CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 décembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s53D63747 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sDC8E1F0A { width:193.11pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF NASUKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 5285/04)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   18 December 2008   FINAL   06/04/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nasukhanova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 27 November 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 5285/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Russian nationals listed below (“the applicants”), on 22 January 2004. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 1 September 2005 the Court decided to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 4.     On 7 May 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 5.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants are: 1) Ms Zara Khasanovna Nasukhanova, born in 1954; 2) Mr Magomed Dulayevich Kasumov, born in 1936; 3) Ms Razet Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1976; 4) Ms Luiza Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1981; 5) Ms Kristina Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1984; and 6) Ms Kamila Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1982. They live in the village of Pervomayskaya of the Grozny District of the Chechen Republic. 7.     The first and second applicants are parents of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants and of Mr Ruslan Magomedovich Kasumov, born in 1974. A.     Events of 3 February 2003 1.     The applicants’ account (a)     Apprehension of Ruslan Kasumov 8.     On the night of 2 to 3 February 2003 Ruslan Kasumov stayed overnight at the house of his relative, Mr Sh.D., at 4 Proletarskiy Alley, the village of Pervomayskaya. At about 2 a.m. on 3 February 2003 four armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and four Ural vehicles pulled up in front of that house and around thirty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke inside it. Some of them wore masks. The men did not identify themselves; they shouted at the inhabitants in Russian. Then they took Mr   Sh.D. and Ruslan Kasumov to the courtyard and demanded their names. Having heard the reply, they let Mr Sh.D. go back in the house and loaded Ruslan Kasumov into one of the APCs. Then the vehicles drove away in the direction of the village of Ken-Yurt. Mr   Sh.D.’s wife, Ms   Tamara Kh., noticed that one of the APCs had registration number 907. 9.     The applicants have had no further news of Ruslan Kasumov. (b)     Apprehension of Mr A.D. 10.     At about 2 a.m. on 3 February 2003 a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke into the house of Mr Sh.D.’s brother, Mr A.D., at 3 Proletarskiy Alley, the village of Pervomayskaya. They took Mr A.D., handcuffed him, asked his family name and dragged him out of the house. Then they put a T-shirt on his head so that Mr A.D. could not see their faces. One of the servicemen again asked Mr A.D.’s last name, said that they would clear things up later and put Mr A.D. into an APC. The vehicle travelled for about thirty minutes and then stopped. Mr A.D. heard a man asking someone if he could identify Mr A.D., who had a torch shone in his face. The reply was negative. The men questioned Mr A.D., asking him whether he had participated in illegal armed groups or assisted rebels. Some twenty to thirty minutes later one of the men unlocked the handcuffs and left Mr   A.D. lying on the ground. The men got into the vehicles and drove in the direction of the village of Ken-Yurt. Mr A.D. waited for a few moments and ran home. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 11.     At about 3 a.m. on 3 February 2003 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns arrived in the village of Pervomayskaya and kidnapped Ruslan Kasumov from the house at 3 Proletarskiy Alley. B.     The search for Ruslan Kasumov and the investigation 1.     The applicants’ account 12 .     In the morning of 3 February 2003 the applicants learned of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction and complained about it to several military commanders’ offices and to the prosecutor’s office of the Grozny District (“the district prosecutor’s office”). Further, they continued to search for their relative and repeatedly contacted the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms (“the Special Envoy”), the Russian President, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office, the military prosecutors’ offices, the Administration of the Chechen Republic and the Ombudsman of the Chechen Republic. In the applications they described the circumstances of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction and asked for assistance in establishing his whereabouts and fate. Most of the complaints were lodged by the first applicant on behalf of the whole family. The applicants were assisted in their efforts by the SRJI. They retained copies of some of those complaints and submitted them to the Court. The official bodies forwarded most of the complaints to prosecutors’ offices at different levels. 13 .     On 17 February 2003 the Special Envoy forwarded the first applicant’s letter to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic, which in its turn sent it to the district prosecutor’s office on 12   March 2003. 14.     On 17 March 2003 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Ruslan Kasumov’s disappearance under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 42050. 15.     On 7 April 2003 the first applicant asked the district prosecutor’s office whether the investigation into the event had been opened and requested victim status. 16.     On 28 April 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that on 17 March 2003 the district prosecutor’s office had opened an investigation into her son’s kidnapping in case no.   42050 and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 17.     On 21 July 2003 the first applicant asked the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to help to establish her son’s whereabouts. 18.     On 29 July 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to update her on progress in the investigation and to grant her victim status. She received no reply and repeated her request in a letter of 8 August 2003. 19.     On 27 August 2003 the Southern Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 20.     On 5 September 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office. 21.     On 8 October 2003 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status. 22 .     On 13 November 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”) informed the first applicant that the inquiry had established no traces of the implication of military personnel in her son’s kidnapping. On 9 December 2003 the first applicant received a similar letter from the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”). 