CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 juin 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 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s377EF8D6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB3E56D84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s272203FB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } .sAA8DEB86 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s912B221B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; 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 } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s467D3C82 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION       CASE OF KHASUYEVA v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 28159/03)           JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   11 June 2009   FINAL   06/11/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khasuyeva 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, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 28159/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mrs Zura Abdullayevna Khasuyeva (“the applicant”), on 29 July 2003. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was 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 their Agent, Mr   P.   Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights and subsequently by their new representative, Mr G. Matyushkin. 3.     The applicant alleged that her son had disappeared after being detained by servicemen in Chechnya on 30   August 2001. She complained under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13. 4.     By a decision of 25 September 2008, the Court declared the application partially admissible. 5.     The President of the Chamber acceded to the Government’s request not to make publicly accessible the documents from the criminal investigation file deposited with the Registry in connection with the application (Rule 33 of Rules of Court). 6.     The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine ), the parties replied in writing to each other’s observations. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Urus-Martan. The applicant is the mother of Abu Khasuyev, who was born in 1978. A.     The disappearance of the applicant’s son 1.     General background information 8.     At the material time the applicant lived with her son, Abu Khasuyev, his wife and his minor daughter. Abu Khasuyev worked as a physical training teacher. The family lived in a flat in a two-storey block of flats at 20 Sovetskaya Street, Urus-Martan, Chechnya. The applicant submitted a copy of Abu Khasuyev’s passport with the official registration of his domicile at 20 Sovetskaya Street in Urus-Martan. According to the applicant, houses in the street were renumbered at some point later, after the events, and their address was changed to 18 Sovetskaya Street. According to the Government, at the material time the applicant and her family resided at 18 Sovetskaya Street. 9.     The Russian federal forces had had full control over the town of Urus-Martan since December 1999. Numerous military units were stationed in the town and on its outskirts. The various public bodies, including the town administration, the district military commander’s office and law enforcement agencies, were functioning properly. 10.     In August 2001 the federal military authorities placed further checkpoints around the town to ensure that all transport going into or out of Urus-Martan passed through those checkpoints. 11.     At the time of the events described below one of the checkpoints was located just across the street from the applicant’s block of flats. In the vicinity of the applicant’s building there was another checkpoint of the Russian military forces, the town administration and the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (the ROVD). Several police officers stood watch on the roof of the ROVD round the clock. According to the applicant, her house could be clearly seen from the rooftop. The applicant produced a photograph of her street and indicated the location of the checkpoints and the respective administrative buildings. 2.     Information submitted by the applicant 12.     According to the applicant, on 30 August 2001 she was at work. Her son was at home. He was sick and was staying in bed with an intravenous drip. His wife, daughter, and one of the applicant’s sisters were also at home. 13.     Around 1 p.m. the applicant’s daughter-in-law was about to leave for a local food market. When she opened the door a group of about ten men in camouflage uniforms rushed into the flat. They had machine guns and sniper rifles with silencers (“ vintorez” ). They spoke unaccented Russian. All but two of them were wearing masks. Those without masks were fair-haired, blue-eyed and had a Slavic appearance. The applicant’s relatives thought that the intruders were Russian military servicemen. 14.     The intruders did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions, gave no explanations, and quickly searched the flat. 15.     The applicant’s sister lost consciousness at the sight of the men. The men pointed their machine guns at the applicant’s daughter-in-law and her three-month-old daughter. The applicant’s daughter-in-law heard the intruders enter Abu Khasuyev’s room and order him to lie on the floor. After that she saw the intruders taking her husband outside. He was barefoot, a T-shirt which he was wearing was pulled over his head and his hands were behind his head. 16.     The applicant’s daughter-in-law asked one of the men without masks why they were arresting Abu Khasuyev and where they were taking him. In response the officer asked her what relation she was to the arrested person, his wife or sister. The applicant’s daughter-in-law replied that she was Abu Khasuyev’s wife, and the man ordered the others not to let her out and to block the flat door. After that they left. The applicant’s daughter-in-law managed to run out into the entrance hall of the block of flats. The intruders then blocked the hall’s entrance door from the outside; the applicant’s daughter-in-law could not get out and started screaming. 