CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 décembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s20AFED81 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s51BE140A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION       CASE OF AKHMADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 3026/03)       This version was rectified on 29 May 2009 under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court           JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   4 December 2008     FINAL   05/06/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Akhmadova 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,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 13 November 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 3026/03) 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 20 October 2002. 2.     The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   P.   Laptev and Ms   V.   Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants alleged that their relative had disappeared after being detained by servicemen in Chechnya on 6   March 2002. They complained under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 13 and 14. 4.     On 22 July 2004 the President of the First Section decided to grant priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 5.     By a decision of 11 December 2007, the Court declared the application 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 applicants are: (1) Mrs Medina [1] Bilalovna Akhmadova, born in 1954; (2) Mr Magomed [2] Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1979; (3) Mr Kazbek Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1982; (4) Mr Turpal Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1984. 8.     They live in Grozny, Chechnya. A. Detention and disappearance of Musa Akhmadov 9.     The first applicant is the wife of Musa Mausurovich Akhmadov, born in 1951. The second, third and fourth applicants are their children. The first applicant is disabled and cannot work. 10.     On 6 March 2002 Musa Akhmadov travelled to the village of Makhkety in Vedeno district in the south of Chechnya to see his ailing father. On that day between 2 and 3 p.m. he was detained at the military checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt village, Vedeno district. The applicants did not themselves witness the detention, and in their reconstruction of the events they relied on an affidavit by Alu S., the first applicant’s cousin, who was travelling with Musa Akhmadov, as well as on information obtained by them from the residents of Makhkety and a senior officer of the checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt. 11.     Alu S. submitted that he and Musa Akhmadov had arrived in the town of Shali, where they had hired a VAZ car with a driver to take them to Makhkety. In the village of Kirov-Yurt (also known as Tezvan) the car had been stopped at the permanent checkpoint of the Russian military, which had been installed in 2000 and remained there until early 2003. The military collected documents from the persons in the car and took them inside the checkpoint. Several minutes later they returned the passports of everyone except for Musa Akhmadov, who was ordered to get out of the car. The soldiers ordered the car to move away from the roadblock and took Mr Akhmadov into the checkpoint building. Alu S. got out of the car and tried to stop the soldiers but one of them threatened him with a machine gun and forbade him to approach. 12.     Some time later the military serviceman who had accompanied Musa Akhmadov into the checkpoint building returned to the road, and Alu S. asked him what had happened. The serviceman said that Musa Akhmadov had been detained because his family name was on the list of wanted persons. He also said that they had called the headquarters of their regiment in the village of Khatuni and that someone would come from there and take him to that military unit for an identity check. All further questions should be directed to the regiment in Khatuni. 13.     Later, a senior officer at the checkpoint who was known as “Arthur” (the applicants submitted that it was not his real name) told Musa Akhmadov’s relatives that the latter had been taken on the same day to the military base in Khatuni by an armoured personnel carrier (APC) with hull number 719. 14.     The applicants have had no news of Musa Akhmadov since his detention on 6 March 2002. 15.     The Government in their observations did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 6 March 2002 at the roadblock near Kirov-Yurt unidentified armed men had arrested Musa Akhmadov and taken him away to an unknown destination. B.   The search for Musa Akhmadov and the investigation 16.     Immediately after Musa Akhmadov’s detention the applicants and other family members started looking for him. 17.     On the day of detention, on 6 March 2002, Musa Akhmadov’s relatives went to the military base in Khatuni, but were not allowed to go through the gates. At about 6 p.m. the head of the temporary group of policemen from Samara on mission in Vedeno district, Mr Andrey K., came out to see them. He confirmed that he had seen Musa Akhmadov at the base and had talked to him. He assured the relatives that he had been detained by mistake, that in fact they were looking for another Akhmadov and that he would be released the next morning. 18.     On the following morning, at about 10 a.m. on 7 March 2002, Mr   K. again came out and told the relatives that Mr   Akhmadov had been transferred by helicopter to the main military base in Khankala, where he would be released “according to his permanent registration [in Grozny]”. 19.     