23.     On 9 December 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office and requested it to provide detailed information on the investigation by 20 October 2003. 24.     On 25 December 2003 the military commander of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the military commander of the Grozny District. 25.     On 5 January 2004 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that investigative measures necessary to establish her son’s whereabouts and to identify those responsible were being taken. 26 .     On 14 February 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the unit prosecutor’s office and indicated that a new inquiry should be carried out in order to verify the facts complained of, to check any implication of the federal servicemen in Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction and to find the APC and to which authority it had belonged. 27.     On 2 March 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son’s kidnapping was under way and invited her to send further queries to the district prosecutor’s office. 28.     On 9 March 2004 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son’s kidnapping by “unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns” was pending, that those responsible had not been identified and that a plan of further investigative measures had been adopted. 29.     On 27 March and 9 April 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaints to the unit prosecutor’s office. 30.     On 9 April 2004 the military commander’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military commander’s office of the Grozny District, noted that Ruslan Kasumov had been apprehended by “armed men in military uniforms” and demanded that the facts complained of be verified and detailed information on progress in the investigation be provided by 15 April 2004. 31.     On 14 April 2004 the military commander’s office of the Grozny District informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son’s kidnapping was pending before the district prosecutor’s office. 32.     On 21 April 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office. 33.     On 21 May 2004 the Deputy Prosecutor General in the Southern Federal Circuit informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 34.     On 20 December 2004 the first applicant requested the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to inform her of the outcome of the investigation in case no. 42050. On the same date she wrote to the military commander of the Chechen Republic asking that the investigation be rendered more effective. 35.     On 24 December 2004 the military commander of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military commander’s office of the Staropromyslovskiy District of the Chechen Republic and requested that the facts complained of be verified. 36.     On 29 December 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the district prosecutor’s office. 37.     On 17 February 2005 the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office in the Southern Circuit informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 38.     On 18 February 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that, although the investigation in case no. 42050 had been suspended for failure to identify those responsible, investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. It was not specified which body had decided to suspend the investigation or when that decision had been taken. The first applicant was advised of an opportunity to appeal against the suspension to a higher prosecutor or to a court. 39.     On 21 February 2005 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to provide her with detailed information on progress in the investigation in case no. 42050 and on measures taken and their outcome and to resume the investigation should it be stayed. 40.     On 18 December 2006 the department of the interior of the Grozny District informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 42050 was under way. 41.     On 17 February 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that, despite the suspension of investigation in case no.   42050, investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 42.     On 5 March 2007 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended. 43.     On 31 July 2007 the district prosecutor’s office notified the first applicant of the resumption of the investigation. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 44 .     On 14 February 2003 the first applicant reported her son’s kidnapping to the authorities. 45.     On 3 March 2003 the authorities visited the house at 3 Proletarskiy Alley and inspected the crime scene. 46.     On 17 March 2003 the district prosecutor’s office acting on the basis of the first applicant’s complaint of 14 February 2003 instituted an investigation of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The decision stated that Ruslan Kasumov had been kidnapped from the house at 3 Korotkaya Street in the village of Pervomayskaya. The case file was assigned the number   42050. 47 .     On 12 May 2003 the district prosecutor’s office extended the term of preliminary investigation in case no. 42050 until 17 June 2003. The decision stated that at 3 a.m. on 3 February 2003 Ruslan Kasumov had been kidnapped from the house at 3 Korotkaya Street in the village of Pervomayskaya by “unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and masks driving four APCs and four Ural vehicles”. 48.     On 17 June 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation for failure to identify those responsible. 49.     On 2 October 2003 the investigation in case no. 42050 was resumed. 50.     On 8 October 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She submitted that at about 7 p.m. on 2 February 2003 her son had gone to visit his friend Mr Sh.D. On the following morning the first applicant had learned of his abduction. 51 .     On 8 October 2003 Mr Sh.D. was questioned and submitted that at about 10.30 p.m. on 2 February 2003 Ruslan Kasumov had come to his place to watch television. At some point Mr Sh.D. had fallen asleep. He woke and saw several armed and masked men inside his house. The armed men took away Ruslan Kasumov and Mr. A.D. An hour later Mr A.D. returned home. 52 .     On 10 October 2003 Mr A.D. was questioned and submitted that in the evening of 2 February 2003 Ruslan Kasumov had come to their place to watch television. At about 2 a.m. several armed men in masks had entered Mr A.D.’s bedroom, taken him outside and out him into an APC. The APC travelled for a while and then he was looked at. An unknown man said “No, this is not him”. When Mr A.D. returned home, he learned of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction, but he had not seen the latter inside the APC. Mr   A.D. was unable to identify the perpetrators. 