CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 mars 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 } .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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; 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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD2CEF84A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sE5D6D15C { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sF0D62E79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; 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 } .sA9B2F559 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3637C98 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA5EFAA0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82D7B801 { width:22.93pt; display:inline-block } .sF9287AF { width:174.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION         CASE OF KHADAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 5351/04)                 JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   12 March 2009     FINAL   14/09/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khadayeva and Others v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 17 February 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:   PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 5351/04) 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 19 December 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 Moscow, 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 President of the First Section decided to grant priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 4.     On 16 March 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). 5.     On 17 February 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 Satsita Tashkirovna Khadayeva, born in 1949, 2.     Mr Zaindi Bitayevich Khadayev, born in 1940, 3.     Ms Razet Zaindievna Khadayeva, born in 1980, 4.     Mr Umar Zaindievich Khadayev, born in 1975, 5.     Mr Said-Selim Zaindievich Khadayev, born in 1984, 6.     Mr Salavat Zaindievich Khadayev, born in 1985, 7.     Mr Abdula Zaindievich Khadayev, born in 1971, 8.     Ms Aset Zaindievich Khadayev, born in 1972. They live in Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. 7.     The first two applicants are the parents of Mr   Ali   Zaindievich Khadayev, born in 1977, and the other applicants are his sisters and brothers. A.     First apprehension of Mr Ali Khadayev and ensuing investigation 1.     The applicants’ account 8.     At the material time Mr Ali Khadayev lived with his family in a private house at 22 Sheripova   Street, Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. 9.     According to the applicants, in the night of 18 to 19   April   2002 between twelve and fourteen men, of whom four were wearing masks, came to the house of the Khadayev family and apprehended Mr Ali Khadayev. Subsequently his family applied to various authorities, in particular, the District Office of the Interior, the Military Commander’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office, seeking his release. 10.     Seven days later the applicants were approached by Z., an officer of the Military Commander’s Office. He told them that Mr Ali Khadayev could be released against the payment of 2,000 United States dollars (USD). By 1 May 2002 they gathered the money and handed it over, following which Mr Ali Khadayev was dropped off outside their house. He was very weak since during his 11 days’ detention at the Federal Security Service (FSB) of the Urus-Martan District he had been given no food and had been ill-treated by federal servicemen. However, the applicants neither sought medical assistance nor applied to law-enforcement agencies in connection with the detention and the alleged ill-treatment. After the release a representative of the FSB told the second applicant that Mr Ali Khadayev was not guilty of anything and had been detained by mistake. 2.     The Government’s account 11.     According to the Government, at around 5 a.m. on 19 April 2002 unidentified armed persons abducted Mr Ali Khadayev from his house and took him to an unknown destination. 3.     Investigation into the abduction 12.     On 19 April 2002, upon a complaint by the second applicant concerning his son’s abduction, the district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings under Article   126   (2) of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned the number 61075. 13.     On 22 April 2002 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 14.     On 19 June 2002 the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify those responsible. 15.     According to the applicants, the investigation file contained a letter from the head of the Urus-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD) to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office, received by the latter on 24 May 2002 and assigned the number 887. The letter contained the following passage: “We remind [you] that at present A.Z. Khadayev is at his home”. However, Mr Ali Khadayev was not questioned after his release and no investigative measures were conducted with regard to his relatives or other witnesses to establish the circumstances of the abduction. B.     Second apprehension and subsequent disappearance of Mr Ali Khadayev 1.     The applicants’ account 16.     In the night of 4 to 5 January 2003, during curfew hours, the first, second, fifth and sixth applicants and N., a friend of the family, were sleeping in the Khadayevs’ house. At around 3 a.m. approximately twenty servicemen of the Russian federal forces approached the house. Around twelve servicemen entered the house while the family was asleep. They were armed with machine-guns, were wearing camouflage uniforms, were tall, had Slavic appearances and spoke only Russian. Only one serviceman was masked. 