CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 23 avril 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION       CASE OF ISRAILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 4571/04)       JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 17 February 2010 and 19 October 2010 under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court   STRASBOURG   23 April 2009   FINAL   06/11/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Israilova 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 2 April 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 4571/04) 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 sixteen Russian nationals listed in paragraph 6 below (“the applicants”) on 4 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 Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 1 September 2005 the Court decided to give the case priority (Rule   41 of the Rules of Court). 4.     On 13 June 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 5.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court dismissed it.   THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants are: 1) Ms Tabarka Tagirovna Israilova [1] , born in 1953; 2) Mr Shirvan Mikhaylovich Israilov, born in 1940; 3) Mr Tagir Atiyevich Gikhayev, born in 1924; 4) Ms Avlaz Gikhayeva [2] , born in 1929; 5) Mr Alikhan Shirvanovich Israilov [3] , born in 1976; 6) Ms Petimat Shirvanovna Israilova, born in 1975; 7) Mr Magomed Shirvaniyevich Israilov [4] , born in 1993; 8) Ms Roza Abdulkhamidovna Dovtayeva, born in 1951; 9) Ms Fatima Saidselimovna Ismailova, born in 1970; 10) Ms Aminat Adlanovna Dovtayeva, born in 2000; 11) Ms Iman Adlanovna Dovtayeva, born in 1995; 12) Mr Magomed-Khasan Adlanovich Dovtayev, born in 1993; 13) Mr Aslan Dzhunaidovich Dovtayev [5] ; 14) Ms Roza Dzhunidovna Aydamirova [6] , born in 1963; 15) Ms Raisa Dzhunaidovna Dovtayeva, born in 1965; and 16) Ms Madina Dzhunidovna Talkhigova [7] , born in 1979. The applicants live in the villages of Gekhi and Kulary, in the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic. 7.     The first and second applicants are the parents of the fifth, sixth and seventh applicants, as well as of Mr Sharpuddin (also spelled “Sharpudi”) Shirvaniyevich Israilov, born in 1973. The third and fourth applicants are the parents of the first applicant. 8.     The eighth applicant is the mother of the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth applicants, as well as of Mr Adlan Dzhunaidovich Dovtayev, born in 1971. Adlan Dovtayev was married to the ninth applicant; they are the parents of the tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants. A.     Events between 30 December 2002 and 1 January 2003 1.     The applicants’ account 9.     The applicants did not witness the events described below and gained knowledge of them from third persons. (a)     Abduction of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov 10.     On 30 December 2002 Adlan Dovtayev drove a VAZ-21043 car from Grozny to Urus-Martan. He was accompanied by his acquaintances, Mr S.B., Mr K.B., Mr I.B. and Mr L.I. 11.     At about 5 p.m., when the VAZ-21043 car was within 500 metres of federal military check-point no. 18, two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) without registration numbers crossed its path. Passengers of the APCs - unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks - fired at the VAZ-21043 car and forced it to stop. Then they blocked the road with the APCs and forced Adlan Dovtayev, S.B., K.B., I.B. and L.I. to get into one of them. 12.     Meanwhile, Sharpuddin Israilov was driving his VAZ-2103 car from Grozny to Urus-Martan. He was accompanied by police officers, Mr M.A., Mr R. Ya. and Mr A.S. 13.     At about 5.30 p.m., when the VAZ-2103 car was within about 1000 metres of check-point no. 18, a group of armed men forced it to stop. The armed men hit the car with a burst of machine gun fire and wounded Sharpuddin Israilov, R.Ya. and A.S. Then the armed men took Sharpuddin Israilov, M.A., R.Ya. and A.S. out of the car, forced them to the ground and searched them. They then put the four men into the back-seat of the VAZ-2103 and two armed men drove it to the woods where the APCs were parked. 14.     By the time the VAZ-2103 reached the APCs, R. Ya. had died. The armed men threw his dead body on the APC’s roof. Then they took Sharpuddin Israilov, M.A. and A.S. out of the VAZ-2103 car and put them into the APC in which Adlan Dovtayev, S.B., K.B., I.B. and L.I. had been kept. 15.     Some of the armed men got in the two VAZ cars; then all the vehicles drove off in the direction of the village of Khankala. At some point the vehicles stopped, the armed men took R. Ya.’s dead body from the APC’s roof and blew it apart with explosives. The vehicles then drove away. 16.     Eventually the vehicles stopped. The abducted men heard the noise of flying helicopters and concluded that they had been brought to the federal military base in the village of Khankala (“the Khankala base”) and that the armed men belonged to the Russian military. (b)     Detention at the Khankala base 17.     