CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 1 octobre 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 } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .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 } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sE73E36CB { width:184.3pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF AMANAT ILYASOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 27001/06)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   1 October 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 Amanat Ilyasova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 10 September 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 27001/06) 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 three Russian nationals listed in paragraph 5 below (“the applicants”), on 16 June 2006. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers from 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 G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 4 June 2008 the Court decided to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and 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 and the application of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are: (1)     Ms Amanat (also spelled Aminat) Ilyasova, born in 1958; (2)     Mr Khizir Ilyasov, born in 1954, and (3)     Ms Khadizhat Dudayeva, born in 1984. 6.     The applicants live in the village of Mesker-Yurt, in the Shalinskiy District of the Chechen Republic. 7.     The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Musa (also spelled Mussa) Khizirovich Ilyasov, born in 1980. The third applicant is his common-law wife. A.   Apprehension and subsequent disappearance of Musa Ilyasov 1.     The applicants' account 8.     At the material time Musa Ilyasov and the applicants lived at   91   Lenina Street in a single household consisting of two separate buildings with a common courtyard. The property was surrounded by a fence and had a common entrance gate. The first and second applicants occupied one house, which had a grocery store attached to it belonging to the family. Musa   Ilyasov and the third applicant, who had got married around the end of June, apparently according to the local customs, lived in the second building. 9.     On the night of 11 August 2002 the first and second applicants were sleeping in their house while the third applicant and Musa Ilyasov were in the other house. 10.     Between 4 and 5 a.m. a group of armed men arrived at the Ilyasovs' home in two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and two grey UAZ vehicles (“ таблетка ”), and stopped at the gate. Their arrival was witnessed by Ms A., who lived at 67   Lenina Street and was woken up by the noise of the vehicles passing by her house. Having heard the noise, Ms.   A. went outside and followed the APCs and the UAZ vehicles to the applicants' home. When she attempted to approach, she saw that about ten armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had blocked off the perimeter of the applicants' home. She inferred that they were servicemen. They ordered her to leave immediately, threatening to kill her if she disobeyed; she therefore returned home. The majority of the group then entered the grocery store attached to the first and second applicants' house. The men took away packages of various goods such as juice, cigarettes and chicken legs. 11.     Meanwhile, several intruders entered the first and second applicants' house. One of them pointed his gun and his torch at the applicants and they saw that he was wearing a camouflage uniform and a mask. The second applicant, who had served in the army, decided that the intruders were Russian servicemen because they spoke unaccented Russian, wore camouflage uniforms, carried submachine guns and had the usual military equipment. The second applicant did not specify what that equipment had been. The man in the mask requested the second applicant to identify himself. The second applicant gave his name and showed his identity papers. Having checked them, the armed man asked the second applicant whether there were other men in the house. The second applicant replied that his son was there and immediately asked the intruders whether his son would be taken away. They reassured him that they would not take his son away and that they had just come to check whether any rebel fighters were hiding in the house. They then quickly searched the house. 12.     Meanwhile, several armed men entered the house where the third applicant and Musa Ilyasov were sleeping. The armed men were speaking Russian. They checked Musa Ilyasov's identity papers and seized them. One of them said to another: “This is not the man. This is Musa Ilyasov.” The other replied: “So what? We are going to sort it out later”. They then handcuffed Musa   Ilyasov, put a pillow case on his head and took him outside in his underwear. When the third applicant tried to object, the intruders threatened her and ordered her to stay quiet. All the applicants were ordered to stay in their houses. In particular, the intruder who stayed with the first and the second applicants ordered them not to leave the house during the ensuing fifteen minutes and warned them that he would stay at the gate and observe them. The house door being open, the first and second applicants noticed two APCs at the gate. The third applicant saw an APC and a UAZ car outside the house. She also saw Musa   Ilyasov being led outside in his underwear by the servicemen, with a pillow case on his head. 13.     Once outside, Musa Ilyasov was put into one of the vehicles at the gate. The vehicles drove away on the main Gudermes road in the direction of the crossroads to Mesker-Yurt and Argun. 14.     When the APCs and the UAZ vehicles left, the second applicant went outside. At about the same moment Ms A. came to the applicants' home together with her husband. The second applicant took his car and tried to follow the tracks left by the APCs and the UAZ vehicles. He arrived at the roadblock of the federal forces located at the entrance to the village and asked the servicemen if they had seen a convoy of several APCs. Despite the presence of APC tyre tracks, the servicemen denied having seen them. On the same day Ms A. and her husband also went to the same roadblock. She described to the servicemen the APCs and the UAZ vehicles she had seen and asked them in which direction they had driven, but the servicemen refused to provide any information. 