17.     Three unmasked servicemen entered the second applicant’s room. When he spoke Chechen to them, one of them ordered him to be quiet. When he asked in Russian what they were doing there, they said they were checking passports. However, when he handed them his passport they did not take it. 18.     When the second applicant turned on the light in the room, he immediately recognised one of the servicemen. His name was Anatoliy, he served in the FSB and was nicknamed “Tank”. He, along with fellow servicemen, had come to the Khadayev’s house for a passport check on 6   December 2002. On that occasion he had demanded that the second applicant sign a letter addressed to the Urus-Martan ROVD saying that he had no complaints against the police in connection with the detention of his son Mr   Ali Khadayev for 11 days in the Military Commander’s Office from 19 to 30   April   2002. 19.     The servicemen dispersed throughout the rooms of the house. The fifth applicant, the sixth applicant and N. were sleeping in the room next to the second applicant’s room. The servicemen only checked their passports and did not point their guns at them. They removed several photos from under the pillow of the sixth applicant and took those of Mr   Ali Khadayev and his driving licence away with them. 20.     Then the servicemen went to the next building, where the first applicant and Mr Ali Khadayev were sleeping. They tried to open the door to Mr Ali Khadayev’s room, but it was locked. The first applicant asked them to let her son get dressed, which they did. When Mr   Ali   Khadayev opened the door, they did not search his room but asked his mother for his passport. When she went inside the room to get it, they took Mr   Ali   Khadayev outside and led him away on foot in the direction of school no. 7. When the first applicant asked where they were taking him, they said to the Temporary Office of the Interior (VOVD). 21.     The second applicant tried to follow the servicemen, but they did not let him open the gate. He attempted to push the gate open, but one of the servicemen threatened him: “I will shoot you unless you go back”. The commander then intervened and ordered the servicemen to leave the gate. The first applicant then tried to follow the servicemen. At a distance of about 300 metres from the house the servicemen had parked three vehicles: two Ural trucks and one grey UAZ car. None of the vehicles had licence plates or other identification signs. When the first applicant approached the vehicles, she was stopped by the servicemen and one of them kicked her in the shin so that she fell. The servicemen placed Mr   Ali   Khadayev in the UAZ car and drove away in the direction of the centre of Urus-Martan. The first applicant ran after the vehicles. She could hear the sound of their engines all the time and, when she reached the centre of town, she saw them parked at the gates of the Military Commander’s Office. She did not hear the vehicles stop on the way there. Since it was cold and the first applicant was wearing thin clothing, she returned home. 22.     When the first applicant came back to the Military Commander’s Office at 5 a.m., the vehicles were still parked at the gates. At around 7 a.m. the applicants went to see Z., the officer who had asked for a bribe to have Mr   Ali   Khadayev released in April 2002. Z. went to the Military Commander’s Office to ask why Mr   Ali   Khadayev had been detained. When he came back he said to the applicants: “Maybe they will release him tonight.” 23.     The applicants’ neighbours Mr I., Ms A. and Ms B. witnessed the apprehension of Mr   Ali   Khadayev and they, as well as N., submitted written statements to confirm their account of the events. 2.     The Government’s account 24.     According to the Government, on 22 January 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office received the second applicant’s application stating that in the night of 4 to 5 January 2003 his son, Mr Ali Khadayev, had been abducted by unidentified persons from his house at 22   Sheripova Street in Urus-Martan. C.     The applicants’ subsequent encounters with the alleged perpetrator 25.     According to the applicants, six months after Mr Ali Khadayev’s apprehension the second applicant went to the FSB quarters where he met “Tank”. He asked “Tank” to help him establish the whereabouts of his son. “Tank” replied: “Z. has left and I cannot help you with anything”. Then “Tank” also left Urus-Martan for about a month and returned together with Z. The second applicant went to the FSB quarters several times asking to speak to Z., but Z. never came out. Then the second applicant asked A., a serviceman of the Military Commander’s Office, to talk to Z. After several failed attempts A. met Z. in the street sitting in a UAZ car. A. said: “Why don’t you let Khadayev out. His father is very anxious.” Z. replied: “I did not take his son away and did not see him.” Then A. told him that “Tank” had been at the Khadayevs’ home twice and had been in charge of Mr Ali Khadayev’s apprehension and reminded Z that they were partners with “Tank”. Z. replied: “These are his [“Tank’s”] problems, let him solve them.” About a month later the second applicant learnt that Z. had left Urus-Martan. 26.     