CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s20AFED81 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s51BE140A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s308FBE0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF KHUTSAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 16622/05)       JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 9   November 2010 and 27   March 2011 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court     STRASBOURG   27 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 Khutsayev 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,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 6 May 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 16622/05) 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 ten Russian nationals listed below (“the applicants”), on 26 April 2005. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers of the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights and subsequently by their new representative, Mr G. Matyushkin. 3.     On 7 March 2008 the Court decided 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 applications at the same time as their admissibility. The President of the Chamber acceded to the Government's request not to make publicly accessible the documents from the criminal investigation file deposited with the Registry in connection with the applications (Rule 33 of the Rules of Court). 4.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the applications. Having considered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are: 1) Mr Isa Khutsayev, born in 1956, 2) Ms Birlant Khutsayeva, born in 1961, 3) Ms Maryam Khutsayeva, born in 1989, 4) Mr Aslan Khutsayev, born in 1988, 5) Mr Ibragim Khutsayev, born in 1993, 6) Ms Marina Turasheva, born in 1983, 7) Ms Aynat Sugaipova, born in 1957, 8) Mr Amsody [1] Didayev, born in 1953, 9) Ms Ayshat Sugaipova, born in 1986, 10) Ms Milana Sugaipova, born in 1987. 6.     They belong to two families who live in the village of Gekhi, in the Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. 7.     The first applicant family consists of six persons (the first to sixth applicants). The first applicant is married to the second applicant. They are the parents of Beslan Khutsayev, born in 1981, and Movsar Khutsayev, born in 1984. The third applicant is the daughter of the first and second applicants; the fourth and fifth applicants are their sons and the sixth applicant is their daughter-in-law. 8.     The second applicant family consists of four persons (the seventh to tenth applicants). The seventh applicant is married to the eighth applicant. They are the parents of Adam Didayev, born in 1977. The ninth and the tenth applicants are their daughters. A.     Disappearance of Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev 1.     Apprehension of Beslan and Movsar Khutsayev 9.     On the night of 16 December 2001 the first applicant family, together with Movsar and Beslan Khutsayev, stayed at their house at 40 Sportivnaya Street, in the village of Gekhi, Chechnya. The family were not sleeping as they were preparing for the celebration of a Muslim holiday. Between 2 and 3 a.m. on 16 December 2001 a group of about ten armed masked men in camouflage uniforms rushed into the house. The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen. At some point the first applicant heard one of the officers calling somebody on his portable radio set and saying: “Fog, Fog, go out. We are ready. We are leaving.” (“ Туман, Туман, выходите. Мы уже все. Выходим ”) 10.     One of the servicemen put a gun to the second applicant's head and shouted: “Everybody lie down or we will blow up the house and shoot your wife”. The first applicant asked what was wrong. He was told that the group had arrived to carry out an identity check. The leader of the group ordered the first applicant and Movsar Khutsayev to lie down on the floor. The servicemen bound their hands. One of the servicemen swore at the first applicant, repeatedly kicked him in the face, broke his jaw and said: “Any Chechen is a natural-born bandit”. The serviceman stopped the beatings only after his commander ordered him to do so. Movsar Khutsayev was laid on the floor next to the first applicant. He received several blows from the servicemen in the presence of the first applicant. 11.     The servicemen searched the house and seized the applicants' possessions, in particular money (12,000 roubles), clothes, a tape recorder, a vacuum cleaner, watches and all the dishes cooked for the holiday celebration. They also shot through the tyres of the first applicant's MAZ car, which was parked near the house. 12.     The first applicant and Movsar Khutsayev were taken outside to the yard and made to lie face down under a shed. Beslan Khutsayev was already there. He was covered in blood. The officers conducted an identity check. Upon completion of the procedure one of them hit Beslan Khutsayev in the back with a rifle butt. The servicemen seized the passports of Beslan and Movsar Khutsayev as well as that of the first applicant. Afterwards, the servicemen walked away with Movsar and Beslan Khutsayev. 13.     After the servicemen had left the house, the second applicant followed them and saw several Russian military vehicles – Ural and UAZ cars and armoured personnel carriers (APCs) – parked next to the village cemetery, about 500 metres from the applicants' house. She saw the officers putting Beslan and Movsar Khutsayev inside the cars. Later on the morning of 16   December 2001 the applicants saw spots of blood, footprints from military boots and tracks left by car tyres in the snow on the way from their house to the cemetery. 