CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 juin 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; 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 } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAC7466F { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .sD5D4358A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .sCBC6AB24 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .s132B84CB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .sEBA8B701 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFC1B4D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82D7B801 { width:22.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7E12FC16 { width:173.31pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF VAKAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 2220/05)             JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   10 June 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 Vakayeva and Others v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 2220/05) 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 four Russian nationals, listed below (“the applicants”), on 30 December 2004. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO registered in the Netherlands with a representative office in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 13 September 2007 the Court decided to apply Rule   41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application, as well as to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 4.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are: 1) Ms Shumist Vakayeva, born in 1953; 2) Ms Rovzat Tatayeva, born in 1956; 3) Ms Marina Otsayeva, born in 1980; and 4) Mr Daud Abdurazakov, born in 1951. 6.     The first, second and third applicants live in the village of Duba-Yurt, the Shali District, in the Chechen Republic; the fourth applicant lives in the village of Chiri-Yurt, the Shashnskiy District, in the Chechen Republic. 7.     The first applicant is married to Mr Shamsudi Vakayev, born in 1949; they are the parents of Mr Shamil Vakayev, born in 1976, and Mr   Shamkhan Vakayev, born in 1975. The second applicant is the mother of Mr Salambek Tatayev, born in 1976. The third applicant is married to Mr   Ramzan Dudayev, born in 1969. The fourth applicant is the father of Mr   Yunus Abdurazakov, born in 1979. A.     Disappearance of five inhabitants of Duba-Yurt 1.     The applicants' account (a)     Abduction of the five men 8.     On 15 March 2001 Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev were at the Vakayevs' house. Shamkhan Vakayev and his wife, Ms D., were in an upstairs bedroom; the other four men were downstairs. 9.     At about 12.45 p.m. on 15 March 2001 two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”), a Ural vehicle and a UAZ all-terrain vehicle arrived at the Vakayevs' house; their registration numbers were not clearly visible. Around thirty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles. The men were unmasked. They had Slavic features and spoke Russian with no accent. 10.     The armed men opened fire and wounded Shamil Vakayev and Ms   Ch., the Vakayevs' neighbour. The armed men gave an injection to the wounded Shamil Vakayev. 11.     At some point one of the armed men was also wounded. 12.     The third applicant was in her house nearby the Vakayevs' house. Having heard gunshots, she rushed outside to find out what was happening and saw the Ural vehicle and the APCs. The third applicant was frightened and went back inside her house. 13.     The armed men beat up Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov and Shamil Vakayev. Ramzan Dudayev started bleeding. The armed men also beat up Mr Kh., the Vakayevs' neighbour, who happened to be in their courtyard. 14.     Meanwhile some of the armed men captured Shamkhan Vakayev in the upstairs bedroom in Ms D.'s presence. Then they took the five men outside. They put Shamil Vakayev in a UAZ vehicle and the four other men in one of the APCs. The vehicles drove away in the direction of the village of Dachu-Borzoy where the military base of the 34 th brigade of the internal troops was located. Later someone saw a helicopter leaving the military base; for reasons which are not clear, the applicants concluded that the helicopter had transported their relatives to the Khankala military base. (b) Media coverage of the abduction of the five men 15.     On 19 March 2001 a spokesman for the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) stated on the local television channel that five persons had been arrested in the village of Duba-Yurt and named the applicants' missing relatives. 16.     On 14 May 2001 RTR television, a State-owned channel, aired a programme produced by Mr S., which contained a video recording of the abduction of the five applicants' relatives. 17.     The applicants obtained a one-minute extract of Mr S.'s programme, which shows the journalist commenting on a special operation carried out by the FSB servicemen to detain an insurgent commander named Vakayev. 2.     The Government's account 18.     At about 1 p.m. on 15 March 2001 unidentified men in camouflage uniforms kidnapped Yunus Abdurazakov, Ramzan Dudayev, Salambek Tatayev, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev from the house at 175   Sheripov Street, in the village of Duba-Yurt. 19.     Mr Kh. was not in the vicinity of the Vakayevs' house on the afternoon of 15 March 2001 as he was attending a funeral in another part of the village. B.     Investigation of the disappearance of the five men 1.     The applicants' account 20.     The applicants repeatedly complained about their relatives' disappearance to the local administration, the FSB, the Russian State Duma and the police. The applicants also visited several military bases to inquire about their relatives' whereabouts. 21.     On 15 May 2001 the applicants complained about the abduction of their five relatives to prosecutors' offices at different levels. 22 .     