In March 2003 the second applicant was standing outside the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office. On the other side of the road, in front of the ROVD, he saw a UAZ car and recognised a man sitting inside the car as “Tank”, one of the servicemen who had apprehended his son on 5   January   2003. The car had licence plates “CA 0619 AA 18”. The second applicant tried to approach “Tank”, but the latter refused to talk to him. The second applicant then informed the District Prosecutor that “Tank” was sitting in a car outside. He asked the Prosecutor to help him talk to “Tank”, but the Prosecutor replied: “I cannot do that”. The applicant then called investigator M., showed him the car and told him that one of the servicemen who had apprehended his son was in it. When the second applicant asked him to do something, M. looked at the car and said: “Even if I say something to him, he still won’t do anything”. 27.     On 28 February 2004 at around 11.30 a.m. the second applicant saw the same grey UAZ car but this time with different licence plates: “A 0632 95 RUS”. It was parked near the Urus-Martan District Military Commander’s Office next to another UAZ car with licence plates “A 0365 95 RUS”. The applicant concluded that the servicemen who had apprehended his son were still in town; however, the investigative authorities took no steps to establish his whereabouts. D.     Investigation into Mr Ali Khadayev’s disappearance and subsequent events 1.     Progress of the investigation before the proceedings concerning drunken driving 28.     According to the applicants, on 5 January 2003, the day following the night when Mr   Ali   Khadayev was apprehended, the second applicant applied in person to the Head of the Urus-Martan Town Administration and the Urus-Martan ROVD. The Head of the Town Administration advised him to apply to the Urus-Martan Prosecutor’s Office, which he promptly did. However, he received no information concerning the whereabouts of his son. 29.     On 22 January 2003 the second applicant wrote similar applications to the Military Commander of Urus-Martan, the Head of the Urus-Martan Town Administration and the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office. In the applications he provided details of the unlawful apprehension of Mr   Ali   Khadayev, such as the date, time, address, outline of the events and description of the vehicles used. Later the first and second applicants filed applications with the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Department for Supervision over Investigation of Crimes by the Prosecuting Authorities of the Chechen Republic, the Head of the State Council of the Chechen Republic and Mr   Kadyrov, the Acting President of the Chechen Republic. Their applications were forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic and the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office. The application filed with the Military Prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (UGA) was forwarded to the Military Prosecutor of military unit no.   20102. 30.     According to the Government, on 22 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office received the second applicant’s complaint concerning his son’s abduction on 5 January 2003. 31.     On 12 February 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 126 (2) of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping) in connection with the disappearance of Mr Ali Khadayev. The case file was given number   34016. According to the Government, on 14 February 2003 the second applicant was notified of that decision and requests for information concerning the whereabouts of Mr   Ali   Khadayev and his abductors were sent to other prosecuting authorities in the Chechen Republic. According to the responses received, there was no information on his detention by State authorities. 32.     On 15 February 2002 the second applicant was questioned. He submitted that in the night of 4 to 5 January 2003 about twenty unidentified armed men had broken down the door of his house and had taken away his son, Mr   Ali   Khadayev, whom they had detained earlier between 19 April and 1 May 2002, although no documents pertaining to his previous detention existed. The men had used a UAZ car and two armoured Ural vehicles. L., a teacher of school no 7, had witnessed the events. 33.     On 4 April 2003 the first applicant applied in writing to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office asking for information about the progress in the investigation. She also sought to be granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 34.     On 7 April 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On the same date the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office informed her of the decision and summoned her for questioning. 35.     On 9 April 2003 the second applicant was questioned again. He submitted that the same men had apprehended his son, Mr   Ali   Khadayev, in April 2002 and in January 2003. During his apprehension on 5 January 2003 only one man had been wearing a mask. He had recognised one of the men by the Stechkin pistol in a holster made of cloth fastened on his side. Later he had seen this man in Urus-Martan in a grey UAZ car without registration plates. He had identified him by his features, height and build. He had also learned that the man had had a nickname, “Tank”. 36.     On 10 April 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office joined investigations nos. 61075 and 34016. The joined investigation file was assigned the number 61075. On the same date it quashed the decision of 19   June 2002 to suspend the investigation no. 61075. 37.     