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 } .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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s886B04A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF SATABAYEVA v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 21486/06)             JUDGMENT       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 Satabayeva 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. 21486/06) 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 a Russian national, Ms Tamara Satabayeva (“the applicant”), on 11 May 2006. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was 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 applicant alleged that her son had disappeared after being arrested on 23   February 2000. She complained under Articles 2, 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 applicant was born in 1953. She lives in Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. A.     Detention and subsequent disappearance of Yusup Satabayev 7.     The applicant's son, Yusup Satabayev, born in 1977, lived with her in Urus-Martan at the address 1 Tolstogo Street. The applicant has two other children. 1.     The applicant's account 8.     On 29 January 2000, following the outbreak of armed conflict in Chechnya, Yusup Satabayev joined one of the paramilitary groups which fought against the federal army. According to the applicant, he stayed with the paramilitary group for less than a month, during which time there were no armed confrontations, and then left. On 23 February 2000 he arrived in Martan-Chu, in the Urus-Martan district, allegedly to surrender to the authorities in order to benefit from the Amnesty Act. However, on the same day he was arrested at his sister's house by servicemen of the Federal Security Service (FSB). After his arrest he voluntarily disclosed to the authorities the hiding place of his personal machine gun and a cache of weapons belonging to the paramilitaries. 9.     Yusup Satabayev was then charged in criminal proceedings with participation in an organised armed gang and illegal dealing in firearms (case file no. 59211). He was remanded in custody during the investigation. On 4 March 2000 he was transferred to the pre-trial detention facility in the village of Chernokozovo in Naurskiy district. On 12 March 2000 the applicant visited this detention facility and, although she was not allowed to see him in person, she received his message confirming receipt of her parcel. The applicant then remained in Chernokozovo and regularly sent parcels to her son, each time receiving confirmation of their receipt. 10.     In mid-July 2000 legal counsel hired by the applicant, Ms T., visited Yusup Satabayev in the detention facility and ascertained that he was in good health. 11.     On 27 July 2000 the criminal proceedings against Yusup Satabayev were discontinued on the following grounds: “[Yusup Satabayev] has acknowledged having participated in illegal organised gangs, is aware of being guilty of the [criminal offences he is charged with], he is liable to the maximum sanction of five years of imprisonment ..., has voluntarily surrendered [his weapon] and indicated the place where paramilitaries' arms were hidden, and thus should be absolved of criminal liability [for dealing in firearms]; he has not caused any damage to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, has no previous criminal record, and has a permanent place of residence, [he is] characterised positively, has voluntarily quit the illegal paramilitary groups, and has therefore ceased to pose a public danger.” 12.     Yusup Satabayev was notified of this decision on the same day and he signed the last page of it, as required by law. His release was due on the same day but he remained in custody. 13.     The applicant was not aware that the criminal proceedings against her son had been discontinued. 14.     On 28 July 2000 the applicant's legal counsel, T., discovered that Yusup Satabayev had been transferred to the detention facility of the Urus ‑ Martan temporary Department of the Interior of the Chechen Republic (VOVD) ( Урус-Мартановский временный отдел внутренних дел Чеченской республики ). The applicant went to Urus-Martan and met investigator O., who was in charge of the criminal case against Yusup Satabayev. He explained that Yusup Satabayev would be detained for another ten days and would then be released. He did not inform her that the criminal case had been discontinued. 15.     On the same day the applicant sent a parcel to her son in the detention facility and he confirmed its receipt as usual. Over the following days the applicant routinely spent all the time outside the curfew hours in front of the detention facility, waiting for her son's release. She regularly sent parcels and received confirmations of receipt, and sometimes short notes which he wrote on the receipt form. On 1 August 2000 she met the families of other detainees, Kazbek Vakhayev ( Vakhayeva and Others v.   Russia , application no.   1758/04) and Mr G., who had been arrested earlier that day. From that day onwards they too were regularly in front of the detention facility. 16.     On 1-2 August 2000 the applicant sent her son a parcel with a pair of shoes, trousers, and a shirt. He sent her back his used clothes, namely a black jumper, socks, winter shoes and a towel. 17.     On 4 August 2000 the applicant visited investigator O. and asked him when her son would be released. He informed her that criminal proceedings against him had been discontinued on 27 July 2000. She then asked him on what grounds Yusup Satabayev was being kept in detention, but O. only said that it “had to be done this way”. 18.     On 9 August 2000 the applicant met Ms   Ch., whose son had been arrested that day, in front of the detention facility. 19.     On 13 August 2000 the applicant saw the family of Kazbek Vakhayev submitting a parcel which was then returned to them, on the ground that he was no longer in the facility. 20.     At about 2 p.m. on the same day the applicant sent a parcel to her son, but the officer did not give her confirmation of its receipt. At her request he went to get the receipt but did not return. 21.     On the morning of 14 August 2000 the applicant, together with the families of the other detainees, visited the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD, Colonel Sh., who told them that Kazbek Vakhayev had been released on 11   August 2000, but that Yusup Satabayev, Mr G., and Mr Ch. had been abducted by the “Shamanovs” ( «Шамановцы» ) and taken to the “force groups”. According to the applicant, this meant the federal force group “Zapad” under the command of General Shamanov ( группировка федеральных сил «Запад» под командованием генерала Шаманова ) then located to the south-west of Urus-Martan. Neither the applicant nor other detainees' families were able to obtain any further information on the matter. 2.     The Government's account 22.     In their submissions prior to the Court's decision of 11   September   2008 on the admissibility of the application, the Government stated that “[o]n 1 August 2000 officers of the Urus-Martan [VOVD] 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, [Mr G.], K.L. Vakhayev and [Mr Ch.]. Subsequently they were released however, their whereabouts [are] still unknown”. 23.     In their submissions after the Court's decision of 11 September 2008 on the admissibility of the application, the Government stated that “[o]n 27   July 2000 the criminal proceedings... against Yu.   A.   Satabayev were discontinued, the measure of restraint in respect of this person was cancelled. As the relevant decision came to [remand prison] IZ-20/2 on 1   August 2000, Yu.   A.   Satabayev was immediately released. On 4 August 2000 Yu.   A.   Satabayev, in the absence of identification documents, was detained for committing an administrative offence pursuant to the Decree   of the President of the Russian Federation of 2   November   1993 no. 1815 'On Measures for Prevention of Vagrancy and Mendicancy', his detention in the detention ward of the [Urus-Martan VOVD] lasted for ten days until 14   August 2000, on this date Yu.   A.   Satabayev was released. The detention of Yu.   A.   Satabayev 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.     Search for Yusup Satabayev and investigation 1.     The applicant's account 24.     The applicant instructed her legal counsel, Ms T., to make all official enquiries with the authorities to establish the whereabouts of her son, which Ms T. did. 25.     On 19 August 2000 the acting prosecutor of the Urus-Martan district informed the applicant's counsel that “according to the records of the Urus ‑ Martan VOVD, [Yusup Satabayev] was released on 14 August 2000”. 26.     On 22 August 2000 the family of Kazbek Vakhayev learned from informal contacts that on 13 August 2000 four young Chechen men had been executed in the military camp near the village of Goy-Chu in the Urus ‑ Martan district. Apparently the execution had been carried out by servicemen of 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 dismantled for relocation one of the soldiers told the villagers of Goy-Chu about the grave and asked them to re-bury the dead. In the indicated place the villagers exhumed four corpses with numerous traces of violence and some spent cartridges. They did not identify the bodies but they made a video recording. The bodies were re-buried on the same day, 22   August 2000, in the Goyskoye village cemetery. A member of Kazbek Vakhayev's family, Mr U., came to identify the bodies, but he did not recognise Kazbek Vakhayev among them. The applicant submitted to the Court a copy of the video recording. 27.     On 7 September 2000 the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD, Colonel   Sh., sent a letter to the applicant's counsel, informing her that “Yusup Satabayev, born in 1976, has neither been arrested by the Urus ‑ Martan VOVD nor detained therein”. 28.     On 14 September 2000 the acting prosecutor of the Urus-Martan district informed the applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the Urus-Martan VOVD to open an investigation into the disappearance of Yusup Satabayev. She was also informed that Yusup Satabayev had been detained as a vagrant from 4 to 14 August 2000 on the basis of Presidential Decree no. 1815 of 1993 and then released. 29.     On 16 September 2000 the applicant and the mothers of the other missing detainees, Kazbek Vakhayev, Mr G. and Mr 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. 30.     On 18 October 2000 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation into the abduction of four men, namely Yusup Satabayev, Kazbek Vakhayev, Mr G. and Mr 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.” 31.     On 25 October 2000 the applicant was informed by the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office that a criminal investigation had been instituted. 32.     On 1 November 2000 the applicant was granted victim status in case no. 24048. She claims that she was not informed of this decision. 33.     The applicant submitted that her flat in Urus-Martan had been subjected to several search raids. She referred in particular to the events of 22   February   2001, when a group of six or seven armed servicemen had broken into the flat at night, apparently searching for “men”. After these raids the applicant decided to leave Chechnya for security reasons. 34.     On 23 February 2001 the applicant, with her children, moved to Ingushetiya, where they lived until 2006 in a refugee camp for forced migrants from Chechnya. 35.     In March 2001 the applicant was visited in Ingushetiya by Rebart Vakhayeva, the mother of Kazbek Vakhayev. She showed her the video recording of the bodies exhumed on 22 August 2000 and said that one of the dead men was probably Kazbek Vakhayev. The applicant watched the video tape as well and concluded that another exhumed body belonged to Yusup Satabayev. In addition, she recognised the trousers and the shirt which she had sent him in the detention facility on 1-2 August 2000. According to the applicant, all four bodies showed signs of a violent death. Rebart Vakhayeva told the applicant that she had already requested the prosecutor's office to re-exhume the bodies and to conduct a forensic examination and identification. 36.     During her stay in Ingushetiya the applicant had no contact with the prosecutor's office: she was never informed about the progress of the investigation in case no. 24048 and no letters were delivered to her address. 37.     At the end of March 2006 the applicant returned to Chechnya. 38.     On 4 April 2006 she requested the prosecutor's office to provide her with an update on the investigation of case no. 24048. 39.     On 6 April 2006 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that she had been granted victim status in case no.   24048. 40.     The applicant remained in contact with Rebart Vakhayeva and was aware of her attempts to secure the re-exhumation of the four bodies found near Goy-Chu and their identification. In particular, she referred to the judgment of 28 December 2004 given by the Urus-Martan Town Court, which ordered the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office to take measures in relation to these unidentified bodies. According to the applicant, this court order has not been carried out to date. 41.     The applicant submitted that there had been no development in the case since. 2.     The Government's account 42.     Following the applications lodged by the applicant and the mothers of the three other men who had disappeared, the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office conducted a check, following which criminal proceedings under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction) were instituted on 18   October   2000. The case was assigned number 24048. 43.     The applicant was granted victim status and questioned on numerous occasions. She submitted that Yusup Satabayev had been a member of a paramilitary group. She had no information about his fate after his release from the Urus-Martan district remand prison in August 2000. 44.     Kheda Aydamirova, the wife of Kazbek Vakhayev, Rebart Vakhayeva, Ms   Ch. and Ms G. (apparently family members of Mr Ch. and Mr G. respectively) were also granted victim status and questioned. However, they provided no particular information about the disappearance of Yusup Satabayev and their relatives. 45.     Witnesses Mr A., Mr B., Mr S., Ms A., Ms Kh., Ms A. V., Ms L. T., Ms   Akh. and Ms Z. T. “and others” submitted that they had no information about the apprehension of the disappeared persons by law-enforcement officials. It is not clear who those witnesses were and why their statements could have been relevant. 46.     Rebart Vakhayeva filed an application to include in the case file a videotape of four dead bodies, one of which, according to her, was her son. The Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office received instructions to establish the circumstances in which the dead bodies had been found and to identify the dead persons. 47.     Rebart Vakhayeva also complained to the Urus-Martan District Court about the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings. Her complaint was partially allowed. The same court partially allowed her complaint concerning the necessity to take a procedural decision in respect of the discovery of the four dead bodies. 48.     On 4 August 2006 criminal proceedings concerning the discovery of the four dead bodies on 22 August 2000 were separated into a different set of criminal proceedings under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).     The Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic gave instructions concerning the additional questioning of the applicant and exhumation of the dead bodies. 49.     The investigator instructed the local department of the interior to establish the whereabouts of the disappeared persons. In order to verify whether the officials of the FSB had been involved in the offence, the prosecuting authorities requested information concerning the possible detention of Yusup Satabayev, Mr G., Kazbek Vakhayev and Mr Ch. between 14   August   2000 and 9 October 2003. However, no information about their detention was received. 50.     The preliminary investigation in case no. 24048 was repeatedly suspended on account of failure to identify the persons to be charged with the offence. Those who had victim status in the criminal proceedings were duly informed of all the suspensions and resumptions of the investigation and the appeal procedure was clarified for them. After the most recent suspension of the investigation on 21 August 2006, it was resumed on 22   August 2006 by the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office. 51.     The following information concerning the progress of the investigation was submitted by the Government after the decision as to the admissibility of the application of 11 September 2008. 52.     On 23 September 2006 the investigation was resumed, apparently after having been suspended again after 22   August 2006. 53.     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. 54.     On 11 October and on 10 November 2006 Kheda Aydamirova, the wife of Kazbek Vakhayev, was questioned. She confirmed her previous statements and identified, on the basis of the video footage, 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. 55.     On 12 October 2006 the applicant was questioned. She confirmed the account of the events provided in her previous statements and in the statements of Kheda Aydamirova. On the basis of the video footage she identified 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. 56.     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. 57.     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. 58.     On 8 February 2007 the investigating authorities instructed the head of the Urus-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD) to locate 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. 59.     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. 60.     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 since 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 had remained in detention. He and other detainees had not been subjected to physical or psychological pressure. 61.     On 24 February 2007 Mr A.M. was questioned. He made a statement similar to those of Mr A.E. and Mr M.M. 62.     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. 63.     On 23 April 2008 an inquiry was sent to remand prison IZ-20/2 concerning Yusup Satabayev. According to the reply, Yusup Satabayev had been detained in IZ-20/2 until 1 August 2000, when he was transferred to the detention facility of the Urus-Martan VOVD. 64.     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. 65.     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 Rebart Vakhayeva. The replies received did not contain any relevant information. 66.     On 27 June 2008 Kheda Aydamirova 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 before the Court. 67.     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 effectuate the seizure. 68.     On 30 September 2008 a special investigative group was set up. It included officers of the Military Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. 69.     On 8 October 2008 the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. 70.     On 18 October 2008 the investigation was resumed. C.     Court proceedings concerning the inactivity of the investigating authorities 71.     On 5 January 2003 Rebart Vakhayeva 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. 72.     On 16 April 2003 Rebart Vakhayeva 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”. 73.     On 1 July 2003 Rebart Vakhayeva 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. She concluded that the court would not consider her claim. 74.     On 2 July 2003 Rebart Vakhayeva 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. 75.     On 21 July 2003 the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic sent an enquiry to the Urus-Martan Town Court about the progress in the examination of Rebart Vakhayeva's claim. 76.     On 30 July 2003 Rebart Vakhayeva requested the President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic to inform her when her claim would be considered. 77.     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. 78.     On 12 September 2003 Rebart Vakhayeva 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. 79.     On 7 October 2003 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic informed Rebart Vakhayeva 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. 80.     On 22 July 2004 Rebart Vakhayeva 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. 81.     On 14 September 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court granted Rebart Vakhayeva's complaint and declared the failure to act on the part of the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office unlawful. The court ordered that her 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. 82.     On 3 December 2004 Rebart Vakhayeva 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. 83.     On 28 December 2004 the Urus-Martan Town Court granted her 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. 84.     On 18 January 2005 Rebart Vakhayeva appealed. 85.     On 9 February 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed her appeal and upheld the judgment of 28   December   2004. D.     The Court's request to submit the investigation file 86.     Despite the Court's repeated requests, the Government did not submit a copy of the investigation file into the abduction of Yusup Satabayev. They submitted thirty-two pages of case file materials, which contained decisions on the institution, suspension and resumption of the investigation and the decision to grant the applicant victim status. The decisions reiterated that Mr G., Kazbek Vakhayev, Mr Ch. and Yusup   Satabayev were apprehended on 1 August 2000. 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. 87.     Despite the Court's specific request, made after the decision of 11   September 2008 as to the admissibility of the application, to submit copies of all documents related to Yusup Satabayev's arrest on 23   February   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 88.     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. 89.     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. 90.     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. 91.     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 92.     The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies since the investigation of the disappearance of Yusup Satabayev had not yet been completed. 93.     The applicant disputed that objection. In her 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. 94.     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). 95.     The Court observes that the applicant complained to the law ‑ enforcement authorities shortly after the disappearance of Yusup Satabayev and that an investigation has been pending since 18 October 2000. The applicant and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation. 96.     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 applicant's 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 97.     The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that her 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 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 Yusup Satabayev's right to life 1.     Arguments of the parties 98.     The applicant argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Yusup Satabayev 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. 99.     The Government submitted that the circumstances of Yusup Satabayev'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 100.     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 of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV). (b)     Establishment of the facts 101.     The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia , no. 69481/01, §§   103 ‑ 109, 27 July 2006). The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25). 102.     The applicant maintained that after the criminal proceedings against Yusup Satabayev were discontinued he had not been released, as he should have been. Instead, he had been transferred to the detention facility of the Urus-Martan VOVD. There he had been detained with three other men, including Kazbek Vakhayev. The applicant and relatives of the other detainees had waited every day outside the Urus-Martan VOVD for their release. On 14 August 2000 the head of the Urus-Martan VOVD told them that the detainees had been released on 11 August 2000; however, according to the applicant, they had never been released. The applicant alleged that Yusup Satabayev had been killed by State agents and that his body had been subsequently discovered near the village of Goy-Chu. 103.     Prior to the Court's decision of 11 September 2008 as to the admissibility of the application the Government submitted that Yusup Satabayev had been detained on 1 August 2000 under the Decree on Measures for the Prevention of Vagrancy and Mendicancy, together with Kazbek Vakhayev, Mr G. and Mr Ch. The detainees had been placed in the detention facility of the Urus-Martan VOVD and subsequently released. After the Court's decision as to the admissibility of the application the Government stated that after the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against Yusup   Satabayev on 27 July 2000, detention as the measure of restraint applied to him had been lifted. He had been released as soon as the relevant decision had reached remand prison IZ-20/2, that is, on 1   August 2000. On 4   August 2000 Yusup   Satabayev had been detained under the Decree on Measures for the Prevention of Vagrancy and Mendicancy since he had no identification documents. His detention in the detention unit of the Urus-Martan VOVD had lasted for ten days until 14 August 2000, when he was released. 104.     The Court observes that it is not disputed between the parties that Yusup Satabayev was arrested on 23 February 2000 in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him. The parties also agree that the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued on 27 July 2000 and that he should have been released on that date. However, according to the applicant, he was never released and was eventually killed by State agents. The Government changed their arguments. They first submitted that Yusup Satabayev had been detained for vagrancy and mendicancy on 1   August 2000 and had been subsequently released. Later they admitted that he had not been released on 27 July 2000 but had remained in detention until 1   August 2000. They further stated that he had been subsequently detained on 4   August 2000 for failure to produce identification documents and had been released on 14 August 2000. 105.     The Government therefore conceded that Yusup Satabayev had been detained from 23 February 2000 to 1 August 2000 and from 4 to 14   August   2000. It thus remains to be established whether he was released on 1 August 2000 and remained free until 4 August 2000, and whether he was released on 14   August 2000. 106.     The Court notes, firstly, that despite its repeated requests for a copy of the investigation file concerning the disappearance of Yusup Satabayev, the Government have failed to produce it, despite having submitted thirty-two pages of case file materials, which contained decisions on the institution, suspension and resumption of the investigation and the decision to grant the applicant victim status. They referred to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva   v. Russia , no.   7615/02, §   123, ECHR 2006 ‑ ... ). 107.     The Court further notes that in response to its direct request to submit copies of all documents related to Yusup Satabayev's arrest on 23   February 2000 and subsequent detention, including an extract from the detention facility register confirming his release, the Government submitted no documents and provided no explanation for such failure. 108.     As regards the substance of the Government's submissions, the Court observes that they were contradictory. Whereas they first submitted that Yusup Satabayev had been arrested on 1 August 2000, later they stated that he had been arrested on 4 August 2000. At the same time, in the decision to institute criminal proceedings of 18 October 2000 and subsequent decisions to suspend and resume the investigation which have been made available to the Court, it is stated that Yusup Satabayev and the other three men were arrested on 1 August 2000. However, in the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that it should not attach weight to the interim findings of the domestic investigation in this respect, fo