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 } .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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 ASKHAROVA v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 13566/02)                 JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   4 December 2008   FINAL   05/06/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Askharova v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 13 November 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 13566/02) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Larisa Askharova (“the applicant”), on 4 March 2002. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was 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 applicant alleged that her husband had disappeared after being detained by servicemen in Chechnya on 18 May 2001. She complained under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13. 4.     By a decision of 22 November 2007, the Court declared the application admissible. 5.     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 6.     The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the village of Serzhen-Yurt, the Chechen Republic. A.   Detention of Mr Sharani Askharov 1.     The applicant’s account 7.     The applicant lived with her husband, Mr Sharani Askharov (born in 1956), at 106 Sheripova Street in the village of Serzhen-Yurt. The applicant is a housewife, and her husband was a lorry driver. Together they had two daughters, one of whom is away from home for long periods of time for medical reasons. In the same courtyard there are five houses; the four others are owned by the applicant’s husband’s brothers and their families. 8.     According to the applicant, early in the morning of 18 May 2001 a “sweeping operation” ( зачистка ) took place in Serzhen-Yurt. At about 5   a.m. a group of armed men wearing masks and dressed in camouflage broke into the applicant’s home and entered the room where the applicant, her husband and their 12-year-old daughter were sleeping. The applicant was forced by a man armed with a sub-machine gun to stand against the wall in the hall, while other men held her husband down in another room. The applicant describes the men as well-built, tall and speaking unaccented Russian. One of them was, in her estimation, 40-45 years old. They did not introduce themselves, show any identification or ask anyone for identity documents, nor did they ask any questions. When the applicant asked them what they wanted and who they were looking for they told her to be quiet. The soldiers put a sack over Mr Sharani Askharov’s head and took him outside into the courtyard. The applicant was prevented from following. The applicant’s account of the events is supported by statements by three eyewitnesses. 9.     The soldiers proceeded to another house in the same courtyard, and brought out one of the applicant’s husband’s brothers, Mr Yunus Askharov. They pulled a T-shirt over his head and put him into an armoured personnel carrier (APC). They also detained Mr Sharani Askharov’s nephew, Mr   Aslan Askharov, born in 1974. 10.     Mr Yunus Askharov, who was later released, explained that his T-shirt was thin and that he could see that he was in the same APC as his brother Sharani. He tried to talk to his brother, but a sack was put over his head too, and the detainees were forbidden to talk and were beaten with rifle butts if they attempted to. 11.     The neighbours later told the applicant that they had noted the license plate numbers of two APCs that took part in the sweeping operation as 714 and 224. They also noted the plate numbers of the Ural military truck as 76-46 VA. There were also other vehicles, at least two other APCs, but their number plates were obscured with mud. 12.     The applicant submitted that in the same sweeping operation nine men had been detained in Serzhen-Yurt. Two of them, including the applicant’s husband, had disappeared. Mr Aslan Askharov, her nephew, had been found dead with bullet wounds later on 18 May 2001 on the outskirts of the village. Six others had been released on 18 and 19 May 2004, after having been subjected to interrogations accompanied by beatings and torture. 13.     The applicant submitted written statements by Mr Yunus Askharov and Mr M. R., who were released on 18 May 2004. According to their statements, the APCs carrying the detainees drove for several hours. The men inside remained blindfolded and their hands were tied tightly behind their backs. On several occasions the vehicles stopped, the detainees were dragged out, beaten, tortured and then pulled back inside. Mr Yunus Askharov was asked questions about the Chechen fighters and their bases. At some point he heard his brother answering about himself that he was 46   years old and a truck driver. He therefore concluded that his brother was still with them. After one interrogation he heard someone say: “those – to the pit, those – to the car,” indicating a separation of the group. At about 2   p.m. five men, including Mr Yunus Askharov, were dumped in a field by an old petrol station between the villages of Serzhen-Yurt and Shali. Their hands were freed but they were told to lie still. After the military had left, the men freed themselves and Yunus realised that his brother Sharani was not among them. The detainees had been so severely beaten that some of them were unable to move. The next day Mr Yunus Askharov was admitted to Shali Hospital, where he remained for a month. 14.     The applicant submitted copies of medical certificates issued to two other men detained on 18 May 2001: Mr M. S. and Mr M. R., whom the hospital doctors had diagnosed with concussion, fractured ribs, numerous bruises and haematomas to the face, neck, back and torso. Witnesses also testified that their teeth had been pulled out with pliers. 15.     On the same day, on 18 May 2001, the applicant’s nephew, Mr   Aslan Askharov, was found dead on the outskirts of the village with gunshot wounds. On 3 June 2001 a doctor of the Serzhen-Yurt medical station issued a death certificate for Mr Aslan Askharov: born in 1974, died on 18 May 2001 in Serzhen-Yurt of gunshot wounds. 