CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2993E866 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7D73FE43 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82D7B801 { width:22.93pt; display:inline-block } .sF9287AF { width:174.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION         CASE OF REZVANOV AND REZVANOVA v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 12457/05)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   24 September 2009   FINAL   01/03/2010   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision . In the case of Rezvanov and Rezvanova v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 3 September 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 12457/05) 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 two Russian nationals, Mr Sultan Rezvanov and Ms   Shamsbanu Rezvanova (“the applicants”), on 25 March 2005. 2.     The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Ms L. Khamzayeva, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 1 September 2005 the Court decided to apply Rule   41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application. 4.     On 28 September 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 5.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants were born in 1941 and 1947 respectively and live in the town of Urus-Martan, in the Chechen Republic. 7.     The applicants are husband and wife. They are the parents of Mr   Akhmed Rezvanov, born in 1984. A.     Disappearance of Akhmed Rezvanov 1.     The applicants' account 8.     At about 7.15 a.m. on 10 December 2002 six armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and two UAZ vehicles arrived at the applicants' house at 6   Mayakovskiy Street, Urus-Martan. A group of armed men in camouflage uniforms got off the vehicles and burst into the house. The applicants assumed that they were federal servicemen. 9.     Some of the servicemen levelled machine guns at the second applicant and asked her in unaccented Russian where the men of the house were. The others searched the house and its annexes without producing any warrant. Later the applicants discovered that the men had messed everything up, broken some crockery, ripped bed-linen and scattered flour all over the floor. 10.     In the meantime Akhmed Rezvanov was hiding in a wash-house annexed to the house. At some point the servicemen threatened to blow up the house. The first applicant asked them to wait, went to the wash-house and convinced his son to come out of it. Akhmed Rezvanov went to the courtyard; the armed men apprehended him and placed him in a light-blue UAZ all-terrain vehicle («таблетка») with registration number 276 ‑ 95-RUS. Then they seized some of the applicants' belongings, including a leather jacket, a video appliance, a pair of running shoes and a few more items. It appears that at some point the men told the applicants that they were servicemen of the department of the interior of the Zavodskoy District. Then they got into the vehicles and drove away. 11.     On the same day the armed men apprehended two of the first applicant's nephews, Abdula and Artur; they were released a few hours later and returned home. Abdula and Artur told the applicants that following their arrest they had been brought to the premises of the military commander's office of the Urus-Martan District. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 12.     On the morning of 10 December 2002 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns took Akhmed Rezvanov away from the first applicant's house at 6 Mayakovskiy Street, Urus-Martan. The same persons robbed the first applicant and took a video appliance, a leather jacket, running shoes and some other items. B.     Investigation into Akhmed Rezvanov's disappearance 1.     The applicants' account 13 .     On 10 December 2002 the first applicant complained about his son's abduction to the Urus-Martan Town Court and to the prosecutor's office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor's office”). In his complaint the first applicant mentioned that the armed men had told him that they belonged to the department of the interior of the Zavodskoy District. He also requested information on his son's whereabouts from the local administration and the military commander's office of the Urus-Martan District (“the military commander's office”), but to no avail. 14.     On 27 December 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office. 15.     On 16 January 2003 the Ministry of Justice of Ingushetia informed the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic that they had received a complaint from the first applicant and his brother. The letter read as follows: “According to the complainants, those who apprehended A. Rezvanov identified themselves as the FSB [Federal Security Service] officers and were [travelling] in two or three APCs and an Ural vehicle. The convoy with the arrestee went to Grozny. The detainee's relatives' complaints [lodged with] many authorities have brought no positive results.” 16.     By decision of 16 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office admitted the first applicant as a victim to the criminal proceedings in case no. 34003 instituted on 31 January 2003 in relation to Akhmed Rezvanov's kidnapping. 17.     On 31 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into Akhmed Rezvanov's kidnapping under Article 126 § 2 (“aggravated kidnapping”) and the theft of the Rezvanovs' belongings under Article 162 § 2 (“aggravated robbery”) of the Russian Criminal Code. The case was assigned the number 34003. 18.     On 31 March 2003 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case no. 34003 for failure to identify those responsible. On 1 April 2003 they notified the first applicant of the decision and commented that, despite the suspension of the proceedings, they had instructed the police to search for Akhmed Rezvanov more vigorously. 19.     On 7 April 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to vigorously pursue the search for his son and reported that one hour after the abduction an FSB officer had told him that Akhmed Rezvanov had been taken to the Khankala military base by servicemen of the Main Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defence («ГРУ») . 20.     On 28 April 2003 the first applicant requested the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic to help him to establish his son's whereabouts. 21 .     On 26 May 2003 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no.   20102 (“the unit prosecutor's office”) informed the first applicant that they had carried out an inquiry, which had not established any traces of military personnel implication in his son's kidnapping. 