Upon arrival at the Khankala base the servicemen placed Adlan Dovtayev, Sharpuddin Israilov, S.B., K.B., I.B., L.I., M.A. and A.S. inside an iron cabin; through its windows the detainees could see two satellite aerials and a helipad. 18 .     On the following day the servicemen took M.A. out of the iron cabin. They questioned him about his involvement in a terrorist attack on the House of the Government of the Chechen Republic and beat him in the course of the interview. During the same day the servicemen took the other detainees outside for questioning in turn. M.A. did not witness how Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov were questioned. 19.     At about 10 a.m. on 31 December 2002 the servicemen tied Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov’s arms with adhesive tape, blindfolded the two men, put them in an UAZ vehicle and drove away. Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov have not been seen since. 20.     Three hours later the servicemen took two other detainees in a white Niva car, drove away from the Khankala base and threw them out of the car in the forest. After a certain lapse of time they did the same with the four remaining detainees. On 1 January 2003 S.B., K.B., I.B., L.I., M.A. and A.S. returned home. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 21.     At about 5 p.m. on 30 December 2002 unidentified armed men in military-style camouflage uniforms stopped the VAZ-21043 car with registration number C301XB95RUS on the road from Grozny to Urus-Martan near the village of Chernorechye. The armed men violently forced S.B., K.B., I.B., L.I. and Adlan Dovtayev to get out of the car and put them in an APC. 22.     A few minutes later the same unidentified men using firearms stopped at the same place the VAZ-2103 car with registration number C077XO95RUS, in which M.A., R.Ya., A.S. and Sharpuddin Israilov were travelling. M.A. was wounded and R.Ya. died on the spot. Sharpuddin Israilov, M.A. and A.S. were put in the APC in which S.B., K.B., I.B., L.I. and Adlan Dovtayev had been kept. The armed men seized a duty pistol from A.S., a police officer. 23.     Later that day the detained persons were brought to an unidentified place and placed in isolated premises. The unidentified armed men put questions to the detainees concerning the terrorist attack on the House of Government of the Chechen Republic committed on 27 December 2002. 24.     On 31 December 2002 S.B., K.B., I.B., L.I., M.A. and A.S. were placed in a Niva vehicle, taken to different districts of the Chechen Republic and released. Eventually they returned home. 25.     The whereabouts of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov have not been established. Their cars and the duty pistol of A.S. have not been found. 26.     On 4 January 2003 R.Ya.’s dead body was found near the road from Argun to Grozny. 3.     Reports by NGOs 27.     The disappearance of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov was reported by a number of international NGOs. In particular, on 7 April 2003 Human Rights Watch issued a briefing paper to the 59th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights entitled “Human Rights Situation in Chechnya”. The paper cited the case of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov as an example of forced disappearances of the Chechens. It read as follows: “On December 30, 2002, Sharpudi Israilov drove from the village of Tolstoi-Yurt, where he had received his new passport, to his home village of Kulary together with three local police officers. As they passed a checkpoint near Chernoreche, an APC drove out of a nearby forest and opened fire on their vehicle, killing one of the policemen and wounding Israilov and one other man. The soldiers put Israilov and the two policemen in the APC, and threw the third policeman’s dead body on top. Five other detainees, including Adlan Dovtaev, were already inside the APC. According to a relative, Dovtaev had been detained minutes earlier as he passed through the checkpoint. The men were taken to Khankala military base where Russian soldiers interrogated, beat, and tortured them with electric shocks. On January 1, 2003, soldiers took Israilov and Dovtaev away and the other detainees did not see them again. In the next few days, the six other detainees were released and informed Israilov’s and Dovtaev’s relatives that they had been in custody together at Khankala military base. Both families filed a complaint with the procuracy, which opened a criminal investigation. At the time of the interview, the relatives had no information on the fate and whereabouts of Sharpudi Israilov and Adlan Dovtaev.” 28.     On 23 June 2004 Amnesty International issued a media briefing entitled “Russian Federation: Chechen Republic – ‘Normalization’ in whose eyes?”. The paper referred to Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov’s disappearance as follows: “On 30 December 2002, an armoured personnel carrier (APC) in the Urus Martan region tried to stop and reportedly opened fire on two cars, killing one passenger and dragging the remaining eight into the APC. The eight were taken to the headquarters of the Russian Armed Forces in the North Caucasus in Khankala. During the following two days, six of the men were released, after having been reportedly subjected to torture and ill-treatment while being questioned about their alleged contacts with Chechen fighters. Adlan Dovtaev and Shaprudi Israilov were not released and have since ‘disappeared’.” B.     