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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s75AF5381 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; display:none } .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 } .s8ED1F3C2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF BERSUNKAYEVA v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 27233/03)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   4 December 2008     FINAL   05/06/2009     This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bersunkayeva 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. 27233/03) 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 a Russian national, Mrs Raisa Shamayevna Bersunkayeva (“the applicant”), on 10 July 2003. 2.     The applicant was represented by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre (Moscow) and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (London). The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented first by Mr P. Laptev and then by Ms V. Milinchuk, both former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that her son had disappeared following his unacknowledged detention and that there had been no adequate investigation into the matter. She also claimed that she had suffered mentally on account of these events and complained of the lack of effective remedies in respect of those violations. She relied on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention. 4.     On 29 August 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 10 July 2007 the Court declared the application admissible. 6.     The applicant and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. A.     The facts 8.     At the material time the applicant worked in the administration of the Urus-Martan District ( администрация Урус-Мартановского района, “the Urus-Martan administration”) and lived in an apartment in a block of flats in Urus-Martan. She had a son, Mr Artur Bersunkayev, born in 1979, who lived at the time with the applicant’s brother-in-law, Mr   Ayndi   Bersunkayev, and the latter’s family, in a privately owned house at 51   Partizanskaya Street, Urus-Martan. 1.     Detention of Artur Bersunkayev (a)     The applicant’s version 9.     The applicant did not witness the apprehension of her son and her account was based on statements by her brother-in-law and his wife, Mrs   Layla Tsugayeva. 10.     On 13 June 2001, at around 4 a.m., a group of men arrived at 51   Partizanskaya Street and attempted to break down the door of the house. When Mrs Tsugayeva opened the door, about six men entered the house. They were wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and had machine-guns and portable transmitters. 11.     The men did not introduce themselves or produce any documents to authorise their actions. They locked Mrs Tsugayeva in one of the rooms and ordered the applicant’s brother-in-law and her son to lie down. The men hit Ayndi and Artur Bersunkayev with their machine-guns and then tied the latter’s hands and covered his eyes and mouth with adhesive tape. It appears that the applicant’s son lost consciousness and the military poured some water on his head so that he came around. 12.     The servicemen interrogated the applicant’s brother-in-law and her son, putting their questions very rapidly. They enquired whether Ayndi and Artur Bersunkayev were relatives and then demanded that the applicant’s brother-in-law confess and reveal where he kept firearms, and why he provided shelter to terrorists. Ayndi Bersunkayev answered that he was Artur’s uncle, had no firearms and did not provide shelter to terrorists. He also stated that only his family and nephew lived in his house. 13.     The servicemen searched the house and found Ayndi Bersunkayev’s old hunting rifle, which was damaged and unfit for shooting. They seized it without furnishing the applicant’s brother-in-law with any relevant document. Thereafter the officer in command of the group told Ayndi Bersunkayev that they had come to the wrong address and would leave. Then the applicant’s brother-in-law was allowed to go to his room and get dressed. When he returned to the corridor his nephew was no longer there. 14.     One of the soldiers looked into the room in which Mrs Tsugayeva was locked, and asked her whether she was a relative to Ayndi and Artur Bersunkayev. When she answered, the soldier told her that they would not take her husband but would take Artur Bersunkayev. 15.     Thereafter the commanding officer ordered his group to leave, having stated that they “had been mistaken” and would not “take anyone or anything”. The officer also ordered Ayndi Bersunkayev to stay inside the house for 10 minutes after the servicemen’s departure, having warned that otherwise a sniper would shoot him. Nevertheless, the applicant’s brother-in-law attempted to follow the military, but they threatened him with their firearms. He returned home and found out that the applicant’s son had disappeared. Ayndi Bersunkayev ran into the street, but the military were already gone. Later that day the applicant’s brother-in-law talked to a number of neighbours who, according to him, stated that they had seen a “Ural” vehicle and an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) parked in Partizanskaya Street and two servicemen forcing Artur Bersunkayev into the APC. 16.     Artur Bersunkayev’s relatives have had no news of him since. 17.     