22 .     On 10 July 2003 the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor's office”) forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the unit prosecutor's office and ordered that an inquiry be conducted into the possible implication of military servicemen in Akhmed Rezvanov's kidnapping. 23.     On 24 November 2003 the first applicant requested assistance in the search for his son from the Administration of the Chechen Republic. 24.     On 22 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office resumed the investigation into Akhmed Rezvanov's kidnapping and notified the first applicant accordingly. 25.     On 11 May 2004 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic informed the second applicant that the search for her son was under way. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 26.     On 31 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation in case no. 34003 under Articles 126 § 2 and 161 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code. 27.     On unspecified dates the applicants were granted victim status in case no. 34003. 28 .     On an unspecified date the first applicant was questioned and stated that at about 7 a.m. on 10 December 2002 he had been awakened by knocking at his door. He had opened the door and seen around eighty or ninety men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns; some of them had worn masks. He had also noticed six APCs and two UAZ vehicles. One of the armed men had demanded the first applicant's identity papers, checked them out and returned them. Another man had said that someone had been hiding in a wash-house in the courtyard. The armed men had surrounded the house and told the first applicant that they would shoot unless the person in the wash-house surrendered. The first applicant had replied that it was his son. Having obtained permission, the first applicant had entered the wash-house and seen his son armed with a Makarov pistol and a grenade. Akhmed Rezvanov had said that he had been planning to blow himself up. The first applicant had convinced his son to give him the pistol and the grenade and had stepped outside. He had given the arms to the men. Then they had searched Akhmed Rezvanov, put a plastic bag on his head and taken him away. The first applicant had not seen his son since then. On the same day two of the first applicant's nephews had been arrested and then released two hours later. During the arrest of Akhmed Rezvanov the armed men had searched the house, ruined some furniture, crockery and clothing and stolen a video appliance, a leather jacket, running shoes and other items. The first applicant also stated that he did not wish to study the case-file upon its completion. 29.     The second applicant was questioned on an unspecified date and made a deposition identical to that of her husband. 30 .     On unspecified dates the first applicant's nephews, Abdula and Artur, were questioned as witnesses. They stated that at about 7 a.m. on 10   December 2002 around twenty masked men in camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns had entered Abdula and Artur's house, demanded their identity papers and taken them to the courtyard. The armed men had tied Abdula and Artur's arms, blindfolded them and put them in a car. The witnesses did not know the make of the car. After a journey of some twenty minutes the armed men had taken Abdula and Artur out of the car and led them downstairs. The detained men had been questioned about Akhmed Rezvanov. Then they had again been placed in the car and driven for forty minutes. The armed men had taken Abdula and Artur out of the car, untied their arms and ordered them to sit still for twenty minutes. When the car drove off, the two men took the blindfolds off their eyes and realised that they were in a farm near Urus-Martan. Then they returned home and learned of Akhmed Rezvanov's abduction. 31 .     On an unspecified date Mr G., the applicants' neighbour, was questioned as a witness and stated that at 7.20 a.m. on 10 December 2002, while at home, he had heard voices coming from the outside. He had looked out of the window and seen armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms. Mr G. had tried to step outside but the armed men had told him not to do so. Later Mr G. had found out that those men had taken Akhmed Rezvanov away. 32.     On an unspecified date Mr Sh. was questioned as a witness and stated that on 29 January 2003 he had been arrested for storage of explosive materials and weapons that he had obtained from Akhmed Rezvanov. 33 .     The investigators questioned fifteen residents of Mayakovskiy Street in Urus-Martan who stated that they had no information on Akhmed Rezvanov's abduction. 34 .     Law-enforcement agencies of the Chechen Republic reported to the district prosecutor's office that Akhmed Rezvanov had not been arrested or kept in detention facilities in the Chechen Republic and that no charges had been brought against him. They also pointed out that federal forces had not carried out any special operations in the Urus-Martan District on 10   December 2002. 35.     An UAZ vehicle with registration number 276-95 was not listed in the register of the State Traffic Inspection of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. 36.     On 31 March 2003 the investigation in case no. 34003 was suspended for failure to identify those responsible. The second applicant was served with the decision on 3 June 2003. 37.     On 22 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 31 March 2003 and resumed the investigation. 38.     On an unspecified date the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 10 June 2004. On 10 July 2004 it was again suspended. 39.     The investigation in case no. 34003 was repeatedly suspended and then resumed following the quashing of decisions on suspension by higher prosecutors. 40.     On 25 October 2007 the Investigating Committee of the Russian Prosecutor's Office in the Chechen Republic resumed the investigation in case no. 34003. 41.     The Government submitted that the investigation had failed to establish the perpetrators and was still in progress. Involvement of the federal military in the crime had not been proven. 42.     Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose most of the documents from the investigation file in case no.   34003, providing only a few copies of the district prosecutor's office's decisions and notifications to the applicants. They 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 files contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in criminal proceedings. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 43.     For a summary of relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 40464/02, §§   67-69, 10   May 2007). THE LAW I.     The government's objection regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies A.     The parties' submissions 44.     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 Akhmed Rezvanov had not yet been completed. It was also open to the applicants to complain of the inactivity of the investigators to courts or higher prosecutors' offices or to lodge civil claims for damages, which they had failed to do. 45.     The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective. B.     The Court's assessment 46.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies which are available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 § 1 also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and further that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used. However, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey , 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey , no.   41964/98, § 64, 27   June 2006). 47.     It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan , cited above,   §   65). 48.     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. 49.     As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct on the part of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v.   Russia , nos.   57942/00 and 57945/00, §§   119-21, 24 February 2005). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. 50.     As regards criminal law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that the applicants complained to the law enforcement agencies immediately after the disappearance of Akhmed Rezvanov. The investigation into his kidnapping has been under way since 31 January 2003. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation. 51 .     The Court considers that this part of 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 under Article 2 of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 52.     The applicants complained that Akhmed Rezvanov had disappeared following his arrest by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the kidnapping. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads: “1.     Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” A.     Arguments of the parties 53.     The Government argued that there was no convincing evidence that Akhmed Rezvanov was dead. Neither was it proven that he had been arrested by State servicemen. None of the witnesses had claimed to have noticed any insignia on the camouflage uniforms of the armed men, which proved that they could not be members of the military. 54.     The letters by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Chechen Republic and the Ministry of Justice of Ingushetia submitted by the applicants did not prove military implication in the crime but merely restated the wording of the applicants' complaints without reaching any conclusions as to the perpetrators' identities. 55.     The applicants' allegations that Akhmed Rezvanov had been arrested by FSB servicemen and brought to the military commander's office were speculative. The Government also pointed out that Abdula and Artur had not claimed before the domestic authorities that they had been kept in the military commander's office. Furthermore, the first applicant had initially claimed that the armed men had identified themselves as servicemen of the department of the interior of the Zavodskoy District but later alleged that they had been FSB servicemen, which proved the unreliability of his statements. 56.     The Government further pointed out that various groups of Ukrainian 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 their attachment to the Russian military. They also observed that a considerable quantity of weaponry and military vehicles, including APCs, had been stolen by illegal armed groups from Russian depots in the 1990s and that anyone could purchase camouflage uniforms. 57.     The Government emphasised that Akhmed Rezvanov had been armed and inferred from his intention to blow himself up that he had been afraid of members of illegal armed groups to whom he had been supplying firearms. They referred to Mr Sh.'s deposition that he had obtained weapons from the applicants' son. The Government also asserted that State agents had had no reasons to abduct Akhmed Rezvanov as they would rather use him as a prosecution witness to convict insurgents. 58.     In sum, the Government insisted that the involvement of State agents in Akhmed Rezvanov's kidnapping had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 59.     The Government further argued that the investigation into the kidnapping had been effective and was pending before an independent State agency. The applicants had been informed of progress in the investigation in due course. Repeated suspensions and resumptions of the investigation only showed that the proceedings were ongoing and the requisite investigative measures had been taken. 60.     The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had arrested Akhmed Rezvanov had been State agents because the perpetrators had been travelling in APCs, which could only be used by State agencies. They further complained that the investigation into the kidnapping of their son had been protracted and ineffective. B.     The Court's assessment 1.     Admissibility 61.     The Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court has already found that the Government's objection concerning the alleged non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies should be joined to the merits of the complaint (see paragraph 51 above). The complaint under Article 2 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     The alleged violation of the right to life of Akhmed Rezvanov i.     Establishment of the facts 62.     The Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article   2, it must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances. Detained persons are in a vulnerable position and the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of a detained individual is particularly stringent where that individual dies or disappears thereafter (see Orhan v. Turkey , no. 25656/94, § 326, 18 June 2002). Where the events in question lie wholly or in large part within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons under their control in detention, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no.   23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV). 63.     The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of disputed facts, 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, §§   103-09, 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). 