CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 5 février 2009

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9093EDF4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s87F9F0E0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .sC2918F4D { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sAD32DF24 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s3E7AA975 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside: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 } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sDC8E1F0A { width:193.11pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION         CASE OF KHAYDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 1848/04)                 JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   5 February 2009     FINAL   14/09/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khaydayeva 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,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 15 January 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 1848/04) 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 eight Russian nationals, listed below (“the applicants”), on 26 November 2003. 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 Mr P. Laptev and subsequently by Ms   V.   Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 1 September 2005 the Court decided to grant priority treatment to the application (Rule   41 of the Rules of Court). 4.     On 9 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.     On 15 January 2009 the Court dismissed the Government’s objection concerning the application of Article   29 § 3 of the Convention. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants are: 1.     Ms Polla Usmanovna Malikova, born in 1954, 2.     Mr Khamzat Dudayevich Malikov, born in 1950, 3.     Ms Yakha Dudushevna Khaydayeva, born in 1951, 4.     Mr Alvi Dakayevich Khatuyev, born in 1941, 5.     Ms Aset Abdurakhmanovna Akhmatova, born in 1953, 6.     Ms Saneta Kirgizbayevna Akhmatova, born in 1981, 7.     Ms Malika Akhmarovna Salamkhanova, born in 1951, 8.     Mr Luisa Said-Khusinovna Ismailova, born in 1971. 7.     The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Duba-Yurt, Shalinskiy District, in the Chechen Republic. They were represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. 8.     The first and second applicants are spouses and are the parents of Mr   Suliman Khamzatovich Malikov, born in 1975. The third and fourth applicants are spouses and are the parents of Mr Adlan Alviyevich Khatuyev, born in 1977 and Mr Aslan Alviyevich Khatuyev, born in 1983. The fifth and sixth applicants are the mother and sister of Mr Sayd-Salu Kirgizbayevich Akhmatov, born in 1975. The seventh and eighth applicants are the mother and sister of Mr Mansur Sayd-Khusinovich Ismailov , born in 1984. 9.     Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Mansur Ismailov and Mr   Sayd-Salu Akhmatov had no permanent employment at the material time. Mr   Sayd-Salu Akhmatov, following his father’s death in 2001, was working on the restoration of his family’s house, which had been destroyed. Mr Adlan Khatuyev was a student at the Grozny State Oil Institute. A.     Apprehens i on and subsequent disappearance of Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov 1.     The applicants’ account 10.     Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr   Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov lived in Duba-Yurt, Shalinskiy District, in the Chechen Republic. On 9 June 2002 at 3 p.m. they were driving in a white VAZ 21061 car ( ВАЗ 21061 ) through checkpoint no.   113 located in the south of Duba-Yurt. They were stopped at the checkpoint and apprehended by servicemen. After they had been apprehended a Ural truck and two armoured personnel carriers (APC) with licence plates “П-232” and “Ч-221” approached the checkpoint. Mr   Suliman Malikov, Mr   Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr   Mansur Ismailov were put in the Ural truck. When the fifth and seventh applicants saw that their sons had been apprehended and put in the truck, they got into the truck themselves and demanded that the servicemen tell them why they were taking away their sons. The servicemen pushed them out of the truck and drove it away, escorted by the two APCs. 11.     The apprehension was witnessed by A.M., Z.M. and A.Sh., residents of Duba-Yurt. In their written statement of 30 November 2003 they submitted that on 9 June 2002 they had been working in an orchard close to checkpoint no. 113. A white VAZ car had driven towards the checkpoint. The servicemen approached the car and checked the identity papers of the people in it. Then the servicemen took the people into the checkpoint building and pulled their clothes over their heads. The youngest of them fell down on the ground. When the witnesses saw this, they approached the servicemen and asked what the people had done to be subjected to such treatment. The servicemen replied that they had received instructions from the town of Shatoy to check the car because it had darkened windows. Then an Ural truck and two APCs approached the checkpoint and the people who arrived took the applicants’ relatives away. When two of the applicants tried to intervene, they were pushed away by the servicemen. 12.     A., an engineer with the special police forces (OMON) unit of the Republic of Buryatiya, and V., deputy commander of the OMON unit of the Republic of Buryatiya, were questioned by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Buryatiya on 30 January 2003. 13.     A. submitted that on 9   June   2002 he had been on duty at checkpoint no. 113. At the time a “sweeping” operation ( зачистка ) was being conducted in Duba-Yurt. The servicemen of the special unit of Interior Ministry troops apprehended five men in a white VAZ 21061 car and put them in a yellow Ural truck. The servicemen were wearing masks. The most senior of them introduced himself, but A. could not remember his name. Since A. was in charge of the checkpoint, he asked whether he should make a report on the apprehension. The senior serviceman replied that, should any questions arise, their unit had been deployed in Urus-Martan, they had been conducting the “sweeping” operation in Duba-Yurt and had received information about the car in question. A. submitted that everything had happened very fast because relatives of the apprehended persons had appeared and threatened the servicemen, as they thought that the servicemen in charge of the checkpoint were taking away their sons. 14.     