Official investigation into the disappearance of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov 1.     The applicants’ account 29.     Immediately after the abduction of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov their relatives verbally reported the incident to the authorities. 30.     On 2 January 2003 Aldan Dovtayev’s uncle, Mr M. D., wrote to the head of Operational and Search Bureau no. 2 of the Main Department of the Russian Ministry of the Interior for the Southern Federal Circuit ( ОРБ № 2 ГУ МВД России по ЮФО , hereinafter “the ORB-2”) and to the head of the Department of the Federal Security Service for the Chechen Republic (“the Chechen FSB”) asking for assistance in the search for his nephew. On 12   January 2003 the Chechen FSB forwarded his letter to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”). 31 .     The relatives of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov continued to search for the two missing men and requested assistance in establishing their whereabouts from numerous official bodies, such as the Administration of the Chechen Republic, the Russian Ombudsman, the Russian State Duma, the Russian President and the prosecutors’ offices at different levels. The applicants submitted a number of copies of such applications signed by the first, second and eighth applicants, as well as by M.D. Names of other applicants do not appear in any requests to official bodies. In their efforts the first and eighth applicants were assisted by the SRJI. The first, second and eighth applicants also contacted various penitentiary institutions enquiring about their relatives, but to no avail. 32.     On 4 January 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the city of Grozny (“the city prosecutor’s office”) instituted an investigation into Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov’s disappearance and the theft of their cars under Article 126 § 2 (aggravated kidnapping) and Article 162 § 2 (aggravated violent robbery) of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was given the number 30002. 33.     On 4 January 2003 human remains were discovered near the Grozny-Argun road. On the same date the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”) instituted an investigation into the murder of an unidentified person under Article 105 §   1 of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was assigned the number 34/33/0008-03. 34 .     On 4 January 2003 an officer of the district department of the interior acting on an assignment received from an investigator of the prosecutor’s office of the Grozny District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) questioned M.A. and drew up two reports: an explanation and an interview record. In both documents a detailed description of the circumstances of abduction was given. M.A. stated that within a distance of some 500 metres from check-point no. 18 armed men in an APC had fired at the VAZ-2103 car. M.A. and R.Ya. had been wounded. Later M.A. and other men had been put into the APC together with five other persons. When the APC stopped, the abducted men had been placed inside “an iron booth”. It had been very cold inside and the detainees had heard helicopters flying; someone had said they were at the Khankala base. 35 .     The period of the detention was described in the two reports more succinctly and the account given was slightly different. For instance, the explanation referred to the events as follows: “... After a certain lapse of time the door of our small carriage opened and [they] started to take us outside in turn. I was taken outside as well and led to a column standing right in the street, tied up to it and [they] started beating me. While asking different questions, [they] were beating me with truncheons, legs and hands. Having realised that I had nothing to tell, [they] brought me back inside the small carriage and took another detainee out of it, it went on like this for several hours.” The interview record stated as follows: “[They] started taking us outside of the small carriage in turns and, having tied to a column in the street, beat us with truncheons, legs and hands.” 36.     On 6 January 2003 the remains discovered were identified as belonging to R.Ya. Later criminal cases nos. 30002 and 34/33/0008-03 were joined under the number 30002. 37.     On 13 January 2003 the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms (“the Special Envoy”) forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 38.     On 21 January 2003 the ORB-2 forwarded M.D.’s letter to the city prosecutor’s office. 39.     On 27 January 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded M.D.’s letter to the city prosecutor’s office and ordered that it be included in the case file relating to the investigation into the kidnapping of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov. 40.     On 29 January 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son’s kidnapping had been opened on 4 January 2003 but those missing had not yet been found and invited her to send further queries to the city prosecutor’s office. 