53.     On 3 November 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation. 54.     On 2 March 2004 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 9 April 2004. 55.     On 9 June 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 9 April 2004 and resumed the proceedings. 56 .     On 21 June 2004 the first applicant was again questioned and submitted that on the night of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction her neighbour named “Tamara” had seen an APC with registration number 907. She also described her son’s distinctive features and the clothes that he had been wearing on the night of the kidnapping. 57.     On 17 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 42050 and notified the first applicant accordingly. 58.     On 15 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the proceedings and informed the first applicant accordingly. 59.     On 17 January 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant was informed that, despite the suspension of the proceedings, the police were taking investigative measures to solve the crime. 60 .     On 18 January 2005 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation for an unexplained reason and notified the first applicant accordingly. It was also decided to carry out a significant number of unspecified investigative measures in the shortest possible time span. 61.     On 18 February 2005 the investigation was suspended and the first applicant was informed accordingly. 62 .     On 31 July 2007 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 18 February 2005 because it was necessary to take unspecified investigative measures. 63.     On the same date the district prosecutor’s office noted that the investigation file erroneously mentioned the place of kidnapping as the house at 3 Korotkaya Street, whereas the crime had been committed at 3   Proletarskiy Alley, and decided to correct the error. 64 .     According to the Government, on unspecified dates the investigation questioned a number of the applicants’ fellow villagers as witnesses. They submitted that one night in February 2003 they had heard military vehicles and seen APCs on the street; they had not noticed the APCs’ numbers. On the following day they had learned of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction. They had not seen the missing man being placed in one of the APCs. 65.     The investigation requested information on Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction from various law enforcement agencies. The branches of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Chechen Republic and the prosecutors’ offices of different districts and towns of the Chechen Republic replied that they had not arrested Ruslan Kasumov and that no special operations had been carried out in the village of Pervomayskaya on the night of 3 February 2003. Ruslan Kasumov had not been kept in any remand prisons or temporary detention facilities in the North Caucasus area. 66.     The investigation, which so far had failed to establish the whereabouts of Ruslan Kasumov or to find any evidence to support involvement of the Russian federal military in the crime, was under way. The first applicant was being kept duly informed of all procedural decisions. 67.     Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of the investigation file in case no.   42050, providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation, several notifications to the first applicant of the suspension and resumption of the proceedings and copies of the minutes of the first applicant’s interviews. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 68.     For a summary of relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia , no. 40464/02, §   67-69, 10   May 2007. THE LAW I.     The government’s objection AS TO ABUSE OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION 69.     The Government submitted that the application had not been lodged in order to restore the allegedly violated rights of the applicants. The actual object and purpose of the application was clearly political as the applicants wanted to “incriminate the Russian Federation in allegedly adopting a policy infringing on human rights in the Chechen Republic”. They concluded that there had been an abuse of the right of petition on the part of the applicants and that the application should be dismissed pursuant to Article 35   §   3 of the Convention. 70.     The Court observes that the complaints the applicants brought to its attention concerned their genuine grievances. Nothing in the case file reveals any appearance of abuse of their right of individual petition. Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be dismissed. II.     The government’s objection AS TO non-exhaustion of domestic remedies A.     The parties’ submissions 71.     The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation of the disappearance of Ruslan Kasumov had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court or before higher prosecutors any actions or omissions of the investigating authorities, but that the applicants had not availed themselves of that remedy. They also argued that it had been open to the applicants to lodge civil claims for damages caused by State authorities but they had failed to do so. 72.     The applicants contested that objection and claimed that they had no effective domestic remedies available. They emphasised that the criminal investigation had been pending for more than five years without any tangible results and had thus proved to be ineffective. B.     The Court’s assessment 73.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies which are available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 § 1 also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used. However, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey , 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and, most recently, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey , no. 41964/98, § 64, 27   June 2006). 74.     It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan , cited above,   §   65). 75.     The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies. 76.     As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v.   Russia , nos.   57942/00 and 57945/00, §§   119-21, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others v. Russia , no.   60272/00, §   77, 12 October 2006). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. 77.     As regards criminal law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that the applicants complained to the law enforcement authorities shortly after the kidnapping of Ruslan Kasumov and that an investigation has been pending since 17 March 2003. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation of the kidnapping. 