V. submitted that from April to October 2002 he had served as commander of a joint unit in the Chechen Republic. The unit had been deployed at the temporary deployment point in Belgatoy and served at the checkpoint no. 113 in Duba-Yurt. On 9 June 2002, when V. was in Belgatoy, he received information that a white VAZ 21061 car had been stopped at checkpoint no. 113 and that the five men in it had been apprehended. According to the Shatoy District Department of the Federal Security Service (FSB), a search had been conducted for the car. V. was informed that the car and the men had been taken away by servicemen of the special unit of the Interior Ministry troops deployed in Urus-Martan who had been driving two APCs and a yellow Ural truck. A report concerning the events was submitted to the Shalinskiy Temporary Office of the Interior (VOVD). The order to conduct the “sweeping” operation in Duba-Yurt had been signed by the commander of the Shalinskiy District. Representatives of the military commanders’ office were in charge of directing the operation. 15.     According to the applicants, the apprehension was also witnessed by the following servicemen of the Duba-Yurt infantry company: Sergeant I.   E., Sergeant-Major S.-M. Z. and Privates Sh. Yu., S. Ya., S.-S. Yu., S.-E. Yu. and S.-A. S. 16.     Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr   Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov have not been seen since. 2.     The Government’s account 17.     On 4 June 2002 members of illegal armed groups attacked several buildings belonging to various State authorities in the village of Shatoy. As a result of the attacks two officers from the military commander’s office and several officials of the VOVD received shotgun wounds. 18.     On 9 June 2002 a special operation was conducted in the village of Duba-Yurt in the Shalinskiy District, adjacent to the Shatoy District. The operation was aimed at locating and apprehending members of illegal armed groups involved in the attacks on 4 June 2002. 19.     On the same date at around 3 p.m. representatives of federal forces apprehended Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr   Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov at the checkpoint on the southern outskirts of Duba-Yurt on suspicion of having been involved in the attacks of 4 June 2002. The above persons were travelling from the Shatoy District to their home village of Duba-Yurt in a white VAZ 2106 car with registration plates C 294 AT 06. 20.     According to the Government, since the information concerning the applicants’ relatives’ involvement in the events of 4 June 2002 had not been confirmed, they were released on 10 June 2002 at around 4 p.m. The Government submitted no documents to this effect. The Government further stated that the whereabouts of the above persons following their release had not been established. B.     Search for Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov, and investigation 1.     Applicants’ own enquiries 21.     The applicants took certain steps of their own initiative to establish their relatives’ whereabouts. They found out that the two APCs that had approached the checkpoint belonged to battalion no. 348 of the Ministry of the Interior troops deployed in Urus-Martan, headed by captain   L. Major K. had driven the VAZ 21061 car away from the checkpoint and D., who was nicknamed “Boomerang”, had driven the Ural truck. According to the information obtained by the applicants, their relatives had been taken initially to the battalion no. 348 headquarters, where they remained for two days. 22.     The applicants transmitted this information to the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office for verification. However, according to the applicants, the investigator ignored it and no investigative measures were taken. 2.     Criminal investigation 23.     The applicants thought at first that their relatives had been taken to the temporary detention centre of the Shalinskiy VOVD. They went there on 9   June 2002 after their relatives had been apprehended, but their relatives were not there. They then applied to the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office seeking to have a criminal investigation instituted. The applicants applied in writing and in person to numerous State authorities, seeking to establish their relatives’ whereabouts. It appears that they first applied in writing on 18 June 2002. Copies of the applications were submitted to the Court. 24.     On 18 June 2002 the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction. It appears that initially the case file was given the number 59117, which was later changed to 34/33/0252-03 and then to 34/33/0013-03. At some stage it may have been given the number 69117. 25.     On 16 July 2002 the Northern Caucasus Department of the Ministry of the Interior informed the military prosecutor’s office of the Northern Caucasus Military District that on 9 June 2002 certain units of the Interior Ministry troops had been involved in a special operation in Duba-Yurt. The units’ task had been to seal off the districts where the operation was being conducted and to provide cover for the officers of the local Departments of the Interior. Apprehending persons had not been the task of the Interior Ministry troops. Accordingly, they had not apprehended the applicants’ relatives and had no information concerning their whereabouts. 26.     On 24 July 2002 the FSB informed the third applicant that, according to the results of the investigation that had been carried out, neither Mr Adlan Khatuyev nor Mr   Aslan Khatuyev was among the persons apprehended by the federal forces. The FSB had no information concerning their whereabouts. 27.     On 26 July 2002 the military prosecutor’s office of the Northern Caucasus Military District informed the third applicant that neither Mr   Adlan Khatuyev nor Mr   Aslan Khatuyev had been apprehended by servicemen of the Ministry of Defence, the FSB or the Interior Ministry troops. On 18 June 2002 the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal investigation no. 59117 into the abduction of the applicant’s sons by unidentified persons. 