41.     On 15 February 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office forwarded M.D.’s letter to the district prosecutor’s office. 42.     On 18 February 2003 the Russian Ministry of the Interior informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the ORB-2. 43.     On 25 February 2003 the Russian State Duma forwarded M.D.’s letter to the Prosecutor General’s Office. 44.     On 4, 7 and 27 March 2003 the South Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded M.D.’s letters to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 45.     On 9 March 2003 the city prosecutor’s office granted the second applicant victim status. 46.     On 28 March 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded M.D.’s complaint to the UGA prosecutor’s office. 47.     On 1 April 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded M.D.’s complaint about his nephew’s disappearance to the city prosecutor’s office and ordered that the facts complained of be verified by 18 April 2003. 48.     On 2 April 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office replied to M.D. that his complaint was similar to those previously lodged. 49.     On 5 April 2003 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded M.D.’s letter to the unit prosecutor’s office. 50.     On 9 April 2003 the first applicant requested the city prosecutor’s office to grant her victim status in case no. 30002 and to inform her of the eventual progress in the investigation. 51.     On 14 April 2003 the city prosecutor’s office granted the eighth applicant victim status. 52.     On 15 May 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the first and eighth applicants’ complaint about “actions of federal military servicemen relating to their sons’ detention” to the unit prosecutor’s office. 53 .     On 2 June 2003 the city prosecutor’s office decided, pursuant to the subject-matter jurisdiction rules, to transfer the investigation file in case no.   30002 to the unit prosecutor’s office. The decision described the circumstances of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov’s disappearance and noted that A.S. had identified a hatched area on the territory of the Khankala base under the control of the FSB as the place of their detention. The city prosecutor’s office concluded that the case materials had “objectively proved” that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov had been kidnapped by servicemen and that those missing had been detained at the Khankala base. 54.     On 7 June 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic transferred the case materials to the UGA prosecutor’s office. The covering letter stated that those kidnapped had been brought to the Khankala base where they had been unlawfully held and beaten and that the kidnappers had also killed R.Ya. 55.     On 21 June 2003 the UGA prosecutor’s office accepted case no.   30002 for investigation. It appears that the case was then assigned the number 30/00/0010-03. 56.     On 4 July 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first and second applicants’ letter to the UGA military prosecutor’s office, which, in its turn, sent it to the unit prosecutor’s office on 11 July 2003. 57.     On 12 July 2003 the UGA prosecutor’s office informed the first and second applicants that the persons implicated in their sons’ kidnapping had not been identified and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 58.     On 1 August 2003 the first and eighth applicants requested the UGA prosecutor’s office to inform them of progress in the investigation. 59.     On 7 August 2003 the SRJI requested the UGA prosecutor’s office to take certain investigative measures. On 24 October 2003 the UGA prosecutor’s office replied that the investigation into the kidnapping of Adlan Dovtayev, Sharpuddin Israilov and others in case no. 34/00/0010-03 was pending and requisite steps were being taken to solve the crime. 60.     On 16 March 2004 the first applicant wrote to the Russian President and to the Prosecutor General asking for help to establish her son’s whereabouts. On 29 March 2004 the Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded her complaint to the UGA prosecutor’s office. 61.     On 12 and 13 April 2004 the second applicant wrote to the UGA prosecutor’s office and the Chechen FSB, respectively, asking for help to establish his son’s whereabouts and complaining about the investigative authorities’ inactivity. On 20 April 2004 the second applicant applied for help to the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. 62.     On 10 May 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the investigation in case no. 30/00/0010-03 was under way and that requisite measures were being taken to solve the crime. 63.     On 25 May 2004 the second applicant wrote to the UGA prosecutor’s office complaining about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his son’s kidnapping. 64.     On 2 June 2004 the second applicant wrote to the UGA prosecutor’s office requesting that his relative representing his interests be allowed access to the investigation file. 65.     