According to the applicant’s brother-in-law and his wife, the men who raided their house were members of the federal forces, since they spoke Russian without an accent and had military vehicles at their disposal. The applicant also submitted an eye-witness statement by a neighbour of her brother-in-law, who had confirmed that he had seen Russian servicemen in a “Ural” military vehicle not far from the house of the Bersunkayev family on the night of the incident, and that he had subsequently mentioned this fact during his interview at the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office. (b)     The Government’s version 18.     According to the Government, on 13 June 2001, during the night, “unidentified men in masks and camouflage uniforms armed with automatic firearms abducted Mr A. Bersunkayev from his home. The latter’s whereabouts remain unknown”. 2.     The applicant’s search for Artur Bersunkayev 19.     On 13 June 2001, at 5.45 a.m., the applicant’s brother-in-law arrived at the applicant’s apartment and notified her of her son’s detention. They immediately went to the place of residence of an official of the Urus-Martan administration and asked for assistance. The latter replied that it was too early in the morning and advised the applicant to wait until 9 a.m. 20.     The applicant also visited at home the deputy head of the Urus-Martan administration who also suggested that she should wait until the beginning of the working day. 21.     At 9 a.m. the applicant arrived at the Urus-Martan administration and talked to the head of the administration, stating the facts of her son’s disappearance and asking for assistance. According to the applicant, the latter gave her no definite answer. 22.     The applicant then applied to the deputy head of the Urus-Martan administration. The latter telephoned the temporary office of the interior of the Urus-Martan District ( временный отдел внутренних дел Урус-Мартановского района, “the Urus-Martan VOVD”) and enquired about the applicant’s son. The Urus-Martan VOVD confirmed that, during the night on 13 June 2001, twelve persons, including Artur Bersunkayev, had been apprehended and were currently being held at the Urus-Martan Division of the Chechen Department of the Federal Security Service of Russia ( Урус-Мартановский отдел Управления Федеральной службы безопасности РФ по Чеченской Республике, “the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB”). 23.     The applicant also applied in person to the military commander of the Urus-Martan District ( военный комендант Урус-Мартановского района ). She stated that her son’s arrest had been unlawful, that he had never participated in military operations, and that during the hostilities in Chechnya in 1994 – 1996 and 1999 – 2000 their family had left Chechnya and had only returned in June 2000. According to the applicant, the military commander confirmed that her son had been detained and also stated that his capture had been planned for a week. He then assured the applicant that the matter would be cleared up. 24.     According to the applicant, during the next three days various officials of the Urus-Martan administration repeatedly confirmed that Artur Bersunkayev was being detained at the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB and would be released after a security check. 25.     On 15 June 2001 the head of one of the divisions of the Urus-Martan administration told the applicant that her son would be released the next day and delivered home, but she would have to take him out of town. However, Artur Bersunkayev was never released and apparently disappeared. 26.     After 15 June 2001, in reply to the applicant’s repeated queries, the officials of the Urus-Martan administration repudiated their former statements and claimed that they had no information about Artur Bersunkayev. 27.     According to the applicant, on several occasions she attempted to apply in person to the military commander of the Urus-Martan District, but the latter only invited her to lodge written requests, which remained unanswered. 28.     In the applicant’s submission, a week after the detention of her son she again talked to the head of the Urus-Martan administration. The latter told her that, prior to being detained, Artur Bersunkayev had been seen talking to one of the relatives of the former head of the district administration who had held that position when the former President of Chechnya, Aslan Maskhadov, had been in government. 29.     Since 13 June 2001 the applicant has repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies, including prosecutors at different levels, district and regional military commanders, local and regional administrative authorities of Chechnya, the Federal Security Service of Russia, the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian President in the Southern Federal Circuit ( Полномочный представитель Президента РФ в Южном федеральном округе ), the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms ( Специальный представитель Президента Российской Федерации по соблюдению прав и свобод человека в Чеченской Республике ) and the President of Russia. In her letters to the authorities the applicant referred to the facts of her son’s abduction and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. Most of these enquiries remained unanswered, or only formal responses were given by which her requests were forwarded to various prosecutor’s offices “for examination”. 3.     Official investigation 30.     On 18 June 2001 the applicant filed a written complaint about her son’s apprehension with the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office. The latter received and registered the applicant’s complaint on 19 June 2001. 31.     On 28 June 2001 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office commenced a criminal investigation into the disappearance of Artur Bersunkayev under Article 126   (2) of the Criminal Code of Russia (kidnapping of two or more persons by a group using firearms). The file was assigned the number   25082. 