According to the Government, on 10 April 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office ordered the Urus-Martan ROVD to carry out certain investigative measures with the participation of the second applicant. According to the report of the official who conducted the investigative measures, the second applicant was not consistent in his submissions: he had indicated different men in military uniform and different grey UAZ cars. He failed to identify a particular person because he was afraid to make a mistake due to his bad eyesight. In an “explanation” dated 16 April 2003 the second applicant stated that although he had seen the men who had abducted his son, he could have made a mistake trying to identify them since he had bad eyesight and everyone in a military uniform seemed the same to him. The second applicant alleged that he had signed this “explanation” because the investigator had told him to. However, the investigator did not read it out to him. Neither a copy of the report nor a copy of the “explanation” have been submitted to the Court. 38.     On 10 May 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. 39.     On 16 June 2003 the second applicant applied in writing to Mr   Patrushev, the Director of the FSB of Russia. In his application he set out the details of his son’s apprehension, including the names of two officers of the Urus-Martan District FSB who, he believed, had been involved in the abduction. 40.     On 18 June 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to inform them and the first applicant of the progress of the investigation. 41.     On 3 July 2003, in reply to the second applicant’s letter of 22   January   2003, the Military Commander of Urus-Martan informed him that the Military Commander’s Office had no information concerning either the whereabouts of Mr   Ali   Khadayev or the reasons for his apprehension on 5   January 2003 or the persons involved. 42.     On 10 July 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic again requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to inform the first applicant of the progress of the investigation. 43.     On 1 August 2003 the first applicant applied in writing to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office asking it to inform her of the status of the investigation, to question the witnesses of the abduction and to transfer the case to the Military Prosecutor’s Office. 44.     On 6 August 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that the investigation was suspended. 45.     On 15 August 2003 the Head of the Chechen Department of the FSB informed the second applicant that Mr Ali Khadayev had not been in the custody of the FSB and that he had not been suspected of any crimes. 46.     On 5 September 2003 the assistant to the Military Prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 informed the first applicant that federal forces had not detained Mr Ali Khadayev in the course of special operations in the night of 4 to 5 January 2003, and that the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office had instituted criminal investigation no. 34016 into the events. 47.     On 21 October 2003 the assistant to the Military Prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 sent the second applicant a letter similar to the one of 5 September 2003 addressed to the first applicant. 48.     On 11 March 2004 the second applicant applied in writing to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic asking it to transfer the case to the military prosecutor. In his application he also described evidence corroborating his allegation that Mr Ali Khadayev had been abducted by Russian federal forces. The second applicant received no reply. 49.     On 23 March 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 10 May 2003 and resumed the investigation. The second applicant was informed of the decision on 29 March 2004. 50.     On 30 March 2004 the investigating authorities sent requests for information to the military commander of the Chechen Republic, the commander of the Ministry of the Interior troops in the North-Caucasus district, the commander of the UGA in the North-Caucasus region, the commander of military unit no. 6779, the military commander of the security zone in the Urus-Martan district, the head of the FSB department in the Chechen Republic, the head of the regional operational-search bureau of the Ministry of the Interior, the head of the Urus-Martan ROVD, the head of the Temporary United Alignment of Agencies and Units of the Ministry of the Interior in the Urus-Martan District and the military commander of Tangi-Chu. The responses contained no relevant information. 51.     On 31 March 2004 the second applicant was again questioned. He confirmed his previous statements. 52.     On 3 April 2004 the first applicant was questioned. She submitted that at around 3 a.m. on 5 January 2003 armed men had broken into her house and taken away her son, Mr Ali Khadayev. They had said that they had taken him for an identity check and had told her to come to the Urus-Martan ROVD the next morning. The men had come in two Ural trucks and a grey UAZ car. Ali had been put in the UAZ car. She had followed the vehicles and had seen them parked near the military commander’s office. 53.     On 6 April 2004 the fifth applicant was questioned. He stated that on 5   January 2003, when he had been at home with the first, second and sixth applicants and Mr Ali Khadayev, armed men had broken into the house and ordered them to stand against the wall and show their passports. After he had shown them his passport they had given it back. Then they had left and taken his brother Ali with them. The first applicant had followed them and, when she had returned, she had said that they had been in two Ural vehicles and a UAZ car without registration plates. 54.     On 29 April 2004 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office again suspended the investigation on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The second applicant was informed of the decision on the same day. 55.     