CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 20 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2993E866 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s377EF8D6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB3E56D84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s272203FB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s39E03130 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; display:none } .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 } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE52C6C2 { 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; line-height:150% } .s16878D01 { 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; line-height:150% } .s5F411167 { 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; line-height:150% } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .sAA8DEB86 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s92275EC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sDC8E1F0A { width:193.11pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF DZHABRAILOVY v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 3678/06)             JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   20 May 2010   FINAL   04/10/2010   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dzhabrailovy v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 29 April 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 3678/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Russian nationals listed below (“the applicants”), on 19 January 2006. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants alleged that the first applicant and their relative, Mr   Valid Dzhabrailov, had been abducted by State servicemen in Chechnya in   February 2003 and that those State servicemen had subsequently killed the latter. They complained under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13. 4.     On 30 April 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. 5.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants are Mr Aslan (also known as Lukman) Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1979, Ms Umkusu Dzhabrailova, who was born in 1949 and Ms Larisa Dzhabrailova, who was born in 1977. They live in Grozny, Chechnya. The first applicant is the brother of Valid (also spelled as Volid and also known as Lecha) Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1973; the second applicant is his mother and the third applicant is his sister. 7.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.   Abduction of Aslan and Valid Dzhabrailov 1.     Events of 16-18 February 2003 a. Abduction of the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov 8.     At the material time the applicants and Valid Dzhabrailov lived at 104   Sovetskaya Street in the settlement of Pervomayskiy, in the Grozny district, Chechnya. At about 7 a.m. on 16 February 2003 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 15 February 2003) the applicants and Valid Dzhabrailov were at home, when a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms arrived at their gate. The men arrived in a white GAZ car (“ Газель” ), a blue VAZ-2121 car (“ Нива” ), a khaki-coloured military UAZ car (“ таблетка” ) and a UAZ car. The men broke into the house and dispersed into different rooms. The intruders, who spoke unaccented Russian, neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. The applicants thought that they were Russian servicemen. 9.     The intruders woke up the second and third applicants, lined them up against a wall and threatened to shoot them if they moved. After that the servicemen went into the room where the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov were sleeping. They woke them up, forced the brothers to the floor, handcuffed them and blindfolded Valid Dzhabrailov with the hood of his sweater. Then they took Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov's passports, beat them, dragged them outside and forced them to the ground. When the second applicant asked the intruders where they were taking her sons, the servicemen told her that they were taking them to a local department of the interior (“ в отдел ”) for an identity check. After that they forced Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov, who were already bleeding, into the military UAZ car and drove away to an unknown destination. While travelling in the car, the servicemen beat and kicked the brothers. b. Detention of Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov 10.     Upon arrival at the point of destination, the servicemen took Valid Dzhabrailov and the first applicant out of the car, put plastic bags over their heads and bound the bags with adhesive tape. The brothers did not know where they had been taken, but they could hear the sound of military vehicles and helicopters. The first applicant thought that they had arrived at the main base of the Russian military forces in Khankala, Chechnya. 11.     After that Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov were forced to crawl on their hands and knees into a basement where they were thrown on to a cement floor. The brothers were cold and bleeding. Some time later the abductors came into the cell. Valid Dzhabrailov asked them why they had been abducted. In response one of the servicemen gave him several blows to the head and in the stomach with his rifle butt. Valid Dzhabrailov fell unconscious and was dragged outside. After that the brothers were separated and placed into different cells. i. Detention and ill-treatment of the first applicant 12.     The first applicant was taken into a small cell in a basement, measuring approximately 2 x 3 metres. The cell had an electric light, a bunk bed and no windows. From the cell he could hear his brother Valid Dzhabrailov being interrogated and screaming as a result of being beaten. 13.     After a while two masked men in camouflage uniforms came into the applicant's cell. They asked him a number of questions, such as: whether he had ever laid any landmines and whether he had known any members of illegal armed groups in his village. They beat him with their fists, pistols and a heavy flashlight and kicked him with their heavy boots. The applicant was subjected to such interrogations and beatings several times. The men pressurised the applicant to confess to involvement in illegal armed groups. For two days of his detention in the basement the first applicant was not given any food or drink. ii. Detention of Valid Dzhabrailov 14.     