CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 28 octobre 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 } .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 } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sE7A0A3F4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.25pt; text-align:justify } .sD6C51D33 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.25pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s2F6D6153 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.25pt; text-align:justify } .s28C50949 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.25pt; text-align:justify } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s687FC4CF { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4A0CEAF8 { width:194.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION                 CASE OF SASITA ISRAILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 35079/04)         JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   28 October 2010   FINAL   11/04/2011   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 (c) of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sasita Israilova 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 7 October 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 35079/04) 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 seven Russian nationals, Ms Sasita Alikhanovna Israilova, Mr Movldi Vakhayevich Yansuyev, Ms Laura Ilyasovna Yansuyeva, Ms Larisa Isayevna Mudarova, Mr Ismail Ilyasovich Abubakarov, Mr Islam Movldiyevich Yansuyev, and Ms Eliza Nozhiyevna Abubakarova, (“the applicants”), on 23 August 2004. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Moscow, Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that their close relatives had disappeared following their unacknowledged detention and that there had been no adequate investigation into the matter. They further complained that they had suffered mental distress on account of these events and that there had been a lack of effective remedies in respect of those violations. They relied on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention. 4.     On 1 September 2005 the President of the First Section decided to grant priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 5.     By a decision of 5 March 2009, the Court declared the application partly admissible. 6.     The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The applicants were born in 1960, 1949, 2002, 1982, 2001, 1995 and 1982 respectively and live in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. 8.     The first two applicants are the parents of Mr Ilyas Movldiyevich Yansuyev, born in 1978, Mr Isa Movldiyevich Yansuyev, born in 1980, and the sixth applicant. Ilyas Yansuyev was married to the seventh applicant; they are the parents of the third and fifth applicants. Isa Yansuyev was married to the fourth applicant. A.     The facts 1.     Events of 13 February 2003 (a)     The applicants' account of events 9.     It was the seventh applicant who witnessed the events of 13 February 2003, and the account below is based on her submissions. 10.     In the early morning of 13 February 2003 Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev, their families and a friend, Mr D., slept in Ilyas Yansuyev's flat no. 110 at 24 Ioanisiani Street, Grozny. 11.     At about 4 or 5 a.m. around fifteen armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke the entrance door of Ilyas Yansuyev's flat and entered; some of them were masked. Although the armed men did not introduce themselves, the Yansuyevs concluded that they belonged to the Russian military because they spoke Russian without an accent. 12.     The servicemen hit the seventh applicant on the head with an automatic rifle butt, tied her arms behind her back and put adhesive tape over her mouth. Then they put her on the floor and covered her body with a blanket. One of them sat on the seventh applicant's back so that she could not move for about an hour. The eight-month-old third applicant slept in her bed; the servicemen put a pillow on her face. 13.     Meanwhile the servicemen searched the flat without producing any warrant but did not seize anything. They also beat Ilyas Yansuyev with automatic rifle butts. Then they forced Mr D., Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev out into the street and took them away. A few minutes later neighbours came and untied the seventh applicant who rushed to take a pillow off her daughter's face. 14.     The applicants' submitted that the neighbours had seen the abductors arrive in two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) which they had parked in the courtyard. The applicants did not produce any witness statements to corroborate this allegation. 15 .     According to the fourth applicant, who had spent that night at her parents' flat in the same block of flats, she was woken by the noise. She looked out of a window and saw about twenty servicemen. After they had left, she rushed into the street and saw the tracks of APCs leading in the direction of the main federal military base in the village of Khankala. (b)     The Government's account of events 16.     In the Government's submission, on 13 February 2003 at about 4   a.m., unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and masks armed with automatic firearms entered flat no. 110 at 24 Ioanisiani Street in Grozny, where they beat and tied the seventh applicant, abducted Mr Ilyas Movldiyevich Yanusov, Mr Isa Movldiyevich Yanusov and Mr D. and took them away in an unknown direction. 2.     The applicants' search for their relatives 17 .     