17.     The men took Abu Khasuyev outside and forced him into a white VAZ-2107 (“ Zhiguli” ) car parked next to the block of flats, a few metres from the checkpoint. According to eyewitnesses, the officers who were on duty at the checkpoint saw what was happening, but made no attempt to interfere. Two intruders placed Abu Khasuyev between them, and another one ordered the driver to go to “the base”. One of the intruders stood next to the car, pointing his gun at the gathering crowd, and ordering them to keep away. He shouted that the detainee had a grenade. 18.     When the applicant’s daughter-in-law managed to get outside she ran to the white VAZ-2107 car and saw her husband in the car with his hands tied behind his head. He had no grenade. A red VAZ-2121 (“ Niva ”) car with a man in military uniform and a UAZ vehicle (“ Tabletka” ) with several masked men in camouflage uniforms were parked nearby. All the vehicles had tinted windows and no registration plates. The vehicles then left in a northerly direction. 19.     The applicant has had no news of her son since 30   August 2001. 20.     In support of her statement concerning the circumstances of Abu Khasuyev’s abduction the applicant submitted the following documents: a statement by Mrs R.Zh. dated 8 June 2004; a statement by Mrs A.E. dated 14 July 2004; a statement by Mrs A.Kh. dated 20 July 2004; a statement by herself dated 3 July 2005 and a statement by Mr R.D. dated 18 July 2005. 3.     Information submitted by the Government 21.     The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicant. They stated that it had been established that “on 30 August 2001, at about 1 p.m., unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and masks, armed with automatic weapons, abducted A. Kh. Khasuyev from 18   Sovetskaya Street in the town of Urus-Martan, Chechnya”. B.     The applicant’s search for Abu Khasuyev 22.   Immediately after Abu Khasuyev’s abduction, the applicant’s daughter-in-law found the applicant and informed her about the events. 23.     On 30 August 2001 the applicant went to the ROVD and submitted a written complaint about her son’s abduction to the head of the ROVD. The officer told her that he was unaware that her son had been taken away. 24.     On the same date the applicant went to the military commander’s office; a duty officer informed her that the military commander was away. 25.     On 31 August 2001 the applicant requested in writing that the military commander, the head of the ROVD, and the head of the Urus-Martan administration assist her in establishing her son’s whereabouts. 26.     On 1 September 2001 the applicant spoke to the military commander, General Gadzhiyev. He told her that he had been away from Urus-Martan on 30 August 2001, was unaware of the incident, and invited her to come again on 3 September 2001. 27.     On 3 September 2001 the applicant again met Mr Gadzhiyev and enquired about her son. The military commander asked her whether she was talking about someone from the two-storey block of flats. The applicant answered in the affirmative and then Mr Gadzhiyev told her that the person in question was not detained in the military commander’s office and had probably been taken to the Chernokozovo detention centre. 28.     On the following day the applicant went to Chernokozovo and spoke with the head of the detention centre, who informed her that Abu Khasuyev was not listed among the detainees. 29.     On 20 September 2001 the applicant spoke with the deputy head of the Chechnya Department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) who assured her that they had not arrested her son and that they were unaware of his whereabouts. He also stated that it was difficult to find out who had detained Abu Khasuyev, as there were a lot of different military units in Urus-Martan. 30.     Since then the applicant has repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies, including prosecutors of various levels, administrative authorities of Chechnya, the ROVD, the Urus-Martan military commander, the Chechnya FSB, the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms, a deputy of the State Duma, and the Russian President. She has also addressed herself to the OSCE and various NGOs, including Memorial and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In her letters to the authorities the applicant referred to the circumstances of her son’s abduction and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. She also stated that her son was a school teacher and had never participated in illegal armed groups. Those enquiries mostly remained unanswered, or only formal responses were given by which the respective requests were forwarded to various prosecutors’ offices “for examination”. 31.     According to the applicant, she and her daughter-in-law also participated in examinations of unidentified corpses found in Chechnya. C.     The official investigation into the disappearance of Abu Khasuyev 1.     Information submitted by the applicant 32.     At some point in October 2001 an investigator from the ROVD visited the applicant’s home and informed her that a search for her son had commenced on 10 October 2001. Then the investigator questioned the applicant, her daughter-in-law and one of the neighbours. According to the applicant, the questions related mostly to Abu Khasuyev’s personality rather than to the circumstances of his disappearance. 33.     