32.     On 21 August 2001 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic ( прокуратура Чеченской Республики, “the republican prosecutor’s office”) referred the applicant’s complaint concerning the abduction of her son to the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office “for investigation”. 33.     On 29 August 2001 the office of the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian President in the Southern Federal Circuit transmitted the applicant’s application to the republican prosecutor’s office. 34.     On 19 June 2002 the applicant requested the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office to grant her the status of victim of a crime and inform her of the developments in criminal case no. 25082. In her submission, that request remained unanswered. 35.     According to the applicant, early in October 2002 she accessed the file in case no. 25082 and found a letter dated 15 June 2001. In this letter an investigator of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB requested the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD to order an expert examination of a pistol and cartridges that had been seized from Artur Bersunkayev. 36.     On 2 October 2002 the applicant requested that the investigator in charge be replaced for his failure to take any investigative measures and inform her of the developments in the case. That request was refused. 37.     On 17 December 2002 the Rostov Department of the FSB informed the applicant that her application had been forwarded to the Chechen Department of the FSB. 38.     In a letter of 16 January 2003 the FSB of Russia stated that the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB had not detained Artur Bersunkayev on 13   June   2001 and had never taken any investigative measures in his respect. As regards the applicant’s reference to the letter of 15 June 2001 signed by a FSB officer, the FSB of Russia advised her to address her queries about that issue to the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office. 39.     On 22 January 2003 the Head of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB informed the applicant that his subordinates had not arrested her son, had not taken any action in Urus-Martan during the night of 13 June 2001 and had no information as to Artur Bersunkayev’s whereabouts. He further stated that the investigator who had signed the letter of 15 June 2001 had resigned, and therefore it was impossible to verify whether he had indeed ordered an expert examination of the pistol allegedly seized from her son. 40.     In a letter of 12 February 2003 the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB again informed the applicant that their personnel had never detained her son or brought criminal proceedings against him. The letter continued that on 7   June 2001 Artur Bersunkayev had voluntarily delivered the pistol in question, which had then been subjected to an expert examination with the result that the investigator in charge had taken the decision to dispense with criminal proceedings against him. 41.     On 14 March 2003 the republican prosecutor’s office notified the applicant that the criminal proceedings in criminal case no. 25082 instituted on 28 June 2001 had been suspended on 15 January 2003 for failure to identify those responsible and then resumed on 25 February 2003. The term of the preliminary investigation had been extended until 25 March 2003. 42.     In May 2003, in an undated letter, the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the criminal proceedings in case no.   25082 had been resumed, but that no culprits had been identified so far. The letter further stated that the prosecutor’s office had no authority to conduct a search for a missing person, that being the task of the police, and that therefore the applicant should forward her further requests to have her son’s location established to the Urus-Martan VOVD. 43.     On 23 May 2003 the republican prosecutor’ office, in reply to the applicant’s query, informed her that on 14 February 2002 criminal case no.   25082 instituted in connection with the abduction of her son had been joined with two other criminal cases and given the number 24071. On the same date the criminal proceedings were suspended, as it had been impossible to identify the alleged perpetrators. On 22 May 2003 the criminal proceedings were resumed and at present the investigation and search for Artur Bersunkayev and the culprits were in progress. 44.     On 12 August 2003 the Southern Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office ( Управление Генеральной Прокуратуры РФ в Южном федеральном округе ) referred the applicant’s application to the republican prosecutor’s office. The latter invited the applicant to address her queries to the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office. 45.     By a decision of 18 September 2003 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office admitted the applicant as a victim to the criminal proceedings in case no. 25082 instituted in connection with the abduction of her son, Artur Bersunkayev, by “unidentified individuals wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with automatic firearms”. 46.     On 9 July 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 ( военная прокуратура – военная часть 20102 ) informed the applicant that no involvement of federal servicemen in the abduction or detention of her son had been established. 47.     On 6 August 2004 the applicant requested the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office to authorise her access to the file in the criminal case concerning the abduction of her son. 48.     