According to the applicants, they started searching for their relatives on the morning of 13 February 2003. It was the first, fourth and seventh applicants who contacted various official bodies, such as the local administration, the Chechen administration, the Chechen President, the military commander's office of the Leninskiy District of Grozny (“the district military commander's office”) and the prosecutors' offices at different levels. In those applications they described the events of 13   February 2003 and asked for assistance in establishing their relatives' whereabouts. In their efforts the applicants were assisted by the SRJI. 18.     The applicants submitted that they had also tried to obtain information concerning their relatives' fate through unofficial channels. In particular, the first applicant had turned for help to her neighbour, Ms P., who lived with Mr M., allegedly a serviceman of an intelligence service, and agreed to question him. Mr M. told Ms P. that Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev were being kept in a “pit” at the federal military base in Khankala. He also mentioned that the person in charge of their arrest was named Ruslan   Amirov. Two months later Ms P. learned that the Russian military had abducted the Yansuyev brothers because Mr M. had slandered them. 3.     Official investigation into Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev's disappearance 19.     On 13 February 2003 the first applicant complained in writing to the district military commander's office and the head of the administration of the Leninskiy District of Grozny that her sons had been abducted on that date and asked for assistance in finding them. On an unspecified date the military commander's office asked the Grozny prosecutor's office and the department of the interior of the Leninskiy District to render the first applicant assistance in the search for Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. 20.     On 17 February 2003, upon the first applicant's complaint of 13   February 2003, the Grozny prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the disappearances of Mr D., Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 20039. 21 .     On 11 March 2003 the Grozny prosecutor's office granted the first applicant victim status in case no. 20039 and questioned her on the same date. She confirmed the account of events of 13 February 2003 as submitted before the Court. The first applicant also stated that, according to her information, the alleged perpetrators were servicemen of regiment no. 531 of the Russian Ministry of the Interior. According to the Government, the first applicant was further interviewed on 3 April 2003 when she stated that according to her information, the source of which she refused to disclose to the investigating authorities, the servicemen who had taken away her sons had been under the command of Mr Ruslan Amirov, an officer of an intelligence service. 22.     On 8 April 2003 the Grozny prosecutor's office asked the head of detention facility IZ 20/2 based in the village of Chernokozovo to inform them whether Mr D., Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev were being or had been kept there. 23 .     On 9 April 2003 the seventh applicant was granted victim status in case no. 20039 and questioned in connection with the events of 13 February 2003. She submitted that at about 4 a.m. the entrance door of her flat had been broken, and around fifteen armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had entered the room in which she and her husband had been sleeping. One of the men had hit her on the head with an automatic rifle butt and another one had started kicking her husband. She had not seen what had been going on in another room where her brother-in-law and Mr D. had been sleeping. The men had then put adhesive tape across her mouth, had tied the hands of the Yansuyev brothers and Mr D. and taken them away. She had not seen what had been going on in the street. She had not applied to any medical institutions in connection with her injuries. 24.     On 17 April 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. 25.     On 25 November 2003 the SRJI submitted a request to the prosecutor's office of the Leninskiy District of Grozny (“the district prosecutor's office”) for information on the progress in the investigation. 26.     On 19 December 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant and the SRJI that the investigation into the kidnapping of Mr   D., Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev had been opened and was underway. 27.     On 20 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office resumed the investigation in case no. 20039. 28.     On 29 April 2004 the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment forwarded the applicants' complaint to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102. 29 .     According to the Government, on 10 May 2004 the investigating authorities questioned Ms P., the applicants' neighbour, who stated that in March 2003 she had been working as a yard-cleaner in the federal military base in Khankala and upon the first applicant's request had attempted to obtain information regarding the fate of the Yansuyev brothers. Ms P. had received information from a serviceman named Vladimir that the applicants' relatives were alive and being held in a “pit”. During that period she had been cohabiting with Mr M., who, according to him, had been an officer of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”). At some point Mr M. had had a quarrel with the Yansuyev brothers and threatened that they would “rot in a pit”. 30.     The Government submitted that on 29 April 2004 the investigating authorities had again interviewed the first applicant who had confirmed that Mr   M. and her sons had had a quarrel. She had also referred to Ms P.'s words to the effect that Mr M. had told her that the Yansuyev brothers were not being kept in Khankala, and that he had searched for the intelligence officer Mr Ruslan Amirov so as to obtain information concerning their abduction. 31.     