On 18 May 2001 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no.   20116 forwarded the applicants' complaints about their relatives' disappearance to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic pursuant to the subject-matter jurisdiction rules, arguing that no implication of military personnel in the incident had been established. 23.     On 19 June 2001 the prosecutor's office of the Shali District (“the district prosecutor's office”) instituted an investigation into the abduction of the five inhabitants of Duba-Yurt under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned the number 23116. 24.     On 15 October 2001 the district prosecutor's office replied to the applicants' letter of 15 May 2001, stating that the investigation into their relatives' kidnapping by unidentified men armed with machine-guns was under way. 25.     On 26 November 2001 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's complaint concerning the kidnapping of her sons to the district prosecutor's office. 26.     On 15 December 2001 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 23116 had been suspended for failure to identify those responsible and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 27.     On 26 December 2001 the Department of the FSB of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that they had not carried out any special operations in Duba-Yurt between 14 and 17 March 2001. They stated that the video recording of the abduction of the applicants' relatives allegedly broadcast on national and local television could not have been subtitled “filmed by the Russian FSB”. 28.     On an unspecified date in March 2002 the commander of the North ‑ Caucasus Group of the Internal Troops of the Russian Ministry of the Interior (“the NCG troops”) informed the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 that on 15 March 2001 special operations had been carried out in the village of Duba-Yurt but the NCG troops had not apprehended Yunus Abdurazakov. 29.     On an unspecified date the first applicant complained about the suspension of the investigation into her sons' kidnapping to the South Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General's Office. On 25 April 2002 they replied that the complaint had been forwarded to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic. 30.     On 27 May 2002 the Department of the FSB of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 and that the FSB servicemen had not apprehended those mentioned in the complaint. 31.     On 1 July 2002 the investigation in case no. 23116 was resumed. 32 .     On 6 July 2002 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no.   20116 forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic. They noted the following: “The arrest and kidnapping of those [missing] persons were most probably carried out by the servicemen of the Alpha unit of the Russian FSB rather than military intelligence, because as early as on 19 March 2001 the central television broadcast a report on this arrest by Mr [S.], which was commented on by the head of the Russian FSB press service Mr [Z.]. A videotape of that report is being kept in the file in criminal case no. 4-23116, which is being investigated by the prosecutor's office of the Shali District.” 33.     On 27 July 2002 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that their complaint concerning the alleged implication of the FSB officers in their relatives' kidnapping had been included in the case file and that the investigation had been resumed on 1 July 2002. 34.     On 31 July 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the applicants that the investigation into their relatives' kidnapping in case no.   23116 had been opened by the district prosecutor's office. 35.     On 1 August 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicants' complaint to the district prosecutor's office. They also informed the first applicant that they had repeatedly examined the case materials and that the investigation was pending. 36.     On 9 August 2002 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on 6 August 2002 they had forwarded the investigation file in case no. 23116 to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic for further transfer to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20116. 37.     On 14 August 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the term of the investigation had been extended until 1   November 2002 and that the case would probably be transferred to the military prosecutor's office at a later date. 38.     On 6 September 2002 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that she had been granted victim status in case no. 23116. 39 .     On 13 September 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic transferred case no. 23116 to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102; in a cover letter they noted that the implication of military personnel in the kidnapping had been established. 40.     On 7 October 2002 the military prosecutor's office of the North ‑ Caucasus Circuit returned case no. 23116 to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic, arguing that the investigation had been incomplete and that military personnel implication had not been proven. 41.     On 13 October 2002 the district prosecutor's office took up the case. 42.     On 10 March 2003 district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation. 43.     On an unspecified date the investigation was resumed. 44.     On 17 April 2003 the department of the interior of the Shali District informed the first applicant that operational and search measures were being taken to establish her sons' whereabouts. 45.     On 29 July 2003 the investigation was again suspended. 46.     On 16 October 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that numerous law-enforcement agencies had denied any implication in her sons' abduction and that the proceedings had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 47.     