The applicants learnt of Musa Akhmadov’s detention on 7 March 2002 and the first applicant immediately travelled to Khatuni. In the morning of 8 March 2002 she too went to the military base in Khatuni and talked to Mr Andrey K., who confirmed that her husband had been transferred to the Khankala military base the day before and who said that he had probably already been released in Grozny. 20.     The applicants applied to numerous official bodies, both in person and in writing, trying to find out the whereabouts and the fate of Musa Akhmadov. Among other authorities they applied to the departments of the Interior, to the military commanders, to the Federal Security Service (FSB), to the civil and military prosecutors of various levels, to administrative authorities and public figures, and to the OSCE mission in Chechnya. The first applicant also personally visited detention centres and military bases in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Northern Caucasus. She attempted to get access to the Khankala military base where her husband had allegedly been taken, but she was not permitted to enter. 21.     The applicants received hardly any substantive information about the fate of their husband and father and about the investigation. On several occasions they were sent copies of letters by which their requests had been forwarded to different prosecutors’ services. They submitted these documents to the Court, and these can be summarised as follows. 22.     On 25 April 2002 the first applicant talked to “Arthur”, the head of the checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt. The applicants submitted that at the time in question the roadblock had been manned by servicemen of the 51 st airborne regiment from Tula ( 51-й полк ВДВ г. Тула ). “Arthur” asked her if she had applied anywhere in connection with her husband’s disappearance. The first applicant replied that her father-in-law had written a complaint to the local department of the FSB. “Arthur” told her that probably because of that he had received a visit by officers of the FSB, who had destroyed all entries relating to Akhmadov’s detention and told him to keep quiet. In reply to “Arthur”‘s question about the witnesses to the detention, the applicants allegedly told him that the witnesses would keep quiet too. 23.     The first applicant submitted that she had talked on several occasions to the servicemen at the base in Khatuni, who used the names Sergey, Dima, Yarulin and Damir (the applicant believed these were not their real names) and that they had not denied her husband’s detention there. 24.     On 13 May 2002 the Vedeno District Prosecutor’s Office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) informed the applicant that on the same day they had opened criminal file no.   73023 “into the kidnapping of Musa Akhmadov, born in 1951, on 6   March 2002 at the roadblock in Kirov-Yurt”. 25.     On 21 May 2002 the first applicant submitted a complaint about her husband’s detention and disappearance to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office, identifying the witnesses to the detention. 26.     On 22 and 23 May 2002 she submitted similar complaints to the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 in Khankala. 27.     On 11 June 2002 the first applicant wrote to the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms. In that letter she referred to her conversation with “Arthur” on 25 April 2002, during which he had informed her of the destruction of documents related to her husband’s detention. 28.     On 23 June 2002 the head of the Oktyabrskiy District temporary department of the interior of Grozny (Oktyabrskiy VOVD) informed the applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the Vedeno VOVD. 29.     On 27 June 2002 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that criminal case no.   73023, opened in relation to the kidnapping of her husband “by unknown persons”, had been forwarded for investigation to the responsible military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 in Shali. 30.     On 28 June 2002 the military prosecutor for the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 in Shali with a request to conduct a thorough investigation of the complaint and to inform the applicant and the circuit prosecutor of the results. 31.     On 4 July 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 forwarded the documents related to the applicant’s complaint to the Regional Counter-Terrorist Operations Headquarters in Khankala, with a copy to the applicant. The forwarding letter said that the applicant’s husband had been detained in Kirov-Yurt on 6 March 2002 by unidentified persons, and that there were no reasons to suspect the involvement of military servicemen. 32.     On 19 July 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office, instructing them to investigate the applicant’s complaint that her husband had been detained on 6 March 2002 at the roadblock in Kirov-Yurt village by servicemen of the 45 th regiment, who had been stationed in Khatuni and who had used an APC with hull number 719. 33.     On 22 July 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office replied to the NGO Human Rights Watch, who had intervened on the applicants’ behalf, that on 25 June 2002 investigation file no.   73023 had been forwarded to the Shali district military prosecutor. 34.     On 15 August 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that the preliminary investigation carried out by the district prosecutor’s office into the kidnapping of her husband had established the involvement of military servicemen of the 45 th regiment. On 27 June 2002 criminal investigation file no.   73023-02 had been forwarded to the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 in Shali, where all further requests should be directed. 35.     In August 2002 Musa Akhmadov’s disappearance was reported by Anna Politkovskaya in the Moscow-based Novaya Gazeta in an article, ‘Disappearing People’. 