It appears that Valid Dzhabrailov was detained in the same building as the first applicant. Between 16 and 18 February 2003 he was subjected to interrogations and beatings. 2. Events of 18 February 2003 a. Attempt to kill the first applicant 15.     On 18 February 2003 two officers took the first applicant out of the basement, put a plastic bag over his head, bound it and his hands with adhesive tape and pushed him into a military UAZ car. In the vehicle the first applicant felt someone's heavy, cold body on the floor. He realised that this was the body of his brother, Valid Dzhabrailov. 16.     The two servicemen took the first applicant and the body of Valid Dzhabrailov to an abandoned building of a former chemical plant in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny. One of them shot the first applicant in the head; the applicant was not killed, but wounded, and he was able to pretend to be dead. 17.     The servicemen carried the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov's body into a pit and placed them under a piece of a construction block. Then they laid explosives on the first applicant and placed Valid Dzhabrailov's body on top of them. After that they lit the fuse. Having done that, they got back in the car and drove away. 18.     The first applicant managed to set himself free and extinguish the burning fuse. He threw the explosives away before they exploded. He ran out into the street and stopped the driver of a passing car who drove him home. 19.     Upon returning home the first applicant did not immediately seek medical help; that came at a later stage. The first applicant obtained the following medical statements and submitted them to the Court: 1) Medical statement issued by a neuropathologist at the 3 rd Grozny town hospital, dated 8 December 2003. The document stated that, as a result of a splinter wound to the head, Aslan Dzhabrailov was suffering from cephalgia (pain in the skull), asthenia and neurosis. 2) Medical statement issued by a neuropathologist at the 3 rd Grozny town hospital, dated 31 August 2004. The document stated that, as a result of a tangential wound to the head received in 2003, Aslan Dzhabrailov was suffering from asthenia and neurosis. 3) Medical statement issued by a surgeon at the 3 rd Grozny town hospital, dated 31 August 2004. The document stated that the applicant had undergone a medical examination of the tangential wound inflicted to his head in 2003. b. Discovery of Valid Dzhabrailov's body 20.     On 18 February 2003 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 17 February 2003) the applicants, their relatives and neighbours went to the Zavodskoy district of Grozny. They found Valid Dzhabrailov's body where it had been left by the first applicant and took it home. According to the witnesses, Ms L.M. and Ms A.M., the body showed traces of torture: it was black from the beatings; the wrists and ankles had been cut to the bone from the wearing of handcuffs and shackles; the palms and feet had been crushed and the head was hardly recognisable. They found a piece of metal wire on the neck but there was no trace of firearm wounds on the body. 21.   Valid Dzhabrailov was buried soon afterwards before anyone had contacted medical institutions or law enforcement authorities. Two certificates were issued in connection with his death: the medical statement confirming Valid Dzhabrailov's death, dated 17 April 2003 and Valid Dzhabrailov's death certificate, stating that his death had occurred on 17   February 2003. 22.     In support of their statements, the applicants submitted: an account by Ms L.M., dated 29 September 2003; an account by Ms A.M., dated 29   September 2003; an account by the first applicant, dated 29 October 2003; an account by the second applicant, dated 29 October 2003; an account by the third applicant, undated, and the three medical certificates, one dated 8 December 2003 and two dated 31 August 2004. 23.     The Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants. However, they pointed out that the investigation file contained neither a mention of the first applicant's beating in the car following the abduction nor his assertion that he had heard Valid Dzhabrailov screaming from being beaten while in detention. B.   The investigation into the abduction and the killing 24.     Since 16   February 2003 the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies, including the district department of the Ministry of the Interior (the ROVD) and prosecutors at various levels. They have been supported in their efforts by the NGO, SRJI. In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to the events of 16 ‑ 18 February 2003 and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. Mostly, these enquiries have remained unanswered, or purely formal replies have been given in which the applicants' requests have been forwarded to various prosecutors' offices. The applicants submitted to the Court some of the letters sent to the authorities and their replies. These documents, as well as the documents submitted by the Government, are summarised below. 25.     On 16 February 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor's office inspected the crime scene at the applicants' house. Nothing was collected from the scene. 26.     On 17 February 2003 an officer of the Zavodskoy ROVD informed his superiors that at about 6 p.m. on that date the ROVD had received information about the discovery of Valid Dzhabrailov' body in an abandoned building on the premises of a chemical plant and of the first applicant with a gunshot wound in his head. The latter stated that he and his brother, Valid, had been abducted from their house at about 6 a.m. on 15   February 2003 by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms; that they had been detained in an unidentified place and then taken by the abductors to the chemical factory in a UAZ vehicle. 27.     On 18 February 2003, under Article 126   §   2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping), the Grozny district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov. The case file was given the number 42024 (in the submitted documents the number was also referred to as 42042 and 41026). 28.     