On 9 August 2004 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office refused the applicant’s request, having stated that under national law she was only entitled to read the case file after the termination of the preliminary investigation, and that at present the investigation into the abduction of Artur Bersunkayev had been suspended since the alleged perpetrators could not be found. 49.     On 19 May 2005 the applicant requested the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office to resume the proceedings in case no. 25082 and to allow her access to the case file. 50.     On 2 June 2005 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s request in a letter similar to that of 9 August 2004. 51.     Referring to the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government submitted that the applicant’s written complaint concerning the abduction of her son had been received by the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office on 19 June 2001 and the criminal proceedings in the above connection had been instituted on 28 June 2001 under Article 126 of the Russian Criminal Code (kidnapping). Since then they had been suspended on 28 August and 10 November 2001, 25 March and 30 August 2003, 11 April, 23 June, 10 August and 28 November 2004 and 19 August 2005 and resumed on 10 October 2001, 20 November 2002, 15 January and 27 July 2003, 11 March, 22 June, 9 August and 28 October 2004, 19 July and 22 October 2005 respectively, but had failed to identify those responsible so far. 52.     The Government further submitted that the investigating authorities had granted the status of victim to the applicant, but failed to specify the date. According to them, the applicant had been questioned on 30 June and 18 October 2001 and then at some point in late 2005. During her interview, the applicant had stated that, following her son’s apprehension, she had found out from the head of the local administration that he was being held in the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB and would be released three days later. She had also talked to Mr G., the military commander of the Urus-Martan District, who had said that her son had been taken away by officers of the FSB. Mr G. had also stated that “they had been hunting Artur Bersunkayev for some time and had finally captured him”. Later the officials had denied that they had ever detained her son. 53.     According to the Government, apart from the applicant, the investigating authorities had also questioned several witnesses, including the applicant’s relatives and neighbors, and a number of public officials who had worked in the Chechen Republic at the material time. The witnesses were mostly questioned between 2003 and 2005. The applicant’s relatives had confirmed the circumstances of Artur Bersunkayev’s arrest. In the Government’s submission, “some of the witnesses indeed confirmed that they had seen a “Ural” military vehicle with servicemen near the house of the Bersunkayev family, but that was long before the alleged abduction” of Artur Bersunkayev. 54.     The Government indicated that during his interview the head of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB, Mr K., had stated that he had known Artur Bersunkayev since April 2001 as an active member of illegal armed groups, who had been involved in planting landmines and shelling federal military convoys. According to Mr K., on 18 April 2001 the applicant’s son, armed with a pistol and grenade, had participated in an armed clash in the grounds of the Urus-Martan hospital, but had avoided arrest. Thereafter the authorities had contacted his parents and requested them to persuade Artur Bersunkayev to abandon illegal armed groups, “which had brought positive results”. According to Mr K., the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB had never detained the applicant’s son, and Mr K. had no information as to which State agency could have detained him. 55.     The Government further submitted that the head of the Urus-Martan administration, Mr Ya., had stated during his interview that he had found out about Artur Bersunkayev’s detention from officials of the administration and that he had not witnessed the applicant’s conversation with military commander G. The deputy head of the Urus-Martan administration, Mr   M.G., had submitted during questioning that on 13 June 2001 the applicant had informed him of her son’s detention and asked for his assistance. On the same day he had called the military commander’s office and a duty officer had confirmed that Artur Bersunkayev had indeed been detained, but on the next day military commander G. had repudiated that information. Mr A., a senior investigator of the Chechen Department of the FSB, who had worked in Urus-Martan at the material time, had stated during questioning that on 7 June 2001 military commander G. had sought his assistance in formally registering the fact of the voluntary surrender of a pistol by Artur Bersunkayev. Mr A. had carried out necessary procedural actions to that end and had taken the decision to dispense with criminal proceedings against the applicant’s son. According to Mr A., no procedural decisions depriving the applicant’s son of his liberty had ever been taken. According to the Government, it was impossible to question military commander G., as he had been killed in a terrorist attack on 29 November 2001, but that “written information had been received from him” to the effect that he had had no information regarding Artur Bersunkayev’s detention. 56.     