CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 juillet 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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8DD3F840 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s272203FB { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s20AFED81 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s51BE140A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2B0F795E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 KARIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 29851/05)         JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   16 July 2009     FINAL   10/12/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Karimov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 25 June 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 29851/05) 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 four Russian nationals listed below (“the applicants”), on 12 August 2005. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr A. Savenkov, First Deputy Minister of Justice, and Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 26 March 2008 the Court decided to apply Rule   41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application and 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. 4.     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 5.     The applicants are: 1) Mr Usman Karimov, born in 1949, 2) Ms Rikhant Karimova, born in 1957, 3) Ms Luiza Karimova, born in 1978 and 4) Ms Seda Amayeva, born in 1985. 6.     The applicants are Russian nationals. The first applicant lives in Grozny, Chechnya, and the other three applicants live in the village of Proletarskoye (also known as Proletarskiy), in Grozny district, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“the SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. 7.     The first and the second applicants are the parents of Arbi Karimov, who was born in 1981. The third applicant is his sister and the fourth applicant is his wife. 8.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     Disappearance of Arbi Karimov and the subsequent events 1.     The applicants’ account 9.     At the material time the applicants lived in Proletarskoye, in Grozny district, Chechnya. The settlement was under the full control of Russian federal forces and the area was under a curfew. Russian military checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. 10.     On the night of 11 January 2003 (in the submitted documents the date is also referred to as 12 January 2003) the applicants and Arbi Karimov were sleeping in their house at 32 Belostotskaya Street. At about 2 a.m. a group of military vehicles arrived at the street. A Ural military lorry and two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) parked next to the house of the applicants’ neighbours I. Two other APCs and another Ural military vehicle with Russian military servicemen in it drove up to the applicants’ yard. One APC drove through the gates and a group of about twenty armed masked men in helmets broke down the entrance door and rushed into the applicants’ house. 11.     The noise woke the first applicant and he approached the servicemen. They hit him and took him into the kitchen. There they forced the first applicant down on to the floor and two of the servicemen put their feet on him to keep him on the floor. The intruders dispersed the family members into different rooms, pointed their guns at them, and ordered them to lie face down. When the second applicant asked the servicemen what was going on she was ordered to be quiet. 12.     The intruders neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants heard them using the code name “Vityaz” among themselves. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen. 13.     The servicemen put handcuffs on the first applicant and on his son Arbi Karimov. The fourth applicant and her husband Arbi Karimov were placed together in the living room. Every time Arbi Karimov tried to move the serviceman on guard kicked him in the torso. After that the servicemen took Arbi Karimov outside; they did not allow him to put on warm clothing. 14.     A few minutes later the servicemen took the first applicant outside where he saw his son in the Ural military vehicle. The first applicant heard Arbi Karimov saying to the servicemen: “Why are you taking my father? He is an elderly man”. After that the officers talked among themselves and released the first applicant. Having spent about twenty minutes outside, the first applicant was taken back into the house. On his way into the house the first applicant saw that his son had been taken out of the Ural vehicle and put into one of the APCs. In the house the servicemen took off the first applicant’s handcuffs. They ordered the applicants to stay inside, threatening to shoot them and blow up the house if the applicants attempted to go outside. 15.     Having taken away Arbi Karimov the servicemen started searching the applicants’ house. There was no electricity and the servicemen used torches. The servicemen took a number of items of the applicants’ property, including a couch, pillows, bed linen and fabrics. They also took a number of personal documents, including the first applicant’s passport and his pensioner’s identity card, and the passports of the fourth applicant, Arbi Karimov and the first applicant’s other son Umar Karimov (brother of Arbi Karimov). The applicants’ belongings were loaded into the military vehicles, which was witnessed by a number of the applicants’ neighbours. 16.     After the vehicles left the house, the applicants immediately followed them. On the outskirts of the village the vehicles stopped and the servicemen opened fire in the applicants’ direction. The vehicles spent about twenty minutes there and drove away in the direction of the route to the Staropromyslovskiy district of Chechnya. 17.     The description of the events of the night of 11 January 2003 is based on two hand-drawn maps of the premises, on accounts provided by the applicants and their neighbours to the applicants’ representatives: on an account by the fourth applicant on 26 September 2005 ; on an account (undated) by witness Ms Um.; on an account (undated) by witness Ms Im.; on an account (undated) by witness Mr B.; and on an article published in the August-September 2003 issue of the magazine Zashchita prav i svobod cheloveka ( Защита прав и свобод человека ). 