CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 février 2011

.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 } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .sFBE816EB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .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 } .sA7249FE7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; text-align:justify } .sCFCA8EDF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s241FF221 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s9912FBD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; 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 KHAKIYEVA, TEMERGERIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application nos. 45081/06 and 7820/07)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   17 February 2011     FINAL   15/09/2011     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 (c) of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khakiyeva, Temergeriyeva 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,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in two applications (nos. 45081/06 and 7820/07) 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 fourteen Russian nationals listed below (“the applicants”), on 10 November 2006 and 30 January 2007. The eighth applicant died on 9 April 2010. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants alleged that their two male relatives had disappeared after being detained by servicemen in Grozny in 2002. They complained under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention. 4.     On 16 March and 7 May 2009 respectively the Court decided to apply Rule   41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the applications, and to give notice of the applications to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 of the Convention). 5.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the applications. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants in application no. 45081/06 are: 1.     Ms Zara Khakiyeva, born in 1949, 2.     Ms Zura Khakiyeva, born in 1952, 3.     Ms Kheda Dadakayeva, born in 1958, 4.     Ms Linda Khakiyeva, born in 1997, 5.     Ms Iman Khakiyeva, born in 1999 and 6.     Mr Mokhammad-Emin Khakiyev, born in 2000.   The applicants in application no. 7820/07 are: 7.     Ms Taus Temergeriyeva, born in 1957, 8.     Ms Eset Timirgereyeva, born in 1923, 9.     Ms Luiza Temirgeriyeva, born in 1961, 10.     Ms Aminat Temirgeriyeva, born in 1983, 11.     Ms Khava Temirgeriyeva, born in 1985, 12.     Mr Magomed Temirgeriyev, born in 1988, 13.     Ms Selima Temirgeriyeva, born in 2002 and 14.     Ms Perdous Temergeriyeva, born in 1957. 7.     All applicants live in the Chechen Republic (Chechnya), Russia. 8.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     The applicants’ relatives’ disappearance 9.     The applicants belong to two families. Two of their male relatives, Lema Khakiyev and Musa Temergeriyev, were detained in 2002 in two separate incidents in Mikhaylika Street (also referred to as Visaitova Street) in the settlement of Michurina in the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny, Chechnya, and subsequently disappeared. The third, sixth to ninth, thirteenth and fourteenth applicants were present during the abduction of their relatives. The other applicants were not eyewitnesses to the events and based their accounts on testimonies collected by them in the aftermath of their relatives’ disappearance. 1.     Apprehension of Lema Khakiyev 10.     The first and the second applicants are sisters of Lema Khakiyev, born in 1960. The third applicant is his wife. The fourth to sixth applicants are their children. (a)     Events prior to the abduction 11.     From 1995 to 1996 Lema Khakiyev worked at a local military commander’s office near Khankala. From 24 May 1996 to 12 December 1996, during the first counterterrorist campaign in Chechnya, he served in the Russian military. 12.     On 20 June 2002 Mr   E.B., the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration, wrote a complaint to the head of the Grozny town administration, accusing Lema Khakiyev of having been a sniper for illegal armed groups from 1995 to 1996. 13.     According to the first applicant, at some time between 18 and 20   August 2002 a white VAZ-2106 car without registration numbers had been parked for several hours in the vicinity of Lema Khakiyev’s house. Several men were sitting in the car and watching the house. The applicants’ neighbours, who lived across the street, saw one of the men clearly. A man got out of the car, climbed onto a nearby pile of rubbish and looked over the fence into the applicants’ yard. The third applicant and Lema Khakiyev also saw the men in the car. The very same car was seen along with an APC on the night of Lema Khakiyev’s abduction. 14.     On 20 August 2002 the Oktyabrskiy district department of the Federal Security Service (“the district FSB department”) requested that Lema Khakiyev visit its office and provide explanations for the accusations against him. After interviewing him, the FSB officers told him that nothing incriminating had been found against him. (b)     Abduction of Lema Khakiyev 15.     