36.     On 7 October 2002 a lawyer practising in Moscow wrote, on the first applicant’s behalf, to the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 in Khankala. He inquired if a criminal case had been opened into Mr   Akhmadov’s kidnapping by the military servicemen, and asked for copies of any procedural decisions taken in the case. 37.     On 11 October 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office replied to the OSCE mission in Chechnya about progress in several kidnapping cases, including that of Musa Akhmadov. The letter stated that “on 18 June 2002 the [district prosecutor’s office] opened criminal investigation file no.   73039 under Article 126 part 2 of the Criminal Code. On 18 August 2002 the investigation was suspended under Article 208 part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code [failure to identify the culprits]”. 38.     On 18 November 2002 the SRJI (Stichting Russian Justice Initiative), acting on the applicants’ behalf, requested the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 in Shali and the district prosecutor to inform them of progress in criminal case file no.   73023. 39.     On 30 December 2002 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that “on 18 June 2002 the district prosecutor opened criminal case file no.   73039 into Musa Akhmadov’s kidnapping. At present various steps are being taken in order to establish the whereabouts of the kidnapped person and to identify the culprits”. The letter also recommended the first applicant to send further queries to the district prosecutor’s office. 40.     On 17 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office wrote to the SRJI that information concerning the investigation was confidential and could be disclosed only to the supervising prosecutor. 41.     On 25 March 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 forwarded the first applicant’s complaint “about the disappearance of her husband in the vicinity of Kirov-Yurt village” to the district prosecutor’s office. The applicant was also informed that the search for missing persons was within the competence of the bodies of the Interior Ministry, where she should apply. 42.     On 2 April 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office again informed the applicant that on 18 June 2002 the district prosecutor had opened case file no.   73039 into Musa Akhmadov’s kidnapping. On 18 June 2002 [sic] the investigation had been suspended for failure to identify the culprits. The letter further stated that on 17 December 2002 the building of the district prosecutor’s office had been shelled by an illegal armed group, and as a result of the ensuing fire the archives and all criminal case files had been destroyed. The letter concluded by saying that the prosecutor’s office continued to take all possible steps to restore criminal case file no.   73039 and to solve the crime. 43.     On 11 April 2003 an investigator of the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Interior (ROVD) in Grozny issued a decision to grant the first applicant victim status in criminal case file no.   73023 instituted into her husband’s kidnapping. 44.     On 17 April 2003 the SRJI asked the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 to inform them whether the first applicant had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings concerning her husband’s kidnapping, and to forward them a copy of the relevant decision. 45.     On 10 May 2003 the applicant wrote a detailed answer to the letter of 25   March 2003 from the military prosecutor. She stressed that her husband had not “disappeared in the vicinity of Kirov-Yurt”, but that he had been detained by military servicemen at the roadblock. She gave them available information about the names and positions of the military and policemen who had been involved in his arrest and who had later confirmed to her the detention. She asked the prosecutor to obtain the lists of servicemen who were manning the roadblock at the time and to question them, to review the lists of the persons detained, to establish, with her help, the identity of the officers who had talked to her at the base in Khatuni and to question them, including Mr Andrey K., who worked as the senior investigator in the Leninskiy District Department of Interior in Samara, to question herself and other witnesses to her husband’s detention, and to inform her of her husband’s whereabouts. 46.     On 3 June 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny, at the first applicant’s request, declared Musa Akhmadov a missing person. The first applicant and two witnesses, Alu S. and Mr. R. M., testified that on 6 March 2002 Musa Akhmadov had been taken out of a car by servicemen at the roadblock near Kirov-Yurt and taken away. He has not been seen since. The court noted that the criminal investigation into Mr   Akhmadov’s kidnapping by unknown persons had been pending and had declared him a missing person since 6 March 2002. 47.     On 16 June 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 informed the SRJI that criminal case file no.   73023 related to Mr   Akhmadov’s kidnapping had not been received by that office. 48.     On 8 August 2003 the SRJI again requested the district prosecutor’s office to inform them of the progress of the criminal investigation into Musa Akhmadov’s kidnapping and to grant the first applicant victim status in the proceedings. 49.     On 1 September 2003 the criminal investigation department of the Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya informed the first applicant that criminal case no.   73039 concerning the kidnapping of Musa Akhmadov had been investigated by the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office. 50.     