18.     In the morning of 11 January 2003 the applicants started their search for Arbi Karimov. They spoke to a number of local residents who lived close to the route to the Staropromyslovskiy district. The residents confirmed that on the night of 11   January 2003 they had seen that some of the military vehicles had driven in the direction of Grozny while others had left in the direction of the area called Solyenaya Balka, in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Chechnya. 19.     On the same day the applicants found out that Russian military forces had also detained two other residents of their village, who had not been seen since. In addition, on the same morning, at the place where the vehicles had halted for twenty minutes on the night of 11 January 2003, residents of Proletarskoye found the mutilated corpse of Mr R. S., who had been abducted on 6 January 2003 in Grozny. It appears that the local authorities conducted a crime scene investigation there. 20.     On an unspecified date in January 2003 the applicants complained about Arbi Karimov’s abduction to the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross (the Red Cross) in Grozny. On 26 May 2003 representatives of the organisation visited the applicants and showed them a letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102. The letter stated that on an unspecified date an illegal bandit group had been discovered in Proletarskoye and in connection with this the Russian law enforcement agencies had conducted a special operation in the village on 12   January 2003. As a result of the operation Mr I. and Mr Umar Karimov had been killed while resisting arrest. Out of fear for their personal safety, the Red Cross representatives refused to provide the applicants with a photocopy of the letter, but they allowed them to make a handwritten copy of it. 21.     Upon receiving the information provided in the letter, the applicants complained about their relative’s abduction to a number of local authorities. About two weeks later, on an unspecified date, around 4 a.m., a group of armed military men arrived at the applicants’ house in military UAZ vehicles. They told the applicants that they were conducting an identity check. This time the servicemen did not detain anybody and did not take anything. 22.     Some time later the applicants received a letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 stating that the authorities’ letter to the Red Cross had incorrectly stated the names of those killed during the operation of 12 January 2003. 23.     About three months after receiving the letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 the second applicant wrote to a number of local law enforcement agencies. In her letters she complained about the abduction of her son Arbi Karimov and pointed out that the passport of her other son, Umar Karimov, had been taken away by Russian military servicemen during the abduction. 24.     After that, on 30 December 2003, at about 6 a.m. a group of military men in four military UAZ vehicles again arrived at the applicants’ house for an identity check. They did not detain anyone and did not take anything from the house. 25.     The applicants also contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the President of the Russian Federation, the Envoy of the President of the Russian Federation for Ensuring Human Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic (the Envoy), the Chechen administration, military commanders’ offices and prosecutors’ offices at different levels, describing in detail the circumstances of their relative’s abduction and asking for help in establishing his whereabouts. The applicants retained copies of a number of those letters and submitted them to the Court. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 26.   The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. According to their observations of 22 July 2008, “In connection with the abduction by unidentified persons of A.U. Karimov on 11 January 2003 in the settlement of Proletarskoye in Grozny district, the Grozny district prosecutor’s office initiated criminal case no.   42009 under Article 126   §   2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping).” B.     The search for Arbi Karimov and the official investigation 1.     Information submitted by the applicants 27.     On 11 January 2003 the applicants complained about the abduction of Arbi Karimov to the Grozny district department of the interior (the Grozny ROVD), to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office (the district prosecutor’s office), and to the Grozny district military commander’s office (the district military commander’s office). 28.     Between 11 and 14 January 2003 the applicants complained about Arbi Karimov’s abduction to the Envoy, stating that their relative had been taken away by military servicemen who had arrived in APCs and Ural vehicles and that the abductors also had taken away valuables and family members’ passports. On 15 January 2003 the Envoy forwarded the applicants’ complaint to the Chechnya prosecutor. 29.     On 14 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Arbi Karimov under Article 126 §   2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given number 42009 (in the submitted documents the number is also referred to as 42099). 30.     On 17 and 21 January 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaints about her son’s abduction by armed men in APCs to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 31.     On 17 January 2003 the head of the administration of the village of Proletarskoye complained to the Grozny ROVD about the abduction of Arbi Karimov by masked federal servicemen. 32.     On 24 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that on an unspecified date they had instituted an investigation into the abduction of Arbi Karimov and that the case file had been given the number 42009. The letter also stated that the investigators were aware of the fact that Arbi Karimov’s abductors had also taken away the passports of the first and the fourth applicants and of their relative Umar Karimov. 33.     On 31 January 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 34.     