On the night between 20 and 21 of August 2002 the third and sixth applicants, together with Lema Khakiyev, were sleeping in the family house at no. 59 Mikhaylika Street in the settlement of Michurina. The settlement was under curfew. The first applicant was in Nazran. 16.     At about 4 a.m. a group of six or seven masked men armed with machine guns broke into the house. The intruders spoke unaccented Russian. The applicants thought that they were Russian servicemen. 17.     The servicemen neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They ordered Lema Khakiyev to follow them, threatening to kill his son. In the meantime, they conducted a quick search of the house. The servicemen ordered the third applicant to stay in the house and not to make any noise. When they were about to leave, Lema Khakiyev told the third applicant that she should look for him at the Oktyabrskiy district department of the interior of Grozny (“the ROVD”) and that the intruders were from the ROVD. The servicemen then took Lema Khakiyev away to an unknown destination. 18.     According to the applicants, their neighbours saw that Lema Khakiyev had been taken in the direction of the Oktyabrskiy district military commander’s office (“the district military commander’s office”). 19.     One of the applicants’ neighbours, Mr S.S., told the applicants that at dawn on 21 August 2002 another neighbour of theirs, Mr N.T., had seen a group of servicemen and a half-naked man running by his house; shortly afterwards he had heard the noise of military vehicles. Some time later the neighbour had gone to the scene and found traces of machine oil and tyre marks. 20.     The first applicant learnt of her brother’s disappearance from Mr   S.S. and Mr D.U. on her way back to Michurina. 21.     The first six applicants have had no news of Lema Khakiyev since 21   August 2002. 22.     The applicants’ description of the circumstances surrounding Lema Khakiyev’s abduction is based on witness accounts provided to the applicants’ representatives: a statement by the first applicant, dated 30   November 2004; two statements by the neighbour Mr S.S., both dated 4   September 2006; a statement by the second applicant, dated 6 November 2006; and a statement by the neighbour Mr G.B., dated 7 November 2006. The applicants’ representatives also produced copies of the following statements: a statement provided by Mr L.Ch. to an officer of the ROVD, dated 21 August 2002; a statement by the third applicant provided to the Grozny town prosecutor’s office (“the town prosecutor’s office”) on 11   September 2002; and statements by Mr E.B. and Mr D.U., given to the town prosecutor’s office on 8 and 10 October 2002 respectively. Finally, the applicants submitted the following documents: a copy of the contract between Lema Khakiyev and the Ministry of Defence, dated 5 June 1996; a copy of the order for Lema Khakiyev’s dismissal from the military service in Chechnya, dated 31 December 1996; and a copy of the military order concerning his registration at the Chechnya military commander’s office in Grozny, dated 20 January 1997. 23.     The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They submitted that at night on 21 August 2002 “armed unidentified persons wearing masks and camouflage uniforms” had entered Lema Khakiyev’s house at no. 59 Mikhaylika Street in the settlement of Michurina in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny, and subsequently taken him to an unknown destination. The Government denied any involvement of State agents in Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance. 2.     Apprehension of Musa Temergeriyev 24.     The seventh to fourteenth applicants are relatives of Musa Temergeriyev, born in 1952. The seventh and fourteenth applicants are his sisters, the eighth applicant is his mother and the ninth applicant is his wife. The tenth to thirteenth applicants are their children. 25.     At the material time the seventh to fourteenth applicants and Musa   Temergeriyev resided at no. 55 Mikhaylika Street in the settlement of Michurina. They occupied two houses connected by a covered area, with a shared courtyard. 26.     In the morning of 27 December 2002 Musa Temergeriyev left his home to take his sister to the Grozny train station. The seventh, eighth, ninth, thirteenth and fourteenth applicants, as well as Ms M.T., the seventh and fourteenth applicants’ sister, stayed at home. 27.     Between 10.20 and 10.30 a.m. two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) with the registration numbers E-546 and E-548 stopped by the applicants’ house. The vehicles carried around twenty tall armed men in khaki and white camouflage uniforms. They were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. The armed men secured the entry to the courtyard, which made the applicants think that they were carrying out a “sweeping-up” operation. Two armed men broke into the house, pointed their submachine guns at the applicants and asked them whether there were any men in the house. The applicants answered that the only man in the household, Musa Temergeriyev, had left for the train station. The intruders ordered the applicants not to leave the house and went outside. 