On 9 June 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son’s kidnapping was pending. 66.     On 21 July 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the investigative measures were being taken to find Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov. 67.     On 10 August 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 68.     On 4 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the abduction of A.S., Adlan Dovtayev, Sharpuddin Israilov and others under Articles 126   §   2 and 162 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code in case no. 30002. 69.     On 4 January 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the murder of R.Ya. under Article 105 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code in case no. 34/33/0008-03. After some urgent investigative measures had been taken, the case was transferred to the district prosecutor’s office and joined to case no. 30002. 70 .     In the course of the investigation M.A. identified and showed to the investigating officers the area inside the post occupied by military units of the Khankala garrison where he had been kept on 30 December 2002 together with the other detainees. 71.     In June 2003 case no. 30002 was transferred from the district prosecutor’s office to the UGA prosecutor’s office for verification of the hypothesis of federal servicemen’s involvement in the events. 72.     On 21 June 2003 case no. 30002 was accepted for investigation by the UGA prosecutor’s office and assigned the number 34/00/0010-03. 73.     On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the servicemen who had been on duty in the area indicated by M.A. between 30 and 31   December 2002. Those servicemen stated that no one had been brought to their military unit or kept in its premises. Their military unit had owned no Niva vehicle. 74.     The investigators verified whether the detainees could have been kept in other military units but found no unregistered detention facilities. 75.     The investigation found cartridges at the crime scene and established the type of firearms from which they had been fired. The cartridges were compared to samples kept in the catalogue of bullets and cartridges; no matches were found. 76.     The VAZ-21043 and VAZ-2103 cars were placed on the federal search list. 77.     The cause of death of R.Ya. had not been established as his relatives had objected to a post mortem examination. 78.     The investigation in case no. 34/00/0010-03, which had so far failed to identify the perpetrators, was ongoing. The implication of any law-enforcement agencies in the crime had not been established. 79.     Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents of the investigation file in case nos. 30002 and 34/00/0010-03. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. 3.     Reports on criminal case no. 34/00/0010-03 issued on unspecified dates 80.     The case file submitted by the applicants contains two undated documents entitled “report on criminal case no. 34/00/0010-03”. 81.     The first one, a one-page undated report, is signed by an investigator of the UGA prosecutor’s office and states that Sharpuddin Israilov was kidnapped by unidentified armed men on 30 December 2002 and that the first applicant was granted victim status. The document also contains the UGA prosecutor’s office’s request addressed to all law-enforcement agencies that the first applicant be rendered assistance in the search for her son. 82 .     It is unclear which authority issued the second document, a seven-page undated report. The report states that on 30 December 2002 “unidentified armed persons” apprehended Adlan Dovtayev, Sharpuddin Israilov and seven other men, put them in two APCs and brought them to the “territory of one of the military units of the Khankala garrison”. It further states: “The case materials reveal the following: At about 5 p.m. on 30 December 2003 a group of the Chechen Department of the FSB carrying out operational and search activities in connection with the explosion of the House of the Chechen Government arrived at check-point no. 18. Around eight persons arrived in white Gazel and green UAZ vehicles. A slender, not tall woman of thirty or thirty-five years of age with the rank of major of the FSB was in charge of them. The group also included a third-rank captain named Dzhaguba ... [The members of the group] were accompanied by two APCs, which then drove away to a distance of 1 km. Information concerning suspicious persons was radio-transmitted from the check-point to military servicemen in the APCs. At first the kidnapped were brought to the building in the city centre... possibly to one of the FSB units, where they were not interrogated. Then they were driven to Khankala, to utility buildings of the military intelligence department of the FSB in the North-Caucasus Region, where they were violently interrogated ... about the explosion of the House of the Government. They were kept in a small metal cabin...” 83.     The report then summarises witness statements made by officers of the FSB, according to which the FSB had not carried out any operations related to the investigation into the attack on the House of the Government of the Chechen Republic and had not detained Adlan Dovtayev, Sharpuddin Israilov and others. Those interrogated also stated that a woman with the rank of major and a man named Dzhakuba had not been employed by the Chechen Department of the FSB. 84.     The report further mentions statements made by other witnesses and victims and lists requests sent to the military prosecutor’s office of the Rostov-on-Don garrison. Lastly, it contains information on the identities of those kidnapped. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 85.     For a summary of relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia , no. 40464/02, §§   67-69, 10   May 2007. THE LAW I.     The government’s objection regarding LOCUS STANDI 86.     The Government suggested that the applicants had probably been unaware of the contents of the application form, which had been signed not by the applicants, but by the lawyers working for SRJI. Moreover, one of the lawyers who had signed the application form had not been mentioned in the powers of attorney issued by the applicants. Referring to the Court’s decision in Vasila and Petre Constantin in the name of Mihai Ciobanu   v. Romania (no. 52414/99, 16   December   2003), the Government concluded that the applicants lacked locus standi in the present case. 87.     The Court observes that the applicants gave the SRJI and its three lawyers powers of attorney, thus duly authorising this NGO to represent their interests in the Strasbourg proceedings, and in particular to sign on their behalf application forms submitted to the Registry. There are no grounds to believe that the applicants issued those powers of attorney against their will. The fact that one of the SRJI lawyers was not named in the powers of attorney does not in itself mean that the applicants lacked locus standi . Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be dismissed. II.     The government’s objection AS TO non-exhaustion of domestic remedies A.     The parties’ submissions 88.     The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation of the disappearance of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov had not yet been completed. The Government further argued that it had been open to the applicants to request the investigators to question particular witnesses, as well as to challenge in court or before a higher prosecutor any actions or omissions of the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities. They also submitted that it had been open to the applicants to lodge civil claims in respect of damage caused by actions of State agencies but they had failed to do so. 89.     The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective. Referring to the other cases concerning such crimes reviewed by the Court, they also alleged that the existence of an administrative practice of non-investigation of crimes committed by State servicemen in the Chechen Republic rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in their case. B.     The Court’s assessment 90.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies which are available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 § 1 also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used. However, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey , 18 December 1996, §§   51 ‑ 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey , no. 41964/98, § 64, 27   June 2006). 91.     It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16   September 1996, §   68, Reports 1996 ‑ IV, and Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan , cited above,   §   65). 92.     The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies. 93.     As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v.   Russia , nos.   57942/00 and 57945/00, §§   119-21). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. 94.     As regards criminal law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that the applicants and M.D. complained to the law enforcement authorities shortly after the kidnapping of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov and that an investigation has been pending since 4   January 2003. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation of the kidnapping. 95 .     The Court considers that the Government’s objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants’ complaints. Thus, it decides to joint this objection to the merits of the case and considers that the issue falls to be examined below. III.     THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A.     The parties’ arguments 96.     The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov were State agents. In support of their complaint they referred to the following facts. The armed men had travelled in the APC, while at the material time only members of federal forces could have used this type of vehicle in the Chechen Republic. The abduction had taken place in the vicinity of federal check-point no. 18. The detained men had been held inside the Khankala military base. 97 .     