2.     Apprehension of Adam Didayev 14.     On the night of 16 December 2001 the second applicant family, together with Adam Didayev, stayed in their house at 18 Koltsevaya Street in Gekhi. Adam Didayev was undergoing in-patient treatment for tuberculosis in a hospital and had come home for the celebration of the Muslim holiday. The family had finished the preparations when at about 3   a.m. a group of approximately twenty armed masked men in camouflage uniforms rushed into the house. The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen. At some point the seventh applicant heard one of the officers clearly saying via his portable radio set: “I am a major of the Main Intelligence Department [of the Ministry of Defence]...” (“ Я майор ГРУ ...”). 15.     The officers beat the eighth applicant with a rifle butt, breaking two of his ribs and causing him to lose consciousness. The officers also beat Adam Didayev in the applicants' presence. 16.     The servicemen searched the house and seized the applicants' possessions, in particular money (14,990 roubles), clothes, a videotape recorder, crockery and dishes cooked for the holiday celebration. 17.     Having finished the search of the house, the servicemen invited a masked man, who had come with them, into the house. They pointed at Adam Didayev with a flashlight and the masked man nodded as if he had recognised him. The officers ordered Adam Didayev to put on warm clothes and to go with them. The applicants showed the officers a medical certificate stating that Adam Didayev suffered from tuberculosis. The officers looked at the certificate and answered that they would clear up the matter the next day. They took Adam Didayev away, ordering the applicants to stay in the house. 18.     After the officers had left the house, the seventh applicant followed them and saw several Russian military Ural and UAZ cars, as well as APCs, parked about 250 metres from the applicants' house. She saw the officers putting her son, together with some other detained persons, inside the vehicles. After that the cars moved towards the Gekhi village military commander's office. 19.     The description of the events of the night of 16 December 2001 is based on the accounts provided by the applicants and their neighbours to the applicants' representatives. The first applicant family submitted: two accounts of the events by the first applicant, obtained on 9 April 2004 and 16 June 2005; an account by the sixth applicant, obtained on 23 April 2004; an account by the second applicant, obtained on 25 April 2005; an account by the aunt of Movsar and Beslan Khutsayev, obtained on 25 April 2005; and an account by the applicants' neighbour, obtained on 20 April 2005. The second applicant family submitted: an account of the events by the seventh applicant, obtained on 9 April 2004; an account of the events by the tenth applicant, obtained on 15 April 2004; an account of the events by the eighth applicant, obtained on 17 April 2004; and an account of the events by their neighbour, obtained on 20 April 2005. 20.     The Government did not dispute the circumstances of the detention. They objected to the description of the intruders as “servicemen”. B.     The search for Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev and the investigation 1.     The applicants' account 21.     On 16 December 2001 the applicants started to search for Movsar Khutsayev, Beslan Khutsayev and Adam Didayev. They contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the Russian President, the Russian State Duma, the Chechen administration, military commanders' offices and prosecutors' offices at different levels, describing in detail the circumstances of their relatives' apprehension and asking for help in establishing their whereabouts. The applicants retained copies of a number of those complaints and submitted them to the Court. An official investigation was opened by the local prosecutor's office. The relevant information is summarised below. 22.     On 16 December 2001 both the applicant families complained to the Urus-Martan temporary District Department of the Interior (VOVD) about the apprehension of their relatives, ill-treatment and the seizure of documents and property. However, they did not keep copies of their letters and alleged that they had only received an oral response from the authorities. 23.     On 25 February 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor's office”) instituted a criminal investigation into the disappearance of Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev under Article 126   §   2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned no.   61030. 24.     On 2 April 2002, near Urus-Martan, some clothes were found, together with the remains of three men. On 7 April 2002 the district prosecutor's office conducted an identification of the clothes. The clothes were presented to Ms Zaynap Kh., the aunt of Movsar and Beslan Khutsayev, who recognised them as clothes belonging to her nephews. It appears that on an unspecified date in April 2002 the clothes were also presented for identification to the first applicant, who identified them as belonging to his missing sons. The applicants were not aware whether any official steps had been taken following this finding. 25.     On 25 April 2002 the investigation of the criminal case no.   61030 was suspended pursuant to Article 195 (§ 1 (3)) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the investigation was subsequently reopened and suspended several times. Some of these decisions have not been communicated to the applicants. 