28.     Through a window the seventh applicant saw one of the armed men stop under the covered area and take out of his belt an object which looked like a mallet. Subsequently she learnt that it was an anti-tank hand grenade. The fourteenth applicant, who was in another room, also saw the man take something out from his belt. 29.     When the fourteenth applicant approached the armed man, he showed her the object and explained that it was a grenade, which he had found in the applicants’ refrigerator. The fourteenth applicant told him that she had seen him plant the grenade. Other applicants also confirmed that they had seen it and the man abandoned his accusations. 30.     Twenty minutes later Musa Temergeriyev returned from the train station and entered the courtyard. The intruders stopped him and ordered him to show his passport. After that check they searched the house but did not find anything. Then the servicemen took Musa Temergeriyev outside the courtyard and put him in an APC. 31.     The applicants followed the intruders. The seventh applicant asked them why they were taking her brother away. They replied that he would have to write an explanation on the spot and would then be free to leave. The ninth applicant caught hold of an APC. The men hit her hands with the butts of their guns. She fell on the ground and was dragged by the moving vehicle for a while. 32.     The seventh applicant, together with Ms A., a neighbour, followed the APCs on their way through the village. The seventh applicant also ran to the local police station and told the police officers about the apprehension of her brother. Subsequently, the women stopped a car and followed the APCs until they entered the grounds of military unit no. 3186 in the east end of Grozny. Thinking that she had found the place where her brother was being detained, the seventh applicant left. 33.     The applicants have had no news of Musa Temergeriyev since 27   December 2002. 34.     The description of the events of the morning of 27 December 2002 is based on witness accounts provided to the applicants’ representatives: a statement by the seventh applicant, dated 3 August 2006; statements by the ninth and fourteenth applicants, as well as by Ms R.S. and Mr I.D., dated 15   July 2006; an account by Ms A.I., given on 16 July 2006; and an account by Ms Estamirova (also referred to as Ms Estemirova and Ms Estimirova), dated 22 August 2006. 35.     The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They submitted that in the morning of 27 December 2002 “armed unidentified persons had abducted Musa Temergeriyev”. The Government denied the involvement of State agents in the disappearance. B.     The search for the applicants’ relatives and the investigation 36.     The applicants contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the Russian President, the Chechen administration, military commanders’ offices, departments of the interior and prosecutors’ offices at different levels, describing in detail the circumstances of their relatives’ abduction and asking for help in establishing their whereabouts. The applicants kept copies of a number of those letters and submitted them to the Court. An official investigation was opened by the local prosecutor’s office in both cases. The applicants received hardly any substantive information from the official bodies about the investigation into the disappearances. Their letters to the relevant authorities were mostly forwarded to the district prosecutor’s office and the ROVD. The relevant information is summarised below. 1.     Search for Lema Khakiyev and subsequent investigation 37.     On 21 August 2002 the third applicant complained about her husband’s abduction to the town prosecutor’s office. She asked the town prosecutor to appoint an investigation team and immediately send the team to the scene. 38.     On 21 August 2002 the ROVD questioned Mr L.Ch., a neighbour, who had known about Lema Khakiyev’s abduction from the third applicant. 39.     On 23 August 2002 the first and the third applicants, together with their neighbours Mr S.S., Mrs Ya.A., Mrs T.T. and Mr G.B., and other residents of the Oktyabrskiy district, went to the district military commander’s office. The district military commander went outside to speak with the crowd. He introduced himself as Sergey. The applicants explained to him that they were looking for Lema Khakiyev. At first the military commander told the applicants that their relative was not being detained on the premises. Then the gate opened and a white VAZ-2106 car with the registration number 648 drove away from the office’s yard, together with an APC. The third applicant and the neighbours recognised the car and told the commander that Lema Khakiyev had been taken away in that car in the direction of the district military commander’s office. At first, the military commander promised to find the missing man but several days later he retracted his promise. 