Some time later in October 2001 the applicant was summoned to the ROVD; an investigator, who introduced himself as Sasha, told her that her son was dead. In reply to the applicant’s request for proof, the investigator referred to a certain register in which there was an entry to this effect. Some time later she spoke to an officer from the ROVD, who showed her the register and read out from it that “Khasuyev had been killed”. During the ensuing conversation the applicant found out that the investigator had mistakenly been referring to another person. After that the investigator assured her that the search for her son would be continued. 34.     On 29 October 2001 the Chechnya FSB informed the applicant that they had not detained Abu Khasuyev, and that they were unable to establish his whereabouts. 35.     On 12 November 2001 the military prosecutor of the North Caucasus Military Circuit forwarded the applicant’s complaint about her son’s abduction to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102. 36.     On 22 December 2001 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office (the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office) opened a criminal investigation into Abu Khasuyev’s disappearance under Article 126 § 1 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The file was assigned no. 25170. 37.     On 9 January 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 38.     On 22 February 2002 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about this decision on 3   December 2002 (see   paragraph 42 below). 39.     On 18 April 2002 the Department of Administration of Punishments of the Volgograd Region informed the applicant that Abu Khasuyev had not been detained in their pre-trial detention centres or penitentiary facilities. 40.     On 1 July 2002 the Chechnya representative in the State Duma referred the applicant’s complaint that her son had been abducted to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. 41.     On 2 October 2002 the Department of the Prosecutor General’s office in the Southern Federal Circuit forwarded the applicant’s request for assistance in establishing Abu Khasuyev’s whereabouts to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office for examination. 42.     On 3 December 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the criminal investigation had been suspended on 22 February 2002, then resumed on 20 November 2002, and that it was currently in progress. 43.     On 24 March 2003 (in the submitted documents the date is also given as 25 March 2003) the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicant was not informed about this decision. 44.     On 5 April 2003 the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (the UGA) forwarded the applicant’s complaint that her son had been abducted to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102. On 16   and 22 May 2003 the latter informed the applicant that “[her] request did not contain any information concerning the involvement of military personnel in the abduction of Abu Khasuyev”. 45.     On 2 September 2003 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor that her son had been abducted. In her letter she stated that Abu Khasuyev had been abducted by representatives of law-enforcement agencies, who had arrived in a red VAZ-2121 car and a white VAZ-2107 car with blackened windows and without registration numbers and that her son had been taken away in the white car. Further, the applicant complained that the officers from the military commander’s office who had been on duty that day had failed to stop the abductors. The applicant pointed out that she had spoken with the military commander General Gadzhiyev, who had told her that her son had probably been taken to the Chernokozovo detention centre. No response was given to this complaint. 46.     On 4 October 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 47.     On 20 January 2004 the investigators informed the applicant that on 4 October 2003 they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case. 48.     On 27 April 2004 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s request for access to the investigation file, stating that access could be granted only upon completion of the criminal investigation. 49.     On 7 June 2004 the investigators informed the applicant that they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case owing to the expiration of the time-limits and failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 50.     On 7 August 2004 the applicant requested the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office to inform her about the progress of the investigation in the criminal case. No response was given to this request. 51.     On 15 August 2004 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation in criminal case no.   25170. The applicant was informed about the decision on the same date. 52.     On 3 December 2004 the applicant requested the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office to inform her of progress in case no. 25170; to question the officers who had been manning the checkpoint located in the vicinity of the applicant’s house and to resume the investigation. No response was given to this request. 53.     On 15 June 2004 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court (“Town Court”) that the investigation in the criminal case was ineffective. She requested the court to order the prosecutor’s office to resume the criminal investigation, carry it out in a thorough and effective manner, take necessary investigative measures, and authorise her access to the investigation file. 54.     