2.     Correspondence of the first applicant family with the law-enforcement authorities 26.     On 15 February 2002 the second applicant wrote to a number of authorities, including the district prosecutor's office. In her letter she stated that on the night of 16 December 2001 a group of Russian military servicemen in camouflage uniforms had broken into her house and conducted a search of the place. She mentioned that the intruders had pointed their guns at the family members and had beaten her sons. The applicant stated that the servicemen had taken away valuable items belonging to her family and some identity documents, and had walked away with her sons. The applicant requested assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Movsar and Beslan Khutsayev. 27.     On 29 May 2002 the second applicant requested assistance from the VOVD in establishing the whereabouts of Movsar and Beslan Khutsayev. In her letter she explained that on the night of 16 December 2001 a group of representatives of Russian power structures had broken into her house and conducted an unlawful search, and that they had subjected her family members to beatings and had taken away her two sons Beslan and Movsar Khutsayev. 28.     On 22 June 2002, in response to the first applicant's request, the Military Prosecutor's Office of the Urus-Martan district informed him that such information was to be obtained from the VOVD. 29.     On 19 November 2002 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor's office and the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office, requesting them to expedite the investigation of criminal case no.   61030. He stated that he had not been questioned by the investigative authorities and that the district prosecutor's office had failed to take any other investigative measures. He complained about the lack of information about the investigation and pointed out that although his relatives had been abducted in December 2001, the perpetrators had still not been identified. The first applicant sought a review of the measures taken by the investigative authorities and asked to be informed about the results. 30.     On 4 February 2003 the second applicant requested a number of authorities, including the prosecutors' offices at various levels, for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Movsar and Beslan Khutsayev. The applicant stated that the authorities had failed to react to her detailed descriptions of the circumstances of her sons' abduction and her numerous complaints about the beatings by the servicemen. 31.     On 13 February 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed Mrs   Zaynap Kh. that they had taken all necessary measures in the course of the investigation into the disappearance of her nephews. The investigation had been suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. 32.     On 17 April 2003 the first applicant requested assistance from the district prosecutor's office. In his letter he again described in detail the events of 16 December 2001. In particular, he described the search conducted by the group of armed masked servicemen who had broken into his house and the beatings to which the intruders had subjected his family members. The applicant stated that the servicemen had taken away his family's property; that one of them had shouted at him: “Shut up. Did you not understand? Any Chechen is a natural-born bandit”; and that the group had taken away his two sons. The applicant mentioned that he had contacted a number of State authorities to ascertain his sons' whereabouts, but that all of them had denied their involvement in the abduction. The applicant also provided a detailed description of evidence which made him believe that the abduction had been conducted by the Russian federal forces. In particular, he pointed out that the local residents had seen a number of APCs and other military vehicles parked in the vicinity of the applicant's house on the night of 16 December 2001; that the local police, in spite of the curfew, had failed to stop the vehicles moving towards the applicants' house; that the boot prints and traces of blood discovered in the applicants' yard on the morning of 16 December 2001 led to the place where the vehicles were parked; that the intruders had been armed with machine guns with silencers and could not have acted so openly had they not belonged to the Russian federal forces; that the intruders had openly used portable radio sets and had called someone with the codename “Fog”; that they had clearly had a chain of command; and that on the morning of 16 December 2001, in spite of the applicants' request, the law-enforcement authorities had failed to visit the crime scene and initiate an investigation. The applicant asked the district prosecutor to take a number of investigative measures: to question representatives of the Russian military and law-enforcement agencies; to establish who had used the codename “Fog” during the night of 16   December 2001, to question a number of local residents; and to establish which division of the Main Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defence had been stationed in the area on 16 December 2001. 33.     