On 19 September 2003 the SRJI wrote to the district prosecutor and asked him to take a number of steps aimed at solving the applicant’s husband’s kidnapping. The letter stated that it had been established that at the relevant time the base in Khatuni, where Mr Akhmadov had last been seen, had been manned by servicemen of the 45th airborne regiment from Moscow. The SRJI asked the prosecutor to obtain a list of servicemen who had served at the base at the relevant time and to question them about Mr   Akhmadov’s whereabouts. The letter also suggested that a confrontation should be organised between the first applicant and other relatives and the servicemen of the regiment, in order to identify the persons who had talked to the relatives in the days following Mr Akhmadov’s arrest. The first applicant and other relatives would be prepared to travel to Moscow for such a confrontation. In addition, the SRJI again asked to question Mr   Andrey K., who worked as the senior investigator in the Leninskiy District Department of the Interior in Samara. 51.     As there was no reply to that letter, a similar letter was forwarded on 11   November 2003 to the Chechnya Prosecutor. The SRJI also requested the investigation to ask the commanders of the military base in Khatuni in writing whether Mr Akhmadov had been detained there. 52.     On 18 November 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the SRJI that in December 2002 the district prosecutor’s office had been attacked and burnt down, and that at present action was being taken to restore documents relating to the criminal case of Mr   Akhmadov’s kidnapping. 53.     On 18 December 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 informed the first applicant and the military prosecutor of the Tula garrison of the following. After 19 December 2003 their office had carried out an inquiry into the first applicant’s statement, as a result of which it had been established that in March 2002 two regiments had been stationed in Khatuni, nos.   45 and 51. Servicemen of the military unit no.   28337 (45th airborne regiment) had not taken part in any special operations, they had not detained Mr Akhmadov and the military unit had no airborne combat vehicles ( боевая машина десанта , BMD ). The commander of military unit no.   28337, Lieutenant-Colonel V. T., and servicemen of the said military unit testified that in August 2002 (as in the text) Mr Akhmadov had not been detained or brought to the headquarters of the military unit in Khatuni, that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time; and that their unit did not have BMDs. As to the 51st airborne regiment, at the end of November 2003 it had been transferred from Chechnya to its permanent base in Tula, and thus its involvement in Mr Akhmadov’s detention could not be investigated. 54.     On 28 January 2004 the first applicant submitted a letter to the military prosecutor of the United Group Alliance (UGA), asking to help her to obtain information from the servicemen of the 45th and 51st airborne regiments about the fate of her husband. 55.     On 19 February 2004 the military commander of Chechnya requested the military commander of the Vedeno district, the district departments of the Interior and the FSB to investigate the facts as presented by the first applicant and to take steps to find Musa Akhmadov, who had been detained on 6 March 2002 at around 3 p.m. at the checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt by servicemen of the 51st airborne regiment and taken to the military base in Khatuni in a BMD, hull number 719. 56.     On 26 February 2004 the military prosecutor of the Tula garrison informed the military unit no.   2116 in Shali and the first applicant that their office had carried out an inquiry, with the following results. On 6 March 2002 servicemen of the 3rd inter-service team of the Ministry of Justice had detained a resident of Grozny, M. M. Akhmadov, as a person involved in illegal armed groups. With the assistance of servicemen of the regiment’s task team (military unit no   33842), whose names could not be established, the detained person had been transferred to the special field subdivision of the FSB ( специальный полевой отдел ФСБ ), located at the base camp of the regiment’s task force ( базовый лагерь полковой тактической группы ), and transferred to its servicemen. The letter concluded that since the special field subdivision of the FSB had been located in territory under the jurisdiction of the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116, this office should carry out further investigation. The letter listed eight pages of attachments, which were not copied to the first applicant. 57.     On 2 April and 28 April 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 informed the first applicant that their office had found no information that servicemen of the military units under their jurisdiction had been involved in a crime. No special operations had been carried out at the relevant time, and no-one had been detained or delivered to the law-enforcement authorities by the military servicemen of the district. The applicant was advised to apply to the local bodies of the Interior Ministry. 58.     On 15 May 2004 the military prosecutor of the UGA informed the first applicant that the whereabouts of her husband and the identity of the persons who had kidnapped him could not be established. She was instructed to seek further information about the investigation from the district prosecutor’s office. 59.     On 17 May 2004 the investigator of the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the disappearance of her husband, who had been detained on 6 March 2002 at about 3 p.m. in the vicinity of Kirov-Yurt by unknown military servicemen using a BMD. 60.     