On 17 July 2006 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office resumed the investigation. The second applicant was informed accordingly. 2.     Proceedings concerning drunken driving in Pyatigorsk in 2006 56.     On 22 April 2006 at around 6 p.m. M., an officer of the transport police in Pyatigorsk, the Stavropol Region, stopped a car that was being driven by a drunk driver. The driver produced a driving licence issued to Mr   Ali Khadayev. Officer M.   drew up a report on the administrative offence in the presence of two witnesses, Mr Mar. and Mr B., and conveyed the driver to a drug clinic for examination. The driver was subsequently released and the case was then sent for trial. 57.     On 19 May 2006 the justice of the peace of district no. 8 in Pyatigorsk delivered a default judgment which read as follows: “[L.], justice of the peace of district no. 8 in Pyatigorsk, the Stavropol Region, having examined the ... case concerning an administrative offence ... in respect of Khadayev Ali Zandiyevich, born on 2 November 1977 in Grozny, a Russian national, unemployed, residing at 92 Sheripova Street, Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic, has found: At 6 p.m. on 22 April 2006 ... in Pyatigorsk A.Z. Khadayev was driving a VAZ   2110 car with registration plates H270KK\15 in a state of alcoholic intoxication in breach of ... traffic rules thereby committing an [administrative] offence. A.Z. Khadayev has not appeared at the hearing although he was duly summoned... [He] has not informed the court of the reasons for his failure to appear; therefore the court decides to examine the case in his absence. A.Z. Khadayev’s guilt is corroborated by the report on an administrative offence of 22   April 2006, by the report of a medical examination according to which A.Z.   Khadayev was in a state of alcoholic intoxication, and by his explanations. The court considers that A.Z. Khadayev’s actions should be qualified as [the offence of] driving in the state of alcoholic intoxication and ... suspends his driving licence for one year and six months...” 3.     Progress of the investigation after the proceedings concerning drunken driving (a)     The Government’s submissions 58.     On 17 July 2006 the second applicant was questioned. He stated that in June 2006 he had received two letters addressed to Mr Ali Hadayev which contained a summons to a hearing before the justice of peace in Pyatigorsk and the judgment of 19 May 2006 (see paragraph 57 above). The investigator seized the summons and the judgment and enclosed them in the investigation file. The second applicant also confirmed his previous statements. 59.     On 19 July 2006 the investigator sent requests for information to law-enforcement agencies of the Urus-Martan District, pre-trial detention facilities of the neighbouring regions and medical institutions of the Chechen Republic aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Mr Ali Hadayev. No relevant information was received. 60.     On 16 August 2006 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office instructed the Urus-Martan ROVD to instruct its officers to go to Pyatigorsk in order to verify information concerning Mr Ali Hadayev’s arrest for drunken driving. 61.     On 29 August 2006 an officer of the Urus-Martan ROVD questioned M., the officer of the transport police in Pyatigorsk. M. submitted that on 22   April 2006 he had been on duty in Tolyatti Street. At around 6 p.m. he had stopped a VAZ 2110 car with registration plates H 270 KK 15 driven by a man in a state of alcoholic intoxication. When he had checked the driver’s documents he had had no doubts as to their authenticity. From the documents produced it followed that the driver was Khadayev Ali Zandiyevich, born on 2 November 1977 in Grozny, residing at 92   Sheripova Street, Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. In the presence of witnesses M. had drawn up a report on an administrative offence and conveyed the driver to a drug clinic for examination. 62.     According to the report of the Urus-Martan ROVD officers dispatched to Pyatigorsk, it appeared impossible to question witnesses Mr   Mar. and Mr B. since they lived outside Pyatigorsk. They enclosed copies of the report on an administrative offence, the report on transfer for medical examination, the report on suspension from driving and the report of the medical examination in the investigation file. 63.     In the course of the subsequent investigation it was established that the car belonged to a resident of Grozny, Mr A., who did not live at the address indicated in the report on the administrative offence. According to the Government, he was being searched for. 64.     On 17 August 2006 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. 65.     On 12 October 2006 the same prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 17 August 2006 and resumed the investigation. The second applicant was informed of the resumption on the same date. 66.     On 24 October 2006 the investigator sent a request to the Urus-Martan District department of the FSB to inform him whether a special operation had been conducted in Urus-Martan in the night of 4 to 5   January 2003, whether an officer with the name Anatoliy and nickname “Tank” served in the department and whether a UAZ car with registration plates “CA 0619 AA 18 РУС” was used by the department. According to the reply of 25 November 2006, due to the absence of documents related to the staff of the department it was not possible to confirm that the officer Anatoliy (“Tank”) had served in the department. Registration plates “CA 0619 AA 18 РУС” were not assigned to the department. 67.     