CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 29 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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8FA53EDF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s61A5E261 { width:17pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF VAKHAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 1758/04)             JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 14 December 2009 under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court   STRASBOURG   29 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 Vakhayeva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 8 October 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 1758/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by seven Russian nationals listed below (“the applicants”), on 14 November 2003. 2.     The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Nazran. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights and subsequently by their new Representative, Mr G Matyushkin. 3.     The applicants alleged that their relative had disappeared after being detained by servicemen in Chechnya on 1   August 2000. They complained under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13. 4.     By a decision of 11 September 2008 the Court declared the application admissible. 5.     The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine ), the parties replied in writing to each other's observations. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants are: 1.     Ms Rebart (Rebat) Vakhayeva, born in 1945; 2.     Ms Kheda Aydamirova, born in 1976 ; 3.     Mr Adam Vakhayev, born in 1993; 4.     Ms Petimat Vakhayeva, born in 1995; 5.     Mr Akhmed Vakhayev, born in 1997; 6.     Mr Akhyad Vakhayev, born in 1998; 7.     Ms Khadizhat Vakhayeva, born in 2000. The applicants are Russian nationals and live in Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. 7.     The applicants are members of one family and are close relatives of Kazbek Vakhayev, born in 1975, who was apprehended by the police and has been missing since 13 August 2000. The first applicant is his mother, the second applicant is his wife and the third to seventh applicants are his children. The applicants live together in their house in Urus-Martan at 5,   Nuradilova Street, where Kazbek Vakhayev also lived before his arrest. 8.     Kazbek Vakhayev worked as a furniture maker before his arrest. According to the applicants, he had never been involved in the armed conflict in Chechnya and had no connections with the paramilitary. A.     Arrest and detention of Kazbek Vakhayev 1.     The applicants' account 9.     On 1 August 2000 the Urus-Martan Temporary Department of the   Interior of the Chechen Republic Урус-Мартановский временный отдел внутренних дел Чеченской республики (“Urus-Martan VOVD”) conducted a sweeping operation in the eastern part of the town. From early morning military forces cordoned off the eastern sector of the town, and officers from the Ministry of the Interior carried out a security raid. 10.     During the raid a van belonging to the Urals police arrived at the Vakhayevs' house. The whole family was already waiting in the courtyard with their documents, ready to be checked. According to the applicants, the servicemen were wearing police uniforms and were armed. Without any introduction or the presentation of a warrant they started searching the house. No attesting witnesses were present and no official records were made of the search. The search did not yield any incriminating evidence. 11.     After the search the servicemen proceeded with the document check, and requested the passports of the adult men who were present, namely Kazbek Vakhayev and his father, Lecha Vakhayev. They showed their passports, both of which were valid and bore registration stamps confirming their legal address, which was the place where they were being checked. The servicemen examined the passports and asked who Kazbek Vakhayev was. He answered and then asked whether anything was wrong with his documents. The servicemen told him that the documents were fine, but he was “on the list” and showed him a page from a notepad with some names on it. He was ordered to get in the van. In reply to the first applicant's question as to where he was being taken one of the policemen said: “They will see. Interrogate him. He will be released in two hours”. Another policeman explained that Kazbek Vakhayev was being taken following the receipt of an anonymous letter. 12.     On the same day officers from the Urus-Martan VOVD arrested several other men from the neighbourhood, among them G., two brothers Sh. and four brothers M. At the time of their arrests their houses were also searched. All of them were taken to the Urus-Martan VOVD, a temporary police station with a detention facility set up in a former boarding school in the town centre. 13.     On 2 August 2000 the applicants learned that an order to remand Kazbek Vakhayev in custody for ten days had been issued on the grounds that he was a vagrant. Under the applicable legislation this meant a person without any legal address indicated in his passport. 14.     For the next ten days the first and the second applicants visited the Urus-Martan VOVD regularly to enquire about Kazbek Vakhayev and to leave food and clothes for him, to be passed to the detention facility. Every day they were told that there was nothing pending against him on the file and that he was about to be released. 15.     