28.     On 18 August 2002 the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office informed the first and fourth applicants that the preliminary investigation in case no. 59117 had been suspended because the person to be charged had not been identified. 29.     On 20 August 2002 the fifth applicant was granted the status of victim in the criminal proceedings. 30.     On 26 September 2002 the Administration of Duba-Yurt issued the first, third and seventh applicants with certificates stating that Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr   Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov had been apprehended on 9 June 2002 at checkpoint no. 113 in the course of a special operation conducted in Duba-Yurt, and had been taken away by unidentified servicemen. 31.     On 21 November 2002, following a complaint by the applicants that the investigation had not been thorough, the Prosecutor’s Office of the   Chechen Republic quashed the decision to suspend the investigation and remitted the case to the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office. 32.     On 23 November 2002 Colonel G. of the FSB department in military unit no.   6732 issued certificate no. 407 to the effect that Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr   Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov had been members of an illegal armed group and, according to information subject to further verification, had died as a result of the explosion of an unidentified makeshift explosive device. 33.     On 20 December 2002 the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation. 34.     On 27 December 2002 the acting head of the FSB department in military unit no. 6732 informed the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office that no certificate no. 407 of 23 November 2002 had been registered and that Colonel   G. had never served in the FSB. 35.     On 12 January 2003 the deputy head of the FSB Department for the Chechen Republic informed the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office that the servicemen identified by the applicants as having been involved in the apprehension of their relatives had never served in the FSB. Checks were being conducted to establish whether they had served in “special investigative group 2” (“SSG-2”). The APCs with the licence plates referred to did not belong to the FSB either. Judging from the numbers on the plates, the vehicles might have belonged to the Ministry of the Interior. The FSB had no information concerning the apprehension of the applicants’ relatives. 36.     On 20 January 2003 the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office again suspended the investigation. 37.     On 30 January 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Buryatiya questioned A. and V., servicemen with the OMON unit of the Republic of Buryatiya, who had been on duty at checkpoint no. 113 at the relevant time (see paragraphs 13-14 above). 38.     On 7 March 2003 the investigation was resumed. 39.     On 11 March 2003 officer B. of the United Group Alignment (UGA) informed the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office that he had no information concerning the apprehension of the applicants’ relatives. Furthermore, Captain L. had never served with the Interior Ministry troops deployed in Urus-Martan. The APCs with the licence plates referred to did not belong to the Interior Ministry troops either. 40.     On 25 March 2003 the prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20116, based in Shali, informed the third and fifth applicants that no servicemen of the unit had been involved in the apprehension and that neither battalion no.   348 of the Interior Ministry troops headed by captain L. nor the OMON unit of the Republic of Buryatiya was subordinate to military unit no.   20116. 41.     On 28 March 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the third applicant that, as stated in the FSB’s reply of 13   March 2003, the FSB had no information to the effect that Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr   Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr   Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr   Mansur Ismailov had been members of an illegal armed group, or information concerning their apprehension. 42.     On 1 April 2003 the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office extended the term of the preliminary investigation in the case to five months, until 7   May 2003. On the same date the case was transmitted to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102, based in Khankala. 43.     On 14 April 2003 the case file was received by the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. 44.     On 28 April 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20116, having regard to the applicants’ application, informed the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA that no servicemen of the units subordinate to military unit no. 20116 had either apprehended anybody at the indicated time and place or handed anybody over to the law-enforcement agencies. 45.     On 6 May 2003 the term of the preliminary investigation in the case was extended to six months, until 7 June 2003. 46.     On 8 May 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 informed the third applicant that investigative measures were being taken in order to establish whether servicemen of the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB deployed in the Urus ‑ Martan District and the Achkhoy-Martan District had been involved in the abduction of the applicants’ relatives. 47.     On 19 May 2003 the preliminary investigation was again suspended and the case was transmitted to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116. 48.     On 23 June 2003, after the decision of 19 May 2003 was quashed, the case file was again received by the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. 49.     