On 4 June 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 informed the first applicant that on 6 March 2002 servicemen of the 3rd inter-service team of the Ministry of Justice had detained a resident of Grozny, M. M. Akhmadov, as a person involved in illegal armed groups. With the assistance of servicemen of military unit no   33842 the detained person had been transferred to the special field subdivision of the FSB, located in the base camp of the regiment’s task force in Khatuni, and transferred to its servicemen. However, it turned out to be impossible to identify the persons who had detained Mr Akhmadov or to whom he had been transferred. She was further instructed to apply to the local bodies of the interior responsible for searching for missing persons. 61.     On 12 July 2004 the first applicant asked the head of the FSB to assist her in finding her husband, who had last been seen at the military base in Khatuni on 6 March 2002. 62.     On 30 September 2004 the deputy head of the military counterintelligence department of the FSB informed the first applicant that the FSB had no information about the detention of Musa Akhmadov on 6 March 2002 in Kirov-Yurt. The letter further stated that the servicemen who had served in the said location in 2002 had either been transferred to other locations or dismissed from service, but that measures would be taken to identify and question them in relation to the first applicant’s husband’s fate. The first applicant would be kept informed of the results. 63.     On 31 January 2005 the first applicant wrote to the President of Chechnya and asked him to find out how her husband’s name had been included in a list of persons involved in illegal armed groups, in the absence of any such involvement. 64.     On 3 February 2005 the first applicant wrote to the Prosecutor General. She complained that the military prosecutor and the civil prosecutor had been transferring her complaints from one to the other and that no proper investigation had taken place. She complained that the military prosecutor’s office no.   20116 had failed to investigate the circumstances of her husband’s disappearance. 65.     On 3 February 2005 the first applicant wrote to the head of the military counterintelligence department of the FSB and asked him to help her find her husband, who had apparently been transferred to the military base in Khankala. 66.     On 26 February 2005 the Chechnya military commander again instructed the Vedeno military commander to investigate the facts as submitted by the first applicant and to take measures in order to establish Mr Akhmadov’s whereabouts. 67.     On 18 and 19 April 2005 the military prosecutor of the UGA instructed the military prosecutor of military unit no.   22116 to inform the applicants of progress in the case concerning Mr Akhmadov’s kidnapping and to submit all the relevant documents. 68.     On 22 April 2005 the FSB Department for Chechnya informed the head of the State Council of Chechnya that they had no information about Musa Akhmadov and that the latter had not been detained by the FSB. The letter also stated that the servicemen of the Department had been instructed to carry out a search for the missing man and that the first applicant would be informed of any progress. 69.     On 6 May 2005 the prosecutor of military unit no.   20116 informed the first applicant that in order to identify the persons who had detained her husband on 6 March 2002, they had sent an information request to a “competent body”. The applicant would be informed if there was any progress. In the meantime, she should apply to the district prosecutor’s office where the criminal case was pending. 70.     On 18 May 2005 the head of the criminal investigation department of the Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya informed the first applicant that they had taken a number of steps to find Mr Akhmadov; however, none of them had achieved any results. In particular, they had questioned the servicemen of the military units stationed in the district, forwarded requests for information to the district military commander’s office, the headquarters of the 45th airborne regiment, and the pre-trial detention centre in Chernokozovo. 71.     On 17 July 2005 the military prosecutor of the UGA informed the first applicant that the servicemen of the federal forces had not been involved in the kidnapping of her husband. The criminal investigation was pending with the district prosecutor’s office. 72.     On 6 September 2005 the head of the Vedeno ROVD informed the first applicant that their office had opened a search file on 23 December 2004. They had conducted house-to-house enquiries in Kirov-Yurt in order to find witnesses to the kidnapping, distributed information about the missing man to their officers, and sent information requests to the local authorities. Actions aimed at finding her husband would continue. 73.     On several occasions higher-ranking prosecutor’s offices forwarded the applicant’s complaints to the district prosecutor’s office and requested them to inform them and the applicant of the progress of the proceedings. 74.     In November 2004 the first applicant submitted to the SRJI a written account of a public meeting which had taken place in June 2004 in front of the building of the Chechnya Government, attended mostly by women looking for their missing relatives. The first applicant submitted that on that day the gathering had been forcibly dispersed by the police and a number of participants, including herself, had been briefly detained. She had been questioned by several senior officers of the Chechen police, who had suspected her of organising the unauthorised rally and warned her that she should not continue the search for her husband. 75.     On 2 November 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that on the same they had resumed investigation. 