In the Government’s submission, the investigation had obtained information that a pistol had been seized from Artur Bersunkayev prior to his disappearance, namely on 7 June 2001, and that the pistol had been sent to the expert office of the Urus-Martan VOVD for a study on 15 June 2001. The experts had studied the pistol on 17 June 2001 and drawn up a report stating that the pistol and cartridges of 9 mm calibre had been fit for shooting. 57.     The Government also referred to statements by senior officers of the law-enforcement agencies of the Urus-Martan District or the adjacent districts, the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District and the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB to the effect that their personnel had not instituted criminal proceedings against, or detained, the applicant’s son and had no information as to his whereabouts. The applicant’s son had not been kept in any of the pre-trial detention centres in the Chechen Republic or the neighbouring regions. 58.     Lastly, the Government submitted that on several occasions the investigating authorities had requested district prosecutor’s offices of the Chechen Republic and the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 to take the steps necessary to establish Artur Bersunkayev’s whereabouts, but he has remained missing ever since. 4.     Proceedings against officials (a)     The applicant’s complaint about her son’s detention 59.     On 31 December 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint against officials of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB with the Urus-Martan Town Court (“the Town Court”). She claimed that her son had disappeared after having been arrested by FSB officers, referring to the letter of 15 June 2001 to support this allegation. The applicant sought to have her son’s whereabouts established and have him released. 60.     On 3 March 2003 the applicant further applied to the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, complaining about the unlawful detention of her son and the Town Court’s failure to examine her complaint of 31 December 2002. 61.     On 19 March 2003 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic transmitted the applicant’s complaint to the Town Court. 62.     On 16 March 2004 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the officers of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB, having noted that there was no evidence of their involvement in the abduction of her son. 63.     On 21 April 2004 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the first-instance judgment on appeal. (b)     The applicant’s complaints against the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office 64.     On 6 July 2005 the applicant applied to the Town Court, complaining about the investigating authorities’ refusal to allow her to study the file of the investigation into her son’s disappearance and to make copies of the relevant documents. She also challenged the decision suspending the investigation and complained that the investigating authorities had not taken the necessary measures to solve the crime. 65.     By a decision of 1 August 2005 the Town Court granted the applicant’ s complaint in part and ordered the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office to give the applicant access to the case file. It also noted that the proceedings in criminal case no. 25082 had already been resumed on 19   July 2005. 66.     On 17 October 2005 the applicant again applied to the Town Court, complaining that the investigator in charge had prohibited her from making copies of the documents from the case file, or even from taking written notes. 67.     On 11 November 2005 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic on 7 December 2005. 5.     The applicant’s access to the file of the criminal investigation 68.     On 13 and 14 December 2005 the applicant was given access to the file of criminal case no. 25082, pursuant to the Town Court’s decision of 1   August 2005. She was not allowed to make any photocopies or to take written notes, but, in her submission, she managed to memorise the contents of a number of documents. 69.     According to the applicant, the case file comprised 300 pages. The numbering of some of the pages had been amended, in particular, page number 135 had been amended to 130, and page number 156 had been amended to 143. 70.     While studying the case file the applicant came across a number of documents which, in her view, confirmed the involvement of the Russian security agencies in her son’s disappearance. In particular, in a letter dated 15 June 2001 the investigator of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB requested the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD to order an expert examination of a pistol and cartridges that had been seized from Artur Bersunkayev. 71.     The expert office of the Urus-Martan VOVD replied on 16 June 2001 that the pistol and cartridges in the amount of 16 pieces were fit for use and that bullet shells and cartridges seized at the scenes of crimes committed in Urus-Martan, which had remained unsolved, had not been shot from the said pistol. The experts also stated that it had been impossible to find out whether any shots had been fired from the pistol in question since they did not have the chemicals necessary to carry out such a test. 72.     In a letter of 6 November 2001 the deputy prosecutor of the Chechen Republic requested the head of the Chechen Department of the FSB to forward them the file of the case instituted in connection with the abduction of the applicant’s son, stating that “the fact of the implication of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB in Artur Bersunkayev’s abduction has been established”. 73.     