16.     Another person detained in Serzhen-Yurt on 18 May 2001, a 14-year-old boy, was released the following day, on 19 May 2001. He told the applicant and her sister that he had been taken to a military base blindfolded, and that he had understood that the applicant’s husband and another man from their village, Mr A. S., were also there. 17.     The applicant submitted several witness statements by her neighbours and by other men who had been detained on 18 May 2001 about the “sweeping” operation and about the treatment of the detainees. 18.     The applicant and other members of her family have had no news of Mr   Sharani Askharov since 19 May 2001. 2.     The Government’s account 19.     The Government submitted that the Prosecutor General’s Office had established that on 18 May 2001 at around 6 a.m. unidentified persons in camouflage and masks, armed with automatic weapons and accompanied by armoured vehicles, had entered Serzhen-Yurt and apprehended Mr   Sharani Askharov, Mr Yunus Askharov, Mr A. S., Mr M. S., Mr M. R., Mr Z. Z., Mr T. Z. and Mr R. Z. and had taken them to an unknown destination. On the same date Mr Aslan Askharov, who had been a member of an illegal armed group, had died in the village in unclear circumstances. On the evening of 18 May 2001 those apprehended had been released, with the exception of Mr Sharani Askharov and Mr A. S., whose whereabouts had not been established. 3.     Media and NGO reports 20.     The applicant submitted two newspaper cuttings of May 2001. On 22   May 2001 the Moscow-based Kommersant published an article entitled “Khattab’s Friend and Dudayev’s Assistant are Killed”. The article said: “In the Shali district of Chechnya the federal forces carried out a special operation directed against the leaders of bandit groups. Last weekend, during that operation in Serzhen-Yurt, Sharani Askharov was killed. According to intelligence information, he was a well-known explosives expert and a close friend of one of the extremists’ leaders, Khattab; he played the most active part in the activities of the illegal armed groups. In the same village the federal forces killed [S.], the chief of the criminal police during the reign of Dudayev, who had maintained close ties with the current leaders of bandit groups”. 21.     On 26 May 2001 the Moscow-based Nezavisimaya Gazeta published its regular update on the conflict in Chechnya, covering events between 12   and 25 May 2001. It reported that “on 19-20 May 2001 in Serzhen-Yurt, Shali district, a targeted special operation took place, as a result of which Sharani Askharov, a well-known explosives expert and a close friend of Khattab, and [A. S.], former chief of the criminal police in Dudayev’s time, who had maintained ties with the current field commanders, were killed.” 22.     In April 2002 the NGO Human Rights Watch issued a report entitled “Last seen ... Continued disappearances in Chechnya”. It describes the sweeping operation in Serzhen-Yurt on 18 May 2001 and lists Mr Sharani Askharov as “disappeared”. It also describes the ill-treatment suffered by the other detainees who were later released. B.   The search for Sharani Askharov and the investigation 23.     According to the applicant, she started looking for her husband immediately after his detention, together with relatives of Mr   A.   S. For some days after 18 May 2001 the applicant, with Mr   A.   S.’s sister, went to Shali to be near the military commander’s office. After three days the women were informed by the commander that their relatives had been detained there for some time, but had then been demanded by a higher authority and transferred elsewhere. The commander did not tell them where the men had been taken. 24.     On numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, the applicant applied to prosecutors at various levels, to the Ministry of the Interior, to the administrative authorities and to public figures. In particular, she applied on 10 July 2001 to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic, on 3   October 2001 and 21 January 2002 to the Prosecutor General, and on 13   December 2001 to the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office. In her initial applications she stated the details of her husband’s abduction, listed the license plate numbers of the military vehicles that had participated in the operation, and asked for a criminal investigation into her husband’s abduction to be opened. In her subsequent applications she asked for an update on the progress of the investigation. The applicant received hardly any substantive information from official bodies about the investigation into her husband’s disappearance. On several occasions she was sent copies of letters by which her requests had been forwarded to different prosecutors’ services. 25.     On 24 May 2001 a group of villagers of Serzhen-Yurt (over 50   persons) signed a petition to the Shali district temporary department of the interior (VOVD) administration, prosecutor and the military commander. They asked for the reasons for Mr Sharani Askharov’s detention to be investigated and for him to be released. 26.     According to the Government, up to August 2001 the prosecuting authorities of the Chechen Republic had received no complaints from relatives of the persons abducted on 18 May 2001. 27.     On 14 August 2001 the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in case no. 23185 into the abduction of Mr A. S. His wife, Mrs I., was granted victim status on 20 August 2001. 28.     On 30 August 2001 the Department for Legal Affairs and Military Liaison of the Chechen Government informed the applicant that her complaints had been transferred to the Chechen Department of the Interior for a search to be organised, and to the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 for a criminal investigation to be carried out. 29.     On 15 October 2001 the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in case no. 23261 regarding the abduction of Mr   Sharani Askharov by a group of persons (Article 126 (2) of the Criminal Code). 