On an unspecified date the second applicant wrote to a number of public bodies, including the Military Prosecutor's Office of Chechnya, asking for assistance. In her letters she stated that on 16 December 2001 a group of Russian military servicemen wearing black masks and camouflage uniforms had broken into her house and conducted an unlawful search of the place. She stated that the intruders had demanded valuables; that they had bound up all the males in the house and forced them to lie on the floor; and that they had subjected her family members to beatings and threats. The applicant mentioned that one of the servicemen had spoken on his portable radio set and had used the codename “Fog”. The same servicemen had taken away her two sons and she had never heard from them since; her family had contacted various State authorities with requests for assistance; but the authorities had either given formal and meaningless replies or had not replied at all. The applicant expressed the opinion that the prosecutor's office had been trying to cover up the identity of those who had abducted her sons and that the Chechen authorities had failed to take measures to protect the local population. 34.     On 23 April 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the second applicant that the investigation of criminal case no.   61030 had been suspended on 25 April 2002. The letter also stated that the local police had been instructed to take steps aimed at solving the crime. 35.     On 19 June 2003 the district prosecutor's office again informed the first applicant that the investigation of case no.   61030 had been suspended on 25   April 2002. 36.     On 24 March 2004 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to take into consideration the pecuniary damage caused to them as a result of the search conducted on 16 December 2001. The applicant provided a detailed description of the seized property. 37.     On 31 March 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that his request had been included in case file no. 61030 and that it would be taken into consideration during the investigation. 38.     On 30 November 2004, in response to a request by the first applicant dated 26   November 2004, the district prosecutor's office informed him that the investigation of case no.   61030 had been suspended and reopened several times and that the most recent suspension of the investigation had taken place on 1 November 2004 owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. 39.     On 20 September 2005 the first applicant asked the district prosecutor's office to inform him of the progress in the investigation. In the absence of any reply, on 9 December 2005 and on 15 March 2006 he repeated his request. On 28 March 2006 the district prosecutor's office informed him that the investigation was pending, without referring to any procedural decisions. 40.     The first applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office again on 2 June 2006. On 5 June 2006 he received a reply to the effect that the criminal investigation was ongoing and that he would be informed if there were any significant developments. 41.     On 10 October 2006 the first applicant again requested the district prosecutor's office to update him on the progress of the investigation and to allow him access to the file. On 22 December 2006 the district prosecutor's office informed him that the investigator's decision of 28 April 2006 to adjourn the proceedings had been quashed on 22 December 2006. 42.     On 27 January 2007 the investigator ordered an expert medical examination of the first applicant in order to assess the gravity of the injuries sustained by him on 15 December 2001. The order referred to the first applicant's testimony of 7 February 2006 in which he had complained about the injuries. On 16 February 2006 the medical expert found no traces of injuries on the first applicant. 43.     On 10 February 2007 the first applicant again asked the district prosecutor's office to inform him of the state of proceedings in the criminal investigation concerning his sons' abduction. 44.     On 31 July 2008 the Chechen Department of the Investigative Committee at the Prosecutor General's Office (“the Chechnya Investigative Committee”) informed the second applicant that its office would be conducting a further investigation in criminal case no.   61030. The letter informed her of setting up of a special investigative group whose task was to deal with cases considered by the European Court of Human Rights. It also informed her that on 31 July 2008 the proceedings had been reopened. 45.     In addition, the applicants on numerous occasions wrote to other law-enforcement authorities and public figures, who eventually forwarded their letters to the district prosecutor's office. 3.     Correspondence of the second applicant family with the law-enforcement authorities 46.     On 15 February 2002 the seventh applicant requested the district prosecutor's office and the Urus-Martan Military Commander's Office (“the district military commander's office”) for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Adam Didayev and securing his release from detention. In her letter she stated that at the material time her son had been undergoing in-patient tuberculosis treatment and had come home for the celebration of the religious holiday. The applicant also submitted that her husband had been beaten by the servicemen, who had broken two of his ribs, and that he had had problems recovering from the ill-treatment. The applicant stated that the intruders had beaten her daughter and taken away their personal property. 47.     On 19 February 2002 the eighth applicant wrote to the Russian Minister of the Interior. He stated that the soldiers who had abducted his son had been drunk; that they had forced the applicant to the ground, sworn at him, beaten him with rifle butts and kicked him for 40 to 50 minutes, and that as a result they had broken two of his ribs. 48.     