40.     On 24 August 2002 the town prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Lema Khakiyev’s abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“aggravated kidnapping”). The case file was assigned no.   52098. The applicants were informed of the decision in due time. 41.     On 30 August 2002 the first and the third applicants complained to the town prosecutor’s office about Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance. They emphasised that he had disappeared as a result of Mr   E.B.’s report of 20   June 2002 and asked for the investigation to take that factor into account. 42.     On 2 and 13 September 2002 the town prosecutor’s office replied that the investigation in case no. 52098 was pending and promised to keep the applicants informed of its progress. It also assured the first applicant that her arguments would be thoroughly examined. 43.     On 11 September 2002 the town prosecutor’s office questioned the third applicant, who related the circumstances of her husband’s abduction. 44.     On 17 September 2002 the deputy head of the ROVD drew up a report concerning Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance. The report was based on the third applicant’s testimonies. The document stated that he had been abducted by armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms and that, despite the inquiry, his whereabouts remained unknown. In view of the foregoing, the deputy head of the ROVD ordered the discontinuation of the search for Lema Khakiyev and declared him a missing person as of 21   August 2002. 45.     On 8 October 2002 the investigators questioned the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration, Mr E.B., who stated that he did not have any personal animosity towards Lema Khakiyev, that the complaint of 20   June 2002 had been written as a routine working document and that he had no information as to the identities of Lema Khakiyev’s abductors. 46.     On 9 October 2002 the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in criminal case no. 52098. It does not appear that the second to sixth applicants were granted victim status. 47.     On 10 October 2002 the investigators questioned a former colleague of Lema Khakiyev, Mr D.U., who stated that he had been in Moscow at the time of the abduction. He did not know whether Lema Khakiyev had been a sniper for illegal armed groups from 1995 to 1996 and confirmed that Lema Khakiyev had been on bad terms with Mr E.B. 48.     On 24 October 2002 the town prosecutor’s office stayed the investigation in criminal case no.   52098 owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators and ordered the ROVD to continue the search. The first applicant was informed of that decision in writing on 31 March 2003. 49.     On 18 December 2002 the first applicant complained about her brother’s disappearance to the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms (“the Envoy”). She underlined that Mr S.P., Mr E.B., the head of the Chechnya Department of the Interior (“the Chechnya MVD”), and Mr   D.U., her brother’s former ROVD colleague, had information on Lema Khakiyev’s abduction. 50.     On 30 December 2002 the Envoy wrote to the town prosecutor’s office and the ROVD and suggested that Lema Khakiyev’s abduction had been a result of the complaint by the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration. 51.     On 10 January 2003 residents of the settlement of Michurina complained to the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”). Their collective letter stated, inter alia , that their district had been subjected to “targeted sweeping-up operations” ( адресные «зачистки ») and that four residents had disappeared after the night raids at the end of 2002. Lema Khakiyev’s name was listed as no. 2. 52.     On 5 February 2003 the first applicant complained about her brother’s abduction to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA”). The applicant provided a detailed description of the circumstances of Lema Khakiyev’s apprehension and pointed out that he had told his wife to search for him at the ROVD. The first applicant further stated that on 20 August 2002 Lema Khakiyev had been interviewed about his past activities at the local FSB office, as a result of Mr E.B.’s complaint. The applicant requested to be provided with information about the charges brought against her brother and asked for assistance in establishing his whereabouts. 53.     On 15 February 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 informed the first applicant that the inquiry had not confirmed the involvement of any servicemen in the crime and forwarded her complaint to the town prosecutor’s office for examination. 54.     On 28 April 2003 the investigator Mr V.D. from the town prosecutor’s office summoned the first applicant for questioning as a victim. He told her that Lema Khakiyev was dead and that there was no point in searching for him but did not disclose his source of information. He promised to tell the applicant everything the following day. However, she was subsequently told that Mr V.D.’s assignment had come to an end and that he had left Grozny. The first applicant has never seen Mr V.D. since. 