30.     On 16 October 2001 the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that her husband’s abduction was under investigation by that office. The letter contained no other details. 31.     On 19 October 2001 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 informed the applicant that her letter had been sent to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116 based in Shali. 32.     According to the Government, on 20 October 2001 the applicant was granted victim status in criminal proceedings no. 23261. She was questioned on the same date and stated that her husband had been taken from his home together with his brother, Mr Yunus Askharov, at around 6   a.m. on 18 May 2001 by persons dressed in camouflage and wearing masks. Later she had learnt that other villagers had been apprehended too, but unlike her husband and Mr A. S. they had been released on the same day. She did not know the whereabouts of her husband or Mr A. S. 33.     On 29 December 2001 the applicant was informed by the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office of the institution on 15 October 2001 of criminal proceedings no. 23261 regarding her husband’s abduction. The letter further informed the applicant of the name of the investigator in charge of the case and invited her to study the case file. 34.     On 2 July 2002 the investigator of the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office issued the following progress report in case no. 23261: “On 18 May 2001 Mr. Sharani Vakhayevich Askharov, born in 1956, was detained and taken to an unknown destination by unidentified servicemen, during the conduct of a special operation, from his permanent residence at 106 Sheripova Street, Serzhen-Yurt, Shali district. So far his whereabouts have not been established. On 15   October   2001 the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal investigation no. 23261 regarding this event, under Article 126 (2) of the Criminal Code. On 15   December 2001 the criminal investigation was suspended because the culprits could not be identified. Nonetheless the search for the abducted person continues.” 35.     According to the applicant, she did not receive any further update on the investigation. 36.     The Government submitted the following information concerning the progress of the investigation. 37.     On 27 June 2005 criminal investigation no. 23261 regarding the abduction of Mr Sharani Askharov was joined with criminal investigation no. 23185 into the abduction of Mr A. S. and with a criminal investigation regarding the death of Mr Aslan Askharov. 38.     On an unspecified date relatives of other persons apprehended on 18   May   2001 were questioned. They made statements similar to that of the applicant. Two women, Ms K. A. and Ms S. A, apparently relatives of Mr   Sharani Askharov and Mr Aslan Askharov, stated that Mr Aslan Askharov had been a member of an illegal armed group. On 18 May 2001 he left the house, trying to hide from the people who had arrived in the village. Later they had heard shooting and in the evening his body had been found on the outskirts of the village. 39.     On 17 January 2005 Mr Yunus Askharov was granted victim status. He was questioned on 17 January and 12 June 2005. According to the Government, he had been summoned for questioning on several occasions earlier but had failed to appear. Mr Yunus Askharov confirmed the circumstances of his abduction by unknown persons and submitted that he had been beaten by them, but that he would not be able to identify them. On the afternoon of 18   May   2001 the unidentified persons had left him and the other villagers on the outskirts of the village and they had returned home by themselves. Mr Yunus Askharov did not confirm that he had been tortured or that his teeth had been pulled out, nor did he confirm that he had been taken to the military base. 40.     On an unspecified date Mr Yunus Askharov underwent a medical examination. According to the results of the examination he had sustained insignificant injuries ( легкий вред здоровью ). 41.     Mr Z. Z., Mr T. Z. and Mr R. Z., questioned on an unspecified date, submitted that neither they nor Mr M. R. had been beaten following their abduction. 42.     It appeared impossible to question Mr M. R. since he had left the Chechen Republic. However, his relative, Ms H. R., submitted that he had not had any injuries when he had returned home. 43.     It also appeared impossible to question Mr M. S. since he had been absent from his place of residence. The results of a medical examination conducted on an unspecified date showed that he had sustained significant injuries ( вред здоровью средней тяжести ). 44.     Ms R. M., the applicant’s neighbour, was questioned on an unspecified date. She submitted that at the end of May 2001 unidentified servicemen dressed in camouflage accompanied by armoured vehicles had abducted seven residents of Serzhen-Yurt. Later that day some of the abducted men had been found on the outskirts of Serzhen-Yurt. Then Mr   Aslan Askharov’s body had been found on the outskirts of the village. 45.     On an unspecified date a forensic examination was conducted so as to establish the cause of death of Mr Aslan Askharov. Since his body was not exhumed, the examination was conducted on the basis of medical documents. The exact cause of death as well as the nature of the injuries could not be established. Nor was a connection established between the actions of the unidentified servicemen and Mr Aslan Askharov’s death. 46.     The investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of Mr Sharani Askharov and Mr A. S. The investigating authorities sent requests for information to the competent State agencies on 2 and 11 November 2001, 30   April and 22 December 2003, and 23 December 2004. However, it was not established that servicemen had been involved in the offence. Neither Mr   Sharani Askharov nor Mr A. S. had been held in either criminal detention or administrative detention facilities. 