On 27 June 2003 the Administration of Duba-Yurt issued the fifth applicant with a certificate stating that Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov had been apprehended on 9 June 2002 in the course of a special operation conducted in Duba-Yurt and had been taken away. 50.     On 7 July 2003 the military prosecutor of the UGA informed the applicants that the criminal case was under the supervision of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office and the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA. 51.     On 23 July 2003 the preliminary investigation was again suspended. 52.     On 12 September 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA transmitted the case to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 and instructed it to resume the investigation. 53.     On 25 September 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 quashed the decision to suspend the investigation of 23   July   2003 and resumed the investigation. 54.     On 18 October 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 informed the applicants that it had requested the UGA to establish the whereabouts of the servicemen in question, belonging to battalion no. 348 of the Interior Ministry troops. 55.     On 29 October 2003 the case file was received by the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA. 56.     On 13 November 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA questioned Colonel D. [“Boomerang”], who stated that in June 2002 he had served as commander of “SSG-2”, deployed at the northern boundary of the village of Stariye Atagi in the Grozny District. He had served as a commander from February   2002 to 10 January 2003. He had headed a special joint group of servicemen from different types of troops subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defence. 57.     On 15 November 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the first, third, fifth and eighth applicants that investigative measures were being taken. 58.     On 27 November 2003 the headquarters of the Interior Ministry troops informed the applicants that certain units of the troops had been involved in a special operation to disband an illegal armed group in the neighbourhood of Duba-Yurt, conducted on 9 June 2002. However, neither the Administration of Duba-Yurt nor the residents had had any complaints concerning the conduct of the operation. No unlawful acts had been committed by the troops, a fact which was confirmed by a statement issued by the Administration of Duba-Yurt. It was not possible to establish whether the APCs belonged to the Interior Ministry troops since the information submitted concerning their licence plates was incomplete. The servicemen referred to by the applicants had not served with the Interior Ministry troops. 59.     On 31 December 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the third applicant that the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office had instituted a criminal investigation into the facts set out in her application. The whereabouts of the servicemen referred to in the application had been established. The military prosecutors of the military units concerned had been instructed to question the witnesses. 60.     On 15 January 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the third and fifth applicants that investigative measures were being taken and that the servicemen who had taken part in the special operation in Duba-Yurt, including captain L., had been identified and questioned in the course of the preliminary investigation. 61.     On 9 March 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA transmitted the case to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic. In the letter of the same date the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA also informed the fourth and fifth applicants that in the course of the preliminary investigation it had been established that on 10 June 2002 their relatives had been brought to Kh., the deputy prosecutor of the Shatoy inter-district prosecutor’s office. 62.     On 23 March 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic transmitted the case to the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA in the Northern Caucasus. 63.     On 29 March 2004 the applicants applied in writing to the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA. They stated that they had seen the VAZ   21061 car on numerous occasions in the town of Khankala and once had seen D., the “Boomerang”, in it. The applicants alleged that D. had been in charge of the “sweeping” operations in Duba-Yurt and asked that these events be investigated. 64.     On 5 May 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the first, third, fifth and seventh applicants that during the preliminary investigation it had been established that no servicemen had been involved in the abduction of their relatives, and that the case had therefore been transmitted to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic. 65.     On 21 May 2004 the Shatoy inter-district prosecutor’s office informed the third applicant that the applicants’ relatives had never been brought either to the   prosecutor’s office or to any of its officials, including the deputy prosecutor Kh. They had never been detained, questioned or put on a wanted list by the Shatoy inter-district prosecutor’s office. Nor had they ever been placed in the temporary detention centre of the Shatoy VOVD. 66.     On 11 June 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the third applicant that the criminal case had been transmitted to the Southern District Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office for inspection. 67.     On 26 June 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20116 informed the fifth applicant that the Shalinskiy district prosecutor’s office had instituted an investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives, in criminal case no. 69117. 68.     On 25 September 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the first and third applicants that on 24 September 2004 it had resumed the preliminary investigation. 69.     On 24 October 2004 the investigation was suspended on the ground of the absence of corpus delicti . 70.     