76.     On 2 February 2006 the first applicant submitted a complaint about the inactivity of the investigative bodies to the Vedeno District Court. On 17   February 2006 the Vedeno District Court rejected the first applicant’s complaint, in her absence, because at that time the investigation was pending. The first applicant submits that she was not aware of the consideration of her claim until October 2006, when she inquired with the district court about the fate of her application. 77.     On 11 April 2006 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s letter addressed to the head of Chechnya Parliament. The letter stated that the investigation had established that on 6 March 2002 at about 3   p.m. at the checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt unknown servicemen of the 51-st airborne regiment had detained and taken to an unknown destination Musa Akhmadov, born in 1951. His whereabouts have not been established. The investigation, pending with the district prosecutor’s office since 13 May 2002, had failed to identify the culprits or to find the first applicant’s husband. On 4 April 2006 the investigation had been resumed, because not all measures had been taken to solve the crime. The investigation was under supervision by the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office. 78.     On 7 September 2007 the Military Prosecutor of the UGA replied to the first applicant that their office had established that military servicemen had not been involved in the kidnapping of her husband. She should direct her queries to the district prosecutor’s office. 79.     On 20 April 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been adjourned on 20 April 2007. 80.     On 8 May 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant of the resumption of the investigation as of the same day. 81.     The first applicant also submitted that her health had deteriorated. In May 2005 a doctor confirmed that she was suffering from hypertension and a heart condition. On 4 June 2004 the first applicant had been examined by a doctor who had noted high blood pressure and administered treatment. C.     Information submitted by the Government about the investigation 82.     In reply to the Court’s requests, the Government submitted the following information concerning the progress of the investigation. They did not submit copies of any of the documents to which they referred. 83.     On 13 May 2002 the district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation (file no.   73023) under Article 126, paragraph 2   (a) and (g), into the kidnapping of M. Akhmadov, upon receipt of information from the Vedeno ROVD. 84.     At the same time, on 18 June 2002 the same district prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation (file no.   73039) on a complaint submitted by the first applicant about her husband’s kidnapping. 85.     On 21 June 2002 the investigation of both cases was joined under file number 73023. 86.     On 27 June 2002 the said case file was forwarded to the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20116. However, since no involvement of military personnel in the crime could be established, the case file was returned to the district prosecutor’s office on 13 July 2002. 87.     On 13 July 2002 the investigation was adjourned under Article 208 part 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 88.     On 17 December 2002 the premises of the district prosecutor’s office was shelled by unknown persons and caught fire. As a result, a number of documents were destroyed, including criminal case no.   73023. A criminal case was opened into the incident, and measures have been taken to restore the destroyed documents. 89.     On 26 February 2003 the investigation questioned Musa Akhmadov’s sister, Z. A., about the circumstances of the crime. 90.     According to the Government, the investigator forwarded requests to the Vedeno and the Oktyabrskiy [Grozny] District Departments of the Interior, asking these offices to take measures to solve the crime. He also requested information about the possible detention of Musa Akhmadov from the district department of the FSB. The latter office replied on 24   March 2003 that they had not detained Musa Akhmadov and had not carried out any search and operative measures in respect of him. 91.     On 3 March 2003, and later again on 11 November 2005, the investigation questioned R. A., another of Musa Akhmadov’s sisters, and a neighbour, M.   T. On 14 November 2005 it questioned Mr   Kh.   M. The Government did not indicate what these witnesses had stated. 92.     The Government also stated that no further information about the progress of the investigation was apparent from the case file. 93.     On 12 May 2004 the acting district prosecutor reopened proceedings and informed the first applicant accordingly. On 13 May 2004 the investigation requested the district department of the FSB to take measures to identify persons responsible for Mr   Akhmadov’s kidnapping. 94.     On 17 May 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 95.     On 18 May 2004 the investigation sent information requests to all the district prosecutor’s offices in Chechnya, to the head of the UGA and to the military commander of the republic. The Government did not indicate the contents of these requests or whether any replies had been received. 96.     On 12 June 2004 the investigation was adjourned, of which the first applicant was informed. 97.     On 17 September 2004 the acting district prosecutor reopened proceedings and informed the first applicant. On 17 October 2004 the investigation was adjourned. 98.     On 2 November 2005 the investigation was reopened. From 3 to 6   November 2005 new information requests were sent to the “competent bodies”. The Government did not give any further details about these requests. 