On 18 February 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene at the place where Valid Dzhabrailov's body had been discovered. The investigators inspected the body on the spot and drafted a report to this effect. As a result, it was established that Valid Dzhabrailov's skull, face, ribs and upper and lower limbs seemed intact; no metal wire was found on his neck. Nothing was collected from the scene. 29.   On 18 February 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the murder of Valid Dzhabrailov and the case file was given the number 30034. 30.     On 19 February 2003 the first and third applicants were granted victim status in the criminal case concerning the abduction and were questioned. 31.     During questioning on 19 February 2003 the third applicant stated that at about 7 a.m. on 16 February 2003 a group of military servicemen had arrived at their house in several vehicles and had broken in. They had been armed with automatic guns; their faces had been covered with masks. The intruders had woken up the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov, taken their passports and told the third applicant in Russian that they would check her brothers' identities and release them. After that the servicemen had pushed the brothers into a grey UAZ car and taken them away. On 18   February 2003 a woman had arrived at the applicants' house and told them that the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov had been in the Zavodskoy ROVD. The applicants had immediately informed the district police officer about it who had gone to Grozny and returned with the body of Valid Dzhabrailov and the first applicant. The body had had numerous injuries and the first applicant had received a gunshot wound to the head. The witness further stated that she had learnt from the first applicant that the brothers had been handcuffed and taken to a basement made of concrete box units. At some point later they had been separated and the first applicant had not seen Valid Dzhabrailov for about twenty-four hours. In the morning of 18 February 2003 a Russian-speaking man in a camouflage uniform had removed the handcuffs from the first applicant, bound his hands, put a sack over his head and bound it with adhesive tape. He had pushed the applicant into a UAZ vehicle beside a cold corpse; the first applicant had thought that it must have been the body of his brother, Valid. The car had been driven for about fifty minutes; then it had stopped and the first applicant had been taken out. He had been dragged about 10-15 metres away from the road; then he had been forced to the ground and shot in the head; he had pretended to be dead. After that they had put Valid Dzhabrailov's body on top of the applicant; then they had placed three pieces of trotyl between the brothers' bodies and lit them. One of the abductors had suggested to the other in Russian: “Lets wait until it explodes” but the other one had said that they'd better leave quickly. After that they had got back into the car and driven away. The first applicant had managed to extinguish the explosive device and made it to the road, where he had stopped a car which had taken him to the Zavodskoy ROVD. On 20 February 2004 the investigators again questioned the third applicant who provided a statement similar to the one given on 19   February 2003. She added that the abductors had told her that they had been taking Aslan and Valid Dzhabrailov to the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD for an identity check; that the abductors had been a group of about thirty men, five of whom had broken into their house. 32.   During questioning on 19 February 2003 the first applicant stated that at about 7 a.m. on 16 February 2003 he and his brother, Valid, had been abducted from their home by a group of five armed military servicemen who had arrived in three grey UAZ vehicles, a white four-door “ Niva ” car and a white “ Gazel ” minivan. The abductors had blindfolded the brothers and pushed them into a UAZ vehicle. After that the abductors had driven for about fifty minutes and taken the brothers to a windowless basement, which measured approximately 5 x 7 metres and was divided into smaller cells. The first applicant had been taken to a cell with a wooden door where he had been kept for about thirty-six hours. In the evening of 17   February 2003 he had been taken outside by two armed servicemen in uniform, who had put a sack over his head and bound it with adhesive tape. Then they had pushed the applicant into a UAZ car, inside which was a cold corpse. The abductors had driven for about forty to fifty minutes. Then they had stopped, dragged the applicant out of the car and forced him to his knees against a wall. The corpse had been placed next to the applicant. After that the abductors had shot the applicant in the head; he had felt the pain but managed to pretend to be dead. Then the servicemen had placed an object between the applicant and the corpse and set it on fire, discussing whether it would be better to wait for the explosion or not. Next, the abductors had got back into the car and driven away. The applicant had pulled the sack off his head and seen that a pack of trotyl had been placed between him and the corpse of his brother, Valid. He had managed to extinguish the explosive device and throw it away. He had looked around and noticed that he had been taken to an abandoned building on the premises of a former chemical plant in Grozny. He had walked to the road, stopped a car and been driven to the Zavodskoy ROVD where he had informed the authorities about the events. 33.   