47.     According to the information of the Ministry of the Interior, the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the United Group Alignment (UGA), no operations had been conducted in respect of Mr Sharani Askharov and Mr   A. S. and they had not been detained. The vehicles which the applicant claimed had been used in the offence did not belong to the above authorities. 48.     The investigation in case no. 23261 had been suspended a number of times on account of a failure to identify persons to be charged with the offence. The most recent decision to suspend the investigation was quashed on 6 June 2005 and the investigation was taken up by the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office. 49.     According to the Government, the applicant had been informed of all the suspensions and resumptions. The information published in Kommersant and Nezavisimaya Gazeta was being checked. C.     Request for information 50.     Despite a specific request by the Court, the Government did not submit a copy of the file in criminal case no.   23261. They submitted nineteen pages of case-file materials containing certain decisions to resume the investigation and to grant victim status and copies of notifications sent to the applicant. 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. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 51.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia , no. 40464/02, §   67-69, 10   May 2007. THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION A.     Arguments of the parties 52.     The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the investigation into the abduction of the applicant’s husband had not yet been completed. They also argued that it had been open to the applicant to file court complaints about the allegedly unlawful detention of her husband or, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, to challenge in court any actions or omissions of the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities during the investigation; however, she had not availed herself of any such remedy. 53.     The applicant disputed that objection. In her view, the fact that the investigation had been ongoing for seven years with no tangible results proved that it was an ineffective remedy in this case. She further claimed that she could not effectively challenge actions or omissions of the investigating authorities because she had not been duly informed of its progress during the five years that it had been under way. Furthermore, those complaints that she had lodged remained unanswered. The applicant also contended that the Government had not demonstrated that the remedies to which they had referred were effective and, in particular, were capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required by the Court’s settled case-law in relation to complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. B.     The Court’s assessment 54.     In the present case, the Court took no decision about the exhaustion of domestic remedies at the admissibility stage, having found that this question was too closely linked to the merits. It will now proceed to examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia , no. 60272/00, §   73-74, 12 October 2006). 55.     The Court first notes, having regard to the Government’s objection concerning the applicant’s failure to complain of her husband’s unlawful detention to the domestic authorities, that after Mr Sharani Askharov had been taken away by armed men, the applicant actively attempted to establish his whereabouts and applied to various official bodies, whereas the authorities denied responsibility for the detention of the missing person. In such circumstances, and in particular in the absence of any proof to confirm the very fact of the detention, even assuming that the remedy referred to by the Government was accessible to the applicant, it is more than questionable whether a court complaint of the unacknowledged detention of Mr Sharani Askharov by the authorities would have had any prospects of success. Moreover, the Government have not demonstrated that the remedy indicated by them would have been capable of providing redress in the applicant’s situation, namely that it would have led to the release of Mr Sharani Askharov and the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Musayeva and Others v. Russia , no.   74239/01, § 69, 26   July 2007). Accordingly, the Government’s objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be rejected in this part. 56.     As regards criminal law remedies, the Court observes that the applicant complained to the law enforcement authorities immediately after the abduction of Mr Sharani Askharov and that an investigation has been ongoing since 14 August 2001. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation. 57.     The Court considers that this limb of the Government’s preliminary objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaints. Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 58.     The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that her husband had disappeared after having been apprehended by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 reads: “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” A.     Alleged violation of Sharani Askharov’s right to life 1.     Arguments of the parties 59.     The applicant maintained her complaint and argued that her husband had been detained by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for several years. 60.     The Government referred to the fact that the investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that this person was dead, or that representatives of the federal forces had been involved in his abduction or alleged killing. In particular, no special operations were conducted in Serzhen-Yurt on the relevant date. 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     General principles 61.     The Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article   2, it must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances. Detained persons are in a vulnerable position and the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of a detained individual is particularly stringent where that individual dies or disappears thereafter (see, among other authorities, Orhan v. Turkey , no. 25656/94, § 326, 18 June 2002, and the authorities cited therein). Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in detention, 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 Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV). (b)     Establishment of the facts 62.     The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia , no. 69481/01, §§   103-109, 27 July 2006). The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , 18 January 1978, pp. 64-65, § 161, Series   A no.   25). 63.     The applicant maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had intruded into her home and taken away Mr Sharani Askharov had been State agents. In support of her complaint she submitted that those men had spoken Russian without an accent, and had arrived very early in the morning, which indicated that they were able to circulate freely during the curfew. The applicant further referred to three witness statements to the effect that at the time of the events they had seen military vehicles, including APCs, and the armed men entering the applicant’s house and then shoving Mr   Sharani Askharov into one of the APCs. Furthermore, the applicant enclosed statements by Mr Yunus Askharov and Mr M. R., who were apprehended by the same men the same morning but released later. They confirmed that they had been put in an APC and driven for several hours. They had been released following an interrogation concerning Chechen rebel fighters. 64.     The Government submitted that on 18 May 2001 unidentified men in camouflage and masks, armed with automatic weapons and accompanied by armoured vehicles had abducted Mr Sharani Askharov and seven other men. They further contended that the investigation into the incident was in progress, that there was no evidence that the men had been State agents and that there were therefore no grounds for holding the State liable for the alleged violations of the applicant’s rights. They further argued that there was no convincing evidence that the applicant’s husband was dead, given that his whereabouts had not been established and his body had not been found. 65.     The Court notes that despite its repeated requests for a copy of the investigation file concerning the abduction of Mr Sharani Askharov, the Government have failed to produce it. The Government referred to Article   161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva   v. Russia , no.   7615/02, §   123, ECHR 2006 ‑ ... ). 66.     In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the principles cited above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government’s conduct in this respect. It considers that the applicant has presented a coherent and convincing picture of her husband’s abduction on 18   May   2001. She was herself an eyewitness to the events and relied on statements by her neighbours, who were also eyewitnesses to the events, collected by the applicant herself and by the investigation, which referred to the involvement of the military or security forces in the abduction. The applicant and the other witnesses stated that the perpetrators had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation – they had spoken Russian without an accent and used armoured military vehicles, which were not available to paramilitary groups. The applicant also referred to the fact that several other residents had been apprehended on that date and submitted statements by two of them who had subsequently been released. They confirmed that they had been out in an APC together with Mr Sharani Askharov and then interrogated in relation to Chechen rebel fighters. In her applications to the authorities the applicant consistently maintained that her husband had been detained by unknown servicemen and requested the investigators to look into that possibility. 67.     The Court finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform, equipped with military vehicles and able to move freely through military roadblocks, proceeded to apprehend several persons at their homes in a town area strongly supports the applicant’s allegation that these were State servicemen. The other detainees’ accounts about the circumstances of their detention, questioning and release support this conclusion. The Court further notes that after seven years the domestic investigation had produced no tangible results. 68.     The Court observes that where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to the lack of the necessary documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicant, 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). 69.     Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made a prima facie case that her husband was detained 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 abduction is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court considers that Mr Sharani Askharov was apprehended on 18 May 2001 at his house in Serzhen-Yurt by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. 70.     The Court further notes that there has been no reliable news of the applicant’s husband since 18 May 2001. His name has not been found in the official records of any detention facilities. Lastly, the Government did not submit any explanation as to what had happened to him after his apprehension. 71.     Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of people in Chechnya which have come before the Court (see, for example, Imakayeva, cited above, and Luluyev and Others   v. Russia , no.   69480/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ ... ), the Court considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Mr Sharani Askharov or any news of him for over seven years corroborates this assumption. Furthermore, the Government have failed to provide any explanation of Mr   Sharani Askharov’s disappearance and the official investigation into his abduction, dragging on for seven years, has produced no tangible results. 