CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 juin 2012

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8DD3F840 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; 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 } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s377EF8D6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB3E56D84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s272203FB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE02F58E0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s58D2382A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s1D4E86C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s2C8F8D11 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s68133E73 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:11.6pt; 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 } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s92275EC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB2D0B857 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s308FBE0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s299839C6 { width:212.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FIRST SECTION             CASE OF UMAROVY v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 2546/08)           JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 23 July 2012 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court     STRASBOURG   12 June 2012   FINAL   22/10/2012   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Umarovy v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 2546/08) 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 two Russian nationals, Mr Zhamal [1] Umarov and Ms   Aysarat Umarova (“the applicants”), on 18 December 2007. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers of the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. 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 in particular that their relative had been abducted by State agents and that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate the incident. They cited Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention. 4.     On 24 January 2010 the Court decided to apply Rule   41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application. On 1 July 2010 it decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of former Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are Mr Zhamal (also spelled Zhamalat) Umarov and Ms   Aysarat Umarova, who were born in 1936 and 1972 respectively. They live in Makhachkala, Dagestan. The applicants are the father and sister of Mr Ramazan (also known as Lobaz, Labaz, Labazan and Lobazan) Umarov, who was born in 1974. A.     Disappearance of the applicants’ relative and subsequent events 1.     Information submitted by the applicants (a)     Background information 6.     In 1999 Ramazan Umarov was convicted of an offence and served a sentence in Tyuba, Dagestan. He was released in 2004 and went to live in Makhachkala. 7.     On 25 August 2005 the officers of the Kirov district department of the interior in Makhachkala (the Kirov ROVD) arrested Ramazan Umarov and charged him with illegal possession of firearms. He spent three months in pre-trial detention. In 2006 he was acquitted by the court. 8.     According to the applicants, officers of the Kirov ROVD continued to harass their relative, threatening to put him behind bars. As a result, Ramazan had to hide from the police. 9.     On 21 April 2007 Ramazan Umarov told his former fellow prison inmate Mr S.S. about his problems with the police and asked him for help in finding a place to live. Mr S.S. allowed Ramazan to stay in his flat in a block at 41 Salavatova Street, Makhachkala, Dagestan. (b)     The events of 28 April 2007 10.     In the morning of 28 April 2007 Mr S.S., his driver Mr M.R. and Ramazan Umarov were sleeping in the flat. At about 8 a.m. Ramazan Umarov woke Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. up and told them that the police were knocking at the door. He was holding a gun and grenades, which he then hid in the flat. The three men then opened the door. 11.     The police searched the flat and found the hidden gun and the grenades. They arrested the three men, handcuffed them and took them to the Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime (the UBOP) of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior (the Dagestan MVD). 12.     On the same date the authorities initiated criminal proceedings against Mr S.S. and Mr. M.R. under Article 222 of the Criminal Code (illegal possession of firearms). The case file was given the number 702687. The two men were subsequently questioned about the circumstances of the case; both of them stated on several occasions that they had been arrested with Ramazan Umarov. 13.     Ramazan Umarov was taken by the police to the UBOP building, with Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. but in a separate vehicle. The applicants were not informed about his arrest. (c)     The applicants’ search for Ramazan Umarov 14.     On 29 April 2007 a friend of Ramazan Umarov informed the first applicant that his son had been arrested. On the same date the applicants made an oral complaint about the arrest to a number of local law ‑ enforcement agencies. 15.     In the evening of 9 May 2007 the applicants received a phone call from a woman who informed them that Ramazan Umarov was with her. The first applicant managed to speak with his son. Ramazan, whose voice sounded weak and tired, told him that he had no idea where he was or what had happened to him. Then the woman told the second applicant that Ramazan was in the medical unit of a penal institution in Gudermes, Chechnya, and that he had been brought there after being found unconscious in a forest near Shali, Chechnya. 