At a later date,   on 3 March 2004 the investigators again questioned the first applicant whose second statement about the events of 16 ‑ 18   February 2003 was similar to the one given on 19 February 2003. In addition, he provided a more detailed description of the place of his detention and stated that the abductors had interrogated him and demanded that he confess to laying landmines; that they had beaten him with flashlights and rifle butts; that they had all been wearing uniforms and masks and had been armed with firearms and that one of them had been armed with a military “ Makarov ” pistol; that one of the abductors had addressed one of the men present during the interrogations in the basement as “Colonel” and that the latter had been wearing a specific reddish camouflage uniform with a peculiar blotted pattern and had been armed with a special sub-machine gun with a silencer; that the two men who had conducted the last interrogation of the applicant had not been wearing masks; that one of them was a large-built, fair-haired man with glasses, of about forty to forty-five years of age, whereas the other one had an Asian appearance, was about the same age and had a similar build to the first one; that these two men had taken the applicant to the premises of the former chemical plant where they had shot him in the head with a sub-machine gun, but the bullet had just grazed his head and he had managed to pretend to be dead; that the men had tried to blow up him and his brother's body; that after the abductors had left he had managed to stop an MAZ vehicle in which there had been two men who had driven him to a security lodge located in a yard with many garages; that three armed men in camouflage uniforms who had been present there had called the Zavodskoy ROVD via a portable radio and that about half an hour later a UAZ car had arrived and taken the applicant to the Zavodskoy ROVD. 34.     On 19 February 2003 the investigators questioned the applicants' relative, Mr N.R., whose statement concerning the events of 16-18 February 2003 was similar to the ones given by the first and third applicants. 35.     On 14 March 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor's office wrote to the Grozny district department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) requesting information about the involvement of the first applicant in illegal armed groups. On 15 March 2003 the FSB replied that they had no such information. 36.     On 14 March 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor's office joined the investigation in the criminal cases concerning the abduction and the killing. The joint criminal case was given the number 30034. 37.     On 18 April 2003 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 38.     On 3 February 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the second applicant that her complaint about the killing of Valid Dzhabrailov had been examined and that on 3 February 2004 the investigation had been resumed. 39.     On 2-3 March 2004 the Chechnya Bureau of Forensic Expert Evaluations conducted an expert evaluation of Valid Dzhabrailov's body based on the crime scene examination report of 17 February 2003. According to the expert's conclusions: “...Based on the crime scene examination report and the circumstances of the case I conclude the following: The following injuries were found on Valid Dzhabrailov's body: - numerous extensive bruises of the body and the extremities; - circular abrasions on the wrist and ankle joints; 2. The injuries could have been caused by a number of impacts by a dull firm object (objects) two or three days prior to the death; 3. The corpse of V. Dzhabrailov was not examined; therefore, it is not possible to make further conclusions...” 40.     On 6 March 2004 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the applicants about it on 15 or 29 March 2004. 41.     On 10 October 2004 the first applicant complained to the Zavodskoy district prosecutor's office that the investigation into Valid Dzhabrailov's murder had been ineffective, that there had been a lack of information about the progress of the investigation and that its suspension had been unjustified. 42.     On 11 May 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote to the Grozny district prosecutor's office and the Grozny town prosecutor's office. They described in detail the circumstances of Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov's abduction and their subsequent detention. In particular, they described the beatings and the ill-treatment to which the brothers had been subjected by the abductors and the abductors' attempt to kill the first applicant. They further complained that the investigations into the abduction and the murder had been ineffective and that there had been a lack of information about the progress of the proceedings, and asked to be provided with copies of a number of procedural decisions. 43.     On 14 June 2005 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that on an unspecified date the investigation into the abduction had been joined with the investigation into the murder and the joint criminal case had been given the number 30034. 44.     On 21 July 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote to the Zavodskoy district prosecutor's office complaining that the investigation in the joint criminal case had been ineffective and that there had been a lack of information about the steps taken by the investigators. In particular, they pointed out that they had received no information as to whether an expert evaluation of the evidence discovered at the crime scene or a forensic examination of Valid Dzhabrailov's body had been carried out. They further asked that the first applicant be provided with access to the investigation file. 45.     On 27 October 2005 and 25 June 2008 the decisions to suspend the investigation were overruled by the supervisory prosecutors for failure to take necessary investigative steps and the proceedings were resumed. 46.     The applicants submitted that the authorities had failed to provide them with information concerning the investigation into the abduction and the subsequent killing of their close relative. 47.     The Government submitted that the investigation in criminal case no.   30034 was still in progress. The perpetrators of the abduction and the killing had not been identified, but the domestic authorities were taking steps to have the crime resolved. The applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation. 48.     Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case no.   30034. They submitted copies of several documents and 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 because the file contained personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. C.   Proceedings against law-enforcement officials 49.     On 23 September 2005 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 23 September 2003 and 11 October 2005) the first applicant complained to the Zavodskoy district court of Grozny. He described in detail the events of 16-18 February 2003, including the beatings to which he had been subjected by the abductors, and complained that the investigation in criminal case no.   30034 had been ineffective and that its suspension had been unjustified. The applicant sought a ruling obliging the authorities to resume the investigation and provide him with access to the investigation file. 50.     