On 1 December 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to resume the investigation. 48.     On 11 December 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that, despite the suspension of the investigation in case no.   23116, the requisite measures were being taken to solve the crime. On 30   December 2003 they sent a similar letter to the fourth applicant. 49.     On 23 March 2004 the district prosecutor's office granted the first applicant victim status. 50.     On 1 April 2004 the investigation into the kidnapping of the applicants' relatives was again suspended. 51.     On 16 November 2004 the SRJI, acting on the applicants' behalf, requested the district prosecutor's office to update them on the progress of the investigation. On 20 December 2004 the district prosecutor's office replied that the investigation was under way. 52.     On 27 March 2006 the decision of 1 April 2004 was quashed and the investigation in case no. 23116 was resumed. 53.     On 30 March 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the fourth applicant that the investigation had been resumed and was pending before the district prosecutor's office under their supervision. 54.     On 16 July 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the fourth applicant that the investigation into the kidnapping of Yunus Abdurazakov and other men “by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms and masks” travelling in “two APCs and a UAZ vehicle without identification marks or registration plates” had been suspended on 27 April 2006 for failure to identify those responsible. 55.     On 20 July 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant of the following: “At about 1 p.m. on 15 March 2001 in the course of a special operation [carried out] in the village of Duba-Yurt of the Shali District unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks arrested and took away to an unknown destination Yu.   Abdurazakov, R. Dudayev, S. Tatayev, Sh. Vakayev and Sh. Vakayev.” They further stated that the investigation in case no. 23116 had been repeatedly suspended and that there were no grounds for quashing the decision on its suspension of 27 April 2006. 56 .     On 19 March 2007 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic sent the first applicant a letter, which, in particular, read: “It follows from the materials of criminal case [no. 23116] that the kidnapped men were arrested in the course of special operations carried out by officers of security services and servicemen of the Ministry of the Defence; however, it has been impossible to establish the whereabouts of those kidnapped, or [the identities of] the persons implicated in this crime and their attachment to law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation.” 57.     On 17 May 2007 the fourth applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to resume the investigation in case no. 23116. He stated that on 15 March 2001 in the course of the special operation a serviceman of the Russian troops had been wounded and requested that that serviceman be identified. He also stated that in May 2001 his son had been held at the Shali district temporary department of the interior and requested that the policemen from the Altay Region who had been on duty at that department at that time be questioned. Finally, he submitted that Yunus Abdurazakov had been held at the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment and requested that information be sought from that body. 58 .     On 28 May 2007 the district prosecutor's office granted the fourth applicant's complaint in the part concerning requests for information but refused to resume the investigation. The decision read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “At about 1 p.m. on 15 March 2001 in the course of the operation carried out by the special unit in the village of Duba-Yurt of the Shali District of the Chechen Republic unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks arrested Mr   Abdurzakov, Mr Dudayev, Mr Tatayev and Mr Vakayev and then drove them away in two APCs and a UAZ vehicle to an unknown destination. ... Having examined [the fourth applicant's] request, the investigative authorities have reached the conclusion that it should be granted in the part regarding the sending of requests to the Altay Region and to the Prosecutor's Office of the United Group Alignment, as well as the sending of a request for the establishment of the identity of the serviceman of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior in the North Caucasus Region who was wounded in the course of the special operation of 15   March 2001 in the village of Duba-Yurt of the Shali District of the Chechen Republic.” 59.     On 10 April 2008 the Shali District Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor's Office in the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 23116 had been suspended on 10   December 2007 for failure to identify those responsible for the crime. 2.     The Government's account 60.     After the events of 15 March 2001 the applicants complained about the abduction of their relatives to the district administration and the Administration of the Chechen Republic, special representative offices and public organisations. 61.     On 26 June 2001 the applicants complained about the five men's abduction to the department of the interior of the Shali District. 62.     On 29 June 2001 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the kidnapping of the five men in case no. 23116. 63.     On 14 July 2001 the first and fourth applicants, as well as Mr D., Ramzan Dudayev's elder brother, were granted victim status, while the second applicant was granted victim status on 22 July 2001. 64.     