16.     Later on the same date, around 11 p.m., a man called the applicants and told the first applicant to come to Gudermes if he wanted to obtain information about his son’s whereabouts. 17.     On 10 May 2007 the applicants had several phone conversations with the man and the woman, but they were unable to obtain from them any detailed information about Ramazan’s whereabouts. 18.     On 13 May 2007 Ramazan Umarov called the applicants and asked them to hand over their family VAZ-2107 car to “these people”, explaining that only after that would he be able to return home. Shortly afterwards, unidentified people called the applicants and told them to bring 5,000 United States dollars (USD) and meet them in Kizil-Yurt, Dagestan. 19.     On 14 May 2007 the applicants’ friend Mr A. went to Kizil-Yurt with the money. There he met two Chechen men, Mr M.Sh. and Mr U.U., who took him to Khasavyurt, Dagestan, in a VAZ car with the registration number B   192   OM 08 RU. The two men took 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB) from Mr A. for information about a police officer, Mr Zh.Kh., who was supposed to know the whereabouts of Ramazan Umarov. However, Mr   A. was unable to find the police officer Zh.Kh. 20.     On 15 May 2007 the man who had previously called on 9 May 2007 called again and told the applicants that the police officer Mr Zh.Kh., who was a senior police officer in Gudermes, would assist them in getting Ramazan Umarov released. 21.     It is unclear whether the applicants met the officer Zh.Kh. or obtained any information from him. They have not heard any news of Ramazan Umarov since then. 22.     In support of their application the applicants submitted a statement by the first applicant dated 4 December 2007, copies of a number of documents reflecting the applicant’s correspondence with the authorities and copies of a few documents from the investigation file. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 23.     The Government did not challenge the matter as presented by the applicants. At the same time they submitted that the Russian authorities had not obtained ”reliable information concerning the arrest of Ramazan Umarov by representatives of the authorities”, and stated that the possible reasons he had gone missing were ”his desire to abscond from the authorities” or ”the actions of third parties”. 24.     According to the Government’s submission, the information provided by the Russian Ministry of the Interior indicated that Ramazan Umarov had been a member of a radical religious movement; he had been prosecuted on several occasions, and had been a member of a terrorist group which had been eliminated during a special operation in 2006; he had also been involved in attacks on representatives of law-enforcement authorities. B.     The official investigation into the disappearance 1.     Relevant information from criminal case no. 702687 25.     On 28 April 2007 investigators in criminal case no. 702687 (see paragraph 12 above) questioned Mr M.R., who stated, amongst other things, that in the morning of 28 April 2007 he had been arrested by the police in the flat in Salavatova Street together with Mr S.S. and Ramazan Umarov, who, according to the witness, were wanted by the authorities on suspicion of murder. According to Mr M.R., he had been arrested in the flat, handcuffed and taken to the UBOP. 26.     On the same date, 28 April, and then on 7 May 2007, investigators in criminal case no. 702687 questioned Mr S.S., who stated, amongst other things, that at the beginning of April 2007 he had met his former fellow prison inmate Ramazan Umarov. The latter had asked for accommodation, explaining that he had had problems with the police and was looking for a place to live. Mr S.S. had allowed Ramazan to stay in the flat in Salavatova Street. In the morning of 28 April 2007 a group of police officers had arrived at the flat. They handcuffed and arrested him, Mr M.R. and Ramazan Umarov. After the arrest Mr S.S. had been taken to the UBOP. 27.     On 21 May 2007 the deputy district prosecutor issued instructions for the investigators in the criminal case no.   702687 initiated against Mr   S.S. and Mr M.R. The text of the document included the following: “... From the statements given to the investigation by Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. it follows that a man named Ramazan with the nickname “Lobaz” was arrested with them at the flat. This man had a gun and grenades and was taken to the Dagestan UBOP with Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. In addition, [witness] Mr R.R. also stated that a person with the nickname “Lobaz” had been taken from the crime scene to the Dagestan UBOP. ... it is necessary, in order to establish the whereabouts of Ramazan, to identify and question the UBOP officers who had carried out the arrest and ask them about the reasons for their failure to take him to the investigator and about his current whereabouts. ... and to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of Ramazan’s [subsequent] disappearance from the UBOP building ...” 28.     From the documents submitted it follows that on 8 November 2007 the criminal case was terminated by the Sovietskiy District Court of Makhachkala for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of Mr S.S. and Mr   M.R. (see paragraph 66 below). 2.     Information from criminal case no. 702789 (in the documents submitted also referred to under no. 702809) 29.     