The Government rejected the applicants’ allegations. They argued that it had not been proved that any State servicemen had been involved in the kidnapping of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov. The fact that the detained persons had been held at the Khankala base had not been proved because M.A. had been the only witness who had recognised the place of the detention, while S.B. and A.S. had not been sure that they could have identified the base. None of the detainees questioned by the investigation had been able to identify the perpetrators. 98.     Considering that M.A., R.Ya. and A.S. had been acting police officers and Sharpuddin Israilov had applied for a police officer’s post, the Government suggested that the kidnappers could have been members of illegal armed groups wishing to take revenge on these men for their loyalty towards the federal forces. The insurgents had asked questions relating to the terrorist attack on the House of the Government in order to mislead the detainees and to create a negative image of the governing bodies of the Chechen Republic. 99.     The letter of the city prosecutor’s office of 2 June 2003 did not prove that any servicemen had been implicated in the crime but only showed that such a hypothesis had been considered by the investigation. The copies of M.A.’s statements to the police officer and the report on the case submitted by the applicants had not been signed by an investigator of the prosecutor’s office and thus should be regarded as inadmissible evidence. The investigation file in case no.   34/00/0010-03 did not contain such documents. B.     The Court’s evaluation of the facts 1.     General principles 100.     In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events, the Court is inevitably confronted when establishing the facts with the same difficulties as those faced by any first-instance court. When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exclusive access to information capable of corroborating or refuting the applicants’ allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations (see Taniş and Others v. Turkey , no. 65899/01, §   160, ECHR   2005 ‑ VIII). 101.     The Court points out that a number of principles have been developed in its case-law when it is faced with the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree. As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence confirming the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” in its assessment of evidence (see Avşar v. Turkey , no.   25657/94, §   282, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII (extracts)). Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. In this context, the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Taniş and Others , cited above, §   160). 102.     The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000). Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis , Ribitsch v.   Austria , 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avşar , cited above, § 283) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place. 103.     Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, such as in cases where persons are under their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Tomasi v.   France , 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11; Ribitsch , cited above, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no.   25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V). 104.     These principles apply also to cases in which, although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities, it is possible to establish that he or she entered a place under their control and has not been seen since. In such circumstances, the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible explanation of what happened on the premises and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities, but left the premises without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty (see Taniş, cited above, § 160). 105.     Finally, when there have been criminal proceedings in the domestic courts concerning those same allegations, it must be borne in mind that criminal law liability is distinct from international law responsibility under the Convention. The Court’s competence is confined to the latter. Responsibility under the Convention is based on its own provisions, which are to be interpreted and applied on the basis of the objectives of the Convention and in the light of the relevant principles of international law. The responsibility of a State under the Convention, for the acts of its organs, agents and servants, is not to be confused with the domestic legal issues of individual criminal responsibility under examination in the national criminal courts. The Court is not concerned with reaching any findings as to guilt or innocence in that sense (see Avşar , cited above, §   284). 2.     Establishment of the facts 106.     The Court notes that despite its requests for a copy of the investigation file into the kidnapping of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov, the Government refused to produce any documents from the case file. The Government referred to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva   v. Russia , no.   7615/02, §   123, ECHR   2006 ‑ ... (extracts)). 107.     In view of this and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government’s cond