her brother. 35.     On 7 June 2003 the city prosecutor’s office received Mr D.S.’s request to search for Ibragim Tsurov. 36 .     On 18 June 2003, upon examination of Mr D.S.’s request, the city prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Ibragim Tsurov’s abduction and the theft of his car under Articles 126 § 2 and 162 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was assigned number 40086. 37.     On 20 June 2003 the city prosecutor’s office sent a request for an internal inquiry into Ibragim Tsurov’s kidnapping to the UGA prosecutor’s office. 38 .     On 21 June 2003, upon examination of the first applicant’s request, the city prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Ibragim Tsurov’s kidnapping under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was assigned number 40089. 39.     On 30 June 2003 the city prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status and questioned her. She submitted that starting from the end of 2001 her brother had worked in military unit no. 20102 in Khankala and had had a special pass allowing him to move freely throughout the Chechen Republic. He had no enemies. On the day of his abduction he had had a large sum of money on him. The first applicant suggested that her brother could have possibly been kidnapped because of that money. She had no suspects in mind. 40.     On 30 June 2003 the city prosecutor’s office ordered the ROVD to put the VAZ-211030 car on the federal search list and to take measures aimed at establishing Ibragim Tsurov’s whereabouts and the identities of the perpetrators. 41.     On 1 July 2003 the city prosecutor’s office joined cases nos. 40086 and 40089 under number 40086. 42 .     On 1 July 2003 the city prosecutor’s office questioned Ms M.Z., Ibragim Tsurov’s partner. She submitted that she had been living with Ibragim Tsurov since May 2002 and had known that he worked in the military prosecutor’s office in Khankala. She had seen him for the last time on 26 April 2003 before his departure to Vladikavkaz. Three days later she had gone to Khankala to search for her partner and had been told there that he was missing. A few days later she had learned that Ibragim Tsurov had been kidnapped. On the following day she had informed his relatives of the incident and visited a military prosecutor, who had told her of the circumstances of the kidnapping. 43.     On 22 July 2003 the ROVD informed the city prosecutor’s office that a search for Ibragim Tsurov was under way. 44.     On 18 August 2003 the city prosecutor’s office ordered operational and search bureau no. 2 of the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior for the South Federal Circuit (“ORB-2”) to take investigative measures in order to find the kidnappers and to verify whether Ibragim Tsurov had been a member of illegal armed groups in 1999-2000. 45.     On an unspecified date Mr S.N. was questioned. He submitted that on 26 April 2003 Ibragim Tsurov, Mr D.S., Mr A.S. and himself had headed for Vladikavkaz in Ibragim Tsurov’s VAZ. While they were driving through Grozny their car was forced to stop by a white VAZ-2107 car without registration number plates. Several armed men in masks had got out of the VAZ-2107 and ordered Mr S.N. and his acquaintances to lie on the ground. Ibragim Tsurov had produced his documents and said that he was an employee of the military prosecutor’s office. An armed man had hit him on the head with a gun butt. Then the men had put Ibragim Tsurov into the boot of the VAZ-2107, taken his car and driven away in an unknown direction. 46.     Mr A.S. was also questioned and made a deposition identical to that of Mr S.N. 47.     On 18 August 2003 the city prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 40086 for failure to identify those responsible and informed the first applicant accordingly. 48 .     On 21 October 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic, acting on the first applicant’s request, quashed the decision of 18   August 2003 and resumed the investigation. 49.     On 28 October 2003 the district prosecutor’s office received the investigation file. 50.     On 29 October 2003 the district prosecutor’s office requested the ORB-2 to take investigative measures in order to find the missing person, his kidnappers and any witnesses to the incident. 51.     On 30 October 2003 the district prosecutor’s office ordered the unit prosecutor’s office to question Mr A.S. and Mr D.S for a second time. 52.     On 6 November 2003 the district prosecutor’s office requested information on Ibragim Tsurov from the bar of the Chechen Republic. 53.     On 24 November 2003 the district prosecutor’s office questioned Mr   Ya.A., Ibragim Tsurov’s hierarchical superior at the Bar of the Chechen Republic. He submitted that Ibragim Tsurov’s clients in general had been satisfied with his work. He further stated that several months before the kidnapping Ibragim Tsurov had been severely beaten at his client’s house in the village of Staraya Sunzha; the beating had stopped once he had produced his documents. At some point Ibragim Tsurov had told Mr Ya.A. that he had almost found those who had beaten him and that they would soon be punished, but he had not mentioned whether those men were bandits or State servicemen. 54.     On 27 November 2003 the district prosecutor’s office requested from the unit prosecutor’s office access to files on criminal cases in which Ibragim Tsurov had represented the suspects. Later copies of the sentences delivered by military courts in respect of Ibragim Tsurov’s clients were included in the investigation file. 55.     On 28 November 2003 the district prosecutor’s office extended the term of preliminary investigation until 28 December 2003. 56.     On 22 December 2003 the district prosecutor’s office requested information on Ibragim Tsurov’s special pass from the headquarters in Khankala. They were told that Ibragim Tsurov had been issued with a special pass on 22 March 2002 at the request of the commander of the United Group Alignment for official requirements. 57.     On 28 December 2003 the investigation in case no. 40086 was suspended. 58 .     On 29 December 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 28 December 2003 and resumed the investigation. 