On 16 June 2005 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor that her son had been abducted by servicemen of the Urus-Martan power structures ( силовых структур ). In her letter she pointed out that employees of the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office had witnessed the abduction as they had been on watch duty in close proximity to her house. The applicant pointed out that she had already submitted her account to this effect to the investigative authorities but the latter had failed to establish the whereabouts of her abducted son. The applicant complained about the lack of information concerning the investigation and requested to be informed in writing of what measures were being taken by the prosecutor’s office. No response was given to this complaint. 55.     On 29 June 2004 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s complaint in part and ordered the prosecutor’s office to carry out a thorough and effective investigation. As regards the request for access to the investigation file, the court stated that the investigation was still pending and therefore the applicant had no right of access to the file. On 17 August 2004 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal. 56.     On 15 September 2004 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about the decision on the same date. 57.     On 21 October 2005 the applicant again complained to the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office. She stated that she had not received any response to her request of 16 June 2005 and pointed out that the lack of information concerning the criminal proceedings precluded her from appealing against the actions of the prosecutor’s office, which had been procrastinating in the investigation. The applicant requested to be informed about the progress of the investigation and asked the authorities to resume the investigation in the criminal case. No response was given to this complaint. 58.     On 25 October 2005 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation in the criminal case owing to “the need to carry out a number of investigative actions aimed at solving the crime”. The applicant was informed about this decision on the same date. 59.     On 25 November 2005 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about this decision on the same date. 60.     On 19 June 2006 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation in the criminal case. The applicant was informed about the decision on the same date. The applicant was not informed about further developments in the criminal case. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 61.     Referring to the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s office, the Government stated in their initial submission that upon receipt of the applicant’s written complaint about her son’s abduction, on 22   December 2001 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office had opened criminal case no. 25170 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). At the same time, in their later submission, the Government stated that on 27 October 2001 the district prosecutor’s office opened another investigation into the same events and the criminal case file was assigned no.   25140. The investigation of both criminal cases was joined in one criminal case in December 2006 (see paragraph 75 below). 62.     According to the Government, the criminal investigation into the abduction of Abu Khasuyev had been suspended on a number of occasions, specifically: on 22 February 2002, 24 March and 4 October 2003, 15   September 2004, 25 November 2005, 19 July 2006 and 12 January 2007, and had been resumed on 20 November 2002, 4 September 2003, 15 August 2004, 25 October 2005, 19 June and 12 December 2006 and 10 April 2008; but it had failed to identify those responsible for the abduction of the applicant’s son. However, the applicant had been duly informed about all suspensions and resumptions of the criminal proceedings. 63.     According to the Government, on 9 January 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no. 25170 and questioned. Nonetheless, in November 2006 the applicant was again granted victim status, this time in criminal case no.   25140, and questioned again (see paragraph 74 below). On both occasions she provided similar statements by describing in detail the circumstances of her son’s abduction. She stated that her son had been abducted by military servicemen, who had arrived in a red VAZ-2121 car, a white VAZ-2107 car, and a UAZ vehicle; that the abductors had spoken unaccented Russian and refused to explain the reasons for her son’s abduction. 64.     On 6 September 2004 the investigators again questioned the applicant. Her witness statement was similar to the one provided on 9   January 2002. In addition, the applicant stated that although the servicemen who had been manning the checkpoint across the street from her house had witnessed the abduction, they had failed to stop the perpetrators; that the military commander General Gadzhiyev had told her that Abu Khasuyev had been taken to the detention centre in Chernokozovo and that the administration of the detention centre had denied having him as one of their detainees. 65.     On 8 September 2004 the investigators questioned the wife of Abu Khasuyev, Mrs R.Zh., who stated that at 1.30 p.m. on 30 August 2001 a group of about ten armed men in camouflage uniform had broken into the flat. They spoke unaccented Russian. Abu Khasuyev had been sick and stayed at home that day. The intruders had taken him away without providing any explanations. The men had arrived in a red VAZ-2121 car, a white VAZ-2107 car, and a UAZ vehicle; none of the vehicles had had registration numbers. The witness had seen the intruders forcing her husband into the white VAZ car and the cars driving away in the direction of Grozny. 66.     On 29 October 2005 the investigators again questioned the applicant. She explained that she had nothing to add to the statements she had given previously. 67.     