On 2 February 2003 the second applicant complained to the Chechnya department of the interior (the Chechnya MVD). In her letter she stated that her son had been abducted by Russian military servicemen who had arrived in APCs. She pointed out that the servicemen had taken valuables from their house along with identity documents of her family members. She complained that her son had been taken away in his underwear and that the servicemen had ill-treated family members. The applicant requested the authorities to inform her about the following: who had control over the Russian military forces in Chechnya; what was the difference between the “sweeping” operations conducted by representatives of the federal forces and nightly pinpoint raids; if those who had abducted her son had been bandits or Chechen rebel fighters, why were these men equipped with APCs and why after the completion of their operation did they leave openly in the direction of the checkpoints of the Russian military forces and finally why did the abductors fail to inform the relatives of the abducted persons about their relatives’ subsequent whereabouts. 35.     On 4 April 2003 the second applicant again complained to the Chechnya MVD. In her letter she stated that her son had been abducted by Russian military servicemen who had arrived in APCs and a military Ural vehicle. The applicant also complained that the authorities had failed to establish her son’s whereabouts. 36.     On 5 April and 12 May 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Alignment Group (the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA) forwarded the second applicant’s complaints about the abduction of Arbi Karimov to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102. 37.     On 9 April 2003 the Chechnya MVD forwarded the applicants’ complaint to the Grozny ROVD. 38.     On 25 April 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about her son’s abduction to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 39.     On 28 April 2003 the Chechnya department of the Federal Security Service (the Chechnya FSB) informed the second applicant that they had no information concerning the whereabouts of Arbi Karimov; that his name was not on the authorities’ wanted list and he was not under suspicion of having committed a crime. 40.     On 22 May 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about the abduction of Arbi Karimov to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. The letter stated that her complaint did not provide any grounds to suspect the involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction. 41.     On 29 May 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that on 14 January 2003 they had instituted an investigation into the abduction of Arbi Karimov and that later the investigation had been suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The letter stated that the examination of the criminal case file had established that the authorities had failed to take all possible investigative measures and in connection with this the investigation in the case had been resumed on an unspecified date. 42.     On 3 June 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the investigation in criminal case no.   42009 had been suspended on 14 March 2003 for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. On 29 May 2003 the investigation had been resumed owing to the necessity to take additional investigative measures. 43.     On 17 June 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 informed the second applicant that her complaint had failed to provide any information indicating the involvement of Russian military servicemen in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. 44.     On 19 June 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that they had already provided responses to her requests concerning the search for Arbi Karimov. 45.     On 30 June 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about her son’s abduction to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. The letter stated that the examination of the applicant’s complaint had not established any involvement of the Russian military forces in the crime. 46.     On 5 July 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA forwarded the second applicant’s request concerning the search for her son to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102. 47.     On 15, on 30 July and 21 October 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaints about her son’s abduction to the investigators. The first letter stated that the applicant had received the information concerning her son’s murder from the local headquarters of the Red Cross. 48.     On 24 July, 5 and 20 August and 19 September 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the second applicant that the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 had examined her complaints and that this exanimation had not established any involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. 49.     On 2 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that her complaint to the Prosecutor General had been included in the criminal case file. 50.     On 20 August 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 informed the applicant that the examination of her complaint had not established any involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. 51.     On 25 August and 2 September 2003 the Departments of Correction of the Ministry of Justice in the Volgograd and Rostov regions informed the second applicant that they had no information concerning the whereabouts of Arbi Karimov. 52.     On 23 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that her complaint about the abduction of Arbi Karimov had been included in the criminal case file. 53.     On 13 October 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA forwarded the second applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 for examination. 54.     On 14 October 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about the abduction of Arbi Karimov by armed men in APCs and a Ural military vehicle to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 55.     On 22 October 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the operational search measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Arbi Karimov and the perpetrators of the crime were under way. 56.     On 21 November 2003 the Ministry of Defence informed the second applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office of the North-Caucasus Military Circuit for examination. 