59.     On 6 May 2004 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the district prosecutor’s office that Ibragim Tsurov was not their employee, but was an advocate. 60.     On an unspecified date military unit no. 98311 informed the district prosecutor’s office that Mr A.S. had been sent on mission to another region and that Mr D.S. had resigned from the military service and had moved to Magnitogorsk. 61.     On 1 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office requested a prosecutor’s office of Magnitogorsk to question Mr D.S. on the circumstances of Ibragim Tsurov’s kidnapping. 62 .     On 23 July 2004 Mr D.S. was questioned. He submitted that on 26   April 2003 Ibragim Tsurov’s car had been stopped in Grozny by two white cars with tinted windows and without registration number plates – a VAZ-2107 and a VAZ-2121. Armed men in camouflage uniforms had got out of the white cars; Mr D.S. did not remember exactly how many of them there were. One of the armed men had ordered Mr D.S. to get out of the car and to lie on the ground. The armed men had put Ibragim Tsurov in the boot of his own car and driven away. Later Mr D.S. and his fellow servicemen had reported the incident to the authorities. 63.     On 17 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office questioned Ms L.M., a relative of Ibragim Tsurov’s client residing in the village of Staraya Sunzha. She submitted that in February 2003 Ibragim Tsurov had stayed in her house overnight. At some point late at night unknown armed and masked men had burst into her house and beaten her grandson and Ibragim Tsurov. The latter had told them that he was an advocate. Then the armed men had left. 64.     On 22 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office again questioned Mr   Ya.A. who essentially repeated his earlier deposition. 65.     The district prosecutor’s office requested information on eventual arrest of Ibragim Tsurov from various law enforcement agencies of the Chechen Republic. The departments of the Ministry of Interior of the Chechen Republic and the Federal Security Service replied that they had no such information and that no special operations had been carried out in respect of Ibragim Tsurov. 66.     On 23 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant’s request for information on progress in the investigation. On the same date the first applicant informed the investigators that Ibragim Tsurov’s relatives had no new information concerning the kidnapping. 67.     On 12 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office ordered the ROVD to ensure that Mr T.Ts., Ibragim Tsurov’s relative, visit them for an interview. The ROVD replied that it was impossible to establish Mr T.Ts.’ whereabouts. 68.     On 26 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office requested the prosecutor’s office of the Malgobek District in the Republic of Ingushetia to question relatives of Ibragim Tsurov. 69.     On 29 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 40086 for failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the first applicant accordingly. 70.     On 14 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 29 July 2004 and resumed the investigation. 71.     On 23 December 2004 and 13 January 2005 the district prosecutor’s office sent to the prosecutor’s office of the Malgobek District requests analogous to that of 26 July 2004. 72.     On 14 January 2005 the district prosecutor’s office again suspended the investigation. 73.     On 26 April 2007 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 14 January 2005 and resumed the investigation in case no.   40086. 74.     The investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of Ibragim Tsurov. The investigating authorities sent requests for information to the competent State agencies and took other steps to have the crime resolved. The investigation found no evidence to prove involvement of law enforcement agencies in the crime. No special operations had been carried out in respect of Ibragim Tsurov by law enforcement agencies of the Chechen Republic. 75.     The Government further submitted that the progress of the investigation was being supervised by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia. According to the Government, the first applicant had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation. 76.     Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents of criminal case no.   40086. 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 the criminal proceedings. C.     Criminal proceedings against Ibragim Tsurov 77.     On 28 December 2003 the North Caucasus Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia instituted criminal proceedings against Ibragim Tsurov under Article 163 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated extortion) in case no. 18/204. The decision stated that in 1998 the suspect had assisted members of an illegal armed group who had kidnapped several persons, by negotiating ransoms with relatives of those kidnapped. On the same date a search warrant for Ibragim Tsurov was issued. 78.     On 14 February 2004 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia ordered Ibragim Tsurov’s name to be put on the federal wanted list. 79.     On 14 February 2004 the department of the interior of the Kirovskiy District of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania opened a search file in respect of Ibragim Tsurov. 80.     According to the Government, the department of the interior of the Kirovskiy District of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania were taking investigative measures in relation to the criminal proceedings against Ibragim Tsurov. The latter’s whereabouts had not been established and a search for him was under way. 81.     The Government provided copies of the two decisions by the North Caucasus Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia dated 28   December 2003 and of the decision by the department of the interior of the Kirovskiy District of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania dated 14   February 2004. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 82.     