The Government further submitted that on 19 June 2006 the district prosecutor had approved a plan of measures to be taken by the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son. According to the plan, a number of requests for investigative measures had been issued to various law enforcement bodies; however, those efforts had failed to produce any tangible results. 68.     On 20 June 2006 the investigators forwarded a number of requests for information to various detention centres concerning the whereabouts of Abu Khasuyev. According to their replies, the applicant’s son was not detained in any of those centres. 69.     On 22 June 2006 the investigators questioned Mrs A.Kh., who stated that at about 1 p.m. on 30 August 2001 she had arrived at the applicant’s house. Abu Khasuyev was ill and had stayed at home that day. According to the witness, she had been changing in one of the rooms when two armed men in camouflage uniforms, one of them masked, walked into the room. When Mrs A.Kh. saw the men she fainted. When she regained consciousness the intruders had already gone, taking Abu Khasuyev with them. 70.     On 28 June 2006 the investigators questioned an officer of the ROVD, Mr R.G., who stated that in October 2002 the applicant had not requested any information from him and that he had not shown to her any registration logs. 71.     On 28 June 2006 the investigators also questioned Mr R.D., who stated that at lunchtime on 30 August 2001 he and his friend Mr Kh.O. had been walking past the two-storey apartment building at   20 Sovetskaya Street and past the checkpoint situated across from the building when they saw men in military uniforms armed with automatic weapons; two of them were putting a tall young man who was barefoot and had his T-shirt pulled over his head into a white VAZ-2107 car. The third man, who was the driver, had ordered: “To the base, to the base”. Another armed man had been standing next to the car, pointing his machine gun around and yelling that everyone should keep away. The witness and Mr Kh.O. had been standing about five metres away and could observe closely what was happening. Another two vehicles had been parked nearby; a military UAZ vehicle had been on the left side of the road and a VAZ-2121 car on the right. After the young man had been placed in the car, all three vehicles had driven away in a northerly direction. 72.   According to the Government, on 28 June 2006 the investigators also questioned Mrs A.E., who stated that at about 10 a.m. on 30 August 2001 she had been at home. Suddenly, she had heard screaming from the applicant’s flat and gone to the yard. She had seen a group of men armed with automatic weapons taking a young man outside with a T-shirt pulled over his head. Some time later she had found out that this young man was Abu Khasuyev. 73.     On 6 July 2006 the investigators conducted a crime scene examination in the applicant’s flat. Nothing was collected from the scene. 74.     On 8 November 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no.   25410 and questioned again. The applicant provided a statement similar to the ones she had provided on 9 January 2002 and 6   September 2004. 75.     On 12 December 2006 the investigators joined the investigation of criminal cases no. 25140 and no.   25170. The joined case file was assigned no.   25170. 76.     On 12 December 2006 the investigators again forwarded a number of requests to various law enforcement agencies asking for assistance in carrying out investigative measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Abu Khasuyev and identifying the perpetrators. According to their responses, the efforts made by the agencies in connection with those requests had failed to produce any tangible results. 77.     On 14 December 2006 the investigators questioned Mr S.G., who stated that in the evening of 30 August 2001 he had found out that a group of unidentified men armed with automatic weapons had abducted Abu Khasuyev. 78.     On 15 December, 22 December and 27 December 2006, and probably on 25 June 2007 (the date is illegible) the investigators questioned Mrs A.G, Mr L.M. Mr I.I. and Mr M. Sh., each of whom provided a statement similar to that of Mr S.G. 79.     On 22 June 2007 applicant was questioned again. Her statement was similar to the ones provided on 9 January 2002, 6 September 2004 and 8   November 2006. 80.     On 10 April 2008 a supervisory prosecutor from the Chechnya prosecutor’s office ordered the investigators to resume the suspended investigation in the criminal case. The decision stated, inter alia, the following: “...On 12 January 2007 the investigator of the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office decided to suspend the investigation in criminal case no.   25170 for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators... This decision is unlawful and unsubstantiated, as in violation of Article 208   §   5 of the Criminal Procedure Code the investigation failed to take all possible measures in the absence of the culprits. For instance, the investigation failed to establish or question the witnesses to Abu Khasuyev’s abduction; to question the former head of the ROVD, as well as the head of the criminal search division of the ROVD and the head of the public safety division of the ROVD... during the questioning of Z. Khasuyeva the investigators failed to clarify a number of important circumstances surrounding her son’s abduction and take other possible investigative and operational search measures. The decision to suspend the investigation in the criminal case should be overruled and the case should be returned [for further investigation]...” 81.     On the same date the supervising prosecutor issued a decision ordering the investigation to take the following actions in the criminal case: “1. To make a plan of the investigative and operational search measures ... 2. To establish the identity of eyewitnesses to Abu Khasuyev’s abduction and question them about the incident. 