On 21 May 2002 the seventh applicant wrote to the district military commander and complained about her son's detention. The applicant also submitted that her family members had been beaten. 49.     On 31 May 2002 the South Federal Circuit Department of the Ministry of the Interior informed the eighth applicant that the district prosecutor's office had instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the abduction of Adam Didayev under Article 126 §   2 of the Criminal Code. The letter did not refer to the number of the criminal case file. 50.     On 19 August 2002 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior informed the seventh applicant that her request had been forwarded to the VOVD. 51.     On 28 April 2003 the seventh applicant lodged a complaint with the district prosecutor's office. In her letter she described in detail the events of the night of 16 December 2001 and the absence of help from the authorities in the days after the abduction. The applicant stated that the authorities had failed to take any urgent measures to investigate the crime and that their first visit to the crime scene had not taken place until two months after the events. The applicant submitted that she had provided the investigator with the information that one of the intruders had identified himself as a major of the Main Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defence, but the investigator had failed to include this evidence in the questioning report. The applicant listed a number of necessary investigative measures which should have been taken by the investigative authorities, including an investigation of the crime scene, identification of those who had used portable radio sets on the night of 16 December 2001, and so on. She asked the authorities to take a number of investigative measures, such as: granting her the status of a victim and the status of a civil plaintiff in the criminal proceedings; conducting an inspection of the crime scene; establishing who had used portable radio sets on 16 December 2001; establishing who had used the military vehicles seen on the night of the abduction; providing her with an update concerning the status of the investigation; and informing her of the results of the examination of the complaint. 52.     On 5 May 2003 the seventh applicant requested the district military commander for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Adam Didayev. She stated that on 16 December 2001 a group of representatives of the Russian forces had broken into her house, subjected her husband and daughter to beatings, made a mess everywhere, taken the family's valuables and left with Adam Didayev. She submitted that one of the servicemen had used a portable radio set to ask for help; that the officer had introduced himself during the communication as a major of the Main Intelligence Department; and that in response to his requests he had been told that sixteen servicemen were on their way. The applicant also pointed out that the intruders had used Ural and UAZ military vehicles and two APCs. The applicant submitted that on the following day she had complained about the events of the night of 16 December 2001 to various authorities, but her requests had produced no results. 53.     On 18 March 2004 the seventh applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to take into consideration the pecuniary damage caused to them as a result of the search conducted on 16 December 2001. The applicant provided a detailed description of the seized property. 54.     In addition, the applicants on numerous occasions wrote to other law-enforcement authorities and public figures, who eventually forwarded their letters to the district prosecutor's office. 55.     The applicants were not informed of any further developments of the investigation into the disappearance of their relatives. 4.     Information submitted by the Government 56.     The Government submitted about 200 pages from the criminal investigation file no.   61030. The contents of these documents and the Government observations can be summarised as follows. 57.     The investigation of the abduction of Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev by “unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms with machine guns” had commenced on 25 February 2002. The case file contains complaints of 15 February 2002 by the two applicant families. 58.     On 11 March 2002 the second and seventh applicants were granted victim status. On the same day the two women were questioned. Their statements contained detailed descriptions of the events surrounding the abduction, including a list of items of property that had been taken. The seventh applicant stated that her husband, the eighth applicant, and her daughter, the ninth applicant, had been beaten by the servicemen. She mentioned the radio conversation one of the intruders had had in which he had identified himself as a major of the Main Intelligence Department (of the Ministry of Defence) and the fact that APCs and a Ural vehicle had been stationed near the cemetery on that night. 59.     On 22 May 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 (based at the headquarters of the Russian military in Chechnya) informed the district prosecutor's office that he had not discerned any reasons to suspect the involvement of the servicemen of the army, the Federal Security Service (FSB) or the Interior Troops of the Ministry of the Interior in the events of 16 December 2001. The file was therefore returned to the district prosecutor's office. 60.     On 17 April and 28 April 2003 the first and seventh applicants, respectively, lodged detailed complaints with the district prosecutor's office (see paragraphs 41 and 62 above). 