For a summary of relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia , no. 40464/02, §   67-69, 10   May 2007. THE LAW I.     The government’s objection AS TO ABUSE OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION 83.     The Government submitted that the application had not been lodged in order to restore the allegedly violated rights of the applicants. The actual object and purpose of the application was clearly political as the applicants wanted to “bring charges against the Russian Federation, as a state which ostensibly is pursuing a policy of infringement of human rights in the territory of the Chechen Republic”. They concluded that there had been an abuse of the right of petition on the part of the applicants and that the application should be dismissed pursuant to Article 35   §   3 of the Convention. 84.     The Court observes that the complaints the applicants brought to its attention concerned their genuine grievances. Nothing in the case file reveals any appearance of abuse of their right of individual petition. Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be dismissed. II.     The government’s objection regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies A.     The parties’ submissions 85.     The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation of the disappearance of Ibragim Tsurov had not yet been completed. They further argued that the applicants had not requested the domestic courts to declare Ibragim Tsurov missing or dead. Neither had the applicants brought any civil claims for compensation of damages pursuant to Article 1069 of the Russian Civil Code or challenged the investigators’ decisions in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code. 86.     The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had been pending for five years and had proved to be ineffective. B.     The Court’s assessment 87.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies which are available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 § 1 also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used. However, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey , judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ VI, pp. 2275-76, §§ 51-52; Akdivar and Others , cited above, p.   1210,   §§ 65-67, and, most recently, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey , no. 41964/98, § 64, 27   June 2006). 88.     It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Akdivar and Others , cited above, p.   1211, § 68, or Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan , cited above,   §   65). 89.     The Government asserted that the applicants had not applied to have Ibragim Tsurov declared missing or dead. The Court, however, is not convinced that a judicial act confirming the fact of the applicants’ relative’s disappearance or death could have provided any redress at national level in respect of the grievances brought to Strasbourg. 90.     As to the remainder of the Government’s objection, the Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies. 91.     As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v.   Russia , nos.   57942/00 and 57945/00, §§   119-121, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others v. Russia , no.   60272/00, §   77, 12 October 2006). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. 92.     As regards criminal criminal law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that the applicants complained to the law enforcement authorities shortly after the kidnapping of Ibragim Tsurov and that an investigation has been pending since 18 June 2003. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation of the kidnapping. 93 .     The Court considers that this part of the Government’s objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants’ complaints. Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention. III.     THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A.     The parties’ arguments 94.     The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had kidnapped Ibragim Tsurov were State agents. In support of their complaint they referred to the following facts: Ibragim Tsurov had been issued with a special pass, which proved that he had not been involved in illegal activities. Mr A.S., Mr D.S. and Mr S.N., servicemen in the Russian military, had not tried to resist the armed men who had taken Ibragim Tsurov away, which proved that they had considered the perpetrators to be duly authorised officials carrying out a security operation. The Volga car had been equipped with a flashing light used by the police and other law enforcement agencies. The letter of 26 July 2004 had confirmed that the police had arrested Ibragim Tsurov. 95.     The Government submitted that unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had kidnapped Ibragim Tsurov. They emphasised that the eyewitnesses to the kidnapping had not seen any Volga car with a flashing light and that the applicants had invented this detail. Even assuming that there had been such a car, it could have belonged to criminals who had obtained a flashing light illegally. The Government insisted that it was not proven that the armed men had belonged to State agencies. Ibragim Tsurov had actively cooperated with the federal forces so that they had not had any reasons to apprehend him. The fact that the perpetrators had been wearing camouflage uniforms and carrying firearms did not prove that they were State servicemen, because members of illegal armed groups had also had such items. Ibragim Tsurov could have been kidnapped, pursuant to the traditions of feud, by the persons from whom he had demanded ransom. Furthermore, the Government suggested that in reality there had been no crime at all, since Ibragim Tsurov had probably staged his own kidnapping to escape either criminal prosecution or feudal vengeance. The Government also doubted the authenticity of the letter of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Ingushetia dated 26 July 2004. They noted that the registration number of the letter was illegible and its date had been corrected. The Government concluded that the letter could not serve as a proof of Ibragim Tsurov’s arrest by the police. They also pointed out that Mr A.S., Mr D.S. and Mr S.N. had not shown any resistance to the armed men who had apprehended Ibragim Tsurov because they had had reasons to believe that those men were State agents carrying out a lawful arrest operation. Mr A.S., Mr D.S. and Mr S.N. had not immediately reported the incident to the authorities because they were not close friends of Ibragim Tsurov and were not worried about him. Ibragim Tsurov had been issued with the special pass long before the institution of the criminal proceedings against him. In sum, the Government insisted that no State agents were implicated in Ibragim Tsurov’s disappearance. B. The Court’s evaluation of the facts 1.     