On 10 and 11 May and then subsequently on 14 June 2007 the applicants complained to the Dagestan Prosecutor about the disappearance of Ramazan Umarov. They stated that he had been arrested on 28 April 2007 by the police, taken to the UBOP and subsequently disappeared. The applicants provided the prosecutor with details of the phone conversations which had taken place between 9 and 15 May 2007 and the numbers from which they had received the phone calls. They also stated that Ramazan had been found in the forest near Shali, Chechnya and expressed their concern that after the arrest in Dagestan he had been secretly taken to Chechnya, whereas two other men who had been arrested with him had remained in Dagestan. 30.     On 16 May 2007 the investigators questioned the second applicant, who stated that at the beginning of April 2007 her brother Ramazan Umarov had purchased a blue car of the VAZ-21074 model and that on 17 April 2007 he had obtained the official registration number for the vehicle:   196   УУ 05 RUS. She also stated that according to the lawyer of one of the two men who had been arrested with Ramazan on 28 April 2007, the latter had been taken away by the police separately from them. The applicant also provided a description of the phone calls received in connection with Ramazan’s disappearance and his alleged detention in Chechnya. She expressed her opinion that her brother had been arrested by the police who had suspected him of terrorist activities and who had subsequently also taken his car. 31.     On the same date, 16 May 2007, the investigators questioned the first applicant, who stated that for a number of years the police had suspected his son Ramazan of membership of an extremist religious movement. At the end of April 2007 he had been informed that Ramazan had been arrested along with other men, following a special operation in Salavatova Street. The other two men had been detained in the Sovietskiy ROVD, while Ramazan had disappeared. On 9 May 2007 a man had called the applicant and told him that Ramazan had been detained in Gudermes, Chechnya, and that he could come there to pick him up. The applicant had gone to Gudermes, but had not been able to find his son. In the applicant’s opinion, his son Ramazan had been abducted by law-enforcement officers, who had also taken away his son’s car. 32.     On 16 May 2007 the investigators questioned a security guard at the car park situated next to the technical school in Makhachkala, Mr I.M. The Government furnished the Court only with a part of his witness statement, according to which on 24 April 2007 two men had parked a VAZ-2107 car with the registration number 196 УУ 05 RUS in the car park. Several days later, on or around 27 April 2007, two men who had arrived in an armoured UAZ vehicle, and who showed their service identity documents as police officers, spent the entire day in the car park waiting for someone. 33.     On 18 May 2007 the investigators questioned another security guard at the car park, Mr Sh.G., whose statement was similar to the one given by Mr I.M. and who added that the police officers had searched the VAZ-2107 car with the registration number 196 УУ 05 RUS and found some documents in it. Within the next few days the car had disappeared from the car park. 34.     On 19 May 2007 the Sovietskiy district prosecutor’s office of Makhachkala (the district prosecutor’s office) initiated a criminal investigation into the disappearance of Ramazan Umarov under Article   126   §   2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 702789. 35.     On 20 May 2007 the investigators again questioned the second applicant, who stated, amongst other things, that her brother Ramazan Umarov had been arrested on suspicion of terrorism in 2005 and that at the beginning of April 2007 he had purchased a blue VAZ -21074 car with the registration number 196 УУ 05 RUS. According to the applicant, on 29   or   30 April 2007 the first applicant had told her that Ramazan had been arrested with two other men on 28 April 2007 by representatives of the UBOP, but that subsequently he had been taken somewhere separately from the two men. She further stated that her brother had been kidnapped, most probably for ransom, by police officers who suspected him of terrorism and who had also taken away his car. 36.     On 21 May 2007 the investigators questioned Mr A.A., the investigator of criminal case no. 702687 (see paragraphs 25-27 above), who stated that from the information collected by their investigation, it appeared that Ramazan Umarov (also known as Labaz) had been arrested together with Mr M.R. and Mr S.S. on 28 April 2007 in the flat in Salavatova Street and then taken away somewhere separately from the two men. 37.     On 24 May 2007 the investigators questioned Mr Ma.Ma. who stated, amongst other things, that on 28 April 2007 he had received a phone call from his cousin Mr S.S., who had told him that he was about to be arrested by police, who were surrounding the building he was in, and that he was in the flat with Mr M.R. and Labaz (Ramazan Umarov). According to the witness, later on 28 April 2007 he had spoken with police officer Mr   R.Z., who had told him that the three men had all been arrested and taken to the   UBOP. 38.     On 29 May 2007 the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case and questioned him. The applicant stated, amongst other things, that his son Ramazan Umarov had been harassed by police on the suspicion of being a member of a radical religious movement and that in the end of April 2007 he had been told that his son had been arrested with two other men and taken to the UBOP; that after the arrest, in May 2007, some people had told him that Ramazan had been detained in Gudermes; the witness had gone there but to no avail. According to the applicant, his son Ramazan had been abducted by police officers, who had also taken his son’s car from the car park. The applicant expressed the opinion that he was certain that his son had been abducted by the police, who were ”with barefaced impudence” denying this, and asked the investigators to assist him with Ramazan’s release. 