On 28 October 2005 the Zavodskoy district court rejected the complaint stating that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on 27 October 2005.     II.   RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 51.     For a summary of relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 40464/02, §§   67-69, 10   May 2007). THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION A.     Arguments of the parties 52.     The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the abduction and the subsequent killing of Valid Dzhabrailov had not yet been completed. The Government further argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions of the investigating authorities and that it was open to them to pursue civil remedies but they had failed to do so. 53.     The applicants contested that objection. With reference to the Court's practice, they argued that they had not been obliged to lodge civil claims in order to exhaust domestic remedies. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that their complaints to that effect, including their complaint to the district court, had been futile. B.     The Court's assessment 54.     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. 55.     As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention. A civil court is unable to pursue any independent investigation and is incapable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any meaningful findings regarding the identity of the perpetrators of fatal assaults or disappearances, still less of establishing their responsibility (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v.   Russia , nos.   57942/00 and 57945/00, §§   119-121, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others , 60272/00, §   77, 12 January 2007). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. The preliminary objection in this regard is thus dismissed. 56.     As regards criminal law remedies, the Court observes that the applicants complained to the law enforcement authorities immediately after the abduction of the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov and that an investigation has been pending since 18 February 2003. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of this investigation. 57.     The Court considers that this limb of the Government's preliminary objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the criminal investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints. Thus, it considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the substantive provisions of the Convention. II.   THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A.     The parties' arguments 58.     The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had broken into their home and taken away the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov had been State agents. In support of their complaint they referred to the following evidence which was not challenged by the Government: the abductors had been armed and were wearing camouflage uniforms, they had arrived in several vehicles, spoken unaccented Russian and told the applicants that they would check the brothers' identity at the ROVD and release them afterwards; the Dzhabrailov brothers had been taken to a military base where they could hear the sound of military vehicles and helicopters; Valid Dzhabrailov had been killed by the abductors and the first applicant had been questioned by the abductors about his possible involvement in the terrorist activities of illegal armed groups. 59.     The Government denied the involvement of State representatives in the abduction of the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov and the subsequent killing of the latter. In particular, they contended that the place of the discovery of Valid Dzhabrailov's body could not in any way indicate the involvement of the military in the incident; that the abductors' camouflage uniforms and the sound of military vehicles and helicopters heard by the first applicant did not mean that the Dzhabrailov brothers had been detained on a military base; that the first applicant's medical documents certifying the injuries received as a result of the abduction had been obtained by him some time after the events and therefore cannot corroborate his allegations of ill-treatment. At the same time the Government neither submitted their version of the events of 16-18 February 2003 nor the possible reasons for the abduction of the Dzhabrailov brothers and the subsequent killing of Valid Dzhabrailov. B. The Court's evaluation of the facts 60.     The Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in a 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). It 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 , 5310/71 § 161, 18 January 1978). In view of this and bearing in mind the principles referred to above, the Court finds that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct in respect of the well ‑ foundedness of the applicants' allegations. The Court will thus proceed to examine crucial elements in the present case that should be taken into account when deciding whether the abduction of the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov and the subsequent death of the latter can be attributed to the authorities. 61.     The applicants alleged that the persons who had abducted the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov on 16   February 2003 and then killed the latter had been State agents. The Government did not dispute the main factual elements underlying the application and did not provide any explanation of the events. 62.     The Court notes that the applicants' version of the events is supported by the witness statements collected by the applicants and by the investigation. The applicants stated that the perpetrators had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation – they had checked the identity documents, they had spoken Russian among themselves and to the residents. In their applications and statements to the authorities the applicants consistently maintained that the abduction and the subsequent killing had been perpetrated by military servicemen and asked the investigation to look into that possibility (see paragraphs 31-33 above). 