72.     Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish to the requisite standard of proof that on 18 May 2001 Mr Sharani Askharov was apprehended by State servicemen and that he must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention. (c)     The State’s compliance with Article 2 73.     Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances in which deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, to which no derogation is permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27   September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147, and Avşar v. Turkey , no.   25657/94, §   391, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII (extracts)). 74.     The Court has already found it established that the applicant’s husband must be presumed dead following unacknowledged detention by State servicemen. Noting that the authorities do not rely on any ground of justification in respect of the use of lethal force by their agents, it follows that liability for his presumed death is attributable to the respondent Government. 75.     Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Mr Sharani Askharov. B.     The alleged inadequacy of the investigation into the abduction 1.     Arguments of the parties 76.     The applicant argued that the investigation had not been effective and adequate, as required by the Court’s case-law on Article 2. She noted that it had been adjourned and reopened a number of times and thus the taking of the most basic steps had been protracted. The applicant argued that the fact that the investigation had been ongoing for such a long period of time without producing any known results was further proof of its ineffectiveness. 77.     The Government claimed that the investigation of the disappearance of the applicant’s husband met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators. 2.     The Court’s assessment 78.     The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article   1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention”, also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis , McCann and Others, cited above, p. 49, § 161, and Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports   1998-I, p. 324, §   86). The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim’s family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom , no.   24746/94, §§ 105-109, 4   May   2001, and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   56413/00, 8   January 2002). 79.     The Court notes at the outset that the documents from the investigation were not disclosed by the Government. It therefore has to assess the effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by the applicant and the information about its progress presented by the Government. 80.     Turning to the facts of the case, the Court notes that the authorities were made aware of the crime shortly after the events. Although the Government submitted that the prosecuting authorities had not received any complaints in this connection until August 2001, the Court notes that residents of Serzhen-Yurt had applied to the Shali VOVD requesting it to investigate the reasons for Mr Sharani Askharov’s detention on 24   May   2001. A copy of the request provided to the Court contains a stamp of the Shali VOVD acknowledging the receipt of the document on the same date. However, the investigation was not opened until 15 October 2001, that is, almost five months later. This delay in itself was liable to affect the investigation of a crime such as abduction in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in the days immediately following the event. 81.     On 20   October 2001 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. However, it appears that after that a number of crucial steps were delayed and were eventually taken only after the communication of the complaint to the respondent Government, or not at all. 82.     In particular, the Court notes that Mr Yunus Askharov was questioned for the first time on 17 January 2005, that is, three and a half years after the events. Although the Government submitted that he had been summoned for questioning earlier but failed to appear, they provided no details of the earlier attempts to question him. It appears that Mr Z. Z., Mr   T. Z. and Mr R. Z., who had been apprehended in the same circumstances, and Ms R. M., an eye-witness to the events, were also questioned only in 2005. Furthermore, the failure to question Mr M. R. and Mr M. S. appears attributable to the delay in taking the investigative measures. It is obvious that these measures, if they were to produce any meaningful results, should have been taken immediately after the crime was reported to the authorities, and as soon as the investigation commenced. 83.     From the materials available to the Court it appears that a number of essential steps were never taken. Most notably, there is no information that there had ever been an inspection of the crime scene or of the place where five residents of Serzhen-Yurt apprehended by the same men on 18   May 2001 had been dumped. Apparently no meaningful efforts had been made to trace the APCs after they had left Serzhen-Yurt. Furthermore, it appears that no efforts were made to question the Shali military commander, who had allegedly told the applicant that her husband had been detained at the military commander’s office for some time (see paragraph 23 above). 84.     The Court observes that in the present case the investigating authorities not only did not comply with the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom , no. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II), but failed to take the most elementary investigative measures. 85.     The Court also notes that even though the applicant was granted victim status, she was not informed of significant developments in the investigation apart from several decisions to suspend and resume