57.     On 1 December 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that on an unspecified date they had instructed the district prosecutor’s office to resume the investigation in the criminal case and take all necessary measures aimed at establishing the perpetrators. 58.     On 5 December 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the North-Caucasus Military Circuit forwarded the second applicant’s letter concerning the search for her son to the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA. 59.     On 8 January 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 informed the second applicant that the examination of her complaint had not established any involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. The letter also stated that the office did not have any information concerning his death. 60.     On 13 February 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the district prosecutor’s office had been investigating her son’s disappearance. 61.     On 14 February 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the second applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102. The letter also stated the following: “... earlier an assistant of the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 Major I.S. provided the response to the information request of the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross stating that A. Karimov had been killed during a special operation while resisting police officers. However, this information statement of Mr I.S. was not confirmed. You are requested to conduct an inquiry and inform us and the applicant about the grounds for the response given to the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross concerning the death of A. Karimov.” 62.     On 24 February 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 informed the second applicant that the information provided by them to the Red Cross about the killing of Arbi Karimov was incorrect. This information had been provided along with information concerning other missing persons, in a table format, and this table must have contained a mistake. The letter also stated that the examination of the applicant’s previous complaints had demonstrated that the Russian military forces had not been involved in the abduction of her son. 63.     On 27 March and 9 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA forwarded the second applicant’s complaints about her son’s abduction to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102. 64.     On 8 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about the search for her son to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. The letter stated that it had been established that the Russian military servicemen had not been involved in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. 65.     On 16 April 2004 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA. 66.     On 15 May 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the second applicant that her complaint did not contain any indication of involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. The letter also stated that, upon examination of the information provided to the Red Cross about the killing of her son, it had been established that this information was incorrect. 67.     On 20 September 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 informed the second applicant that the examination of her previous complaints had established that the Russian military forces had not participated in the abduction of Arbi Karimov and that her complaints had been forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. According to the letter, the district prosecutor’s office had been taking measures to establish identity of the perpetrators. 68.     On 4 February 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that “... as a result of the examination of the criminal case file it has been established that the case was initiated on 14 January 2003 under Article 126   §   2 of the Criminal Code in connection with the abduction at about 3 a.m. on 11 January 2003 in Proletarskoye in Grozny district of A.U. Karimov, Sh. Isayev and I.S. Magayev by unidentified military servicemen.... as a result of the investigation of this criminal case, ....on 17 January 2005 the investigator decided to suspend the investigation...for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. ..” 69.     On 7 June 2005 the second applicant complained to a number of State authorities, including the Minister of the Interior and the Prosecutor General. She complained that the investigators had failed to conduct an effective and thorough investigation into the abduction of her son. In her letters she described in detail the circumstances of Arbi Karimov’s abduction. In particular, she stated that he had been abducted by Russian military servicemen; that the servicemen had seized a number of items of family property and identity documents; that they had threatened to blow up the applicants’ house; that two other residents of the village had been abducted by the same group of servicemen; that the morning after the abduction local residents had found a corpse which had been left behind by the servicemen; that the authorities had failed to take any meaningful investigative steps; that on 15 January 2003 one of the abducted men had been released and he had told her that he had been detained on the premises of the 21 st division of the Russian federal troops, “Sofrino”, in the area known as Solyenaya Balka, Chechnya; that she had informed the investigators about it, but that the latter had failed to take any measures to verify the information; that in May 2003 she had been told at the local headquarters of the Red Cross that the military prosecutor’s office had informed the organisation that Arbi Karimov had been killed while resisting arrest on 12 January 2003; and that the investigators had failed to question employees of the military prosecutor’s office and the Red Cross about this information. The applicant expressed her opinion that the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative measures was unlawful. She requested the authorities to resume the investigation in the criminal case and to conduct it in a thorough and effective manner. It does not appear that the applicant received any response from the authorities. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 70.     According to the Government, on 12 January 2003 the investigation conducted a crime scene examination at the applicants’ house. As a result a photograph of A. Karimov was collected; no damage to the house gates or to other property was referred to in the record of the examination. 71.     On 31 January 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. According to her statement, at about 2   a.m. on 11 January 2003 several APCs and a Ural vehicle had arrived at her house, breaking one of the gates. Her husband had woken up from the noise and opened the entrance door. Then a group of unidentified armed men in blue camouflage uniform, bullet-proof vests and masks had rushed into the house. They had forced all the family members on to the floor and searched the house. After that they had handcuffed her son Arbi Karimov and without letting him get dressed had taken him and his father into the yard and forced them into the Ural vehicle. Then the intruders had released her husband, but had taken away her son Arbi. During the search the men had taken family belongings (kitchen utensils, male underwear), passports and documents for the family car. The abductors had used four APCs and four Ural vehicles, as well as several UAZ and GAZ (“ Gazel ”) vehicles. All the registration numbers were covered with mud. According to the applicant, on 16-17 January 2003 she had complained about her son’s abduction to the International Committee of the Red Cross. From the organisation’s response, in which they had referred to a letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102, she had found out that Arbi Karimov had been eliminated during a special operation. 72.     On 11 September 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 informed the investigators that they had not provided the Red Cross with information concerning the detention of Arbi Karimov. 73.     On an unspecified date the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the investigators that a representative of the Red Cross had been provided with incorrect information concerning the death of Arbi Karimov. Upon examination of the relevant documentation no information pertaining to this was found. 74.     On an unspecified date the investigators requested the Red Cross to provide a copy of the letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 concerning the death of Arbi Karimov. According to the Government, the organisation refused to provide the document. 75.     According to the Government, the investigation questioned a number of witnesses. On unspecified dates members of the Karimov family, Mr   U.   Karimov, Ms Kh. Imadayeva, Ms L.Karimova and Ms S. Amayeva had provided the investigators with statements similar to the one given by the second applicant. 76.     On an unspecified date the investigators additionally questioned the third applicant, who stated that during the events her brother Arbi Karimov had tried to hide under the bed, but three armed masked men in helmets and blue camouflage uniform had dragged him out and taken him into the yard. These men were speaking Russian. The abductors had taken a number of items of property from the house: three video cassettes, audio cassettes, a car radio/cassette player, female underwear, passports, an axe, soap, shoe polish, footwear, perfume, a grindstone and some items of clothing. A few minutes after the abductors’ departure she had heard shooting coming from the outskirts of the settlement. 77.     On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour, Mr I.B., who stated that at about 2.30 a.m. on 11 January 2003 he had been woken by the noise of vehicles. From the window he had seen an APC and a khaki Ural vehicle and heard people talking among themselves in Russian. Twenty minutes later the vehicles had left and he had gone outside. His neighbours had told him that these men had taken away Arbi Karimov and a number of items of property from the house. 78.     On an unspecified date the investigators questioned an employee of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Grozny, Mr R.I., who stated that relatives of Arbi Karimov had applied to the organisation with requests for assistance in the search for their relatives. According to the witness, he had informed the main office of the Red Cross in Nalchik about it, and their employees had forwarded information requests to a number of law enforcement agencies. Responses had been provided to those requests, but the witness did not remember their contents. 79.   According to the Government, on unspecified dates the investigators also requested information about the disappearance from various State authorities, including a number of district departments of the interior in Chechnya and other units of the Ministry of the Interior, the Grozny department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB), various military commanders’ offices in Chechnya, the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102, the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA, a number of penitentiary institutions in Chechnya and the neighbouring regions, the prosecutors’ officers of various levels, various detention centres in the Northern Caucasus and the archives of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit. According to the responses received from these agencies, they did not have any information about Arbi Karimov’s arrest and detention. 80.     According to the response received by the investigators on an unspecified date from the Grozny ROVD, they did not detain Arbi Karimov, he had not been placed in a detention centre, his corpse had not been found, he had not applied for medical assistance and no criminal proceedings had been initiated against him. 81.     On unspecified dates the investigators forwarded requests for assistance in searching for Arbi Karimov to the Chechnya FSB and the Grozny ROVD, asking them to take operational search measures. According to the information received from these agencies, Arbi Karimov’s brother, U.U. Karimov, was a member of illegal armed groups. 82.     The Government further submitted that on 10 and 11 January 2003 no special operations had been conducted in the settlement of Proletarskoye in the Grozny district, Chechnya and that representatives of the State had not detained Arbi Karimov. 83.     