63.     The Court finds that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform equipped with a number of vehicles proceeded to check identity documents and arrest the Dzhabrailov brothers at their home in a town area strongly supports the applicants' allegation that these were State servicemen. The domestic investigation also accepted factual assumptions as presented by the applicants, but it does not appear that any steps have been taken to verify the involvement of State servicemen in the abduction and the subsequent killing. 64.     The Court reiterates that the evidentiary standard required for the purposes of the Convention is proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, and that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. The Court has also noted the difficulty for the applicants to obtain the necessary evidence in support of allegations in cases where the respondent Government are in possession of the relevant documentation and fail to submit it. Where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to the lack of such documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see Toğcu v. Turkey , no. 27601/95, §   95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey , no. 21894/93, §   211, ECHR   2005 ‑ II). 65.     Taking into account the above-mentioned elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have made a prima facie case that the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov were detained by State servicemen. The Government's statement that the investigation did not find any evidence to support the involvement of State representatives in the abduction and the subsequent killing is insufficient to discharge them from the above ‑ mentioned burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government's failure to submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide any explanation of the events in question, the Court considers that the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov were arrested on 16   February 2003 at their home by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation and that Valid Dzhabrailov was subsequently killed by State servicemen. 66.     The Court has already noted above that it has been unable to benefit from the results of the domestic investigation, owing to the Government's failure to disclose most of the documents from the investigation file. Nevertheless, it is clear that the investigation did not identify the perpetrators of the abduction and the subsequent killing. As it follows from the documents and information submitted by the Government, as late as January 2009, almost six years after the crime had occurred and the investigation had been opened, the most basic investigative steps had still not been taken (see paragraphs 40 and 45 above). 67.     Furthermore, in a case involving abduction and a subsequent killing, the Court finds it particularly regrettable that there should have been no thorough investigation of the relevant facts by the domestic prosecutors or courts. The few documents submitted by the Government from the investigation file opened by the prosecutor's office do not suggest any progress in six years and, if anything, show the incomplete and inadequate nature of those proceedings. Moreover, the stance of the prosecutor's office and the other law-enforcement authorities after the circumstances of the abduction had been communicated to them by the applicants, contributed significantly to the subsequent killing, because no necessary steps were taken in the crucial first hours and days after the arrest. The authorities' behaviour in the face of the applicants' well-substantiated complaints gives rise to a strong presumption of at least acquiescence in the situation and raises strong doubts as to the objectivity of the investigation. 68.     Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish that the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov were abducted by State servicemen and that Valid Dzhabrailov was subsequently killed by them. III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 69.     The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that Valid Dzhabrailov had been abducted and subsequently killed by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 reads: “1.   Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)   in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” A.   The alleged violation of the right to life of Valid Dzhabrailov 70.     The applicants maintained their complaint and argued that their relative had been detained and subsequently killed by State servicemen. 71.     The Government stated that the investigation had found no evidence to the effect that State servicemen had been involved in the abduction and killing. 72.     Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, to which no derogation is permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom , 27   September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324, and Avşar v. Turkey , no. 25657/94, § 391, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII (extracts)). 73.     The Court has already found that the applicants' relative was killed following unacknowledged arrest by State servicemen. In the absence of any justification put forward by the Government, the Court finds that his death can be attributed to the State and that there has been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Valid Dzhabrailov. B.     The alleged inadequacy of the investigation into the abduction and the subsequent killing 74.     The applicants argued that the investigation had not met the requirements to be effective and adequate, as required by the Court's case ‑ law on Article 2. They noted that it had been suspended and reopened a number of times and thus the taking of the most basic steps had been protracted, and that the applicants had not been informed properly of the most important investigative steps. They argued that the fact that the investigation had been pending for six years without producing any known results had been further proof of its ineffectiveness. The applicants invited the Court to draw its own conclusions from the Government's unjustified failure to submit the documents from the investigation file to them or to the Court. 75.     The Governmen