39.     On 30 May 2007 the investigators again questioned the car park security guard, Mr I.M., who reiterated his previous statement, given on 16   May 2007 (see paragraph 32 above) and added that the two police officers had searched the car with the registration number 196 УУ 05 RUS, found some papers in it and taken them away. According to the witness, he could identify one of the police officers, because he had red hair and light eyes. 40.     On 31 May 2007 the first applicant again complained about his son’s disappearance to the district prosecutor and to the head of the Dagestan Federal Security Service (the FSB). He stated that Ramazan Umarov had been arrested on 28 April 2008 by police officers and taken to the UBOP, and that he had then disappeared. The applicant provided details of phone conversations between 9 and 15 May 2007 and the numbers from which he had received the phone calls. 41.     On 1 June 2007 the investigators questioned the owner of the car park, Mr Sh.G., who stated that on 28 or 29 April 2007 he had noticed an armoured UAZ vehicle in the car park. The two men who had arrived in it had introduced themselves as police officers and explained that they wanted to search the blue VAZ car with the registration number 196 УУ 05 RUS which had been parked there since 24 April 2007. The officers had waited for several hours, then in the evening they had searched the car, as they had the keys to the vehicle, found some papers in it and wanted to take the car away. The witness had refused to let them take the vehicle unless they provided him with the detailed information on their service identity cards and a written receipt confirming the seizure of the car. The officers had suggested waiting for their superior, who arrived half an hour later. The senior officer was a tall man of strong build. He had asked the witness and his colleague about the men who had parked the car on 24 April 2007. Then the three officers had decided not to take the car and left. Several days later the blue VAZ car had disappeared from the car park. According to the witness, it was highly probable that the police officers had somehow taken the car away, as they had the car keys and the documents for the vehicle, which according to them they had taken from the arrested owner of the car. 42.     On 13 June 2007 the investigators requested the head of the Dagestan UBOP, the head of the Dagestan FSB and the head of the Dagestan Counterterrorism Agency to inform them whether their officers had conducted a special operation on 28 April 2007 in Salavatova Street, whether they had arrested Ramazan Umarov, and where the latter had been detained after the arrest. 43.     On 14 June 2007 the Dagestan Counterterrorism Agency replied to the investigators that their officers had not arrested or detained Ramazan Umarov. The letter also stated that he had been a member of a radical religious movement, had been prosecuted twice and had been a member of an illegal armed group eliminated in 2006. 44.     On 14 June 2007 the investigators received judicial permission to obtain information from phone service providers about the numbers from which the applicants been called in May 2007 in connection with the abduction. 45.     On 14 June 2007 the first applicant again complained to the Dagestan prosecutor about his son’s disappearance. He stated that Ramazan Umarov had been arrested with the two other men on 28 April 2007, taken to the UBOP and had then gone missing. The applicant complained that since 2005 his son had been persecuted by the police, who suspected him of illegal activities, and described the phone calls received in May 2007 in connection with the abduction. The applicant further stated that he had gone to Gudermes to search for his son; that there he had met Mr M.Sh. and Mr   U.U. who had driven around in a car with registration number B   192   OM 08 RUS and had promised to help him to find Ramazan, but in the end had advised him to find police officer Dzh. Khalilov, who allegedly had information about Ramazan’s whereabouts. The applicant further complained that Ramazan’s VAZ car had been searched by the police and had then disappeared from the car park. Finally, he requested assistance in the search for his son. 46.     On 15 June 2007 the Dagestan Prosecutor’s office ordered the investigators to take a number of actions. The decision stated, amongst other things, the following: “... [Our] review of the investigation file demonstrated that the investigation has been conducted in an incomplete manner, and that investigative actions necessary to establish the factual circumstances of the case have not been taken. It is necessary to question in detail Mr M.R. and Mr S.S. about the circumstances of their arrest by police officers, to obtain the description of the officers’ appearance and outfits, to find out whether they could have known any of the officers, to find out whether Ramazan Umarov had been taken with them to the premises of the UBOP, where exactly he was detained and where he was taken afterwards, and so on... [It is necessary ]... to organise an identification parade of the UBOP and Sovietskiy ROVD police officers who were on duty between 27 and 28 April 2007 so that Mr M.R. and Mr S.S. can identify them... .... to question the police officers who participated in the arrest of Mr M.R. and Mr   S.S. and, if necessary, to arrange confrontations between them and the officers, as both men asserted that they had been arrested with Ramazan Umarov; ... to identify the people who took [Ramazan Umarov’s] car away from the car park; ... to question close relatives, neighbours and friends of Ramazan Umarov about the circumstances [of the disappearance] ...” 