On 4 November 2006 the investigator questioned the seventh applicant, who, after having received the summons and the judgment addressed to Mr Ali Khadayev, had immediately gone to Pyatigorsk to search for him. There he had talked to judge L., whom he had shown his brother’s passport. Judge L. had identified that person as the one whose photograph he had seen on the driving licence issued to Mr Ali Khadayev. Then the seventh applicant had gone to the Pyatigorsk transport police where he had been shown his brother’s driving licence. His search for Mr   Ali Khadayev in Pyatigorsk had been futile. 68.     On 7 November 2006, in the course of the second posting to Pyatigorsk, an officer of the Urus-Martan ROVD questioned Mr B. The latter stated that he had been driving his car in Pyatigorsk in April 2006. One evening at approximately 5 p.m. he had been stopped by transport police officers who had asked him to be present as a witness while they drew up a report. The transport police officers had stopped a VAZ   2110 car with a man of Caucasus ethnic origin behind the wheel, who had said that he had drunk some cognac or vodka. The police officers had drawn up a report, which he had signed, and left. When Mr B. was shown Mr   Ali Khadayev’s photograph, he stated that the latter resembled the man in respect of whom the report had been drawn up in April 2006. 69.     Mr Mar., questioned on the same date, made a similar statement. When shown a photograph of Mr Ali Khadayev, Mr Mar. also stated that he resembled the man in respect of whom the report had been drawn up in April 2006. 70.     On 7 November 2006 the officer of the Urus-Martan ROVD seized Mr Ali Khadayev’s driving licence from the Pyatigorsk transport police. 71.     On the same date the head of the Essentuki Department of the Interior of the Stavropol Region sent a request for information to the Essentuki drug clinic. According to the response, on 22   April   2006 Mr Ali Khadayev, born in 1977, who drove a vehicle, had been brought to the clinic by officer M. for examination. The doctor who conducted the examination stated that Mr Ali Khadayev had been in a state of alcoholic intoxication. 72.     On an unspecified date the head of the Pyatigorsk transport police informed the investigating authorities that its databases contained no information concerning the administrative responsibility of a driver of the VAZ   2110 car with registration plates H 270 KK 15. 73.     On 12 November 2006 the officer of the Urus-Martan ROVD questioned K., the psychiatrist-narcologist of the drug clinic. He stated that many people were brought to the clinic each day and he could not remember everybody. He could not remember the person brought to the clinic on 22   April 2006 by officer M. He could not recognise anybody from the photographs shown to him. 74.     On 12 November 2006 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The second applicant was informed of the suspension on the same date. 75.     On 30 January 2007 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office resumed the investigation. The second applicant was informed accordingly. 76.     On the same date the investigator examined Mr Ali Khadayev’s driving licence and enclosed it in the investigation file. 77.     On 1 February 2007 the second applicant was again questioned. He confirmed his previous statements. He also stated that after Mr Ali Khadayev’s first detention in April 2002 he had paid Z., an officer of the Military Commander’s Office, USD 2,500 for his release. His son had been released on the same date, that is, 27 April 2002. He had not related the circumstances of his son’s release before because he had feared for his life and the lives of his relatives. In November 2002 three officers, including the FSB officer “Tank”, had arrived at his house and had requested him to make a written statement addressed to S.M., the head of the Urus-Martan ROVD, to the effect that he had had no complaints concerning his son’s detention. 78.     On 6 February 2007 the investigator questioned S.M., who submitted that from 10 July 2000 to 18 March 2004 he had served as the head of the Urus-Martan ROVD. He did not know either Mr Ali Khadayev or the second applicant. He had never received any written statements on the matter, nor had he made an order to obtain one. He had no information about Mr   Ali Khadayev’s fate. 79.     On 20 February 2007 the investigator sent a request to the Pyatigorsk passport bureau. According to the response received, Mr Ali Khadayev was not registered in Pyatigorsk. 80.     On 28 February 2007 Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office again suspended the investigation on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The second applicant was informed of the suspension on the same date. 81.     On 27 April 2007 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office resumed the investigation. The second applicant was informed accordingly. 82.     On the same date the investigator sent requests for information to the Urus-Martan district FSB department, the military commander of the Urus-Martan district, the Urus-Martan VOVD, the Urus-Martan ROVD as to whether any special operations had been conducted in Urus-Martan on 10   April 2002 by any units subordinate to these authorities. According to the responses received, none of the authorities had detained Mr Ali Khadayev in April 2002. 83.     On 28 April 2007 the second applicant was again questioned. He confirmed his previous statements. 84.     According to the Government, the involvement of State agents in the disappearance of Mr Ali Khadayev had not been confirmed by the findings of the investigation. Mr Ali Khadayev had not been held in detention facilities in the Chechen Republic, no criminal charges had been brought against him and no special operations had been conducted in respect of him. 85.     