Whenever the applicants left a parcel they attached a list of its contents, which would then be signed by Kazbek Vakhayev, and the guard would show them his signature to confirm its receipt. The applicants submit that they recognised his signature every time they left him a parcel. Sometimes he would add a short note and they were also able to recognise his handwriting. 16.     On 11 August 2000 Kazbek Vakhayev was due to be released after his ten days' detention. His relatives and the families of other detainees whose release was due on the same day went to the Urus-Martan VOVD early in the morning to pick them up. They waited until 5 p.m., when Major   S. announced that no one would be released on that day. The applicants then left another parcel for Kazbek Vakhayev, the receipt of which he confirmed as usual. All the detainees' families, including the applicants, stayed in front of the Urus-Martan VOVD until the start of the curfew and then left. 17.     On 12 August 2000 the applicants and the other families waited outside the Urus-Martan VOVD all day, but no one was released on that day either. In the evening the applicants left another parcel, the receipt of which Kazbek Vakhayev confirmed as usual. 18.     On 13 August 2000 the first and the second applicants and three relatives went to the Urus-Martan VOVD and waited there all day together with the families of the other detainees. At about 5 p.m. they submitted a parcel for Kazbek Vakhayev. However, after an unusually long delay a policeman brought it back and told them that their relative was no longer in the detention facility. 19.     The applicants asked to see the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD, Colonel Sh., and when he came to meet them outside the VOVD the first applicant asked him where her son was. Colonel Sh. took their names, went back into the police station and then returned with Kazbek Vakhayev's passport. He handed the passport to the first applicant and told her he did not know where her son was. When she pressed him for an explanation he replied that he had probably been taken to the “force groups”. According to the applicants, this meant the federal force group “Zapad” ( группировка федеральных сил «Запад» ) which at the time was located to the south-west of Urus-Martan. When the first applicant protested, saying that the police were in charge of Kazbek Vakhayev and that handing him over without any documents was unheard of, Colonel Sh. replied that he would punish the head of the detention facility. The applicants were unable to obtain any more information on the matter. 20.     On the evening of the same day the two brothers Sh. and four brothers   M. were found after having been left on the Rostov-Baku motorway near the town of Argun in Chechnya. The applicants learned that all of them had sustained numerous injuries and had traces of torture. The first applicant also learned that on the night of 11-12 August 2000 they had been transferred from the Urus-Martan VOVD to the Urus-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD), a normal police station, and on the night of 12-13 August 2000 they had been taken to the federal force group “Zapad”. After spending a night there, on 13 August 2000 they were taken to the town of Khankala, then the main federal military base for Chechnya. On the evening of the same day they were driven to the Argun district, where they were dropped off on the motorway. 21.     On 14 August 2000 the applicants learned that two more detainees, Yusup Satabayev ( Satabayeva v. Russia , application no. 21486/06) and Ch., had gone missing from the Urus-Martan VOVD at the same time as Kazbek Vakhayev. Yusup Satabayev had been in detention since 23 February 2000 on suspicion of involvement in illegal paramilitary groups; from the beginning of August he had been held in the Urus-Martan VOVD. According to the applicants, Ch. had been arrested during the sweeping operation on the Urus-Martan district on 9 August 2000. On 14 August 2000 the relatives of Yusup Satabayev and Ch. had learned of their disappearance from the Urus-Martan VOVD. G.   had also gone missing from the VOVD. 22.     At about noon on the same day the families of the four missing men met the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD, Colonel Sh., who initially told them that all four men had been released. He then said that only Kazbek Vakhayev had been released on 11 August 2000, but that the others had been taken to the “force groups”. The first applicant talked to Colonel Sh. afterwards, and eventually he told her that all four men, including her son, had been taken to “FSB-2” ( «ФСБ-2» ), which formed part of the “force groups”. 2.     The Government's account 23.     In their submissions prior to the Court's decision of 11 September 2008 on the admissibility of the application, the Government stated that “on 1   August 2000 officers of the Urus-Martan Temporary Department of the Interior of the Chechen Republic under Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 2   November 1993 no. 1815 'On Measures for Prevention of Vagrancy and Mendicancy' apprehended and brought to the said department Y.   A.   Satabayev, [G.], K.L. Vakhayev and [Ch.]. Subsequently they were released however, their whereabouts [are] still unknown”. 24.     