General principles 96.     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 applicants’ allegations (see Taniş and Others v. Turkey , no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR   2005 ‑ ...). 97.     The Court points out that a number of principles have been developed in its case-law when it is faced with the 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 (extracts)). 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). 98.     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. 99.     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). 100.     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). 101.     Finally, when there have been criminal proceedings in the domestic courts concerning those same allegations, it must be borne in mind that criminal-law liability is distinct from international-law responsibility under the Convention. The Court’s competence is confined to the latter. Responsibility under the Convention is based on its own provisions, which are to be interpreted and applied on the basis of the objectives of the Convention and in the light of the relevant principles of international law. The responsibility of a State under the Convention, for the acts of its bodies, agents and servants, is not to be confused with the domestic legal issues of individual criminal responsibility under examination in the national criminal courts. The Court is not concerned with reaching any findings as to guilt or innocence in that sense (see Avşar , cited above, §   284). 2.     Establishment of the facts 102.     The Court notes that despite its requests for a copy of the investigation file concerning the kidnapping of Ibragim Tsurov, the Government produced no documents from the file. 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 ‑ ... (extracts)). 103.     In view of this and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government’s conduct in respect of the well-foundedness of the applicants’ allegations. The Court will thus proceed to examine crucial elements in the present case that should be taken into account when deciding whether the applicants’ relative can be presumed dead and whether his death can be attributed to the authorities. 104.     The applicants alleged that the persons who had taken Ibragim Tsurov away on 26   April 2003 were State agents. 105.     The Government suggested in their submission that the persons who had detained Ibragim Tsurov could be members of illegal armed groups. However, this allegation was not specific and they did not submit any material to support it. The Court would stress in this regard that the evaluation of the evidence and the establishment of the facts is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see Çelikbilek v. Turkey , no.   27693/95, §   71, 31   May 2005). 106.     Furthermore, the Court points out that the Government’s submissions on the merits of the present application have been somewhat contradictory. At the outset they emphasised that Ibragim Tsurov had not been suspected of any illegal activities and thus could not have been arrested by State agents, and then submitted that he had been suspected of a serious crime and that the search for him was ongoing. They also first denied that the perpetrators had driven a Volga car with a flashing light and eventually admitted that such a car could possibly have been seen at the crime scene. 107.     The Court observes that it has not been disputed between the parties that a large group of armed men in uniform stopped Ibragim Tsurov’s car in a street in Grozny in broad daylight and then put him into the car boot. Moreover, the Government suggested that the three eyewitnesses to the abduction, who happened to be trained military servicemen, had possibly considered this to be a regular police operation. 108.     Furthermore, the Court emphasises that the applicants were informed by the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Ingushetia that their relative had been arrested by the police (see paragraph 30 above). It is not persuaded by the Government’s argument that the letter of 26 July 2004 was fabricated as they have not submitted any documents to confirm that Ibragim Tsurov was not arrested by the Malgobek police, such as a police registration log for the relevant time period or other materials. In the absence of such documents the Court considers that the Government have failed to discredit the validity of the letter as a piece of evidence. Accordingly, it finds it established that at least on one occasion the State officials acknowledged that Ibragim Tsurov had been arrested by officers of the department of the interior of the town of Malgobek. 109.     The Court finds that the aforesaid strongly supports the applicants’ allegation that the armed men who apprehended Ibragim Tsurov were State servicemen conducting a security operation. It observes in this respect that where the applicants make out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to a lack of documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see Toğcu v. Turkey , no.   27601/95, §   95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey , no.   21894/93, §   211, ECHR 2005 ‑ II). 110.     Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that Ibragim Tsurov was apprehended by State servicemen. The Government’s statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of the special forces in the kidnapping is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit the documents which we