Despite the Court’s request to provide a copy of the entire investigation file, the Government only provided thirty-six pages of case-file materials containing decisions to institute, suspend and resume the investigation. The Government stated that these were copies of documents that could be provided to the Court. (b)     The applicants’ submissions 86.     The following submissions were made by the applicants after the second applicant had studied the investigation file with his counsel on 29   June 2007 (see paragraph 101 below). 87.     According to the applicants, the report on the administrative offence, the report on transfer for medical examination and the report on suspension from driving contained a wrong date of birth: 2 November 1977, whereas Mr   Ali Khadayev was born on 13 July 1977. They also contained a wrong address: 92 Sheripova Street, whereas Mr Ali Khadayev’s address was 22   Sheripova Street. In the report on the administrative offence it was stated that the driver admitted to having drunk three glasses of cognac. 88.     The reports were signed by the driver and all the signatures were identical. However, those signatures were not identical to Mr   Ali Khadayev’s signature on his driving licence. Nevertheless, no graphological examination was conducted. 89.     The car in question was registered in the Republic of North Ossetia – Alania, whereas its owner was registered in the Chechen Republic. However, following the investigator’s requests, the republican departments of the interior informed him that such a person was neither registered in the Chechen Republic, nor was there any information that he resided there. However, according to the applicants, no measures were taken to locate either the car or its owner. 90.     Witnesses Mr B. and Mr Mar., present when the report on the administrative offence had been drawn up, later stated that the driver “resembled” the photograph of Mr   Ali Khadayev. However, they did not indicate any particular similar features, apart from the fact that both men were of Caucasus ethnic origin. 91.     The applicants also submitted that, as appeared from the investigation file, the following investigative measures were not taken: (i)   no witnesses were questioned, apart from the first, second, fifth and seventh applicants, not even the witnesses indicated by the applicants; (ii)   no inspection of the crime scene was conducted; (iii) no identification of officers of the Urus-Martan department of the FSB was conducted; (iv) neither the Urus-Martan military commander nor officers of the military commander’s office were questioned. E.     Proceedings concerning the refusal to provide access to the investigation file 92.     On 11 January 2007 the second applicant requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to provide him with a possibility to make copies of the documents enclosed in the investigation file. 93.     On 17 January 2007 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office granted the request in part. The second applicant was granted access to materials pertaining to the investigative actions conducted with his participation. It was also clarified that he would have access to the entire case file upon the completion of the investigation. 94.     On 5 February 2007 the second applicant lodged a complaint before the Urus-Martan Town Court concerning the refusal to provide him with access to the case file and allow him to make copies thereof. 95.     On 7 March 2007 the Urus-Martan Town Court granted the complaint in the part related to access to the case file, but refused it in the part related to the right to make copies. 96.     On 15 March 2007 the second applicant appealed. 97.     On 18 April 2007 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment. 98.     On 5 June 2007 the second applicant and his counsel came to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to study the case file. However, the investigator refused to provide them with the entire case file. 99.     On 6 June 2007 the second applicant complained to the Acting Prosecutor of the Urus-Martan District about the refusal, arguing that it was in breach of the Urus-Martan Town Court’s decision of 7 March 2007. 100.     On 8 June 2007 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Urus-Martan District allowed the complaint in part and ordered the second applicant to be provided with access to the case file. 101.     On 29 June 2007 the second applicant and his counsel studied the case file. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 102.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 40464/02, §   67-69, 10   May 2007). THE LAW I.     LOCUS STANDI 103.     After notice of the application was given to the respondent Government, the parties informed the Court that the first applicant had died on 26 November 2006. 104.     Taking into account that no one expressed a wish to pursue the application in her stead, the Court decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in so far as it concerns the first applicant. II.     The government’s objection regarding non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies 105.     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’ relative had not yet been completed. 106.     The applicants contested that objection. They argued that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective, having produced no meaningful results after six years. 107.     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). 108.     The Court observes that the applicants complained to the law ‑ enforcement authorities shortly after the disappearance of their relative and that the criminal proceedings have been pending since 12