In their submissions after the Court's decision of 11 September 2008 on the admissibility of the application, the Government reiterated that Kazbek Vakhayev had been detained on 1 August 2000 on the ground of the above-mentioned Decree. At the same time they submitted that he had been released on 11 August 2000. The Government also stated that his detention was “sanctioned by the prosecutor of the Urus-Martan district as valid and justified. The applicants have never brought any complaints against this detention before the national courts”. B.     The search for Kazbek Vakhayev and the investigation 25.     On 15 August 2000 the first applicant filed a complaint with the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office concerning the unlawful arrest, detention and disappearance of her son. 26.     On 20 August 2000 the acting prosecutor of the Urus-Martan district replied to the first applicant: “Further to your application concerning the disappearance of your son, Kazbek Vakhayev, born in 1975, I can inform you that from 1 to 11 August 2000 he was detained in the detention facility of the Urus-Martan VOVD as a vagrant, after which he was released.” 27.     On 22 August 2000 the first and the second applicants learned from informal contacts that on 13 August 2000 four young Chechen men had been executed in a military camp near the village of Goy-Chu of the Urus ‑ Martan district. The execution had apparently been carried out by servicemen from the Urus-Martan district military commander's office ( Урус-Мартановская районная военная комендатура ) and the bodies had been buried in a shallow grave in the grounds of the military camp. When the camp was relocated one of the soldiers had told the villagers of Goy-Chu about the grave and asked them to re-bury the dead. In the place he indicated villagers exhumed four corpses with numerous traces of violence, and also found some spent cartridges. They could not identify the bodies but they made a video recording of them. The bodies were re-buried on the same day, 22 August 2000, in the Goyskoye village cemetery. A member of the applicants' family, Mr U., came to identify the bodies, but he did not recognise Kazbek Vakhayev among them. The applicants submitted a copy of the above video recording to the Court. 28.     On 27 August 2000 the first applicant wrote to the military commander of the Urus-Martan district, requesting him to take urgent measures to search for her son. 29.     On 14 September 2000 the applicant filed a written complaint with the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, requesting his assistance in the search for her son. 30.     On 16 September 2000 the first applicant and the mothers of the missing detainees Yusup Satabayev, G. and Ch. applied to the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic, complaining about the disappearance of their sons from the detention facility and alleging the use of torture against them. 31.     On 17 September 2000 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that her letter of 20 August 2000 had been forwarded to the Urus-Martan VOVD. 32.     On 18 October 2000 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation into the abduction of four men, i.e. Kazbek Vakhayev, Yusup Satabayev, G. and Ch. (criminal case file no. 24048). The decision stated, in particular: “On 1 August 2000 officers of the Urus-Martan [VOVD] apprehended and brought to the [VOVD] [Mr G.], Kazbek Vakhayev, [Mr Ch.] and Yusup   Satabayev pursuant to Decree no. 1815 of the President of the Russian Federation of 2   November 1993 'On Measures for the Prevention of Vagrancy and Mendicancy'. On 14 August 2000 the detainees were released and sent to their places of residence. However, to date [the detainees] have not returned to their places of residence, they are being searched for by their relatives and their whereabouts are not established.” 33.     On 25 October 2000 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office informed the first applicant about the institution of criminal proceedings. 34.     On 31 October 2000 the second applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 35.     On 11 November 2000 the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 36.     The first and second applicants, questioned on unspecified dates, made statements similar to their description of the events as submitted to the Court. At the same time, according to the Government, the first applicant informed the investigating authorities that her son had been detained because he had not had his passport with him because it had been lost. According to the first applicant, she never made such a statement. 37.     On 18 December 2000 the investigation into criminal case no.   24048 was adjourned. 38.     On 22 January 2001 the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's letter to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office. 39.     On 25 January 2001 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office wrote to the first applicant, informing her that criminal proceedings had been instituted further to her complaints. 40.     In March 2001 the first applicant watched the video recording of the bodies exhumed in Goy-Chu on 22 August 2000 and noted that one of the dead resembled Kazbek Vakhayev and was dressed in similar clothes. She also noted that the body was disfigured by torture; in particular, it was covered in bruises, parts of the flesh had been ripped off, and the fingernails had been pulled out. Relatives of the other three missing men, Yusup Satabayev, G. and Ch., also watched the video-tape and, likewise, considered that the other bodies looked like their relatives. Accordingly they all concluded that the four missing men were likely to have been executed on 13 August 2000. They requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office, in person, to order the exhumation and a forensic examination of the bodies buried in Goyskoye. 