55.     On 14 August 2003 the town prosecutor’s office requested the ROVD to identify the officers of the Ministry of the Interior assigned to the ROVD in August 2002 and summon Mr   E.B. for questioning. 56.     On 18 August 2003 the ROVD replied that the information about the officers was available at the UGA and the headquarters of the Russian military in Khankala, Chechnya. 57.     It appears that at some point in 2003 the town prosecutor’s office entrusted the district prosecutor’s office with the investigation in criminal case no.   52098. 58.     On 24 August and 30 August 2003 respectively the Chechnya FSB department and the Operational Search Bureau (“ORB”) informed the district prosecutor’s office that they did not have any incriminating information about Lema Khakiyev, who was not listed in their databases. 59.     At some point in 2003 the first applicant received a letter from a certain Mr R.Z., then detained in remand prison IZ-20/1 in Grozny. Mr R.Z. alleged that he had met Lema Khakiyev in the remand prison ( СИЗО ) in Pyatigorsk. The applicant wrote to the district prosecutor’s office, requesting clarification of that information. Mr R.Z.’s and the applicant’s letters were not submitted to the Court. 60.     On 1 December 2003 the FSB department of military counter ‑ intelligence informed the district prosecutor’s office that it had not detained Lema Khakiyev and did not have any information concerning his whereabouts. 61.     On 14 April 2004 the interim Chechnya military commander reported that the military commanders’ offices had not been manned in Chechnya until 1   July 2003. Consequently, they had no information as to Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance, which had occurred on 21 August 2002. 62.     On 21 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit   no.   20102 informed the first applicant that its inquiry had failed to establish the involvement of any federal servicemen in her brother’s abduction. The military prosecutor’s office forwarded its inquiry file to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, which then transmitted it to the district prosecutor’s office. 63.     On 8 December 2004 the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office. In her letter she requested the authorities to take the following steps: resume the investigation in criminal case no. 52098; question Mr U.I., a resident of Michurina, who had asserted that Lema Khakiyev had been detained on FSB premises; establish the law ‑ enforcement units which had been assigned to the ROVD in August 2002; question Mr N.T., who had seen Lema Khakiyev’s abductors on the night of the events; inform her about the progress of the investigation and conduct it in an effective and thorough manner. 64.     On 17 August 2005 the applicants’ representatives wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor, the town prosecutor and the district prosecutor. They requested the following information: whether any progress had been made in the investigation into the abduction; what measures had been taken to establish the whereabouts of Lema Khakiyev and identify his abductors; what had been the results of the measures taken by the ROVD in connection with the letter of 14 August 2003; whether the ROVD officers had been questioned; whether the investigators had identified and questioned the servicemen who had manned the checkpoints in the vicinity of the settlement; whether the investigators had identified the vehicles which had passed through the checkpoints on the night of the abduction; whether any special operation had been conducted against the members of illegal armed groups between 20 and 21 August 2002 in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny; and whether anyone had been detained. 65.     It does not appear that any response was given to these requests. 66.     On 10 May and 30 June 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicants’ representatives that on an unspecified date it had stayed the investigation in criminal case no. 52098 on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The investigators had failed to establish which units had conducted special operations against members of illegal armed groups in the settlement of Michurina between 20 and 21 August 2002. 67.     On 23 August 2006 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor’s office. In her letter she stated that Mr D.U., her brother’s former colleague, Mr U.I., a former official of the Michurina settlement administration, and Mr M.D., Mr U.I.’s neighbour, had known that Lema Khakiyev had been detained on the local FSB premises. The applicant suspected them of having organised her brother’s abduction and regretted that they had not even been questioned by the investigation. 68.     