64.     The Court notes that, despite its requests for a copy of the entire investigation file into the kidnapping of Akhmed Rezvanov, the Government refused to produce the majority of the case materials on the grounds that they were precluded from providing them by Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva   v. Russia , no.   7615/02, §   123, ECHR 2006 ‑ ... (extracts)). 65.     In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in this respect. 66.     The applicants alleged that the persons who had taken Akhmed Rezvanov away on 10 December 2002 were State agents. 67.     Their hypothesis is confirmed by witness statements of the first applicant's nephews who had been taken away by a group of armed men and questioned about Akhmed Rezvanov (see paragraph 30 above), as well as by the statement of Mr G., who had seen the armed men in front of the applicants' house on 10 December 2002 (see paragraph 31 above). 68.     The Government suggested that Akhmed Rezvanov's kidnappers could be insurgents or mercenaries. However, this allegation was not specific and they did not submit any material to support it. The Court would stress in this regard that the evaluation of the evidence and the establishment of the facts is a matter for the Court, and it is incumbent on it to decide on the evidentiary value of the documents submitted to it (see Çelikbilek v.   Turkey , no.   27693/95, §   71, 31   May 2005). The Court considers that the fact that Akhmed Rezvanov had been armed at the time of his arrest does not in itself prove that he had supplied weapons to illegal armed groups. Furthermore, according to the Government, no criminal proceedings had been instituted against Akhmed Rezvanov by the time of his abduction (see paragraph 34 above). 69.     In the Court's view the fact that immediately after the abduction the first applicant asserted that the armed men had identified themselves as servicemen of the department of the interior of the Zavodskoy District and later reportedly stated that those men had said they belonged to the FSB does not render his account of events less plausible. 70.     The Court also emphasises that APCs, unlike regular civilian vehicles, could not normally be owned by private individuals. It takes note of the Government's allegation that the APCs, as well as weaponry and camouflage uniforms, were probably stolen by insurgents from Russian arsenals in the 1990s. Nonetheless it considers it very unlikely that several stolen armoured military vehicles carrying a considerable number of armed men in camouflage uniforms could have passed through Russian military checkpoints to enter Urus-Martan and then moved freely about the town without being noticed. 71.     It is noteworthy that the domestic investigators accepted factual assumptions as presented by the applicants and looked at the possibility of military implication in the crime (see paragraphs 21 and 22 above). 72.     The Court further takes note of the Government's assertion that Abdula and Artur, the first applicant's nephews, did not inform the investigators that they had been kept in premises used by the military commander's office. However, it is unable to verify whether the two men indeed omitted to inform the domestic authorities of it because the Government failed to provide a transcript of their interviews with the investigators. In any event, the Court does not deem it necessary to establish whether Akhmed Rezvanov was brought to the military commander's office upon his abduction, since it considers that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform equipped with military vehicles was able to move freely through Urus-Martan and to arrest Akhmed Rezvanov at his home strongly supports the applicants' version of State servicemen's involvement in their son's kidnapping. 73.     The Court observes that where the applicants make out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to a lack of documents, it is for the Government to show conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see Toğcu v. Turkey , no.   27601/95, §   95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey , no.   21894/93, §   211, ECHR   2005 ‑ II). 74 .     Taking into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that Akhmed Rezvanov was taken away by State servicemen. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence pointing to the involvement of the special forces in the kidnapping is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government's failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court considers that Akhmed Rezvanov was abducted from his family home by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. 75.     There has been no reliable news of Akhmed Rezvanov since 10   December 2002. His name has not been found in any official detention facilities' records. The Government did not submit any explanation as to what had happened to him after that day. 76.     Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of people in the Chechen Republic which have come before the Court (see, for example, Luluyev and Others   v. Russia , no.   69480/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ ... ), it considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Akhmed Rezvanov or any news of him for more than six years corroborates this assumption. 77 .     Accordingly, the Court finds it established that on 10 December 2002 Akhmed Rezvanov was abducted by State servicemen and that he must be presumed dead following his abduction. ii.     The State's compliance with Article 2 78.     The Court reiterates that Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, from which no derogation is permitted (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom , 27 September 1995, § 147, Series   A no.   324). 79 .     The Court has already found it established that Akhmed Rezvanov must be dead (see paragraph 77 above). Noting that the authorities do not rely on any ground of justification in respect of use of lethal force by State servicemen, it considers that responsibility for his death lies with the respondent Government. 80.     Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Akhmed Rezvanov. (b)     The alleged inadequacy of the investigation 81.     