3. ....to question the former head of the ROVD, as well as the head of the criminal search division of the ROVD and the head of the public safety division of the ROVD about the circumstances of the case; also, to find out what measures they had taken to establish the identity of the armed men who had been driving around in Urus-Martan on 30 August 2001 in a white VAZ-2107 or VAZ-2106 car, red Niva car [VAZ-2121] and a khaki UAZ Tabletka vehicle and had abducted Abu Khasuyev from his house. 4. ...to question Mr G. Gadzhiyev, the former Urus-Martan district military commander, who, according to Z.Khasuyeva...., knew who had arrested her son Abu Khasuyev and told her that her son had probably been taken to the remand detention centre in Chernokozovo; [the investigators] should establish officers of which law enforcement agency had been manning the checkpoint located across from Z. Khasuyeva’s house... 5...to establish to the owners of the white VAZ-2107 or VAZ-2106, the red Niva car and the khaki UAZ Tabletka. 6. To establish which power structures had stationed people in August 2001 in Urus-Martan and to find out whether they used VAZ-2107 or VAZ-2106, the red Niva car and the khaki UAZ Tabletka. 7. ....to establish who was on duty at the checkpoint situated across the street from the house of Z. Khasuyeva on 30 August 2001 at about 1 p.m.....; 8. ...to request from the UGA information concerning special operations on 30   August 2001 in Urus-Martan and to find out whether any military orders to conduct operational-search measures had been issued [by them] to the units stationed [at the time] in Urus-Martan. 9. To request the same information from the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defence. 10. To question again Z. Khasuyeva and find out the following: -which relatives of hers had received information “from unofficial sources” that after the abduction her son Abu Khasuyev had been taken to the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office where he had been detained on the third floor?..... 11. To question the witnesses.... about the persons Z. Khasuyeva referred to as “unofficial sources of information”... 12. To establish .... the reasons for the failure [to act] by... the officers of the ROVD who.... had been on duty on the roof of the ROVD on 30 August 2001, from where [they] could clearly see the house.... 13. ... to question Mr Kh.O., who on 30 August 2001 was walking down Sovetskaya Street in Urus-Martan with Mr R.D. and saw the abduction of Abu Khasuyev..... 14. ....to verify whether any information concerning Abu Khasuyev is available in the Main Information Centre of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior, the Main Informational and Analytical Centre of the Russian Ministry of the Interior and its Data Base... 17. ... if there is sufficient information about the involvement of servicemen of the Russian federal forces ...to forward the case ... under the rules of jurisdiction... to an appropriate military investigating authority...” 82.     On 9 June 2008 the supervising prosecutor decided that the investigation in the criminal case should be conducted by a joint investigation group consisting of investigators from the public prosecutor’s office and the military prosecutor’s office. The reasons for this decision were as follows: “...upon examination of the criminal case file it was established that there were sufficient grounds to assume that the crime [the abduction of Abu Khasuyev] had been committed with the participation of servicemen of the Russian federal forces, and this had been confirmed, in particular, by the use of armoured vehicles during the crime and by the carrying out of the special operation...” 83.     According to the Government, the investigation into the abduction of Abu Khasuyev was still in progress. From the information obtained by the investigation it followed that Abu Khasuyev had not been detained by the Russian federal forces and that no special operations had been carried out in his respect. 3.     Documents submitted by the Government 84.     After the partial admissibility decision of 25 September 2008, the Court again requested the Government to submit a copy of the investigation file into the disappearance of Abu Khasuyev. 85.     In response to the Court’s request, the Government submitted a substantial number of documents from the investigation file, comprising two volumes and running to 416 pages. The Government requested the Court to apply Rule 33   §   3 of Rules of Court concerning confidentiality of the submitted documents and to restrict public access to the documentation submitted. In their request the Government stated that the criminal investigation was still in progress and that public disclosure of the documents submitted could be detrimental to the interests of participants in the criminal proceedings. 86.   The Government further stated that a copy of the entire investigation file could not be submitted to the Court owing to the absence of any guarantees on the part of the Court of non-disclosure of the secret data contained in the investigation file. In this respect the Government referred to Article 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, since the file contained information concerning the participants in the criminal proceedings. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 87.     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 PRELIMINARY OBJECTION A.     Arguments of the parties 88.     The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the investigation into the disappearance of Abu Khasuyev was still in progress. They further submitted that the applicant had the right to appeal against the investigators’ decisions to supervising prosecutors or domestic courts. 89.     