78 .     Furthermore, the Court considers that the Government’s objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants’ complaints. Thus, it considers that this matter falls to be examined below. III.     THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A.     The parties’ arguments 79.     The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the armed men who had taken away Ruslan Kasumov had been State agents. They had Slavic features and spoke Russian without an accent, which proved that they were not of Chechen origin. The armed men had arrived in APCs and Ural military vehicles. In the applicants’ view, the fact that eight military vehicles capable of carrying as many as 100 persons had been able to move freely late at night in an area under the control of Russian federal troops proved that the perpetrators belonged to the Russian law enforcement agencies. The applicants also pointed out that, according to the Government, the investigation file in case no. 42050 contained confidential information related to the disposition and activities of military and special units. 80.     The Government submitted that there was no evidence that Ruslan Kasumov had been detained by State agents and that there were therefore no grounds for holding the State liable for the alleged violations of the applicants’ rights. They asserted that the statements by the first applicant, Mr Sh.D. and Mr A.D. were incoherent. The investigators had looked into the possibility of involvement of Mr Sh.D. and Mr A.D. in the kidnapping but had not proven it because of the right not to testify against oneself provided for in Russian law. Furthermore, the applicants and witnesses had not been specific when describing their relationships with the missing man – whether they were his cousins, friends or neighbours. 81 .     In their observations on admissibility and merits of the application of 10 September 2007 the Government submitted that a woman named “Tamara” who had allegedly seen an APC with number 907 had not been found. In their additional observations of 21 January 2008 the Government mentioned Ms Tamara Kh., the wife of Mr Sh.D., who had been described by the first applicant in the course of her interview of 21 June 2004. 82.     It had been impossible to find an owner of the APC with that number. None of the villagers questioned as witnesses had seen Ruslan Kasumov being placed in an APC. Mr Sh.D. had not provided a detailed account of the circumstances of the kidnapping, which, in the Government’s view, proved that in fact he was not an eyewitness to the crime. The investigation could not either prove or disprove the allegations that APCs had been moving around the village of Pervomayskaya on the night of Ruslan Kasumov’s kidnapping, because all law enforcement agencies had claimed that they had not carried out any special operations or arrested the missing man. 83.     The Government asserted that the crime could have been attributable to illegal armed groups. They pointed out that groups of Ukrainian, Belorussian and ethnic Russian mercenaries had committed crimes in the territory of the Chechen Republic and emphasised that the fact that the perpetrators had Slavic features and spoke Russian did not prove that they were attached to the Russian military. They also observed that a considerable number of armaments and APCs had been stolen from Russian arsenals by insurgents in the 1990s and that criminals could have possessed camouflage uniforms. B.     The Court’s evaluation of the facts 1.     General principles 84.     In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events, the Court is inevitably confronted when establishing the facts with the same difficulties as those faced by any first-instance court. When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exclusive access to information able to corroborate or refute the applicants’ allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations (see Taniş and Others v. Turkey , no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR   2005 ‑ ...). 85.     The Court points out that a number of principles have been developed in its case-law when it is faced with the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree. As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence confirming the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” in its assessment of evidence (see Avşar v. Turkey , no.   25657/94, §   282, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII (extracts)). Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. In this context, the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Taniş and Others , cited above, §   160). 86.     The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000). Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis , Ribitsch v. Austria , 4 December 1995, §   32, Series   A no.   336, and Avşar , cited above, § 283) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place. 87.     Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, such as in cases where persons are under their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Tomasi v. France , 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series   A no.   241 ‑ A; Ribitsch , cited above, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no.   25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V). 88.     These principles apply also to cases in which, although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities, it is possible to establish that he or she entered a place under their control and has not been seen since. In such circumstances, the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible explanation of what happened on the premises and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities, but left the premises without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty (see Taniş, cited above, § 160). 89.     Finally, when there have been criminal proceedings in the domestic courts concerning those same allegations, it must be borne in mind that criminal law liability is distinct from international law responsibility under the Convention. The Court’s competence is confined to the latter. Responsibility under the Convention is based on its own provisions, which are to be interpreted and applied on the basis of the objectives of the Convention and in the light of the relevant principles of international law. The responsibility of a State under the Convention for the acts of its organs, agents and servants, is not to be confused with the domestic legal issues of individual criminal responsibility under examination in the national criminal courts. The Court is not concerned with reaching any findings as to guilt or innocence in that sense (see Avşar , cited above, §   284). 2.     Establishment of the facts 90.     