On 11 September 2006 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to inform her about the progress of the investigation into her brother’s abduction. She stated that she had already provided the authorities with the names of the witnesses to be questioned, including Mr   N.T., Mr U.I., Mr M.D., Mr D.U., Mr E.B. and Mr V.D. However, the investigating authorities had failed to question them. She reiterated that her brother’s abduction had been consequent upon Mr E.B.’s report. The applicant also requested the authorities to establish the source of the investigator Mr V.D.’s allegations of Lema Khakiyev’s death (see paragraph 54 above). 69.     It does not appear that the first applicant has ever received a reply to this letter. 70.     On 6 August 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny (“the district court”) granted the third applicant’s request to declare Lema Khakiyev a missing person as of 30 August 2002. It noted that his whereabouts had remained unknown since the launch of criminal investigation file no. 52098 on 24 August 2002. 71.     In addition, the applicants regularly applied in writing to various prosecutor’s offices, complaining about the ineffective nature of the investigation. Their letters were routinely forwarded to the town prosecutor’s office, and then to the district prosecutor’s office. 2.     Search for Musa Temergeriyev and subsequent investigation 72.     In the evening of 27 December 2002, local police officers questioned the seventh to fourteenth applicants about the abduction of Musa Temergeriyev. They inspected the crime scene and collected the machine gun cartridges left after the abduction. 73.     In the morning of 28 December 2002 the seventh applicant came to the military unit to enquire about Musa Temergeriyev. At the checkpoint she met relatives of other apprehended persons. The servicemen at the checkpoint denied having admitted any detainees. 74.     According to the applicants, in the morning Ms Estamirova, a member of the NGO Memorial, managed to speak to the commander of the regiment over the phone. The man confirmed that Musa Temergeriyev had been brought to and registered at the grounds of the military unit. In the evening Ms Estamirova passed through the checkpoint and spoke to two servicemen. They explained that Musa Temergeriyev had been arrested by servicemen from Khankala temporarily assigned to the military unit. Since those servicemen were absent on an assignment, Ms Estamirova left. The applicants’ attempts to meet the servicemen proved futile. 75.     On 29 December 2002 at 11 a.m. the seventh applicant noticed two APCs leaving the grounds of the military unit. She recognised them as the vehicles which had been used during her brother’s abduction. 76.     On the same day Mr Boyarintsev, an assistant to the military prosecutor, spoke to the commanding officer of the military unit. The officer asserted that Musa Temergeriyev had been charged with unlawful storage of a grenade and taken to Khankala. 77.     On 13 January 2003 the town prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Musa Temergeriyev under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“aggravated kidnapping”). The case was assigned no. 40060. It is unclear whether the applicants were notified of that decision in due time. 78.     On an unspecified date the abduction case was assigned no. 40007. 79.     On 17 July 2003 the town prosecutor’s office stayed the investigation in case no. 40007 on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The decision stated as follows: “... The preliminary investigation established that on 27 December 2002 at about 10.20 a.m. unidentified armed and camouflaged servicemen of the 2nd battalion of military unit no. 3186 had unlawfully entered the Temergeriyevs’ house, searched it and discovered a grenade in the refrigerator... Meanwhile Musa   Temergeriyev, born in 1952, returned home. [He] was arrested and brought in an APC to the military unit located on the grounds of the former 15th military base in Gudermesskaya Street in the Oktyabrskiy District in Grozny. [Thereafter] his whereabouts have remained unknown.” 80.     By a letter of 8 January 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the seventh applicant that the whereabouts of her brother had not been established and that operational-search measures were under way. The Chechnya prosecutor’s office invited the applicant to address her questions and concerns to the district prosecutor’s office. By a similar letter dated 27   February 2004 the seventh applicant was invited to address her queries to the town prosecutor’s office. 81.     On an unspecified date the investigation in case no. 40007 was entrusted to the district prosecutor’s office. It is unclear whether the applicants were notified of that fact. 82.     On 2 April 2004 a military prosecutor of the UGA requested military unit no. 20102 to conduct an additional inquiry in connection with the seventh applicant’s complaint about her brother’s disappearance. 83.     On 15 May and 7 June 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA and the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicant that nothing in her complaint pointed to the involvement of any federal servicemen in the crime. 