The applicant also came across a number of witness statements. In particular, the deputy head of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB, Mr K., stated that the applicant’s son had been a member of illegal armed groups, had participated in causing explosions and had planted landmines. The deputy head of the Urus-Martan administration stated that he had talked to military commander G. in an attempt to assist the applicant in finding her son. At first the military commander had acknowledged the fact of Artur Bersunkayev’s detention, but on the next day he had repudiated his statement. One of the neighbours of the applicant’s brother-in-law stated that he had seen Russian servicemen and a military vehicle in the vicinity of Partizanskaya Street. Another neighbour stated that he had seen a “Ural” military vehicle near his house in the evening of 12 June 2001. 74.     According to a transcript of an interview with a former investigator of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB, Mr A., on 17 June 2001 he had taken the decision to dispense with criminal proceedings against the applicant’s son, given that the latter had voluntarily ceded the pistol. Mr A. stated that he had not personally seen Artur Bersunkayev or taken a pistol from him, but rather had helped military commander G. to draw up a report attesting the surrender of the pistol. Mr A. also stated that all the relevant material in that connection had been taken by military commander G. According to Mr A., no decisions had been taken to deprive the applicant’s son of his liberty. 75.     In the applicant’s submission, the investigator in charge had repeatedly asked a number of witnesses, including officials of the local administration, whether Artur Bersunkayev had been involved in illegal armed activities. All of the witnesses confirmed that they had never heard that the applicant’s son had been involved in any such activities. 76.     In the case file the applicant also found two letters inviting military commander G. to report to the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office for questioning. One of the letters contained a handwritten note signed by Mr   G. stating that he was “not a witness”. According to the applicant, it did not appear that Mr G. had ever been questioned, as she had not seen any documents reporting on any such interview. 77.     She also submitted that there had been no evidence in the case file confirming that the investigating authorities had made any attempts to question any officials of the military commander’s office or those of the FSB Division, apart from two officers. She did not see any documents indicating that the investigators had attempted to establish which military unit in Urus-Martan had had armoured personnel carriers or “Ural” and UAZ military vehicles and where those vehicles had been at the time of the incident with the applicant’s son. 78.     According to the applicant, in late 2005 the investigators had not undertaken any meaningful actions, apart from questioning one witness. The documents relating to the period in question represented standard letters from the prosecutor’s office requesting that the search for the applicant’s son be stepped up and standard replies from the district office of the interior stating that the search was in progress. 79.     Finally, the applicant submitted that she had not seen any documents disclosing State secrets or military information in the case file. B.     The Court’s requests for the investigation file 80.     In May 2005, when the application was communicated to them, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no.   25082 opened into the abduction of Artur Bersunkayev. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government replied 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. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation be given access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted, with the exception of “the documents [disclosing military information and personal data concerning the witnesses], and without the right to make copies of the case file and to transmit it to others”. In October   2005 the Court reiterated its request and suggested that Rule 33 § 3 of the Rules of Court be applied. In reply, the Government submitted several documents but refused to produce the entire investigation file for the aforementioned reasons. 81.     Overall, the Government produced 31 documents running to 36   pages from the case file, which, as could be ascertained from the page numbering, comprised at least 244 pages. The documents included: (a)     a procedural decision of 28 June 2001 to institute criminal proceedings in connection with Artur Bersunkayev’s disappearance; (b)     procedural decisions suspending and reopening the investigation in case no. 25082; (c)     investigators’ decisions to take up case no. 25082; (d)     letters informing the applicant of the suspension and re-opening of the investigation in criminal case no. 25082. 82.     On 10 July 2007 the application was declared admissible. At that stage the Court once again invited the Government to submit the investigation file and to provide information concerning the progress of the investigation. In October 2007 the Government informed the Court that after 22 October 2005, the latest date on which the investigation had been reopened, the investigating authorities had questioned three witnesses, namely the applicant, Mrs Tsugayeva and the latter’s neighbour. The Government refused to submit any documents from the case file other than those produced earlier. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 83.     Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 in force until 1 July 2002 provided that the competent authorities were under an obligation to take a decision in respect of any written or oral complaint concerning a criminal offence within a period no longer than three days, and in exceptional cases no longer than ten days, from the date on which the complaint had been received. 84.     Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure in force as of 1 July 2002 provides that a decision by an investigator or prosecutor to dispense with criminal proceedings or to terminate criminal proceedings, and other decisions and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede citizens’ access to justice, may be appealed against to a district court, which is empowered to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions. 85.     Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure enshrines the rule that data from a preliminary investigation may not be disclosed. Paragraph 3 of the same Article provides that information from an investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation. It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission. THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 86.     The Government argued that the present application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, stating that the investigation into the abduction of the applicant’s son was still in progress. 87.     The applicant contended that the Government had not indicated which particular domestic remedy she had not exhausted. She further stated that the Government’s argument to the effect that the investigation was ongoing related to the merits of the present case rather than to the question of its admissibility. 88.     The Court notes that, in its decision of 10 July 2007, it considered that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies was closely linked to the substance of the applicant’s complaints and that it should be joined to the merits. Noting the arguments presented by the parties on this question, the Court considers that the Government’s preliminary objection raises issues which are closely linked to the question of the effectiveness of the investigation, and it would therefore be appropriate to address the matter in the examination of the substance of the applicant’s complaints under Article   2 of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 89.     The applicant complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of her son, Artur Bersunkayev. She submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which his whereabouts could not be established indicated that Artur Bersunkayev had been killed by the federal forces. The applicant also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into her son’s disappearance. She referred to Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “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 failure to protect the right to life 1.     Submissions by the parties 90.     The applicant argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Artur Bersunkayev had been detained by representatives of the security agencies, this fact being confirmed by eyewitness statements, including those of public officials. She referred, in particular, to a letter of 6 November 2001 of the deputy prosecutor of the Chechen Republic, stating that “the fact of the implication of the Urus-Martan Division of the FSB in Artur Bersunkayev’s abduction has been established”, which she had found among the materials of the file of case no. 25082 (see paragraph 72 above). The applicant also submitted that the men who had taken her son away had arrived in the night during the curfew in military vehicles; they had had military uniforms and radio transmitters and had spoken Russian without an accent. She further stressed that Artur Bersunkayev had been apprehended in life-endangering circumstances, given that there was a widespread practice of forced disappearances, tortures and killings in Chechnya during the period in question. The applicant thus argued that, in view of the above and given that her son had been missing for over four years at the time she submitted her observations, he may be presumed dead even in the absence of any formal evidence confirming his death. 91.     The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office and argued that the Russian authorities were not responsible for the actions of the unidentified persons who had abducted Artur Bersunkayev and that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the federal power structures had been involved in the imputed offence. They submitted to that end that members of illegal armed formations within the territory of the Chechen Republic resorted to various methods of concealing the fact of their participation in such groups and that of recruitment of new members, such as “deliberate dissemination of false information concerning their disappearances from the places of their permanent residence and implication of the federal forces in such disappearances”. Moreover, the aforementioned false information was also used by “representatives of international terrorist organisations, leaders of illegal armed groups and their emissaries abroad for the purpose of propaganda against the State agencies of Russia”. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Artur Bersunkayev’s right to life secured by Article 2 of the Convention had been breached. 2.     The Court’s assessment 92.     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. It has held on many occasions that, where an individual is taken into police custody in good health and is found to be injured on release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused. The obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of an individual within their control 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