According to the Government, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions, and has so far failed to identify the perpetrators of Arbi Karimov’s abduction. However, operational search measures were being taken to establish the whereabouts of Arbi Karimov and identify the perpetrators. The progress of the investigation was being supervised by the Investigations Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office. 84.     Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents of criminal case no.   42009. 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 personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 85.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 40464/02, §§   67-69, 10   May 2007). THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTION REGARDING NON ‑ EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES A.     The parties’ submissions 86.     The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Arbi Karimov had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any acts or omissions of the investigating authorities, but that the applicants had not availed themselves of that remedy. They also argued that it had been open to the applicants to pursue civil complaints but that they had failed to do so. 87.     The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the only effective remedy in their case was the criminal investigation, which had proved to be ineffective. Referring to the other cases concerning such crimes reviewed by the Court, they also alleged that the existence of the administrative practice of non-investigation of crimes committed by State servicemen in Chechnya rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in their case. B.     The Court’s assessment 88.     The Court will 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). 89.     The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies. 90.     As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v.   Russia , nos.   57942/00 and 57945/00, §§   119-121, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others , cited above, §   77). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. 91.     As regards criminal law remedies, the Court observes that the applicants complained to the law enforcement authorities immediately after the kidnapping of Arbi Karimov and that an investigation has been pending since 14 January 2003. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation of the kidnapping. 92.     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 join this objection to the merits of the case and considers that the issue falls to be examined below. II.     THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A.     The parties’ arguments 93.     The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away Arbi Karimov were State agents. In support of their complaint they referred to the following matters: At the material time the settlement of Proletarskoye was under the total control of federal troops and the area was under curfew. There were Russian military checkpoints on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The armed men who had abducted Arbi Karimov spoke Russian without an accent, which proved that they were not of Chechen origin. The men had arrived in military vehicles late at night, which indicated that they were able to circulate freely after curfew. The men had arrived at the applicants’ house as a large and well-organised group and they had acted in a manner similar to that of special forces carrying out identity checks. They were wearing specific camouflage uniform, were armed and were using APCs, which would not have been available for paramilitary groups. The applicants further pointed out that the investigators had accepted the factual assumptions as presented by the applicants concerning the involvement of Russian military servicemen in the abduction (see paragraph 68 above) and that the investigators had failed to credibly refute the information provided to the Red Cross about the killing of Arbi Karimov while resisting arrest. They further argued that since their relative had been missing for more than five and a half years he could be presumed dead. That presumption was further supported by the circumstances in which he had been arrested, which should be recognised as life-threatening. 94.     The Government submitted that unidentified armed men had kidnapped Arbi Karimov. They further argued that there was no convincing evidence that the applicants’ relative was dead. The Government further alleged that the applicants’ description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction was inconsistent. In particular, the applicants’ accounts concerning the number of APCs involved in the events and the abductors’ behaviour were questionable, as the events had taken place at night, with no light, and while the applicants had been forced on the floor; the applicants had provided to the Court and to the investigators of the criminal case different lists of the property taken away by the abductors; finally, the applicants had failed to inform the investigators about the village residents who had witnessed the abduction. The Government contended that the fact that the perpetrators of the abduction spoke unaccented Russian and were wearing camouflage uniforms did not mean that these men could not have been members of illegal armed groups trying to prevent leakage of information which could have been available to Arbi Karimov from his brother Umar Karimov, who had been a member of illegal armed groups. They pointed out that groups of Ukrainian, Belorussian and ethnic Russian mercenaries had committed crimes in the territory of the Chechen Republic and emphasised that the fact that the perpetrators had Slavic features and spoke Russian did not prove that they were attached to the Russian military. They also observed that a considerable number of armaments and APCs had been stolen from Russian arsenals by insurgents in the 1990s and that members of illegal armed groups could have possessed camouflage uniforms. The abductors also could have been criminals pursuing a blood feud. The Government further contended that the investigation of the incident was pending, that there was no evidence that the men were State agents and that there were therefore no grounds for holding the State liable for the alleged violations of the applicants’ rights. B.     The Court’s evaluation of the facts 95.     The Court obse