The applicants submitted a document with neither a letterhead nor signatures. At the top of the document it was written in pen that it had been issued by T., senior investigator of the UGA, on 16 November 2004. The document reads as follows: “Witness [D.], commander of [“SSG-2”], stated that on 9 June 2002 during the special passport-checking operation at checkpoint no. 113 located on the southern outskirts of Duba-Yurt in the Shalinskiy District of the Chechen Republic, servicemen of military unit [no.] 6779 had apprehended [Mr] Malikov, [Mr] Akhmatov, [Mr]   Adlan Khatuyev, [Mr] Aslan Khatuyev and [Mr] Ismailov. On 10 June 2002 the apprehended persons had been handed over to six servicemen of the Shatoy Department of [the FSB]; [however] he could remember neither their names nor their positions. The servicemen of the Shatoy Department of [the FSB] had taken the apprehended persons with them and he knew nothing of their fate.” 71.     On 17 November 2004 the first, third, fifth and seventh applicants wrote to the Prosecutor General asking him to ensure that an adequate investigation was conducted into their sons’ disappearance. They noted that they were particularly appalled by the reply of the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA of 9 March 2004 stating that on 10 June 2002 their sons had been brought to Kh., the deputy prosecutor of the Shatoy inter-district prosecutor’s office, whereas Kh. had died five months before that date. 72.     On 21 March 2005 the decision of 24   October 2004 to suspend the investigation was quashed and the investigation was resumed. 73.     On 15 June 2005 the Shalinskiy district military commander replied to the third applicant that, according to the information available, no servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior troops deployed in the territory within the jurisdiction of the military commander’s office had been involved in the abduction of her sons. 74.     According to the Government’s observations of 10 October 2007, the investigation was under way. 3.     Proceedings concerning the inaction of the investigating authorities 75.     On 25 October 2004 the third applicant lodged a complaint concerning the inaction of the military prosecutor’s office with the Military Court of the Groznenskiy Garrison. 76.     On 10 June 2005 the Military Court of the Groznenskiy Garrison allowed the complaint, finding that the suspension of the investigation on 24   October 2004 had been unlawful. The court noted that the investigation had been resumed on 21 March 2005. C.     Proceedings for compensation for non-pecuniary damage 77.     In April 2003 the first, fifth and seventh applicants brought claims against the Ministry of Finance for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the abduction of their sons by State agents. 1.     Proceedings concerning the first applicant’s claim 78.     On 23 December 2003 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the first applicant’s claim. The court found that on 9 June 2002 the applicant’s son had been apprehended in Duba-Yurt by unknown servicemen and then taken away to an unknown destination. The court further held that the evidence presented at the hearing did not show that the disappearance of Mr Suliman Malikov had been caused by any unlawful actions on the part of the State authorities. The first applicant appealed. 79.     On 26 October 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. 2.     Proceedings concerning the fifth applicant’s claim 80.     On 14 July 2003 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow stayed the proceedings concerning the fifth applicant’s claim on account of her omission to pay the court fees and enclose supporting documents. The applicant was ordered to rectify the omission by 28 August 2003. The fifth applicant appealed against this decision. 81.     On 16 June 2004 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal. 82.     On 25 February 2005 the Basmanniy District Court returned the fifth applicant’s claim without examination as she had not rectified the omission to comply with the procedural requirements within the time-limit set by the court. 3.     Proceedings concerning the seventh applicant’s claim 83.     On 15 June 2004 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the seventh applicant’s claim. The court found that on 9   June   2002 the applicant’s son had been apprehended in Duba-Yurt by unknown persons and that his whereabouts were unknown. The court further held that the evidence presented at the hearing did not show that the disappearance of Mr Mansur Ismailov had been caused by any unlawful actions on the part of the State authorities. The seventh applicant appealed. 84.     On 25 February 2005 the Moscow City Court stayed examination of the seventh applicant’s appeal on account of her failure to comply with certain procedural requirements for lodging an appeal. The applicant had to rectify them by 9 December 2004. Since she failed to do so, on 25   February   2005 the Moscow City Court returned the appeal statement without examination. D.     The Court’s request for the case file 85.     Despite the Court’s specific requests to submit a copy of the file in the criminal case instituted into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives, the Government did not provide any documents from the case file. They submitted a copy of the court decision delivered in respect of the third applicant’s complaint concerning the inaction of the investigating authorities, copies of the first, fifth and seventh applicants’ claims for damages and court decisions delivered in this respect. They stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. At the same time the Government suggested that a Court delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted, with the exception of documents of a confidential nature and without the right to make copies. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 1.     The Code of Criminal Procedure 86.     Until 1 July 2002 criminal-law matters were governed by the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic). On 1 July 2002 the old Code was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. 87.     Article 125 of the new CCP lays down a judicial procedure for the examination of complaints. Orders of an investigator or prosecutor refusing to institute criminal proceedings or to terminate a case, and other orders and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede a citizen’s access to justice, may be appealed against to a local district court, which is empowered to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions. 88.     