The applicant contested that objection. She contended that the Government had not indicated which particular domestic remedy she had not availed herself of and further stated that the Government’s argument to the effect that the investigation was pending related to the merits of the present case rather than to the question of its admissibility. B.     The Court’s assessment 90.     In the present case, the Court took no decision about the exhaustion of domestic remedies at the admissibility stage, having found that this question was too closely linked to the merits. It will now proceed to examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia , no. 60272/00, §§   73-74, 12 October 2006). 91.     As regards the Government’s objection concerning the pending criminal investigation, that is criminal law remedies, the Court observes that the applicant complained to the law enforcement authorities after the abduction of her son and that the investigation has been pending since 27   October 2001. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation. 92.     The Court considers that this limb of the Government’s preliminary objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaints. Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention. II.     THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A.     The parties’ arguments 93.     The applicant argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Abu Khasuyev had been detained by representatives of the Russian federal forces, this fact being confirmed by eyewitness statements. In particular, she stated that the abduction of Abu Khasuyev had been carried out by a large group of Russian-speaking representatives of law enforcement agencies who had been armed and driving the military cars. The applicant’s son had been detained in the daytime, in close proximity to the Russian federal forces’ checkpoint, in the town centre of Urus-Martan, which had been under the full control of the authorities, who nonetheless had failed to take any measures to stop the abduction. She further stressed that Abu Khasuyev had been taken away in life-threatening circumstances, given the widespread practice of forced disappearances in Chechnya during the period in question. The applicant thus argued that, in view of the above and given that her son had been missing for almost five years at the time of the submission of the observations, he may be presumed to have been deprived of his life by representatives of the State. 94.     The Government argued that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the Russian federal forces had been involved in the abduction of Abu Khasuyev. They argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Abu Khasuyev’s right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, had been breached by representatives of the Russian power structures. The Government further claimed that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators. B.     Article 38 § 1   (a) and consequent inferences drawn by the Court 95.     In their observations made before the decision on admissibility, the Government stated that it would be contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for them to submit the complete investigation file. After the decision on admissibility of the application the Government provided an update on the progress of the investigation and 416 pages of documents from the file, including copies of the investigators’ decisions, which contained descriptions of the investigative steps that had been taken, and a number of witness statements. They argued that other documents from the investigation files could not be submitted and again referred to Article   161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 96.     The Court has on many occasions reiterated that the Contracting States are required to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court and that a failure on a Government’s part to submit information which is in their hands, without a satisfactory explanation, may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article   38   §   1   (a) of the Convention (see Timurtaÿ v. Turkey , no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI). 97.     The Court recalls notes that in previous cases it has already found a reference to Article 161 of the Criminal Procedural Code insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva v. Russia , no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)). It therefore regrets the Government’s position in respect of the remaining documents from the investigation file and does not find that reference to the above-mentioned provision of the national legislation can serve as a basis for withholding documents requested by the Court. 98.     At the same time, the Court reiterates that Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention is applicable to cases which have been declared admissible. It notes that the Government have submitted a large part of the procedural documents from the criminal investigation file, as requested by the Court. These documents contain a detailed description of the investigation and witness statements which have made a significant ly contribution ed to the examination of the case. As to the remainder, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government’s failure to disclose the entire contents of the file. 99.     In view of these inferences and the circumstances of the present case, the Court does not find it necessary to draw separate conclusions under Article   38   §   1   (a) of the Convention. C.     The Court’s evaluation of the facts 100.     The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia , no. 69481/01, §§   103-109, 27 July 2006). The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ireland v.   the United Kingdom , 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25). In view of this, and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw infer