The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article   1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention”, also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see Kaya v. Turkey , 19 February 1998, §   86, Reports   1998 ‑ I). The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. This investigation should be independent, be accessible to the victim's family, be carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether or not the force used in such cases was lawful and justified in the circumstances, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom , no.   24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001 ‑ III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   56413/00, 8   January 2002). 82.     In the present case, the kidnapping of Akhmed Rezvanov was investigated. The Court must assess whether that investigation met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. 83.     The Court notes at the outset that the majority of the documents from the investigation remain undisclosed by the Government. It therefore has to assess the effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents submitted by the parties and the sparse information on its progress presented by the Government. 84.     The Court first notes that the authorities were immediately made aware of the kidnapping of Akhmed Rezvanov through the applicants' submissions (see paragraph 13 above). However, the investigation into the murder was instituted on 31 January 2003, that is, more than six weeks after the abduction. Such a lengthy delay was in itself liable to affect the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in the first days after the event. 85.     The Court further points out that the information on the course of the investigation into the kidnapping of Akhmed Rezvanov at its disposal is highly inadequate. It observes that the applicants, who themselves were not updated on progress in the case, could not provide it with a list of investigative measures taken by the domestic authorities. 86.     The Government, in their turn, vaguely referred to investigative steps taken to solve the kidnapping of Akhmed Rezvanov. In particular, they stated that a number of witnesses were questioned (see paragraphs 28 – 33 above). However, they did not mention when those interviews had taken place and did not provide any further details enabling the Court to assess their effectiveness. 87.     Furthermore, a number of important investigative steps were never conducted. For instance, it does not appear that such a basic measure as the inspection of the crime scene has ever been taken. Moreover, nothing in the materials at the Court's disposal warrants the conclusion that the investigators tried to question servicemen of the military commander's office, the FSB or the department of the interior of the Zavodskoy District. They made no attempts to find the APCs described by the applicants or to identify their owners. 88.     Accordingly, the Court considers that the domestic investigative authorities demonstrably failed to act of their own motion and breached their obligation to act with exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime as kidnapping (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no.   48939/99, § 94, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII). 89.     The Court also notes that the applicants were not promptly informed of significant developments in the investigation and considers therefore that the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings (see Oğur v. Turkey [GC], no.   21594/93, §   92, ECHR   1999 ‑ III). 90.     Lastly, the Court notes that the investigation into the kidnapping of Akhmed Rezvanov was repeatedly suspended and then resumed, which led to lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the investigators when no proceedings were pending. Owing to the Government's failure to submit the entire case-file, the Court is unable to establish the exact time-line of the investigation. However, it is clear that no proceedings were pending between 31 March 2003 and 22 April 2004, that is, for more than a year. Such handling of the investigation could only have had a negative impact on the prospects of identifying the perpetrators and establishing the fate of the applicants' son. 91.     Having regard to the limb of the Government's objection that was joined to the merits of the application, in so far as it concerns the fact that the domestic investigation is still pending, the Court notes that the investigation, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been ongoing for more than six years and has produced no tangible results. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and rejects their objection in this part. 92.     The Government also mentioned that the applicants had the opportunity to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of exhaustion of domestic remedies and to complain to higher prosecutors. The Court observes that, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative steps that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer be usefully conducted. The Court finds therefore that it is highly doubtful that the remedies relied on by the Government would have had any prospects of success and considers that they were ineffective in the circumstances of the case. It thus rejects the Government's objection in this part as well. 93.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Akhmed Rezvanov, in breach of Article   2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 94.     The applicants complained that the armed men who searched their house on 10 December 2002 had treated them rudely and inconsiderately. They further submitted that, as a result of their son's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured severe mental suffering. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     The parties' submissions 95.     The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the applicants had not been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. 96.     The applicants maintained their complaints. B.     The Court's assessment 1.     Admissibility (a)     The complaint concerning the armed men's behaviour during the search 97.     The Court reiterates at the outset that in order to fall under Article   3 of the Convention ill-treatment must be at least marginally severe (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , cited above § 162). It considers that the way the applicants were treated by the State servicemen who came to their home on 10   December 2002 could indeed have been disagreeable and inconsiderate. However, the Court is not persuaded that it amounted to treatment exceeding the minimum level of severity to be in breach of Article   3 of the Convention. 98 .     It follows that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. (b)     The complaint concerning the applicants' mental suffering 99.     The Court notes that this part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Co