84.     On 21 February 2005 the Chechnya military commander forwarded the seventh applicant’s complaint about her brother’s abduction to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. The military commander stated that: “... On December 2002 officers of the Ministry of the Interior using two APCs without registration plates took him [Musa Temergeriyev] from his house to Khankala. At present, his whereabouts remain unknown”. 85.     On 6 September 2005 the Chechnya FSB department informed the seventh applicant that FSB officials had not arrested Musa Temergeriyev and had no information on his whereabouts. 86.     On 10 September 2005 the criminal police department of the Ministry of the Interior in Khankala notified the seventh applicant that it had no information as to Musa Temergeriyev’s arrest by agents of law-enforcement authorities and federal forces deployed in Chechnya. 87.     By a letter of 11 October 2005 the FSB department of military counter-intelligence notified the seventh applicant that the operational ‑ search measures conducted by its branches in the Southern Federal Circuit had failed to establish Musa   Temergeriyev’s whereabouts. 88.     By letters of 28 February and 20 March 2006 the branches of the Main Prisons Directorate of the Ministry of Justice (“the prisons directorates”) in the Rostov and Volgograd Regions informed the seventh applicant that Musa Temergeriyev was not being detained in any prisons in those regions and was not registered in the database of the Ministry of the Interior. 89.     On 13 October 2006 the main military prosecutor’s office transmitted the seventh applicant’s request for assistance in the search for her brother to the military prosecutor of the UGA. The letter stated in particular that: “... on 27 December 2002 federal servicemen arrested Musa Temergeriyev on suspicion of storing weapons and ammunition. The man subsequently disappeared.” 90.     In addition, on several occasions the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the seventh applicant’s complaints to the district prosecutor’s office. In response, the seventh applicant was informed, without any further details, that the investigation was pending or had been suspended and that measures aimed at finding her brother were being taken. 91.     On an unspecified date the ROVD issued a certificate, stating that Musa Temergeriyev had no criminal record and that the ROVD had no “discrediting” information about him. C.     Information about the investigation submitted by the Government 92.     Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose the entire contents of the criminal investigation files. Thus, they submitted some 210 pages from criminal investigation file no. 52098 and around 290 pages from criminal investigation file no. 40007, accompanied by 108 pages from a case file compiled by the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA further to Musa Temergeriyev’s disappearance. The Government produced witness statements, decisions to open, stay and resume the investigation or to grant victim status, letters to the relatives, and correspondence between different State authorities on the progress of the investigation in relation to both cases. They also appended copies of expert reports, records of some investigative steps and investigation plans in relation to case no. 40007. 93.     With reference to criminal case no. 52098, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in criminal proceedings. 94.     The Government did not dispute the information concerning the investigation into the abduction of Lema Khakiyev and Musa Temergeriyev, as submitted by the applicants. They referred to a number of other procedural steps taken by the investigating authorities, in particular decisions to stay and resume the investigation, which had not been mentioned by the applicants. Their submissions and documents can be summarised in the following manner. 1.     Investigation into the kidnapping of Lema Khakiyev (a)     Progress of the investigation in disappearance case no. 52098 95.     On 21 August 2002 an investigator inspected Lema Khakiyev’s house, but found nothing pertinent to the case. 96.     On 24 August 2002 the town prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation (file no. 52098) into the abduction of Lema Khakiyev by “unidentified armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms”. The Government submitted that the third applicant had been notified of the decision on the same day. 97.     On 3 September 2002 the deputy town prosecutor asked the investigator in case no. 52098, inter alia , to question Lema Khakiyev’s relatives and Mr E.B., and to send queries to different authorities in order to carry out research into Lema Khakiyev’s personality. 98.     