Article 161 of the new CCP prohibits the disclosure of information from the preliminary investigation file. Under part 3 of the Article, information from the investigation file may be divulged only 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 parties to the criminal proceedings or prejudice the investigation. Divulging information about the private lives of parties to criminal proceedings without their permission is prohibited. 2.     Legislation applicable to counter-terrorist operations 89.     Federal Law no. 130-FZ of 25 July 1998 on the suppression of terrorism ( Федеральный закон от 25   июля 1998 г. № 130-ФЗ «О борьбе с терроризмом» ) provides as follows: Section 13. Legal regime in the zone of an anti-terrorist operation “1. In the zone of an anti-terrorist operation, the persons conducting the operation shall be entitled: ... (2) to check the identity documents of private persons and officials and, where they have no identity documents, to detain them for identification; (3) to detain persons who have committed or are committing offences or other acts in defiance of the lawful demands of persons engaged in an anti-terrorist operation, including acts of unauthorised entry or attempted entry to the zone of the anti-terrorist operation, and to convey such persons to the local bodies of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation;   ...” THE LAW I.     The government’s objection regarding non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies 90.     The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies since the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives had not yet been completed. 91.     The applicants contested that objection. They argued that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective, having produced no meaningful results after six years. 92.     The Court will examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a summary thereof, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia , no. 60272/00, §   73-74, 12   October 2006). 93.     The Court observes that the applicants complained to the law ‑ enforcement authorities shortly after the apprehension of their relatives and that the criminal proceedings have been pending since 18 June 2002. The applicants and the Government disagreed as to the effectiveness of the investigation into the complaint. 94.     The Court considers that the Government’s objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants’ complaints. Thus, it considers that this objection should be joined to the merits and falls to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 95.     The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 reads: “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” A.     The parties’ submissions 96.     The Government admitted that Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov had been detained on 9 June 2002. However, they submitted that the applicants’ relatives had been released the next day and that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that they were dead or that any servicemen of the federal law-enforcement agencies had been involved in their alleged killing. The Government further contended that the domestic investigation had been effective. They pointed out, in particular, that the first, third, fifth and seventh applicants had been granted victim status. 97.     The applicants argued that while it had been established that their relatives had been detained by servicemen on 9 June 2002, the Government had failed to submit any explanations as to their fate. In the absence of any reliable news of them for several years, they should be presumed dead following their unlawful detention. The applicants also argued that the investigation had not met the standards of effectiveness and adequacy required by the Court’s case-law on Article   2. The applicants pointed out that it had been suspended and resumed a number of times, thus delaying the taking of the most basic steps, and that the applicants had not been properly informed of the most important investigative measures. The fact that the investigation had been pending for over six years without producing any known results was further proof of its ineffectiveness. The applicants invited the Court to draw inferences from the Government’s unjustified failure to provide the documents from the case file to them or to the Court. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Admissibility 98.     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 an examination of the merits. The Court has already found that the Government’s objection concerning the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should be joined to the merits of the complaint (see paragraph 94 above). The complaint under Article 2 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     The alleged violation of the right to life of Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov (i)     General principles 99.     The Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article   2, it must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances. Detained persons are in a vulnerable position and the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of a detained individual is particularly stringent where that individual dies or disappears thereafter (see, among other authorities, Orhan v. Turkey , no. 25656/94, §   326, 18 June 2002, and the authorities cited therein). Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in detention, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV). (ii)     Establishment of the facts 100.     The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia , no. 69481/01, §§   103-109, 27 July 2006). The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ireland v.   the United Kingdom , 18 January 1978, §   161, Series   A no.   25). 101.     The Court notes that it is common ground between the parties that Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr   Sayd   Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov were apprehended at around 3   p.m.