On 27 May 2004 the district prosecutor's office stayed the investigation in case no. 20039 for failure to identify those responsible. 32.     On 7 June 2004 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no.   20102 informed the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic (“the republican prosecutor's office”) that they had carried out an inquiry which had not established any trace of military personnel having been involved in the abduction of Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. They had forwarded the case materials to the republican prosecutor's office pursuant to subject-matter jurisdiction rules. 33.     On 2 February 2005 the SRJI asked the district prosecutor's office to update them on the state of proceedings in case no. 20039 and to inform them whether the first applicant had been granted victim status. On 25   February 2005 the district prosecutor's office replied that the first applicant had been granted victim status and that the investigation had been stayed on 27 May 2004. 34.     On 8 April 2005 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 20039 instituted on 17 February 2003 had been resumed on 20 April 2004 and that the search for her sons, as yet fruitless, was underway. 35.     On 11 April 2005 the republican prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that investigative measures were being taken in case no.   20039 and invited her to send further queries to the district prosecutor's office. 36.     On 20 June 2005 the SRJI asked the district prosecutor's office to update them on the progress of case no. 20039 and to resume the investigation if it had been suspended. 37.     On 28 April 2006 the decision of 27 May 2004 to suspend the investigation into the disappearance of the Yansuyev brothers was set aside and the proceedings were resumed. The first and sevenths applicants were informed accordingly. 38.     The Government submitted that on 10 May 2006 the investigating authorities had questioned Mr B., the applicants' neighbour, who had submitted that on 13 February 2003 at about 4 a.m. his wife had woken him up and said that she had heard voices speaking Russian. He had looked through a peephole of his flat door and had seen on the staircase around fifteen men armed with automatic firearms who had broken the door of the Yansuyevs' flat and shortly after had taken the Yansuyev brothers and another man out of the flat with them. The applicants' two other neighbours interviewed on 12 and 15 May 2006 had made similar submissions. One of them had also stated that she had seen the men who had taken the applicants' relatives leaving in the direction of the Kirov Avenue. 39.     According to the Government, on 6 June 2006 the criminal proceedings were stayed for failure to establish the identity of the alleged perpetrators. The first and seventh applicants were duly informed. 40 .     On 3 August 2007 a supervising prosecutor ordered the investigation to be resumed. The relevant decision stated that the investigating authorities had not taken the measures necessary for establishing the whereabouts of those missing and had not taken steps which could have been carried out in the absence of those responsible. In particular, the investigating authorities had not checked the information provided by the first applicant which claimed that servicemen of regiment no. 531 of the Russian Ministry of the Interior and a certain Mr Amirov Ruslan had been involved in her sons' abduction. They had furthermore not checked the information concerning the involvement in the said offence of Mr M. despite witness statements to that end, nor had they verified the information of the possible participation of the Yansuyev brothers in illegal armed groups, nor the information to the effect that the first applicant had attempted to establish her sons' whereabouts with the assistance of a certain Mr R. 41 .     On the same date the supervising prosecutor ordered a number of investigative measures to be taken during further investigation. In particular, he instructed the investigating authorities to verify whether Mr M. had been implicated in the abduction of the Yansuyev brothers, whether servicemen of regiment no. 531 of the Russian Ministry of the Interior and Mr Amirov Ruslan had been involved in that offence, whether those missing had been involved in the activities of illegal armed groups, to establish whether a curfew had been in place in Grozny in February 2003, to establish the identity of Mr R. and to obtain documentary evidence confirming his death, and to take other necessary steps. 42.     The first and seventh applicants were informed of the decision of 3   August 2007 in a letter of 8 August 2007. 43.     On an unspecified date in August 2007 the republican prosecutor's office forwarded the materials of case no. 20039, along with the prosecutor's instructions of 3 August 2007, to the district prosecutor's office for further investigation. 44.     On 8 August 2007 the district prosecutor's office instructed the Office of the Interior of the Leninskiy District of Grozny (“the district office of the interior”) to carry out investigative measures as was indicated in the instructions of 3 August 2007. 45.     On 16 August 2007 the district prosecutor's office sent another request to the district office of the interior similar to that of 8 August 2007. 46 .     During a witness interview of 18 August 2007, Mr B. made statements similar to those of 10 May 2006. He added that at the time of the incident he had heard the noise of engines and suggested that those had been military vehicles. According to him, he had learnt from his neighbours the next day that there had been APCs in the courtyard of their block of flats. 47.     