On an unspecified date the first applicant was questioned. She stated that in 1999 Shamil Vakayev had joined an illegal armed group but several months later returned home. He had not taken part in the insurgents' activities after that. At about 2 p.m. on 15 March 2001 the first applicant had learned from fellow villagers that her two sons, as well as Yunus Abdurazakov, Ramzan Dudayev and Salambek Tatayev, had been taken away by unknown persons travelling in APCs and UAZ vehicles and that Ms Ch. had been shot accidentally in the course of the abduction. 65.     On an unspecified date the fourth applicant was questioned. He stated that on 15 March 2001 his son Yunus Abdurazakov had gone to Duba-Yurt to visit his grandmother. The fourth applicant had been told that at some point his son had noticed a group of servicemen and, to avoid meeting them, had entered the first house on his way. Then the servicemen had entered that house and taken away Yunus Abdurazakov and four other young men. The military commander of the Shali District had told the fourth applicant that no special operations had been carried out in Duba ‑ Yurt. On 14 May 2001 the RTR channel had broadcast a footage picturing his son's arrest. 66.     Mr D. was questioned and stated that on 15 March 2001 his brother had gone to visit distant relatives of theirs. Later Mr D. had learned that Ramzan Dudayev and other men had been arrested by servicemen and taken away in APCs. Two months later a report on the arrest of members of illegal armed groups by the Alpha special task force unit had been broadcast; one of the detainees shown was his brother. 67.     On an unspecified date Ms Ch. was questioned and stated that at about 12 noon or 1 p.m. on 15 March 2001 servicemen in APCs and UAZ vehicles had arrived at a shop she had been working in and had started shooting in the air. One bullet had gone through her shoulder. Ms Ch. had seen the servicemen take the Vakayev brothers away from house no. 175. 68.     Ms D., Shamkhan Vakayev's wife, was questioned as a witness and stated that at about 1 p.m. on 15 March 2001, while she had been inside their family house, armed and masked men in camouflage uniforms had burst inside, locked Ms D. in a room and searched the house. Afterwards Ms D. had heard shots coming from their courtyard, where her husband and his brother had been. When the unknown men had left, Ms D. had gone outside the house and learned from the neighbours that the Vakayev brothers had been taken away. 69.     Mr Kh., the Vakayevs' neighbour, was questioned and stated that at about 6 p.m. on 15 March 2001 he had heard about the abduction of several residents of Duba-Yurt. 70.     Mr Ya., the head of the local administration of Duba-Yurt, was questioned and stated that Shamil Vakayev had been an insurgent in 1999 ‑ 2000 and had probably been the leader of a local terrorist group. 71 .     The investigators requested the head of RTR Channel to provide the complete footage of the special operation in the Chechen Republic that had been broadcast in the news programme “Vesti” on 14 May 2001. It followed from the reply received that on 14 May 2001 the RTR Channel had broadcast a documentary film “Chechnya: Worries and Hopes” by Mr D.S., which had contained images filmed by the Vesti news programme crew and others provided by the public relations centre of the Russian FSB. The RTR Channel had not kept a copy of the footage in question as such material was normally stored for one year only. 72.     On an unspecified date Mr D.S. was questioned. He stated that he had not witnessed the arrests in Duba-Yurt on 15 March 2001 and had no information about the special operation carried out at that time or on the identities of the servicemen in charge of it. The footage of the special operation had been sent to the RTR Channel via the official channels for the exchange of video material. 73.     The head of the North-Caucasus Group of the Internal Troops of the Russian Ministry of the Interior and the deputy head of the temporary group of the Russian Ministry of the Interior sent the investigators letters on 17   March and 6 September 2002, respectively. They stated that on 15 March 2001 special operations had been carried out in Duba-Yurt, but Yunus Abdurazakov, Ramzan Dudayev, Salambek Tatayev, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev had not been arrested. 74.     On 4 July 2001 and 29 July 2002 the investigators requested information on the applicants' relatives from the FSB Department of the Shali District. On 2 March 2002 they sent a similar request to the FSB Department of the Chechen Republic. In reply they were informed that no servicemen of either of the departments in question had arrested the five missing men and that investigative measures had been taken to identify the users of the APCs travelling in Duba-Yurt on that day, but to no effect. 75.     The investigation in case no. 23116 was ongoing. C.     Disappearance of Shamsudi Vakayev and investigation into it 1.     The first applicant's account 76.     On 12 March 2005 a group of armed men allegedly belonging to the Russian military came to the first applicant's home. They talked to Shamsudi Vakhayev and asked him why he was not yet in prison. Then they searched the house and left. 77.     Between 3 and 4 a.m. on 2 April 2005 a group of armed masked men wearing camouflage uniforms burst into the Vakayevs' house. The men did not identify themselves but asked where Shamsudi Vakayev was. The first applicant told them that her husband slept in an annex to the house. The men went there, awakened Shamsudi Vakayev, told him to dress up warmly, took him into a UAZ vehicle parked outside and drove away in the direction of the village of Chishki where a federal checkpoint was located. 78.     When the first applicant began to search for her husband, she found out that two other inhabitants of Duba-Yurt, Mr Said-Khuseyn Elmurzayev and Mr Suliman Elmurzayev, had been apprehended on the night of 2 April 2005 by armed men in three UAZ vehicles. 79 .     