61.     On 11 September 2003 the investigation questioned the first applicant as a witness. The Government did not provide a copy of the transcript, but in their observations submitted that he had testified about the beatings he and his son Beslan had sustained on the night of the abduction. He also described the intruders, mentioned the call-name “Fog” used by one of them and referred to the military vehicles seen by the second applicant and by the sixth applicant, his daughter-in-law. The first applicant at that time stated that he had not sought medical assistance in relation to the injuries sustained. 62.     On 18 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office sent a request for information to all the district prosecutor's offices in Chechnya. The letter referred to the detention of the three men on 16 December 2001 by unidentified armed persons and asked the offices to check whether Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev had ever been detained or treated in medical institutions. On the same day the investigators requested information about the three men from various State authorities in Chechnya and in the Southern Federal Circuit, including the FSB, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice and the military commander's office. 63.     In September and October 2003 all services replied that they had not detained Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev or carried out a criminal investigation into their activities. The three men had never been detained or delivered to a temporary detention ward. No State agency had any information about their whereabouts. 64.     According to the Government, on 24 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office questioned the second and sixth applicants. They did not produce copies of these statements to the Court, but submitted that the applicants had confirmed the details of their relatives' detention. Both women described the military vehicles they had seen near the cemetery: two APCs, one Ural military truck and one all-terrain UAZ vehicle. The intruders had put the detainees into the Ural and left towards the main road, in the direction of Urus-Martan. 65.     On several occasions in 2005 and in 2006, following the applicants' complaints, the district prosecutor's office had instructed the local police department (ROVD) to take steps to investigate the abduction. 66.     According to the Government, on 27 June 2005 the first applicant was again questioned as a witness. They did not submit a copy of the transcript of the questioning. 67.     In April 2006 the investigator sought information about the missing men from the detention centres of the Ministry of Justice in the Southern Federal Circuit. In May and June 2006 the centres replied that they had never been detained there. 68.     On 4 January 2007 the seventh applicant was again questioned about the circumstances of the abduction. On the same day she requested to be granted the status of a civil plaintiff in view of the pecuniary damage caused to her family and the injuries sustained by her husband and daughter, the eighth and ninth applicants. The request was granted on the same day. 69.     On 7 January 2007 the investigator questioned the first applicant. He stated that he had been beaten and sustained injuries on 16 December 2001, but that he had not applied to any medical institution on that account. On the same day the first applicant was granted the status of a victim in the proceedings. 70.     On 15 January 2007 the investigator questioned the third applicant about the events of 16 December 2001. 71.     On 17 January 2007 the second applicant was recognised as a civil plaintiff in the proceedings, in view of the pecuniary damage sustained by the family. The Government stated that she had been again questioned on the same day, but did not submit a copy of the transcript. 72.     On 19 January 2007 the investigators visited the household of the second applicant family. They examined the site of the crime and took photographs of the house. Nothing of interest to the investigation was noted, except the broken door of one of the wardrobes. Later on the same day the investigators followed the seventh applicant to the site where she had seen the military vehicles on the night of the abduction. She pointed to the spot where the vehicles had been stationed and explained that she had seen two APCs, one Ural vehicle and one all-terrain UAZ vehicle. She pointed to the direction of the main road where the vehicles had departed. Nothing of interest to the investigation had been noted. 73.     Also on 19 January 2007 the investigators examined the household of the first applicant's family. The first applicant explained the events of the night of 16 December 2001. He referred to the shots fired by the abductors at the wheel of his MAZ truck, but no cartridge or bullet could be found. The truck in question had been sold and could not be examined. Nothing of further interest to the investigation had been noted. The investigators also took photographs of the site. 74.     On 22 January 2007 the investigators questioned the eighth and ninth applicants about the circumstances of the abduction of Adam Didayev and about the injuries sustained by them. Both stated that they had not sought medical assistance in relation to the incident and that by the time of the questioning no traces of the ill-treatment had persisted. Therefore, there was no reason to carry out a medical expert examination. 75.     On 16 February 2007 the medical expert concluded that there were no traces of injuries on the first applicant. 