In a letter of 26 August 2007 the district office of the interior informed the district prosecutor's office that the version of the alleged involvement of federal servicemen in the Yansuyevs' abduction was being checked and that any relevant information obtained during that inquiry would be communicated to the district prosecutor's office. 48.     On 6 September 2007 the criminal proceedings were stayed. The relevant decision stated that, despite the measures taken, it had not been possible to establish the alleged perpetrators. 49 .     By a decision of 11 January 2008 the supervising prosecutor ordered the criminal proceedings to be resumed. The decision stated that until that time the investigating authorities had not taken the measures necessary for establishing the whereabouts of those missing and had not taken steps which could have been carried out in the absence of those responsible. 50 .     In written instructions of 25 January 2008 the investigator in charge was ordered to carry out investigative measures similar to those indicated in the instructions of 3 August 2007. 51 .     In letters of 4, 6 and 8 February 2008 the investigator in charge asked the district office of the interior to verify information concerning the involvement of Mr M. in Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev's abduction, to take measures with a view to establishing their whereabouts and those responsible, and to obtain more details about the identity of those missing. In a letter of 7 February 2008 the investigator in charge enquired of the Grozny military commander whether a curfew had been in place at the time of the abduction of the Yansuyev brothers. 52.     According to the Government, information was, at some point, obtained that Mr M. had worked at the federal base in Khankala until he had been murdered in 2003. 53 .     On 4 March 2008 the investigation was suspended owing to the failure to establish those responsible. This decision was quashed as unlawful and unfounded and the proceedings were resumed on 14 April 2008. The relevant decision prescribed the investigator in charge to comply in full with the instructions of 25 January 2008. 54.     On 8 March 2008 the district office of the interior reported in writing that the involvement of Mr M. in the abduction of the applicants' two relatives had not been established. 55.     In a letter of 7 May 2008 the investigator in charge sent requests to the district office of the interior and to the military commander of the Chechen Republic similar to those sent in February 2008. The district office of the interior replied in a letter of 26 May 2008 that on 19 May 2008 they had already sent the materials obtained in reply to the investigator's earlier requests. 56 .     On 14 May 2008 the investigator in charge stayed the proceedings stating that it was impossible to establish the alleged perpetrators despite the measures taken. This decision was quashed as unlawful and unfounded and the proceedings were resumed on 25 June 2008. The relevant decisions ordered the investigator in charge to comply in full with the instructions of 25 January 2008. 57.     On 25 July 2008 the investigator in charge sent a request to the Military Investigation Committee at the prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment. The request described the incident of 13 February 2003 when the applicants' two relatives had been taken away and stated that “in the course of the preliminary investigation it has become necessary to obtain access to archive documents concerning the special operation on Ioanisiani Street in the Leninskiy District of Grozny of the Chechen Republic during which [the Yansuyev brothers] ... were abducted.” The request then listed the documents to which access was needed from the central archive of the Russian Ministry of Defence. It is unclear whether any reply was received to that request. 58.     On the same date the investigation in case no. 20039 was adjourned. The first and seventh applicants were informed of that decision in a letter of the same date. 59.     On 1 October 2008 the Federal Service of Execution of Punishments informed the investigating authorities that the Yansuyev brothers had not been delivered and were not listed among the detainees kept in the facilities of the said Service. 60 .     By a decision of 24 November 2008 the supervising prosecutor ordered the investigation to be reopened. The relevant decision stated that a number of essential steps had not been taken during the investigation and, in particular, that a number of witnesses had not been interviewed, the identity of two servicemen who might have been involved in the abduction had not been established and no replies had been received to the requests sent earlier. The first and seventh applicants were informed of that decision in a letter of 25 November 2008. 61 .     In written instructions of 24 November 2008 the investigator in charge was ordered to carry out a number of measures and, in particular, to check whether Mr M., servicemen of regiment no. 531 of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, serviceman named Vladimir or Mr Amirov Ruslan had been involved in the abduction of the applicants' relatives; to establish the identity of those responsible and to question them; to interview once again the first and seventh applicants and Ms P.; to take measures to eliminate conflicts in their accounts of events by organising confrontations; if necessary, to establish the identity of Mr R. and to obtain documentary evidence confirming his death; to send queries to various State agencies; and to take other necessary steps. 62.     In the period between 27 November and 15 December 2008 the investigating authorities sent a number of queries and requests to various civilian and military authorities in an attempt to establish the Yansuyev brothers' whereabouts and to obtain information concerning the identity of Messrs M. and R. and servicemen of regiment no. 531, including serviceman named Vladimir and Mr Amirov Ruslan. 