On the second day after the abduction the first applicant complained about her husband's arrest to the district prosecutor's office. Later an investigator of the district prosecutor's office accompanied by military servicemen visited the Vakayevs' house and that of the two apprehended men, interrogated witnesses and took pictures of the crime scene. 80.     On 2 August 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in case no. 46060. 81.     On 9 February 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic issued, at the first applicant's request, a progress report in case no. 46060 stating that the investigation into the kidnapping of Shamsudi Vakayev and the Elmurzayevs had been opened on 14 June 2005 and then suspended on an unspecified date, that the whereabouts of those missing had not been established and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 82.     On 20 February 2006 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case no. 46060 and notified the first applicant accordingly. 83.     In a letter to the first applicant dated 20 February 2006 the district prosecutor's office stated that the investigation in case no. 46060 had been resumed on 2 March 2006. 84.     The first applicant complained to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into her husband's kidnapping. 85.     On 16 March 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that on 8 May 2005 Said-Khuseyn Elmurzayev's dead body had been discovered in the Groznenskiy District of the Chechen Republic and that an investigation into his murder had been opened by the prosecutor's office of the Groznenskiy District in case no.   44078. The whereabouts of Shamsudi Vakayev and Suliman Elmurzayev had not been established. Cases nos. 46060 and 44078 had been joined and were pending before the prosecutor's office of the Groznenskiy District under the supervision of the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic. 86.     On 18 July 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that cases nos. 46060 and 44078 had been joined under the number 46060 and had been suspended on several occasions, as well as on 2 June 2006. On 18 July 2006 the decision of 2   June 2006 had been quashed and investigative measures were being taken. 87.     On 21 August 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Groznenskiy District suspended the investigation. 88.     On 11 February 2008 the Groznenskiy District Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor's Office in the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 21 August 2006 and resumed the investigation in case no. 46060. 89.     On 22 February 2008 the investigators, having established that Said ‑ Khuseyn Elmurzayev's dead body had no visible traces of a violent death and had not been autopsied, terminated the investigation into his murder for lack of evidence of a crime. 90.     On 28 February 2008 the file concerning the investigation into the kidnapping of Shamsudi Vakayev, Said-Khuseyn Elmurzayev and Suliman Elmurzayev was transferred to the Shali District Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor's Office in the Chechen Republic. 2.     The Government's account 91.     At about 4 a.m. on 2 April 2005 unidentified masked men armed with machine guns arrived in Duba-Yurt in three UAZ vehicles, abducted Shamsudi Vakayev and two other villagers and took them away to an unknown destination. 92 .     On 14 June 2005 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the kidnapping of the three men in case no. 46060. 93.     Shamsudi Vakayev's whereabouts were not established. The investigation in case no. 46060 was under way. D.     Investigation files in cases nos. 23116 and 46060 94.     Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose any documents of the investigation files in cases nos. 23116 and 46060, except for a copy of the decision of 22 July 2001 by the district prosecutor's office's to grant the second applicant victim status and a transcript of her interview of the same date. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General ’ 's Office, the Government stated that the investigation in both cases was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the files contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 95.     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 objection regarding non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies A.     The parties' submissions 96.     The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the investigation in cases nos. 23116 and 46060 had not yet been completed. It was also open to the applicants to complain about inaction on the part of the investigators to courts under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as to lodge civil claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, which they had failed to do. 97.     The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation in cases nos. 23116 and 46060 had been pending for a long time without producing any meaningful results and had thus proved to be ineffective. Moreover, they pointed out that a complaint about inaction on the part of investigators lodged with a court could not produce any positive results, as domestic courts were not allowed to order investigative measures directly. They referred to a number of examples of unsuccessful litigation in complaints brought by residents of the Chechen Republic against prosecutors' offices. B.     The Court's assessment 98.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies which are available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article   35   § 1 also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used. However, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey , 18   December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ VI, and Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey , no.   41964/98, §   64, 27   June 2006). 99.     It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which an applicant has not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan , cited above, §   65). 100.     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. 