On 5 September 2002 the investigator sent queries to the ROVD and the military commander’s office, requesting Lema Khakiyev’s work contracts, performance appraisals, records of disciplinary sanctions and rewards, information on his relationship with colleagues and ROVD officials, or any community complaint against him. The investigator also wrote to the Chechnya MVD, asking it to produce Mr E.B.’s complaint of 20 June 2002 and to inform him whether his accusations regarding Lema Khakiyev had been confirmed. 99.     On the same date the investigation retrieved Mr E.B.’s original complaint from the administration of Grozny and appended it to case file no. 52098. 100.     In September 2002 the military commander’s office reported that it had no relevant information. 101.     On 23 September 2002 the Chechnya MVD transmitted to the town prosecutor’s office a twenty-five-page file compiled in respect of Lema Khakiyev further to Mr E.B.’s accusations. The Government submitted only one document from that file, according to which on 17 August 2002 the public safety department of the Chechnya MVD stated that their inquiry had not confirmed Lema Khakiyev’s alleged involvement in illegal armed groups as a sniper from 1995 to 1996. 102.     It follows from the documents submitted by the Government that between 2002 and 2009 the investigation was suspended and resumed on seven occasions. It appears that the first applicant was regularly informed of the decisions. 103.     On 14 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office ordered the ROVD to check which regional military units had been deployed in the Oktyabrskiy district on 20 and 21 August 2002 and who had supervised them, and to summon Mr E.B. for questioning. 104.     On 6 September 2007 the investigation unit of the Zavodskoy district of Grozny (“the district investigation unit”), a branch of the investigation department of the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, was entrusted with the task of pursuing the investigation in case no. 52098 instead of the district prosecutor’s office. 105.     On 22 November 2007 a deputy town prosecutor criticised the progress of the investigation, in particular the failure to question Mr R.Z. and to send queries to all the authorities concerned as to Lema Khakiyev’s arrest, detention and admission to medical institutions, any criminal proceedings brought against him or the discovery of a body resembling him. The deputy town prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed. 106.     On 9 February 2009 the head of the Procedural Control Unit, a branch of the investigation department of the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, ordered the district investigation unit to: resume the investigation; question the first applicant, Mr E.B., Mr A.I., Mr   R.Z. and a number of officials on duty from 21 August 2002, such as the district military commander, the head of the district ROVD and the ROVD officer in charge of the criminal police; check whether Mr A.M. could have been involved in Lema Khakiyev’s abduction; inquire whether Lema Khakiyev had been held in the remand prison in Pyatigorsk; and ask the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of the Defence and the district military prosecutor’s office to provide information concerning the district military commander and the ROVD staff at the relevant time, any special operation conducted in the night of 21 August 2002 or any person detained in that connection. 107.     According to the Government, on 10 June 2009 the investigation in case no. 52098 was again resumed. That same day the Special Investigation Unit no. 2 (Отдел по расследованию особо важных дел № 2) , a branch of the investigation department of the Chechnya’s prosecutor’s office, took over the investigation into Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance. The Government submitted that the first applicant had been informed accordingly. (b)     Witness statements 108.     From the Government’s submissions and documents appended, it follows that the investigators questioned the first and the third applicants as well as several other persons. 109.     The third applicant was questioned on 21 August and 11 September 2002. She testified that on 20 August 2002 Lema Khakiyev had been called to the Chechnya MVD in order to be questioned further to Mr E.B.’s allegations that he had been a sniper from 1995 to 1996. Upon his return, Lema Khakiyev had told his wife that the authorities had cleared him of all suspicion. On the following day a group of armed and camouflaged servicemen had burst into the family house through the courtyard and taken him away. They had spoken unaccented Russian. Lema Khakiyev had told the applicant to look for him at the ROVD since the intruders worked there. The servicemen had left on foot and there had been no car around. 110.     The first applicant was questioned on 10 September 2002 and 19   February 2009. On 9 October 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status. She corroborated the third applicant’s statements and added that on 21 August 2002 she had been in Nazran and learnt of Lema Khakiyev’s kidnapping from the third applicant. They had conducted their own investigation into the disappearance and established that Lema Khakiyev had been on bad terms with Mr E.B. The fir