63.     In a letter of 1 December 2008 the office of the interior of the Shali District replied to the investigator in charge that the power structures located in the Shali District had not carried out any special operations in the Leninskiy District of Grozny on 13 February 2003 and that their officers had not instituted criminal or administrative proceedings against, and had not detained, the Yansuyev brothers. 64.     On 11 December 2008 the FSB Division of military unit no. 3036 replied that an officer with the surname M. had never served in that division. On an unspecified date a similar reply was sent by the FSB Division of military unit no. 54844. 65.     On 25 December 2008 the investigation was stayed owing to the failure to establish those responsible. The first and seventh applicants were informed of that decision in a letter of the same date. 66 .     A decision of 26 December 2008 set aside the decision of 25   December 2008 as being unlawful, pointing out that a number of essential steps had not been taken during the investigation. It stated that the proceedings should be resumed and listed the investigative measures that should be carried out during further investigation. The decision indicated, in particular, that the instructions of 24 November 2008 should be complied with in full. 67.     On 14 January 2009 the investigator in charge once again asked the district office of the interior to take a number of measures which had been listed in a similar request previously sent to that office. 68 .     On 21 January 2009 the supervising prosecutor of the republican prosecutor's office sent a letter to the prosecutor of the Leninskiy District of Grozny, stating that, during the investigation of various criminal cases opened in connection with serious and particularly serious criminal offences, considerable shortcomings in the work of the bodies performing the operational search had been detected. The letter further stated: “In particular, in criminal case no. 20039 opened on 17 February 2003 ... into the abduction on 13 February 2003 of the Yansuyev brothers in the Leninskiy District of Grozny ... the necessary operational search measures aimed at establishing the circumstances of that offence and those responsible have not been taken. Requests sent in respect of this criminal case ... on 27 November 2008, ... 15   December 2008 and ... 14 January 2009 concerning “the carrying out of an operational search and the questioning of witnesses and eyewitnesses of this offence” have not been complied with until the present and no replies to them have been received. A report on the operational measures taken in the case has not been submitted either. The failure to carry out the necessary operational search in the criminal case resulted in the failure to establish those responsible ...” The letter then invited the district prosecutor to check the actions of the relevant agencies and to report on any detected shortcomings. 69 .     In a decision of 26 January 2009 the investigator in charge sought authorisation from a competent court for access to classified documents from a military archive. The decision referred to the investigation in case no. 20039 and stated that there were sufficient grounds to believe that representatives of the federal forces of Russia (servicemen, officers of security agencies or those of offices of the interior) had been involved in the Yansuyev brothers' abduction and their subsequent disappearance and that information about that special operation could be kept in one of the archives of the power structures. It went on to say that since the officers in command of the power structures, with reference to relevant regulations, had refused to submit information of a military nature stating that it was classified, it was necessary to formally order that the relevant documents containing information on the special operation of 13 February 2003 in Ioanisiani Street of the Leninskiy District of Grozny be made available. 70.     According to the Government, a competent court granted that request and authorised the access to the documents. 71 .     On 29 January 2009 the investigation was suspended owing to the failure to establish the alleged perpetrators. The first and seventh applicants were informed of this decision in a letter of the same date. 72 .     On 2 February 2009 the decision of 29 January 2009 was quashed as unlawful and the proceedings were resumed. The investigating authorities were ordered to carry out a number of investigative measures and, in particular, to comply in full with the instructions of 24 November 2008. The decision of 2 February 2009 was signed by the investigator in charge and the first and seventh applicants were apprised of it on 3 February 2009. 73 .     On an unspecified date the supervising prosecutor of the republican prosecutor's office issued written instructions for the investigator in charge. They were similar to those of 24 November 2008. The prosecutor also drew to the attention of the investigator in charge that the latter and all the other investigators previously involved in the case had taken practically no measures to investigate it, and that the queries and requests sent by them showed that they had not studied the case file. The prosecutor thus ordered the investigator in charge to comply with his instructions fully, in time and displaying due diligence. 74.     On 17 February 2009 the investigator in charge sent a repeated request, similar to that of 14 January 2009, to the district office of the interior. 75.     In a witness interview of 18 February 2009, the seventh applicant confirmed her statements made on 9 April 2003. 76.     On the same date the mother of Mr D. was granted victim status in case no. 20039 and questioned. She submitted, in particular, that she had heard rumours that her son and the Yansuyev brothers had been detained by officers from the Organised Crime Unit and kept in Khankala. 