101 .     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, §§   119-21, 24 February 2005). In the light of the above, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. 102.     As regards criminal-law remedies provided for by the Russian legal system, the Court observes that the investigating proceedings in cases nos.   23116 and 46060 have been pending since June 2001 and June 2005 respectively. The applicants and the Government dispute the effectiveness of the investigation in both cases. 103 .     The Court considers that the Government's objection raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation which are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints. Thus, it decides to join this objection to the merits of the case and considers that the issue falls to be examined below. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 104.     The applicants complained that Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev, and Shamsudi Vakayev, had been arrested by Russian servicemen and then disappeared and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the crimes in question. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which 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.     Arguments of the parties 1.     The Government 105.     The Government contested the applicants' submissions. They doubted that on 15 March 2001 the abductors had opened fire immediately upon arrival at the Vakayevs' house as Ms D. had submitted that she had heard gunshots after the men had entered her home. Ms D. had not eye ‑ witnessed the kidnapping because she had been locked in a room. Mr   Kh. had not eye-witnessed the kidnapping and had not been beaten up, as he had confirmed in the course of the domestic investigation that he had been away. 106.     The Government further claimed that the hypothesis concerning a visit to a sick grandmother was implausible and suggested that the five men had gathered in the Vakayevs' home to pursue certain illegal goals and had been hiding from the State authorities. Moreover, in the Government's submission it was probable that Shamil Vakayev had run away to avoid prosecution for his involvement in illegal armed groups. 107.     The whereabouts of the applicants' five missing relatives remained unknown. There were no reasons to assume that they were dead because no corpses had been found. 108.     The wording of the letter by the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, in the Government's view, did not confirm the military officers' implication in the events of 15 March 2001 and merely reflected a hypothesis that had been looked into in the course of the investigation. 109.     Shamsudi Vakayev's kidnapping was being investigated. Neither the involvement of State officials in the crime nor the fact of the missing man's death had been proven. 110.     The investigations into the kidnappings had been effective. Their length could be explained by the complexity of the cases in question. The delay in commencement of the proceedings in case no. 23116 was attributable to the applicants because they had not promptly contacted the competent authorities. The domestic authorities had taken all the requisite measures to solve the crimes. Three of the applicants had been granted victim status and would be able to study the entire case files upon completion of the investigations. The investigations were ongoing. 2.     The applicants 111.     The applicants maintained their complaints. They argued that Mr   Kh. had in fact been in the Vakayevs' house on 15 March 2001 and had lied to the investigators out of fear of persecution. The applicants further pointed out that they had lodged a complaint with the military prosecutor's office before 18 May 2001. The reasons for the gathering in the Vakayevs' house on 15 March 2001, as well as the timing of the shooting were, in the applicants' view, irrelevant to the examination of their complaints. 112.     The applicants also pointed out that in March 2001 checkpoints manned by the federal troops had been located on each of the two roads in and out of their village. 113.     The first applicant submitted that in April 2005 there had been a checkpoint manned by Russian officers from Buryatia on the way out of the village. 114.     The applicants further alleged that the investigations in cases nos. 23116 and 46060 had been ineffective and futile. B.     The Court's assessment 1.     Admissibility 115.     The Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court has already found that the Government's objection concerning the alleged non ‑ exhaustion of criminal law domestic remedies should be joined to the merits of the complaint (see paragraph 103 above). The complaint under Article 2 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     General principles 116.     The Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article   2, it must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances. Detained persons are in a vulnerable position and the obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of a detained individual is particularly stringent where that individual dies or disappears thereafter (see Orhan v. Turkey , no. 25656/94, § 326, 18 June 2002). Where the events in issue lie wholly or in large part within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons under their control in detention, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no.   23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV). 117.     In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events, the Court is inevitably confronted when establishing the facts with the same difficulties as those faced by any first-instance court. When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exclusive access to information capable of corroborating or refuting an applicant's allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of those allegations (see Taniş and Others v. Turkey , no. 65899