41.     On 12 April 2001 the applicants obtained a death certificate in respect of Kazbek Vakhayev from the Urus-Martan civil register. 24   March   2001 was indicated as the date of death. No other details were stated. It is not clear what constituted the basis for the issue of the death certificate. According to the Government, a check was instituted by the prosecuting authorities concerning its issue. There is no information on the outcome of the check. 42.     On 6 June 2001 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office informed the first applicant that Kazbek Vakhayev, Yusup Satabayev, G.   and Ch., who had been arrested on 1 August 2000, had been released on 14   August   2000 and sent to their places of residence. In this letter the applicant was also informed about the adjournment of the criminal investigation as of 18   December   2000. 43.     On 3 September 2001 the first applicant filed a complaint with the Prosecutor General, requesting that the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD, Colonel Sh., and the acting District Prosecutor I. be brought to justice. She also requested that there should be a criminal investigation in relation to the discovery of four unidentified bodies near Goy-Chu. 44.     On 13 October 2001 the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic ordered the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office to submit the investigation file in case no. 24048 for examination. 45.     On 25 February 2002 the first applicant complained to the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic that she had received no reply to her previous letters. She asked for the resumption of the criminal investigation and that all her previous applications be considered. 46.     On 12 March 2002 the investigation was resumed. 47.     On 19 March 2002 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office issued the first applicant with a certificate stating that the criminal investigation into the disappearance of her son had been opened on 18   October 2000. 48.     On 12 April 2002 the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The decision reiterated that the four detainees had been released on 14 August 2000. 49.     On 14 June 2002 the first applicant wrote to the Human Rights Department of the Chechen Republic, requesting their assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Kazbek Vakhayev. On the same day she sent a similar request to the Deputy Prime Minister of the Government of the Chechen Republic. 50.     On 19 March 2003 the first applicant wrote to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office, asking them to question Colonel Sh. 51.     On 15 July 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office lifted the adjournment of the criminal proceedings in case no. 24048 and resumed the investigation. 52.     On 22 August 2003 the first applicant requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor to inform her of the measures taken further to her earlier applications. 53.     On 8 September 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that Colonel Sh. had not been charged with the abduction of her son and that there had been insufficient evidence to bring charges in the case. 54.     On 28 September 2003 the investigation was resumed. 55.     On 28 October 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office again adjourned the investigation on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The decision reiterated that the four detainees had been released on 14 August 2000. 56.     On 15 December 2003 the first applicant requested the Urus-Martan district prosecutor to allow her access to criminal case file no. 24048. 57.     On 19 December 2003 the acting Urus-Martan district prosecutor informed the applicant that access could not be granted as the case file had been sent to the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic. 58.     On 27 January 2004 the first applicant wrote to the head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) of the Urus-Martan district, asking whether her son had been suspected of any illegal activities. 59.     On 27 February 2004 the FSB of the Urus-Martan district replied to the first applicant that they had no information concerning Kazbek Vakhayev. 60.     On 2 April 2004 the first applicant requested the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic to inform her which prosecutor's office was in charge of the investigation into case no. 24048 and asked them to inform her of the measures taken. On 19 April 2004 the applicant re-sent the same request to the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic and the Urus ‑ Martan District Prosecutor's Office. On 18 May 2004, having received no reply, she repeated her enquiry. 61.     On 21 May 2004 the first applicant requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office to bring criminal charges against Colonel Sh., against the head of the detention facility of the Urus-Martan VOVD and against all the servicemen of that department involved in the arrest of Kazbek Vakhayev, his remanding in custody and, possibly, his murder. She further requested that the four unidentified bodies discovered on 22   August   2000 in Goy-Chu and re-buried in Goyskoye be exhumed. She also requested that she be allowed access to case file no. 24048 in order to take copies of it. 62.     On 10 June 2004 the investigation was resumed. 63.     On 15 June 2004 the acting prosecutor of the Urus-Martan district replied to the first applicant, informing her that the materials in the case file were insufficient to either establish the whereabouts of Kazbek Vakhayev or identify the persons responsible for his abduction. She was invited to submit all evidence, if she had any, to the prosecutor's office. 64.     On 29 June 2004 the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic informed the applicant that an investigation in case no. 24048 was underway. 65.     On 10 July 2004 the investigation was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 66.     On 29 September 2004 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant about the resumption of the investigation in case no.   24048. 67.     On 27 October 2004 the first applicant submitted the video tape recorded on 22 August 2000 to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office, requesting that it be included in the case file. 68.     On 28 October 2004 the tape was added to the case file. 69.     On 29 October 2004 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office again suspended the investigation of case no. 24048. 70.     On 6 June 2005 the investigation was resumed. 71.     On 6 July 2006 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office again suspended the investigation. 72.     On 21 July 2006 the investigation was resumed. 73.     On 4 August 2006 the materials concerning the discovery of the four unidentified bodies were made part of a separate investigation, no. 57051. 74.     On 21 August 2006 investigation no. 24048 was again suspended. It was resumed on the next day. 75.     On 22 September 2006 the investigation was again suspended. 76.     On 23 September 2006 the investigation was resumed. It was subsequently again suspended and resumed on 23 and 25 October 2006 respectively. 77.     The following information concerning the progress of the investigation was submitted by the Government after the decision of 11   September 2008 on the admissibility of the application. 78.     On 26 and 27 September 2006 the investigating authorities sent requests for information to the head of the FSB department in the Chechen Republic and the head of Operative-Search Bureau no. 2 at the Ministry of the Interior concerning the possible involvement of Yusup Satabayev, Mr   G., Kazbek Vakhayev and Mr Ch. in illegal armed groups and their possible detention by law-enforcement authorities. According to the replies received, those authorities had no relevant information. 79.     On 11 October and on 10 November 2006 the second applicant was questioned. She confirmed her previous statements and, on the basis of the video footage, identified one of the bodies found near the village of Goy ‑ Chu as Kazbek Vakhayev. According to the Government, she refused to indicate his burial place so that the authorities could conduct an exhumation, since that would be in breach of Muslim traditions. 80.     On 12 October 2006 Tamara Satabayeva, the mother of Yusup Satabayev, was questioned. She confirmed the account of the events provided in her previous statements and in the statements of the second applicant. She identified, on the basis of the video footage, one of the bodies found near the village of Goy-Chu as Yusup Satabayev, since he had the same stature and was wearing the same clothes. 81.     On 13 October 2006 Ms G. was questioned. She submitted that her daughter-in-law had watched the above-mentioned video footage and had identified one of the bodies as Mr G. 82.     On 20 and 25 November 2006 and 18 January 2007 numerous inquiries and instructions were sent to various law-enforcement authorities and detention facilities, requesting information on the fate of Yusup Satabayev, Mr G., Kazbek Vakhayev and Mr Ch. and on their abductors. According to the replies received, the addressees had no relevant information. 83.     On 25 November 2006 the investigation was suspended. 84.     On 28 December 2006 the investigation was resumed. The decision reiterated that the four detainees had been released on 14 August 2000. 85.     On 8 February 2007 the investigating authorities instructed the head of the Urus-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD) to locate the persons held at the detention facility of the Urus-Martan VOVD simultaneously with Yusup Satabayev, Mr G., Kazbek Vakhayev and Mr   Ch. The ROVD located seven persons: Mr A.M., Mr M.M., Mr A.E., Mr   Kh.D., Mr S.-A.E., Mr Z.V. and Mr A.Z. It appeared impossible to establish the whereabouts of other detainees because they no longer resided in the Chechen Republic. 86.     On 11 February 2007 Mr A.E. was questioned. He submitted that at the beginning of August 2000 he had been detained by officers of the Urus ‑ Martan VOVD because he had had no identity documents. He had been held for three days in cell no. 4 with his acquaintances Mr G. and Kazbek Vakhayev. He did not know the reasons for their detention. At the time of his release they were still held in cell no. 4. He had never seen them again. 87.     On 22 February 2007 Mr M. M. was questioned. He stated that on 1   August 2000 he had been detained by officers of the Urus-Martan VOVD because he had had no identity documents. He had been held in a cell with Mr G. and Kazbek Vakhayev until 11 August 2000. At the time of his release they remained in detention. He and other detainees had not been subjected to physical or psychological pressure. 88.     On 24 February 2007 Mr A.M. was questioned. He made a statement similar to those of Mr A.E. and Mr M.M. 89.     Mr   Kh.D., Mr A.V., Mr . S. and Mr S.-A.E. were questioned on 13, 15, 18 and 20 February 2007 respectively. They did not provide any relevant information. 90.     On 23 April 2008 an inquiry was sent to remand prison SIZO-20/2 concerning Yusup Satabayev. According to the reply, Yusup Satabayev had been detained in SIZO-20/2 until 1 August 2000, when he was transferred to the detention facility of the Urus-Martan VOVD. 91.     On 25 April 2008 the investigating authorities of the Penza district were instructed to question Mr Sh., the former head of the Urus-Martan VOVD. 92.     On the same date and on 26 April 2008 the head of the Urus-Martan ROVD was instructed to identify eye-witnesses to the murder and burial of the four corpses near the village of Goy-Chu, and the person who had handed over the video footage of the bodies to the first applicant. The replies received did not contain any relevant information. 93.     On 27 June 2008 the second applicant was questioned. She confirmed her previous statements, agreed to show the burial place of Kazbek Vakhayev and stated that she had no objections to his exhumation. She also stated that she had never been subjected to any form of pressure in relation to her application to the Court. 94.     On 15 September 2008 the investigating authorities decided to apply to a court with requests for the seizure of certain documents and items classified as State secrets, kept in the archives of the FSB, the North ‑ Caucasian Circuit of Internal Forces of the Ministry of the Interior, the Federal Service of Execution of Punishments, Interior Troops and the Ministry of Defence. The requests were granted by an unspecified court on an unspecified date and investigating officials proceeded to carry out the seizure. 95.     On 30 September 2008 a special investigative group was set up. It included officers from the Military Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. 96.     On 8 October 2008 the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. 97.     On 18 October 2008 the investigation was resumed. C.     Court proceedings concerning the inactivity of investigating authorities 98.     On 5 January 2003 the first applicant applied to the Urus-Martan Town Court seeking to have the inaction of the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor declared unlawful. She complained about the absence of an effective investigation and requested the court to order the prosecutor's office to resume criminal proceedings. 99.     On 16 April 2003 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic about the town court's failure to examine her claim and requested the Supreme Court to act as a first-instance court in her case. On 14 May 2003 the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic forwarded this letter to the Urus-Martan Town Court with a notice “to consider it on the merits”. 100.     On 1 July 2003 the first applicant had a meeting with the President of the Urus-Martan Town Court, who told her that she should have lodged a complaint with the prosecutors' office. The applicant concluded that the court would not consider her claim. 101.     On 2 July 2003 the first applicant requested the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic to act as a court of first-instance in respect of her complaint against the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office. 102.     On 21 July 2003 the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic sent an enquiry to the Urus-Martan Town Court concerning the progress in the examination of the applicant's claim. 103.     On 30 July 2003 the first applicant requested the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic to inform her when her claim would be considered. 104.     On 15 August 2003 the President of the Urus-Martan Town Court informed the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic that the investigation in criminal case no. 24048 had been resumed as of 15   July 2003. 105.     On 12 September 2003 the first applicant requested the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic to act as a court of first-instance in her case against the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office. 106.     On 7 October 2003 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic informed the applicant that the criminal investigation in case no. 24048 had been resumed and was to be completed in one month. Her complaint, together with her claims against the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office, were therefore forwarded to the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic. 107.     On 22 July 2004 the first applicant filed a new complaint in the Urus-Martan Town Court against the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office. She challenged their failure to conduct an effective investigation. 108.     On 14 September 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court granted the first applicant's complaint and declared the failure to act on the part of the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office unlawful. The court ordered that the applicant's request of 21 May 2004 to bring criminal charges against officers of the Urus-Martan VOVD, exhume the bodies re-buried in Goyskoye and allow her access to the case file be dealt with by the prosecutor's office. 109.     On 3 December 2004 the first applicant filed another complaint with the Urus-Martan Town Court against the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office. She challenged their failure to charge the officers of the department of the interior with criminal offences related to the abduction and, possibly, the murder of her son, the failure to give her access to the case file and to take measures to identify the bodies re-buried in Goyskoye. 110.     On 28 December 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court granted the first applicant's complaint in part and ordered the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office to take measures in relation to the unidentified bodies. The remainder of the complaint was dismissed. 111.     On 18 January 2005 the first applicant appealed. 112.     On 9 February 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the first applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 28   December   2004. D.     The Court's request to submit the investigation file 113.     Despite the Court's repeated requests, the Government has not submitted a copy of the investigation file into the abduction of Kazbek Vakhayev. They have submitted case file materials extending to ninety ‑ three   pages, containing decisions on the institution, suspension and resumption of the investigation and the decisions to grant victim status, and copies of judicial decisions concerning the first applicant's complaints. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in criminal proceedings. 114.     Despite the Court's specific request, made after the decision as to admissibility of the application of 11 September 2008, to submit copies of all documents related to Kazbek Vakhayev's arrest on 1 August 2000 and subsequent detention, including the decisions to remand him in custody and to release him and an extract from the detention facility register confirming his release, the Government submitted no documents. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 115.     Until 1 July 2002 criminal-law matters were governed by the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic). On 1 July 2002 the old Code was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. 116.     Article 125 of the new CCP provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court. 117.     Article 161 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the rule that data from the preliminary investigation cannot be disclosed. Part   3 of the same Article provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation. It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of the participants in criminal proceedings without their permission. 118.     Presidential Decree no. 1815 of 2 November 1993 on Measures for the Prevention of Vagrancy and Mendicancy provided for the reorganisation of the system of “reception and distribution centres”, for persons detained by the bodies of the Ministry of the Interior for vagrancy and mendicancy, into centres of social rehabilitation for such persons. Section 3 of the Decree provides: “Placement of persons engaged in vagrancy and mendicancy in centres of social rehabilitation is permitted subject to the prosecutor's authorisation, for a term not exceeding ten days.” THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 119.     The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the investigation into the disappearance of Kazbek Vakhayev had not yet been completed. 120.     The applicants disputed that objection. In their view, the fact that the investigation had been pending for eight years with no tangible results proved that it was an ineffective remedy in this case. 121.     In the present case, the Court took no decision about the exhaustion of domestic remedies at the admissibility stage, having found that this question was too closely linked to the merits. It will now proceed to examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia , no. 60272/00, §§   73-74, 12 October 2006). 122.     The Court observes that the applicants complained to the law-enforcement authorities shortly after the disappearance of Kazbek Vakhayev and that an investigation has been pending since 18 October 2000. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation. 123.     The Court considers that 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. Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention.   II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 124.     The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their family member 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 provides: “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.     Alleged violation of Kazbek Vakhayev's [1] right to life 1.     Arguments of the parties 125.     The applicants argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Kazbek Vakhayev had been killed by representatives of the federal forces. He had disappeared in the hands of the federal forces and the authorities had failed to provide any explanation as to his subsequent fate. 126.     The Government submitted that the circumstances of Kazbek Vakhayev's disappearance were under investigation. The information about his death had not been confirmed. Nor had it been established that any State agents had violated his right to life. 2.     The Court's assessment (a)     General principles 127.     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, among other authorities, Orhan v. Turkey , no. 25656/94, § 326, 18 June 2002, and the authorities cited therein). Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in detention, strong presumptions