77 .     On 3 March 2009 the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to establish those responsible. The first and seventh applicants were informed of that decision in a letter of the same date. 78.     The Government submitted that the investigation had then been resumed on 14 April 2009 and, on the date of the submission of their post-admissibility memorial, was underway. B.     Documents submitted by the Government 79.     In June 2007, when the application was communicated to them, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file for criminal case no. 20039 opened in connection with the abduction of the applicants' relatives. The Government produced several documents but refused to submit the entire file stating that, under Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, disclosure of the documents was contrary to the interests of the investigation and could entail a breach of the rights of the participants in the criminal proceedings. They also submitted that they had taken into account the possibility of requesting confidentiality under Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, but noted that the Court provided no guarantees that once in receipt of the investigation file, the applicants or their representatives would not disclose these materials to the public. According to the Government, in the absence of any sanctions in respect of applicants in the event that they disclosed confidential information and materials, there were no guarantees of the applicants' compliance with the Convention and the Rules of Court. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation could be given access to the file in Russia, with the exception of those documents containing military and State secrets, and without the right to make copies of the case file. 80.     The documents submitted by the Government included: (a)     a decision of 17 February 2003 to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the abduction on 13 February 2003 of Ilyas Yansuyev, Isa Yansuyev and Mr D. by a group of men in camouflage uniforms and masks, armed with automatic firearms; (b)     a prosecutor's decision of 3 April 2003 to transfer case no. 20039 from one investigator to another; (c)     investigators' decisions of 3 April 2003, 27 April 2004 and 6 August 2007 to take up case no. 20039; (d)     transcripts of witness interviews of the first and seventh applicants dated 11 March and 9 April 2003 respectively; (e)     decisions of 17 April 2003, 27 May 2004 and 6 June 2006 suspending the investigation of case no. 20039 and a decision of 20 April 2004; (f)     letters of 17 April 2003, 27 April and 27 May 2004, 6 May and 6   June 2006, and 6 August 2007 informing the first and seventh applicants of the suspension and resumption of the investigation of case no. 20039. 81.     In September 2007 the Court reiterated its request. In reply, the Government refused to produce any documents other than those submitted earlier for the aforementioned reasons. 82.     On 5 March 2009 the application was declared partly admissible. At that stage the Court once again invited the Government to submit the investigation file and to provide information concerning the progress of the investigation after August 2007. 83 .     In May 2009 the Government produced a number of documents running to 172 pages. These documents, in so far as relevant, are summarised in paragraphs 40-51, 53-69 and 71-77 above. The Government refused to produce any other materials, referring to Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 84.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Kukayev v. Russia , no.   29361/02, §§ 67-69, 15 November 2007. THE LAW I.     The government's objection REGARDING ABUSE OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION 85.     The Government submitted that the application had not been lodged in order to restore the allegedly violated rights of the applicants. The actual object and purpose of the application was clearly political as the applicants were willing to accuse the Russian Federation of being a State which allegedly had a policy of violating human rights in the Chechen Republic. The Government concluded that there had therefore been an abuse of the right of petition on the part of the applicants. 86.     The Court observes that the complaints the applicants brought to its attention concerned their genuine grievances. Nothing in the case file reveals any appearance of an abuse of their right of individual petition. Accordingly, the Government's objection must be dismissed. II.     THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION REGARDING THE EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES 87.     The Government argued that the investigation into the abduction of the applicants' two relatives had not been completed, and that therefore the domestic remedies had not been exhausted in respect of the applicants' complaints. 88.     The applicants called into question the effectiveness of the investigation, stating that it had been ongoing for several years but had not produced any meaningful results. 89.     The Court considers that the Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies raises issues which are closely linked to the question of the effectiveness of the investigation. It therefore decides to examine this objection together with the applicants' complaint under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 90.     The applicants complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of their close relatives, Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. The applicants submitted that the circumstances of their disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish their whereabouts indicated that Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev had been killed by representatives of the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into their relatives' disappearance. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” A.     Alleged failure to protect the right to life 1.     Submissions by the parties (a)     The applicants 91.     The applicants maintained their complaint. They insisted that Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev had been taken by representatives of the State in life-threatening circumstances, and the fact that they remained missing for several years proved that they had been killed. They pointed out, in particular, that the federal forces had regained control over the city of Grozny long before 13 February 2003, the date of the incident. 92.     The applicants also submitted a handwritten map of the area around the block of flats at 24 Ioanisiani Street, indicating that at the time their relatives were taken away there had been four federal check-points in that area. The applicants argued that the perpetrators could not have passed through any of those check-points without the authorisation of the servicemen on duty at those check-points. 93.     The applicants further maintained that at the relevant time there had been a restriction on the movement of vehicles in Grozny, and reiterated their submission that on the night of the incident the fourth applicant had seen the tracks of APCs leading in the direction of the main federal military base in Khankala. (b)     The Government 94.     The Government argued that there were no grounds to hold the State responsible for the alleged violations of Article 2 of the Convention in the present case. They contended that there was no conclusive evidence that the applicants' relatives were dead and that the investigation had obtained no evidence that representatives of the State had been involved in the abduction of the Yansuyev brothers. They referred, in particular, to the replies of various State bodies obtained by the investigating authorities stating that none of those bodies had detained the Yansuyev brothers or brought criminal proceedings against them, and that they had not been detained in any detention centres. 95.     The Government further argued that the applicants had not given any reliable evidence to corroborate their allegations concerning the involvement of State agents in the abduction. In the Government's submission, groups of Ukrainian or ethnic Russian mercenaries had participated in the armed conflict together with Chechen rebel fighters and committed crimes in the territory of the Chechen Republic; thus, the fact that the perpetrators had Slavic features and spoke Russian did not prove their attachment to the Russian military. The Government also alleged that a considerable number of weapons had been stolen by illegal armed groups from Russian arsenals in the 1990s and that anyone could purchase masks, camouflage uniforms and firearms. 96.     The Government submitted that the area where the Yansuyev brothers were abducted had been under the formal control of the federal forces. They referred, however, to “official data” stating that in almost every settlement there had been illegal rebel fighters who had committed serious criminal offences under the disguise of civilians usually during the night and that some groups of illegal rebel fighters had been particularly active in their raids across the territory of the Chechen Republic resulting in occasional assaults on civilians and State officials and whole settlements being captured. 97 .     They further stated that the file of the investigation into the Yansuyev brothers' disappearance had contained no information about whether the area where the abduction had taken place had been secured by federal check-points and whether a curfew was in place during the night of the incident. According to the Government, the investigating authorities had been instructed to take additional measures to establish those circumstances. 98.     The Government also pointed to contradictions between the applicants' account of the events of 13 February 2003 submitted to the Court and the statements concerning the incident made to the domestic authorities. In particular, while the applicants claimed in their submissions to the Court that the alleged perpetrators had arrived in two APCs and, having abducted the Yansuyev brothers, had then left in the direction of Khankala, the seventh applicant had stated in her witness interview given to the domestic authorities that she had not seen what had happened in the street, whilst the fourth applicant had allegedly seen only the tracks of the APCs leading in the direction of Khankala. The first applicant had not witnessed the incident of 13 February 2003 at all and had based her account on the statements of others. Moreover, she had refused to disclose the source of her information concerning the alleged implication of the federal forces in her sons' abduction, which had obstructed the investigation. 2.     The Court's assessment 99.     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. It has held on many occasions that, where an individual is taken into police custody in good health and is found to be injured on release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused. The obligation on the authorities to account for the treatment of an individual within their control is particularly stringent where that individual dies or disappears thereafter (see, among other authorities, Orhan v. Turkey , no.   25656/94, § 326, 18 June 2002, and the authorities cited therein). Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in detention, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV). 100.     In the present case, the Court observes that although the Government denied the State's responsibility for the abduction and disap