99.     In November 2005 the first applicant was questioned as a victim on two occasions. Seven other persons were also questioned, including Musa Akhmadov’s sisters and Mr Kh. M. The Government did not indicate what they had stated. 100.     On 16 November 2002 the deputy district prosecutor repeated the decision of 21 June 2002 to join criminal investigation files numbers 73023 and 73039, because the original had been lost. 101.     On 2 December 2005 the investigation was suspended, and on 18   January 2006 it was reopened. The first applicant was informed of the reopening. 102.     On 18 January 2006 the investigation was reopened. The victim and witnesses were additionally questioned and information requests were forwarded to various law-enforcement and military services. However, no new information about the fate of Musa Akhmadov had been obtained. On 20 April 2007 the investigation was adjourned, and on 29 January 2008 it was again reopened. The Government did not indicate any other details about the investigative actions taken within this round of proceedings. 103.     Despite specific requests made by the Court on three occasions, the Government did not submit any documents from the file in criminal case no   73023. 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 Russian 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. 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 documents disclosing military information and personal data of the witnesses, and without the right to make copies of the case file and transmit it to others. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, in force until July 2002 104.     Article 11 (1) guaranteed the principle of personal inviolability and established that no one could be arrested other than on the basis of a judicial decision or a prosecutor’s order. 105.     Under Article 122, an investigating authority could apprehend a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment on one of the following grounds: (i)           if the person was caught in the act or immediately after committing the offence; (ii)           if eyewitnesses, including victims, directly implicated the person as the one who had committed the offence; (iii)           if clear traces of the offence were found on the person’s body or clothes, or with him or in his dwelling. An investigating authority was required to draw up a report on any apprehension of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence, indicating the grounds, motives, day and time, year and month of the apprehension, the explanations of the apprehended person and the time the report was drawn up, and to notify a prosecutor in writing within 24 hours. Within 48 hours of being notified of the apprehension, the prosecutor had either to remand the apprehended person in custody or to release that person. 106.     Article 89 (1) authorised imposition of preventive measures where there were sufficient grounds to believe that an accused could abscond from enquiries, preliminary investigation or trial, or obstruct the establishment of the truth in a criminal case or engage in criminal activity, as well as in order to secure the execution of a sentence. The investigator, prosecutor or the court could impose one of the following preventive measures on the accused: a written undertaking not to leave a specified place, a personal guarantee or a guarantee by a public organisation, or remand in custody. 107.     Article 90 permitted, on an exceptional basis, a measure of restraint to be taken against a suspect who had not been charged. In such a case, charges had to be brought against the suspect within ten days of the imposition of the measure. If no charges were brought within the period specified, the measure of restraint was to be revoked. 108.     Article 91 required the following circumstances to be taken into account in imposing a measure of restraint: the gravity of the charges and the suspect’s or defendant’s personality, occupation, age, health, family status and other circumstances. 109.     Article 92 authorised an investigator, prosecutor, or a court to issue a ruling or finding as to a measure of restraint, provided it specified the offence of which the person was suspected or accused and the grounds for imposing such a measure. The person concerned had to be informed of the ruling or finding and at the same time provided with explanations concerning the appeal procedure. A copy of the ruling or finding had to be served immediately on the person against whom a measure of restraint had been taken. 110.     Article 96 set out the grounds for arrest, and authorised public prosecutors, from the level of a district or town prosecutor to the Prosecutor General, to authorise detention. B. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (CCP) in force after 1 July 2002. 111.     Article 161 of the new CCP establishes the rule of impermissibility of disclosure of data from the preliminary investigation. Under part 3 of the said Article, information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants of the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation. Divulging information about the private life of the participants in criminal proceedings without their permission is prohibited. C.     Administrative arrest 112.     The Code of Administrative Offences of 30 December 2001 provides as follows:     Article 27.3. Administrative arrest ( administrativnoye zaderzhaniye ) “1.     Administrative arrest, that is a temporary restriction of liberty of an individual, may be ordered in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary for a correct and prompt examination of the administrative case...” Article 27.5.     Duration of administrative arrest