15.     In her statement to her representatives the first applicant also submitted that her neighbours had seen a Niva vehicle. 16.     The applicants have had no news of Musa Ilyasov since 11 August 2002. 17.     According to the first applicant, the third applicant had a miscarriage three days after the abduction of Musa Ilyasov. The applicants did not furnish any evidence to that effect. 18.     In support of their account of the events the applicants submitted a written statement made by the first applicant to her representatives on 16   August 2005; a written statement made by the second applicant to his representatives on 15 June 2006; a written statement made by the third applicant to her representatives on 16 August 2005; a written statement by Ms A. made on 15 June 2006; and a hand-drawn map of the applicants' home in Mesker-Yurt. 19.     In her statement of 16 August 2005 the first applicant referred to the third applicant as her “son's wife Khadizhat Ismailovna Dudayeva” and her “daughter-in-law Khadizhat”. 2.     The Government's account 20.     The Government submitted that on the night of 11 August 2002 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms had abducted Musa   Ilyasov from his house at 91 Lenina Street, Mesker-Yurt, and had taken him away. B.   The search for Musa Ilyasov and the investigation into his kidnapping 1.     The applicants' account 21.     As 11 August 2002 was a Sunday, on 12 August 2002 the first and second applicants went to the town of Shali. There they complained about the abduction of Musa Ilyasov to the Shalinskiy district office of the Interior (ROVD) and the Shalinskiy district prosecutor's office (“the district prosecutor's office”). According to the second applicant, the district prosecutor's office formally registered their complaint. The applicants did not furnish copies of those applications. 22.     On an unspecified date the district prosecutor's office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Musa Ilyasov under Article   126   § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned the number 59232. 23.     On 5 September 2002 the district prosecutor's office granted the second applicant the status of victim in criminal case no.   59232 and notified him accordingly on the same day. 24.     On 10 September 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic (“the republican prosecutor's office”) forwarded the second applicant's complaint about the abduction of his son to the district prosecutor's office for examination. 25.     By letters of 23 September 2002 the republican prosecutor's office replied to the first and second applicants that it had examined their complaints of 27 August 2002 about the abduction of Musa Ilyasov. The applicants were informed that the district prosecutor's office was investigating the abduction of their son and that it would verify the applicants' submissions in that regard. 26.     On 29 October 2002 the first applicant wrote to the Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and the republican prosecutor's office, describing in detail the circumstances of the abduction of Musa Ilyasov on 11 February 2002. She stated, among other things, that he had been abducted by servicemen of the Russian federal forces who had been wearing camouflage uniforms and had been carrying weapons. She pointed out that she herself had seen an APC and a UAZ vehicle at the gate and that her neighbours had seen a further APC, another UAZ vehicle and, possibly, an ARV (armoured reconnaissance vehicle). She requested that the abduction of her son be investigated and that the neighbours be questioned about the circumstances of the incident. 27.     On 1 November 2002 the republican prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's complaint about the abduction of her son to the district prosecutor's office and instructed it “to consider whether an investigation should be opened into the abduction of Musa Ilyasov by unidentified armed men”. 28.     On 5 November 2002 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic (“the MVD”) forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the ROVD for the purposes of organising a search. 29.     On 11 November 2002 the republican prosecutor's office informed the Envoy of the President of the Russian Federation for human rights and freedoms in the Chechen Republic that the district prosecutor's office was conducting an investigation into the abduction of Musa Ilyasov. 30.     On 19 November 2002 the republican prosecutor's office informed the second applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation in criminal case no.   59232 had been suspended, but that operational and search measures aimed at identifying the culprits were under way. 31.     By a letter of 28 November 2002 the republican prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant that the district prosecutor's office was investigating criminal case no.   59232 and that unspecified operational and search measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Musa Ilyasov were under way. 32.     On 29 November and 10 December 2002 the first applicant again complained to various State bodies, including the Minister of the Interior, about the abduction of Musa Ilyasov. She described in detail the circumstances of his abduction by servicemen of the Russian federal forces who had arrived in several APCs and had worn camouflage uniforms. 33.     On 9 January 2003 the republican prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the district prosecutor's office was investigating her son's abduction. 34 .     By a letter of 5 February 2003 the Shalinskiy ROVD informed the first applicant that on 19 September 2002 the district prosecutor's office had instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of her son. The letter further stated that the investigative measures had failed to provide any information concerning the whereabouts of Musa Ilyasov; however, unspecified operational and search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way. 35.     On 20 February 2003 the republican prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the district prosecutor's office was investigating criminal case no.   59232, opened in connection with her son's abduction. 36.     On 5 April 2003 the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA military prosecutor's office”) forwarded the first applicant's complaint about the abduction of her son to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no.   20116 for examination. 37.     On 17 April 2003 the republican prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant's query and informed her that the district prosecutor's office was investigating criminal case no.   59232, opened in connection with her son's abduction. According to the letter, the investigation had obtained information concerning special operations in Mesker-Yurt in August 2002, as well as unspecified information from the Shali department of the Federal Security Service (“the Shali department of the FSB”) and the Shali military commander. However, all these efforts had failed to establish the whereabouts of Musa Ilyasov. The letter also stated that on an unspecified date the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended under Article   208   § 1 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, owing to failure to identify the perpetrators. 38.     On 30 July 2003 the republican prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the district prosecutor's office for inclusion in the criminal case file. 39 .     On 1 August 2003 the UGA military prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the military prosecutor's office of military unit no.   20116 had examined her complaint about Musa   Ilyasov's abduction but had failed to establish his whereabouts or the identity of his abductors. The first applicant was directed to address any further enquiries to the district prosecutor's office, which had instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Musa Ilyasov on 19 November 2002. 40.     By letters of 4 and 12 August 2003 the republican prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant's enquiries and informed her that her complaints had been appended to the criminal case file no.   59232 and that operational measures aimed at establishing Musa Ilyasov's whereabouts were under way. 41.     On 15 August 2003 the republican prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that it had examined her request for assistance in the search for her son. According to the letter, the investigation in criminal case no.   59232, instituted on 19 September 2002, had failed to establish the whereabouts of Musa Ilyasov and the identity of the perpetrators. Accordingly, it had been suspended on 19   November 2002. On 15 August 2003 the republican prosecutor's office overruled that decision on the ground that the criminal investigation had been incomplete and issued a number of unspecified instructions to the investigating authorities. The applicant was informed that operational and search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way. 42.     On 15 August 2003 the Chechen department of the FSB informed the first applicant that it had examined her complaint about Musa   Ilyasov's abduction. The letter stated that the department had not arrested him and that it had undertaken unspecified measures to establish his whereabouts and identify the perpetrators. According to the document, Musa Ilyasov had not been suspected of having committed a crime. 43.     By a letter of 11 September 2003 the MVD forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the ROVD for examination. The ROVD informed the first applicant by a letter of 29   January 2004 that the district prosecutor's office was investigating the abduction of her son and that the authorities were undertaking unspecified measures to establish his whereabouts. On 24 February 2004 the ROVD forwarded the first applicant's further request for assistance in the search for her son to the district prosecutor's office. 44.     On 23 April 2004 the republican prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that her request for assistance in the search for her son had been included in the criminal case file. 45.     On 17 August 2004 the district prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant that her complaint about the abduction of Musa Ilyasov had been appended to the criminal case file. The letter also stated that on an unspecified date the investigation in criminal case no.   59232 had been suspended; operational and search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way. 46.     On 8 September 2004 the republican prosecutor's office forwarded two complaints by the first applicant to the district prosecutor's office for inclusion in the criminal case file and instructed the latter office to intensify the operational and search measures aimed at investigating Musa   Ilyasov's abduction. 47.     On 14 September 2004 the republican prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that her request for assistance in the search for her son had been included in the criminal case file; operational and search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way. 48.     On 4 October 2004 the Office of the Russian State Duma forwarded the first applicant's complaint about her son's abduction to the Prosecutor General of Russia for examination. 49.     On 7 February 2005 the MVD forwarded the first applicant's complaint about her son's abduction to the ROVD for examination. 50.     On 5 March 2005 the district prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant that her complaint about Musa Ilyasov's abduction had been included in the criminal case file. 51.     On 30 September 2005 the ROVD informed the first applicant that it had examined her request for assistance in the search for her son. According to the letter, in addition to the opening of criminal case no.   59232 by the district prosecutor's office, the authorities had opened an operational and search file to establish the whereabouts of Musa Ilyasov. The authorities were looking into the possible involvement of Russian special forces, Russian servicemen and members of illegal armed groups in Musa Ilyasov's abduction. The letter stated that, within the framework of the search for the applicant's son, at some point in the future the ROVD would forward information requests to the Shali military commander's office and other law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya. 52.     On 14 November 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote to the district prosecutor's office requesting information concerning the progress and the results of the investigation in criminal case no.   59232 and asking that the first applicant be granted the status of victim in the criminal case. 53 .     By a letter of 18 December 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that it had examined the request of 14   November 2005. The letter stated that the second applicant had been already granted victim status in criminal case no.   59232 and that on an unspecified date the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended owing to failure to identify the perpetrators. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 54.     Following the first applicant's complaint about the abduction of Musa Ilyasov, the district prosecutor's office instituted a criminal investigation into his abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The case file was assigned the number 59232. The Government did not specify the date of institution of the investigation and did not produce a copy of the district prosecutor's office decision to that effect. 55.     On 5 September 2002 the second applicant was granted the status of victim in connection with the proceedings in case no. 59232 and was questioned. He stated that at about 4 a.m. on 11 August 2002 unidentified persons wearing masks and camouflage uniforms and armed with submachine guns had entered his courtyard. Musa Ilyasov and his wife, who had got married a month before, had occupied a separate house located within the same premises. Two armed men had entered the second applicant's house. They had not identified themselves. They had been wearing masks. They had checked the second applicant's identity papers and had asked him whether there were other men in the household. The second applicant had replied that his son lived there. One armed man stayed in the second applicant's house, keeping the first and second applicants inside. The second applicant had not seen his son being brought outside but he had seen the armed men in camouflage uniforms leaving in an APC and a grey UAZ vehicle. The second applicant had not been able to describe the intruders because they had been wearing masks. His son had been taken outside wearing only his underwear; the armed men had taken his identity papers. While the intruders had been in the second applicant's house, they had searched it. However, no valuables had been missing afterwards. Musa Ilyasov had not been involved in any illegal armed groups. The second applicant suspected that his son had been abducted by servicemen of the federal forces. The copy of the transcript of the second applicant's interview furnished by the Government contained a reference to the particulars in his identity papers. 56.     On 5 September 2002 the investigation questioned the first applicant as a witness. She stated that at about 4 a.m. on 11 August 2002 unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had burst into the courtyard of the family home. Musa Ilyasov, who had got married a month before, occupied a separate house which was located within the same property as the first and second applicant's house and shared a common courtyard with them. Two armed men wearing masks had entered the first and second applicants' house. They had not identified themselves and had proceeded to check the applicants' identity papers. Having checked them, they had asked the applicants whether there were other men in the household. The second applicant had replied that his son was living nearby. One armed man had then left and the other had stayed in the house, preventing the first and second applicants from going outside. The first applicant had not seen her son being brought outside but she had seen the masked men leave in an APC and a UAZ vehicle. The first applicant submitted that Musa Ilyasov had been taken away in his underwear and that his identity papers had been taken with him. She stated that Musa Ilyasov had not been involved in illegal armed groups. The copy of the first applicant's interview transcript produced by the Government contained a reference to the particulars in her identity papers. 57.     On unspecified dates the district prosecutor's office requested the Shali department of the FSB, the ROVD and the military commander of the Shalinskiy District to provide information on whether those bodies had carried out any special operations in Mesker-Yurt, whether they had arrested Musa Ilyasov and whether he had been on the list of members of illegal armed groups or had been suspected of having committed a crime. The authorities in question were further instructed to take operational and search measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Musa Ilyasov and identifying those responsible for his abduction. According to the Government, the replies of those State bodies revealed that they had not conducted any special operations in Mesker-Yurt on 11 August 2002, that they had not arrested Musa Ilyasov and that he had not been a member of any illegal armed groups and had not been suspected of having committed a crime. The operational and search measures taken by the above authorities had not established either his whereabouts or the persons implicated in his abduction. 58.     On unspecified dates the investigators inspected the crime scene and carried out a door-to-door check (“ подворный обход ”) in Lenina Street. The investigators also carried out checks in the Shali town hospital and unspecified medical centres in the town. However, no relevant information was obtained as a result of those investigative steps. 59 .     The Government further submitted that on 10 September 2003 the investigators questioned a certain Ms S. as a witness. She stated that Musa Ilyasov was her husband and that they had lived together at   91 Lenina Street in Mesker-Yurt. Ms S.'s statement reproduced almost verbatim the statement made by the first applicant during her interview on 5   September 2002. The last part of Ms S.'s statement went as follows: “...At about 4 a.m. on 11 August 2004 three unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and carrying automatic weapons entered our house. They did not identify themselves and started checking our identity cards. Having checked them, they told us that they would take [my] husband away in order to clarify certain issues. They did not explain what those issues were and where they would take him. They handcuffed [my] husband and took him outside in his underwear. The masked men left in a UAZ vehicle and an APC. I did not notice the registration numbers on the vehicles. I cannot describe the persons who took away [my] son. Nothing was stolen from the house...” 60.     A copy of Ms S.'s interview transcript produced by the Government did not contain any reference to Ms S.'s identity papers in the section specifically provided for it but bore the printed comment “identity checked”. 61.     According to the Government, the investigation in case no.   59232 was pending. 62.     Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents from the investigation file in case no.   59232, apart from the above-mentioned interview transcripts of the first and second applicants and Ms   S. The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of other documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 63.     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 THE THIRD APPLICANT'S LOCUS STANDI A.     The parties' submissions 64.     Referring to the transcript of Ms S.'s interview, the Government pointed out that she claimed to be the wife of Musa Ilyasov, and referred to the ratione personae criterion in relation to the third applicant. 65.     The applicants replied that they were not acquainted with Ms S. and specified that Ms Khadizhat Dudayeva was Musa Ilyasov's common-law wife, that is, they were living in an unregistered relationship. The applicants produced two formal notes ( акт ) drawn up on 30   October 2008 in which two residents of Mesker-Yurt village, Mr   Am. and Mr   V., confirmed that Ms Khadizhat Ismailovna Dudayeva, born in 1984, was the wife of Musa Ilyasov, born in 1980. The notes contained detailed references to the particulars in Mr Am. and Mr V.'s identity papers and their respective addresses in Mesker-Yurt. The authenticity of their signatures was certified by the head of the administration and the imam of Mesker-Yurt. The notes bore the stamps of both authorities. B.     The Court's assessment 66.     In so far as the Government challenge the third applicant's standing, the Court reiterates that the word “victim” in the context of Article 34 of the Convention denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission in issue (see Lüdi v Switzerland , 15 June 1992, § 34, Series A no. 238). The Convention institutions have always and unconditionally considered in their case-law that the parent, sibling or nephew of a person whose death is alleged to engage the responsibility of the respondent Government can claim to be the victim of an alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention even where closer relatives, such as the deceased person's children, have not submitted applications (see Velikova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41488/98, 18 May 1999, with further references). Furthermore, in a number of cases where complaints about the death of a person had been lodged by his or her partner and their relationship existed outside marriage, the Court recognised that the latter could claim to be personally affected by, and therefore a victim of, the alleged violations of the Convention in respect of his or her partner's death and the subsequent investigation (see Ceyhan Demir and Others v. Turkey , no. 34491/97, § 85, 13   January 2005; Üçak and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), nos. 75527/01 and 11837/02, 28 March 2006; and Velikova , cited above). 67.     The Court points out that the first, second and third applicants introduced their complaints jointly using the same application form and that they are represented by the same lawyers. In her statement of 16 August 2005, produced before the Court, the first applicant explicitly referred to the third applicant as her “son's wife Khadizhat Ismailovna Dudayeva” and her “daughter-in-law Khadizhat”. The applicants specified that the third applicant was Musa Ilyasov's common-law wife. They submitted statements by residents of their village to that effect, certified by the head of the village administration and the village imam, and the Court finds no reasons to question the authenticity or credibility of those documents. As regards the transcript of Ms S.'s interview submitted by the Government, the Court notes that it does not contain any reference to the particulars in her identity papers, whereas other interview transcripts furnished by the Government do contain such particulars. Furthermore, it reproduces almost verbatim the text of the first applicant's interview record and on one occasion refers to Musa Ilyasov as Ms S.'s “son” (see paragraph 59 above). In any event, the Court's task in the present case is not to establish the identity of Ms S. or her possible connection with the applicants, particularly given the fact that the Government provided no further information in that respect, but to decide whether the third applicant may claim to be a victim of the alleged violations of the Convention in connection with the disappearance of Musa Ilyasov. 68.     Having examined carefully the evidence presented by the applicants, the Court finds it consistent and coherent and concludes that there is no reason to doubt that the third applicant and Musa Ilyasov were cohabiting and that she had been present in their house at the time of his abduction. The Court is thus satisfied that the third applicant has standing to complain about Musa Ilyasov's disappearance and dismisses the Government's objection in that regard. II.     THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION REGARDING NON-EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES A.     The parties' submissions 69.     The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Musa Ilyasov had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions of the investigating authorities or to lodge a civil claim for damages in that connection. However, they had failed to avail themselves of any such remedy. 70.     The applicants challenged that objection and stated that the criminal investigation, pending for over six years, had proved to be ineffective. B.     The Court's assessment 71.     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). 72.     It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16   September 1996, §   68, Reports 1996 ‑ IV, and Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan , cited above,   §   65). 73.     The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies. 74.     As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v.   Russia , nos.   57942/00 and 57945/00, §§   119-21, 24 February 2005). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. 75.     As regards criminal-law remedies, the Court observes that the applicants complained to the law-enforcement authorities after the abduction of Musa Ilyasov and that an investigation into his abduction has been pending since September 2002. The applicants and the Government disagree as to the effectiveness of this investigation. 76 .     The Court considers that this limb of the Government's preliminary objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints. Accordingly, it decides to join this objection to the merits of the case and considers that the issue falls to be examined below. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 77.     The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their husband and son had disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 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.     The parties' submissions 1.     The Government 78.     The Government argued that it had not been proved that State servicemen had been involved in the kidnapping of Musa Ilyasov or that he had been killed. They suggested that he might have been abducted by insurgents. They further claimed that there was no information on any special operations in Mesker-Yurt at the time of Musa Ilyasov's abduction and no State body had formally confirmed the fact of his detention. Musa   Ilyasov had not been suspected of having been involved in illegal armed groups or having committed a crime and thus the authorities had had no grounds to arrest him. In any event, his body had not been discovered. 79.     The Government further pointed out that the applicants had been unable to identify the abductors or to provide any details on the registration numbers of their vehicles or the direction in which they had left. The fact that the abductors had worn uniforms and had been armed was not, in itself, sufficient to prove that they had been State agents. In any event, a considerable number of armaments had been stolen from Russian arsenals by insurgents in the 1990s. Similarly, although the applicants claimed that their relative had been abducted from the territory under control of the federal forces, there had been several situations where the insurgents had passed themselves off as members of the armed forces by using forged service certificates and other documents. 80.     Furthermore, there had been some contradictions in the applicants' statements. While being questioned by the investigating authorities, the applicants had submitted that the abductors had arrived in an APC and a UAZ vehicle. In their statements to their representatives the applicants had mentioned two APCs and, referring to other witnesses, a UAZ and a Niva vehicle. In some statements they had also referred to an ARV. Lastly, none of the applicants had seen the abductors put Musa Ilyasov in any of these vehicles. 81.     The Government further submitted that the investigation into the kidnapping had been effective and was pending before an independent State agency. The second applicant had been granted victim status in connection with those criminal proceedings. The investigators had carried out a whole series of investigative, operational and search measures. Although the investigation had been suspended on several occasions, the authorities were pursuing their attempts to establish all the circumstances of the abduction of Musa Ilyasov. 2.     The applicants 82.     The applicants claimed that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away Musa Ilyasov were State agents. In support of their assertion they referred to the following. At the material time the village of Mesker-Yurt had been under the control of federal troops and it had only been possible to access it through guarded roadblocks. The abductors had used military vehicles, in particular APCs, and thus could not possibly have passed through the roadblocks unnoticed. Had those vehicles been used by insurgents, the servicemen at the roadblocks would have reacted, at the very latest after the second applicant had arrived at one of the roadblocks and alerted the servicemen to the abduction of Musa Ilyasov. However, nothing indicated that this had occurred. Furthermore, the abductors had spoken unaccented Russian, a fact which lent further credence to the applicants' submission. The applicants' relative had been abducted in a life-threatening situation and the absence of any news of him strongly suggested that he had been killed. 83.     The applicants further claimed that the investigation into their relative's abduction had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy under Article 2 of the Convention. The Government had failed to give the exact date of the opening of the investigation. The applicants themselves had been confused in that respect because in some authorities' replies that date was given as 19 September 2002 and in others as 19   November 2002. Assuming that it had been the former date, that meant that the investigation had been opened five weeks after the authorities had become aware of the disappearance. The investigators had failed to question any members of the armed forces who might have been inv