The Court notes that despite its requests for a copy of the investigation file into the abduction of Ruslan Kasumov, the Government produced only a small number of the documents from the case file. They referred to Article 161 of the CCP. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva   v.   Russia , no.   7615/02, §   123, ECHR 2006 ‑ ... (extracts)). 91.     In view of this and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government’s conduct in respect of the well-foundedness of the applicants’ allegations. The Court will thus proceed to examine crucial elements in the present case that should be taken into account when deciding whether the applicants’ relative can be presumed dead and whether his death can be attributed to the authorities. 92.     The applicants alleged that the persons who had taken Ruslan Kasumov away on 3   February 2003 were State agents. 93.     The Government, in their turn, suggested that the persons who had detained Ruslan Kasumov could be members of illegal armed groups. However, this allegation was not specific and they did not submit any material to support it. The Court would stress in this regard that the evaluation of the evidence and the establishment of the facts is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see Çelikbilek v. Turkey , no.   27693/95, §   71, 31   May 2005). 94.     The Court notes that the applicants’ allegation is supported by the investigation and by the witness statements. The domestic investigation accepted that the kidnappers had travelled in four APCs and four Ural vehicles (see paragraph 47 above) and took steps to check whether law enforcement agencies were involved in the kidnapping (see paragraphs 22 and 26 above). Furthermore, Mr A.D. reported the circumstances under which he had been taken away by armed men in the APCs (see paragraph 52 above) and several residents of the village of Pervomayskaya claimed to have seen APCs on the streets on the night of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction (see paragraph 64 above). The investigating authorities had information concerning a registration number of one of the APCs but took no steps to question Ms Tamara Kh., although it is clear from the Government’s submissions that her identity had been established (see paragraph 81 above). The Court notes that, although neither Mr A.D. nor the villagers saw Ruslan Kasumov being placed inside an APC, it is highly plausible to assume that the armed men who apprehended the missing man and the armed men travelling in the APCs and the Ural vehicles were the same persons. 95.     The Court considers it very unlikely that several military vehicles stolen by insurgents from the federal troops in the 1990s could have moved freely through Russian military checkpoints without being noticed. It thus finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform travelling in the APCs and the Ural vehicles arrived in the village of Pervomayskaya at 3   a.m. strongly supports the applicants’ assertion that these were State servicemen. 96.     Moreover, in the Court’s view the fact that the witnesses questioned by the investigators were not very specific as to the nature of their relationships with Ruslan Kasumov does not in itself suffice to cast doubt on the veracity of their statements. 97.     The Court observes that where the applicants make out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to a lack of documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see Toğcu v. Turkey , no.   27601/95, §   95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey , no.   21894/93, §   211, ECHR 2005 ‑ II). 98.     Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their relative was apprehended by State servicemen. The Government’s statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of the special forces in the kidnapping is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court considers that Ruslan Kasumov was apprehended on 3   February 2003 by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. 99.     There has been no reliable news of Ruslan Kasumov since the date of the kidnapping. His name has not been found in any official detention facilities’ records. Finally, the Government did not submit any explanation as to what had happened to him after his arrest. 100.     Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of persons in the Chechen Republic which have come before the Court (see, among others, Imakayeva , cited above; Luluyev and Others v.   Russia , no.   69480/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ ... (extracts); Baysayeva v.   Russia , no.   74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia , cited above; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia , no.   68007/01, 5   July 2007), 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 Ruslan Kasumov or any news of him for more than five years supports this assumption. 101 .     Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish to the requisite standard of proof that Ruslan Kasumov must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen. IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 102.     The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that Ruslan Kasumov had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of 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.     The parties’ submissions 103.     The Government contended that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that Ruslan Kasumov was dead or that any servicemen of federal law enforcement agencies had been involved in his kidnapping or alleged killing. The Government claimed that the investigation into the kidnapping of the applicants’ relative met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant had reported the crime to the authorities belatedly and thus contributed to the loss of evidence; it also proved that the kidnapping had been staged. The investigation had been suspended and than resumed a number of times, which proved that the investigators had been making efforts to solve the crime. The first applicant had been advised of her right to complain of decisions taken in the case. Operative and search measures had been taken even while the investigation had been suspended. 104.     The applicants argued that Ruslan Kasumov had been detained by State servicemen and should be presumed dead, in the absence of any reliable news of him for more than five years. The applicants also argued that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court’s case-law on Article   2. They had verbally informed the authorities of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction in the morning of 3 February 2003. The applicants invited the Court to draw conclusions from the Government’s unjustified failure to submit the documents from the investigation file to them or to the Court. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Admissibility 105.     The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires