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 } .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 } .s50CB62E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 KHANTIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 43398/06)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   29 October 2009   FINAL   10/05/2010   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 Khantiyeva 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,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   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. 43398/06) 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 four Russian nationals, listed in paragraph 5 below (“the applicants”), on 18 October 2006. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 16 June 2008 the Court decided to apply Rule   41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application, and to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 4.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application and to the application of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Having considered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are: 1)      Ms Ayna Khantiyeva, born in 1951; 2)      Mr Alaudin Khantiyev, born in 1940; 3)      Ms Kulsum Baysultanova, born in 1972, and 4)      Mr Adam Khantiyev, born in 1991. The applicants live in Grozny, in the Chechen Republic. 6.     The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr   Mayrudin   Khantiyev, born in 1972. The third and fourth applicants are Mayrudin Khatntiyev's wife and son. A.     The background to the case 7.     According to a certificate issued on 12 March 2002 by the head of the Grozny SIZO-I remand prison, from 1998 to 1999 Mayrudin Khantiyev was employed as a junior inspector in the security department of that facility; he left his job in 1999 because of the hostilities. According to the applicants, Mayrudin Khantiyev subsequently worked as a mechanic and then as a construction worker on the construction site of a school. 8 .     In December 2000 the city of Grozny was under curfew. The applicants and Mayrudin Khantiyev lived in the same five-storey block of flats at no.   269 Ugolnaya Street in Grozny (“house no.   269”). The flat of Mayrudin Khantiyev's family was on the ground floor; his parents' flat was on the first floor. Two guard posts of the Russian military forces were stationed on the roof of house no.   269 on a permanent basis, the soldiers having constructed a shelter there. The building was situated about fifty metres from the military commander's office of the Staropromyslovskiy district (the district military commander's office) and its checkpoint. Two further checkpoints were located in the vicinity of the applicants' building. One of them, called “Katayama” (“ Катаяма ”), was located about 500   metres away; the other one, called “Zagryazhskiy” (“ Загряжский ”) was about 1.5   km away from the applicants' building. B.     Abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev 1.     The applicants' account (i)     The events of 4 December 2000 as described by the applicants 9 .     On 4 December 2000 the applicants and Mayrudin Khantiyev were sleeping in their respective flats at the above address. At about 6.15 a.m., during curfew, the third applicant was woken up by a noise at the entrance door. She approached the door and noticed the light of a torch. She saw that the door was being forced from the outside. The third applicant called Mayrudin Khantiyev and they tried to hold the door from the inside. After a while the door lock was broken and a group of about five armed men in dark-green camouflage uniforms and masks burst into the flat. The intruders were speaking Russian. They neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. The third applicant inferred that they were servicemen. 10.     The servicemen immediately grabbed the third applicant and Mayrudin Khantiyev and took them into one room. The third applicant asked one of the intruders what they were looking for. She did not receive any response to her question and was ordered to stay quiet. She heard the servicemen tying up her husband with adhesive tape; he could not say anything as apparently his mouth was covered with the tape. Having tied up Mayrudin Khantiyev, who was barefoot and in his underwear, the servicemen dragged him outside through the balcony and put him into a new white Niva vehicle with blackened windows and without licence plates, parked near the third applicant's balcony. While the servicemen were leaving the flat with Mayrudin Khantiyev the third applicant started screaming for help. Meanwhile the men got into the car and it started driving away in the direction of the 36 th district ( 36-й участок ) of Grozny. 11 .     The third applicant ran outside calling for help, and saw the car drive away in the above direction. At that moment the first applicant and several neighbours ran outside. The applicants immediately asked the servicemen on the roof for help. The first applicant shouted to them that the men in the white car, which was still visible on the road, had abducted her son. Servicemen on one of the guard posts on the roof did not react to the first applicant's calls for help. Soldiers at the other guard post ordered the applicants to stay quiet and to return home as it was curfew. 12 .     According to the first applicant's statement to her representatives, she reached Mayrudin Khantiyev's flat while the armed masked men were still inside it. They would not let her inside. 13.     One of the applicants' neighbours, the former head of a local department of the interior, also went outside and heard the applicants ask for help. He told the first applicant to get into his car and they drove to the Russian federal forces checkpoint located about 1.5 km away. At the checkpoint the first applicant told the soldiers that her son had been abducted by men in the white VAZ-2121 car and asked whether that car had passed the checkpoint. The soldiers told her that they did not know anything and threatened to kill the first applicant and her neighbour if they did not return home. 14.     On the same day the second applicant went to the district military commander's office. He complained to the military commander that Mayrudin Khantiyev had been abducted. The second applicant pointed out that the servicemen on the roof must have seen the abductors and the direction in which they had taken his son away and that they had not done anything. The commander responded that the soldiers had not seen anything as they had been asleep. 15 .     The above account of the events is based on the application form of 20 October 2006, the applicants' statements to their representatives dated 19   October 2006 and two hand-drawn maps of the applicants' block of flats in Grozny. (ii)     Statements by witnesses 16 .     The applicants produced undated statements from the residents of house no.   269 in support of their account of the events of 4 December 2000. 17 .     In their statements Ms V., Ms P., Mr Da. and Ms S. submitted that at about 6.15 a.m. they had been woken up by noise and screaming coming from the courtyard. Ms V. and Ms P. had looked out of their windows and Mr Da. and Ms S. had gone outside. They had all seen a white NIVA vehicle drive off and the first and third applicants run after it screaming. Ms P. specifically pointed out that at the relevant time servicemen of the district military commander's office had been stationed on the roof of the house. 18 .     In their statements Ms B. and Mr U. submitted that at about 6 a.m., during curfew hours, they had been woken up by the screams and weeping of women and children. Ms B. and Mr U. had got to the staircase and had seen the door of Mayrudin Khantiyev's flat broken and a white NIVA vehicle with blackened windows and without licence plates. Mayrudin Khantiyev, who was only in his underwear, had been forced into the vehicle and taken away. 19 .     In his statement Mr Du. submitted that at about 6 a.m. on 4   December 2000 he had been woken up by the screaming of women and crying of children. He had got outside and had seen several servicemen who were wearing masks. Mr Du. had wanted to ask them what was going on but was afraid. Two servicemen had taken Mayrudin Khantiyev to a white NIVA vehicle with blackened windows and without licence plates. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 20.     The Government submitted that on 4   December 2000 unidentified armed persons had kidnapped Mayrudin Khantiyev and had taken him away to an unknown destination. C.     The search for Mayrudin Khantiyev and the investigation 1.     The applicants' account 21.     Between 4 and 19 December 2000 the applicants complained about their relative's abduction to a number of local law enforcement agencies, including the department of the interior of the Staropromyslovskiy district (the ROVD), the local prosecutor's office and the military commander's office of the Staropromyslovskiy district (the district military commander's office). The applicants did not retain copies of their complaints. 22 .     On 20 December 2000 the applicants complained about the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev to the Grozny military commander's office. In their complaint they provided a detailed description of the circumstances of their relative's abduction. In particular, they stated that Mayrudin Khantiyev had been abducted at 6.15 a.m., during curfew, by armed men in camouflage uniforms who had tied him up and taken him away to an unknown destination. The applicants stated that immediately after the abduction, on the morning of 4   December 2000, they had complained about it to the military commander of the Staropromyslovskiy district, Mr Z.; the latter had denied knowing anything about the abduction and had refused to assist the applicants. In their complaint the applicants also submitted that they had previously applied in writing to the prosecutor's office, the ROVD and other authorities but that their complaints had not produced any results. 23 .     On 27 December 2000 the Grozny town prosecutor's office (the town prosecutor's office) instituted an investigation into the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev under Article   126   §   1 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case file was given the number 12368. The decision stated that, having examined the materials of the inquiry opened following the third applicant's complaint, the town prosecutor's office had established that on 4 December 2000 at about 6.10 a.m. unidentified persons in masks and camouflage uniforms had abducted Mayrudin Khantiyev from his flat and taken him to an unknown destination. 24.     On 4 January 2001 the town prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the ROVD for examination. 25.     On 18 January 2001 the town prosecutor's office issued the applicants with a statement concerning the investigation into the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev. The document stated that on an unspecified date they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 26.     On 20 January 2001 the town prosecutor's office granted the third applicant victim status in criminal case no.   12368. 27.     On 9 February 2001 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic (the republican prosecutor's office) forwarded the applicants' complaint about the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev to the town prosecutor's office for examination and instructed the latter to consider whether an investigation into that incident should be opened. 28.     On 1 April 2001 the republican prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's complaint about her son's abduction by armed masked men in camouflage uniforms to the town prosecutor's office for examination. 29.     On 27 July 2001 the town prosecutor's office replied to the third applicant's query and informed her that the investigation in criminal case no.   12368 was under way. 30.     On 31 July 2001 the town prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant that they had examined her complaint about her son's abduction and that criminal case no.   12368 had been forwarded to the republican prosecutor's office for examination. 31.     On 7 August 2001 the republican prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that they had examined the investigation file in criminal case no.   12368 and had issued unspecified instructions aimed at identifying the perpetrators. 32.     On 8 August 2001 the republican prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the town prosecutor's office. 33.     On 21 August 2001 the Prosecutor General's office of the Russian Federation informed the first applicant that her complaint about her son's abduction had been forwarded to the republican prosecutor's office. 34.     On 25 August 2001 the town prosecutor's office granted the first applicant victim status in connection with the proceedings in case   no.   12368. 35.     On 9 September 2001 the republican prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the town prosecutor's office. 36 .     It appears that on 12 or 18 September 2001 the town prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in criminal case no.   12368 for failure to establish the perpetrators. There is no indication that applicants were informed about that decision. 37 .     On an unspecified date in September 2001 the first applicant wrote to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. She complained about her son's abduction by armed men in camouflage uniforms who had arrived on the white VAZ-2121 car. In her letter she pointed out that at the time of the abduction a number of Russian military servicemen had been stationed on the roof of the house; that the abductors had freely driven away in spite of the curfew and the presence of the soldiers on the roof. The applicant stated that her numerous complaints to various state authorities, including the ROVD, the military commander's office and the prosecutor's office, had failed to produce any results. She also complained that the investigating authorities had failed to inform her about the reasons for the suspension of the investigation in criminal case no.   12368. Lastly, the first applicant requested assistance in the search for her son. 38 .     On 28 January 2002 the town prosecutor's office informed the applicants that on 18 September 2001 they had suspended the investigation in criminal case no.   12368 owing to the failure to establish the perpetrators and that there were no reasons for that decision to be set aside. 39.     On an unspecified date in 2002 the first applicant wrote to the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (the UGA military prosecutor's office). She described the circumstances of her son's abduction and stated that her numerous complaints to various law enforcement bodies had failed to produce any results. She also complained about the lack of information concerning the investigation in criminal case no.   12368. 40.     On 16 May 2002 Human Rights Watch wrote on behalf of the applicants to the Prosecutor General. The letter provided, among other things, a detailed description of the circumstances of Mayrudin Khantiyev's abduction and requested the authorities to resume the criminal investigation into his kidnapping. 41.     On 23 July 2002 the first applicant wrote to the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic. She complained about her son's abduction by armed men in camouflage uniforms and stated that her numerous requests for assistance in the search for Mayrudin Khantiyev had failed to produce any results. 42.     On 3 October 2002 the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic replied to Human Rights Watch. The letter stated that the authorities had been undertaking unspecified measures to establish the whereabouts of the applicants' relative. 43 .     It appears that at some point in 2003 the investigation in criminal case no.   12368 was transferred from the town prosecutor's office to the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor's office (“the district prosecutor's office”). There is no indication that applicants were informed about it. 44.     On 17 May 2003 the UGA military prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no.   20102 for examination. 45.     On 21 May 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that they had examined her complaint. The letter stated that on 12   September 2001 the town prosecutor's office had suspended the investigation in criminal case no.   12368 owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators and that the search for Mayrudin Khantiyev had been entrusted to the ROVD. 46 .     On 16 June 2003 the republican prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that it had examined case file no.   12368 opened into the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev on 4 December 2000 at about 6.10 a.m. by unidentified persons. The first applicant was informed that on 16 June 2003 the republican prosecutor's office had set aside the decision of 12   September 2001 to suspend the investigation in criminal case no.   12368. The district prosecutor's office had been given unspecified instructions and would inform the applicants about the progress in the criminal investigation. 47.     On 26 June 2003 the ROVD informed the first applicant that they had been conducting operational and search measures aimed at establishing Mayrudin Khantiyev's whereabouts and identifying the perpetrators. However, those measures had failed to produce any results. 48.     On 15 June 2004 the UGA military prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's request for assistance in the search for her son to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no.   20102 for examination. They informed the first applicant by a letter of 17 July 2004 that the examination of her complaint about her son's abduction had not established any implication of the Russian military forces in the crime. 49.     On 29 July 2004 the district prosecutor's office provided the first applicant with a certificate to the effect that on 4 December 2000 Mayrudin Khantiyev had been abducted from his flat in Grozny; that a criminal case had been opened into his abduction and that his whereabouts had not been established. 50.     On 24 August 2005 the ROVD provided the third applicant with a statement concerning the investigation into her husband's abduction. The document stated that on 1 January 2003 they had opened an operational and search file no.   043064 in that connection, but the whereabouts of the applicant's husband had not been established. 51.     On 18 April 2006 the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about the lack of information concerning the investigation into her son's abduction and requested the authorities to inform her about the progress of the investigation in criminal case no.   12368. 52.     It appears that on 21 April 2006 the district prosecutor's office replied to the first applicant that on an unspecified date they had suspended the investigation in criminal case no.   12368 for failure to identify the perpetrators. 53.     On 27 October 2006 the first applicant wrote to the prosecutor of the Staropromyslovskiy district, seeking information on the progress of the investigation. 54.     On 30 October 2006 the prosecutor of the Staropromyslovskiy district replied to the first applicant that on 24 May 2006 the investigation in case no. 12368 had been suspended. However, on an unspecified date that decision was set aside and the investigation resumed. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 55 .     On 5 December 2000 unspecified authorities inspected the third applicant's flat. The inspection established that the door lock was damaged and that several pieces of stucco were missing from the doorway. No objects were seized from the crime scene and no photographs were taken. 56.     On 17 December 2000 the ROVD forwarded the third applicant's complaint about the abduction of her husband to the prosecutor's office of the Shalinskiy District, which transmitted it on an unspecified date to the town prosecutor's office. 57 .     On 27 December 2000 the town prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev under Article   126   §   1 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case was assigned the number   12368. 58.     On 20 January 2001 the third applicant was granted victim status in connection with the proceedings in case no.   12368 and questioned. She submitted that she had been living in the same flat as her husband Mayrudin Khantiyev and their two children. On the night of 4 December 2000 she had been woken up by a noise coming from the entrance door. Four armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had burst into the flat and tied her husband up with adhesive tape. From their conversation she had understood that they were not Russian. They had told her that they would question her husband and then release him after which they had taken him outside. The third applicant then saw a white Niva vehicle without licence plates drive away from the house. Having heard the third applicant's calls for help, several neighbours and her mother-in-law who resided in the same block of flats had come outside. The servicemen who had been on duty on the roof of the house that morning had been observing the incident from the roof. Mayrudin Khantiyev's parents had complained about his abduction to the ROVD and the local military commander's office. 59 .     On 20 January 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant as a witness. She submitted that on 4 December 2000 she had been woken up by the third applicant's calls for help. When she rushed outside, the first applicant learnt that unidentified men had abducted her son. The neighbours who had gathered outside had shown the first applicant the Niva vehicle which at that moment was about 150-200 metres away from them and was moving in the direction of the motorway. The first applicant shouted to the servicemen on the roof, asking them for help. In response they requested her to be quiet because the curfew was not over yet. The first applicant then went to the “Zagryazheskiy” and “Neftyanik” checkpoints. She was told there that no NIVA vehicle had passed through those checkpoints. Mayrudin Khantiyev had not participated in illegal armed groups and had not been implicated in any illegal activities. The first applicant did not suspect any particular person of having abducted her son. 60.     On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the second applicant as a witness. He submitted that he had not witnessed his son's abduction. He had learnt from his wife and the third applicant that his son had been abducted on 4 December 2000 by four unidentified persons who had arrived in a white NIVA vehicle with blackened windows. After the abduction the second applicant had asked Mr S., a former police officer, for assistance in the search for Mayrudin Khantiyev. Mr S. had contacted several checkpoints but had been told that no white NIVA vehicle had passed through those checkpoints. 61 .     On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr Z., who had held at the time of the incident the post of military commander of the Staropromyslovskiy district. He submitted that on 4 December 2000 he had learnt from the residents of house no.   269 at Ugolnaya Street that unidentified persons had taken Mayrudin Khantiyev to an unknown destination. At the relevant time the area had been under curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. and a watch post of servicemen of the military commander's office had been stationed on the roof of house no.   269. On the same day Mr Z. had been contacted by Mr S., the former head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, who had enquired whether Mr Z. had any information about the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev. Mr Z. replied that he did not know anything about it. Some servicemen had told Mr Z. that they had seen a white NIVA vehicle but that they had not seen anyone being taken away. 62 .     On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr K., who had been the acting military commander of the Staropromyslovskiy district since 19 December 2000. He submitted that he had not known anything about the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev. The names of the servicemen who had been on duty on 4   December 2000 on the roof of house no.   269 could have been obtained from the duty log [ постовая ведомость ]. The task of the servicemen stationed on the roof had been to secure compliance with the curfew, that is to survey the adjacent premises within their sight, including all pedestrians and vehicles. They had to notify an on-duty officer of the district military commander's office of аny breach of curfew. In the event of a special operation the on-duty officer was informed about it. He was then to inform the unit on the roof that at a specific time a specific vehicle would arrive at a specific place. If the unit on the roof had not seen the Niva vehicle this could have been either because of negligence on the part of the servicemen or because there had been no special operations. If the unit on the roof had been informed about a special operation there would have been a record to that effect. 63.     On an unspecified date Mr K. was again questioned as a witness. He submitted that in December 2000 he had occupied the post of executing officer of the district military commander's office. On the day of Mayrudin Khantiyev's abduction he had been on leave. No special operations had been carried out on that day. Had there been a special operation, Mr   K. would have been notified about it. 64 .     On an unspecified date the investigators questioned as a witness Mr   Ut., a serviceman of the district military commander's office. Mr Ut. stated that on 4 December 2000 he and other servicemen of the district military commander's office had been on duty on the roof of house no.   269 at Ugolnaya Street in Grozny. House no.   269 was located near the district military commander's office. On the night of 4 December 2000 everything had been calm and nothing had attracted Mr Ut.'s attention. He had not seen a NIVA vehicle arrive at house no.   269. At about 6 a.m. he had seen a group of civilians who were shouting something. He had had a permanent connection to the district military commander's office via military communication channels but on that morning he had not communicated with them. No one had mentioned a NIVA vehicle to him. He had learnt about the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev from the residents of the house in the morning. He had not heard any calls for help. On 18   December 2001 he had been summoned to the military commander's office where he had met the first applicant. She had accused him of not telling the truth about the abduction of her son and he had answered that he had told the investigators everything he knew. Mr Ut. had known Mayrudin Khantiyev only by his face. He had heard from someone that Mayrudin Khantiyev had been taking drugs. 65 .     On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr   P. as a witness. He stated that he had been serving in the mine unit of the commander's squadron with the district military commander's office since June 2000. His unit duty was to secure compliance with the curfew and to provide fire support to the adjacent checkpoints in case of necessity. On the night of 4 December 2000 Mr P. had taken up his duties together with Mr   Ut. and Mr Dug. Mr P. could not remember the names of the other servicemen on duty that night. At about 6.15 a.m. he had heard people speaking Chechen in the courtyard of the house. At about 9 a.m. he had learnt that Mayrudin Khantiyev had been abducted from house no.   269. The eyewitnesses to the incident and relatives of the abducted had submitted that a vehicle had arrived at the house. Mr   P.'s duty hours had finished at 6   a.m. At about that time he had gone to the shelter where other servicemen were resting in order to wake up Mr   Ut. The latter and Mr   P. were absent for about ten minutes and did not hear a vehicle arriving. If it had indeed arrived at the house, servicemen from the second watch point located on the roof of house no.   269 would have noticed it. Mr   P. had not known Mayrudin Khantiyev personally and had not had communicated with him. 66 .     On an unspecified date the investigators requested the FSB Department of the Chechen Republic to provide information on Mayrudin Khantiyev's eventual implication in illegal armed groups. From the reply of that authority it followed that Mayrudin Khantiyev had been a member of an organised criminal group that had been trading in arms and ammunition, including their acquisition in exchange for drugs. 67.     On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Ms   V., a neighbour of the abducted, as a witness. She stated that on 4 December 2000 she had heard from the street a woman's cry for help. Ms V. had learnt from other neighbours that Mayrudin Khantiyev had been abducted. At that time servicemen of the military commander's office had been on duty on the roof the house. The first applicant had started shouting at them, asking them what they had been doing during the abduction. The servicemen had asked the first applicant what had occurred. When she had explained to them that Mayrudin Khantiyev had been abducted, they had got out of sight. They had not subsequently showed up and had not spoken to the crowd gathered in the courtyard. 68.     On an unspecified date the investigators questioned a certain Mr M. as a witness He stated that he had known Mayrudin Khantiyev since childhood. In the summer of 2000 they had started taking drugs together. Subsequently, Mayrudin Khantiyev had started dealing in drugs. Mayrudin Khantiyev had had close connections with the servicemen of the district military commander's office. In November 2000 Mr M. had stopped taking drugs and seeing Mayrudin Khantiyev. The latter had not had any debts or enemies. 69.     On 1 February 2001 the investigators sought from the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 information on Mayrudin Khantiyev's eventual arrest. However, no relevant information was received from that authority. The investigators also requested remand prisons IZ-20/2 in Chernokozovo and IZ-20/2 in Grozny to provide information on Mayrudin Khantiyev's eventual placement in custody or detention in those facilities. It followed from the replies of those bodies that they did not have information of interest to the investigation. The investigators also instructed unspecified authorities of the Chechen Republic to verify unidentified corpses of persons with features similar to those of Mayrudin Khantiyev; to furnish information on his eventual criminal prosecution or on any special operations aimed at arresting him. No relevant information was received as a result of those requests. 70.     On 20 June 2003 unspecified authorities had severed the materials concerning Mayrudin Khantiyev's implication in drug trafficking from case file no.12368 and transferred them to the ROVD. 71.     The investigation in case no.   12368 had been repeatedly suspended for failure to identify those responsible and then resumed. It had not established the implication of Russian servicemen in the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev. The investigation in case no.   12368 was pending. 72.     Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government refused to furnish any copies from the investigation file in case no.   12368. They claimed 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 witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings. D.     Judicial proceedings against the investigators 73.     On an unspecified date in 2007 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of the Chechen Republic (the District Court). She submitted, among other things, that the investigators in case no.   12368 were taking no action to elucidate Mayrudin Khantiyev's abduction and that they had repeatedly failed to provide her with information about the progress in the investigation. 74.     On 4 April 2007 the District Court dismissed the first applicant's complaint. It noted that the investigation had been suspended on numerous occasions for failure to identify the perpetrators and then resumed, and noted that the latest decision to suspend was dated 12 March 2007. The court further held that the investigators had carried out a considerable number of unspecified investigative measures and noted that the first applicant and her lawyer had not previously sought access to the case file. There is no indication that the first applicant challenged the decision on appeal. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 75.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 40464/02, §§   67-69, 10   May 2007). THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION REGARDING NON ‑ EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES A.     The parties' submissions 76.     The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Mayrudin Khantiyev had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any acts or omissions of the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities, but that the applicants had not availed themselves of that remedy. They also pointed out that the applicants had not lodged a claim for compensation of non-pecuniary damage under Articles 1069-70 of the Civil Code. 77.     The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective. Referring to the other cases concerning such crimes reviewed by the Court, they also alleged that the existence of an administrative practice of non-investigation of crimes committed by State servicemen in Chechnya rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in their case. With reference to the Court's practice, they argued that they were not obliged to apply to civil courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies. B.     The Court's assessment 78.     The Court will examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia , no. 60272/00, §§ 73-74, 12   October 2006). 79.     The Court notes that the Russian legal system provides, in principle, two avenues of recourse for the victims of illegal and criminal acts attributable to the State or its agents, namely civil and criminal remedies. 80.     As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through illegal acts or unlawful conduct on the part of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v.   Russia , nos.   57942/00 and 57945/00, §§   119-121, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others , cited above, §   77). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. 81.     As regards criminal law remedies, the Court observes that the applicants complained to the law-enforcement authorities immediately after the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev and that an investigation has been pending since 27 December 2000. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation. 82 .     The Court considers that this limb of the Government's objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints. Thus, it decides to join this objection to the merits of the case and considers that the issue falls to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 83.     The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative had disappeared after being detained by State agents and that the authorities had not taken any measures to prevent his abduction. They also complained that the investigation into his disappearance had not been effective. Article 2 reads: “1.     Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” A.     The parties' submissions 1.     Submissions by the Government 84.     The Government submitted that there was no evidence that the applicants' relative had been abducted by Russian servicemen or that he was not alive. The domestic investigation had not established that the security forces had carried out any special operations on 4 December 2000 aimed at arresting Mayrudin Khantiyev. None of the applicants had submitted in the course of the investigation that their relative's abductors belonged to any specific service of the Russian army. In particular, the third applicant had claimed that the abductors had had no insignia, had not addressed each others by rank or name and that she had inferred that they were not Russians. In her statement to representatives of the SRJI the first applicant had submitted that the abductors had worn camouflage uniforms and masks and had been armed with sub-machine guns. However, according to the third applicant, the first applicant had come outside already after Mayrudin Khantiyev had been put into the NIVA vehicle and the abductors had left, taking him away. Hence, she could not have seen them. In fact, only the third applicant had witnessed the abduction. Other persons, including the first applicant, had gone outside later and had only seen the NIVA vehicle driving off and the first and third applicants running after it. In any event, the fact that Mayrudin Khantiyev's abductors were wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and were armed was not sufficient to conclude that they were State agents. The Government further stressed that members of illegal armed groups had often passed themselves off as servicemen or members of law-enforcement bodies by wearing camouflage uniforms, carrying arms and passing unimpeded through federal forces checkpoints. 85.     The applicants' allegation that their relative could not have been abducted without the connivance of State authorities because the soldiers on the roof and on the checkpoints had not reacted to the abduction was unfounded. Mr Ut. and Mr P. submitted that they had not seen the Niva vehicle, had not heard it arrive and had learnt about the abduction later. Furthermore, while being questioned by investigators, the second applicant submitted that when Mr S. had contacted some checkpoints, the latter had been told that no Niva vehicle had passed through those checkpoints. 86.     The domestic authorities had promptly opened an investigation into the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev and had checked various theses, including his kidnapping by State officials. The investigation had been conducted by an independent body which had sent out numerous requests for information. The third applicant was provided with sufficient information on the progress in the investigation. 2.     The applicants' submissions 87.     The applicants submitted that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that their relative had been abducted by State agents and was to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention. They pointed out that soldiers from the district military commander's office had been on the roof during the entire night and that, according to Mr Z., some servicemen had told him they had seen the Niva vehicle. It had not been contested that the applica