76.     On 26 January 2007 the investigator additionally qualified the events of 16 December 2001 as theft in respect of the first applicant family and armed robbery in respect of the second applicant family. The decisions listed the items and value of the stolen property. 77.     In January 2007 the investigator requested the head of the Urus-Martan ROVD to identify and question the neighbours of the two applicant families and the residents who lived near the village cemetery in order to find eyewitnesses to the events of 16 December 2001. In February 2007 the servicemen of the ROVD questioned five men who had lived near the Gekhi cemetery. In identically worded statements they said that they had not seen or heard the military vehicles on the night of 15 to 16 December 2001 and that they had had no information about the abductions. 78.     In relation to these five witness statements, the applicants in August 2008 submitted to the Court five statements collected by them from the witnesses or from their relatives. These statements concern four out of the five witnesses questioned by the investigation. According to these statements, two of the witnesses had not lived in Gekhi in December 2001: one witness had been in detention and another lived in another region. Four men who had been in Gekhi on the date in question confirmed that they had seen and heard the military vehicles moving through the night, despite the curfew. Two men explained that in February 2007 they had signed the records of the questionings upon a request by the local policemen, without reading them. The Government, in their additional observations, questioned the evidential value of these statements. 79.     In January 2007 the investigator asked the headquarters of the army and of the Ministry of the Interior in Chechnya and the FSB to find out whether any security operations had been carried out in Gekhi on the night of 15 to 16 December 2001, whether any military vehicles had been involved, which detachment of the Main Intelligence Department had been stationed in the district at the material time and whether it had been involved in the operation. The letter also asked to identify the officer who had used the call-name “Fog” and to identify and question the servicemen who had manned the roadblock at the relevant time. All services responded in February 2007 that they had no information relevant to the case and had no means of finding out the answers to the questions posed. 80.     According to the Government, the law-enforcement authorities had never arrested or detained Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in respect of them. No special operations had been carried out in respect of the applicants' relatives. 81.     According to the documents submitted by the Government, between February 2002 and December 2006 the investigation was suspended and resumed on at least three occasions, and so far it had failed to identify those guilty. 82.     The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the remaining documents from the criminal investigation file would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since it contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. C.     Proceedings against law-enforcement officials 83.     On 21 June 2003 the first and seventh applicants lodged a complaint with the Urus-Martan Town Court (“the Town Court”). They described the events of 16 December 2001 and complained about the unlawful suspension of the investigation of criminal case no.   61030 and the failure of the authorities to take basic investigative measures and to examine a number of their requests on the merits. The applicants requested the reopening of the investigation and a fresh determination of the nature of the crime and asked to be granted the status of civil plaintiffs in the criminal proceedings. 84.     On 17 March 2004 the Town Court examined their complaint and allowed it in part. The court stated that the district prosecutor's office had unlawfully failed to examine the applicants' requests, and instructed the investigative authorities to conduct a proper examination. 85.     On 13 September 2004 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Town Court. He stated that the district prosecutor's office had failed to comply with the court's decision of 17 March 2004. He sought a ruling that the new decision to suspend the criminal investigation was unlawful, and requested access to the criminal case file and the conduct of an effective and thorough investigation. 86.     On 15 October 2004 the Town Court dismissed his complaint. On 3   November 2004 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld that decision on appeal. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 87.     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 88.     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 Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev and the events of 16 December 2001 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. They also argued that it had been open to the applicants to pursue civil complaints but that they had failed to do so. 89.     The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that their complaints to that effect, including their application to the Town Court, had been futile. 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 90.     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). 91.     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. 92.     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 (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. The Governm