47.     On 19 June 2007 the Dagestan UBOP informed the investigators that they had neither arrested nor detained Ramazan Umarov, Mr M.R. or Mr   S.S. 48.     On 27 June 2007   the investigators questioned police officer Mr R.Z., who had been on duty at the Sovietskiy ROVD on 28 April 2007. According to his statement, he did not know how many men had been arrested following the special operation conducted on that date. He further stated that servicemen from the UBOP, the Counterterrorism Agency and their superiors had participated in the operation. 49.     On 27 June 2007 the investigators also questioned Mr A.B., the head of the Special Task Unit (the OMON) of the Sovietskiy ROVD, who stated that he had participated in the special operation on 28 April 2007, as a result of which two men had been arrested. According to the witness, Ramazan Umarov was not arrested as a result of the operation. 50.     On 28 June 2007 the investigators questioned Mr S.S., who stated, amongst other things, that on 28 April 2007 he had been arrested by police, with Mr M.R. and Ramazan Umarov. The latter had probably been taken away in a UAZ car, and he did not know whether Ramazan had also been taken to the UBOP and detained there. 51.     On an unspecified date after 28 June 2007 Mr M.R. (in the document submitted his initials were mistakenly stated as R.R.) refused to give a statement to the investigation, stating that it would be identical to the one given by Mr S.S. 52.     On 29 June 2007 the Dagestan MVD informed the investigators that ‘as a result of the actions taken it was impossible to establish which police officers had arrested Mr M.R. and Mr S.S. on 28 April 2007.’ 53.     On an unspecified date in June 2007 the Dagestan Prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that the investigation into the disappearance of their relative was in progress. The text of the letter included the following:   “....as a result of the inquiry it was established that Ramazan Umarov had been arrested with Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. by unidentified representatives of the law ‑ enforcement agencies and taken to the building of the Dagestan UBOP ...” 54.     On 5 July 2007 the investigators requested the Dagestan MVD to inform them which police units had participated in the arrest on 28 April 2007. The letter stated, amongst other things, the following: “... the investigation established that Ramazan Umarov had been arrested with Mr   S.S. and Mr M.R. by police officers and taken to the 6th Department [the UBOP] ... Taking into account the [above] circumstances and the fact that the head of the UBOP of the Dagestan MVD, A. Kuliyev, and the head of the Department of the Fight against Extremism and Criminal Terrorism, M. Magomedov, deny arresting Ramazan Umarov, it is necessary to find out which police units did participate in the arrest of Mr M.R. and Mr S.S. and to summon the officers who had participated in the arrest to the district prosecutor’s office to appear before the investigators ...” 55.     On the same date, 5 July 2007, the investigators wrote to the head of the UBOP and the head of the Department of the Fight Against Extremism and Criminal Terrorism (the UBE) stating that the investigation into the abduction of Ramazan Umarov had established that he had been arrested on 28 April 2007 in Salavatova Street, together with Mr M.R. and Mr S.S. The investigators requested to be informed whether the agencies’ units had in fact arrested Ramazan Umarov on 28 April 2007, and if so to summon the officers who had participated in the special operation. There was no response to either of these requests. 56.     On 6 July 2007 the investigators questioned Mr A.M., who lived near the block of flats at no. 41 in Salavatova Street, and who stated, amongst other things, that he had witnessed the special operation on 28 April 2007 from the balcony of his flat on the fourth floor. According to the witness, as a result of the operation, three men had been taken out of the building at 41   Salavatova Street; all of them had been handcuffed and taken away in UAZ cars. One of the arrestees had been taken away separately from two others. 57.     On 6 July 2007 the investigators requested the Dagestan Minister of the Interior to provide information concerning the whereabouts of Ramazan Umarov. The letter stated, amongst other things, the following: “... the investigation established that on 28 April 2007, following a special operation, Ramazan Umarov was arrested with Mr M.R. and Mr S.S. in flat. 46 at 41   Salavatova Street, Makhachkala ... according to the statements of Mr M.R. and Mr S.S., they were in the flat with Ramazan Umarov at the time [of the arrest] and that the firearms and ammunition found there belonged to him ... Since the special operation it has been impossible to establish the whereabouts of Ramazan Umarov; neither his relatives nor law-enforcement agencies have information about his fate   ... On the basis of the above, you are requested to inform us in detail about the results of the special operation, in particular, who was in charge of it, which units had been involved ... in connection with the urgent need to take operational-search measures in the Chechen Republic, we ask your permission to send police officers from the Sovietskiy ROVD in Makhachkala over there ...” 58.     On 10 July 2007 the UBOP informed the investigators that they had not arrested or detained Mr S.S., Mr M.R. and ‘Mr R. Umarbekov’. The letter did not contain any information concerning Ramazan Umarov. 59.     On 13 July 2007 the investigators questioned the father of Mr M.R., Mr R.R. who stated, amongst other things, that his son Mr M.R. had been arrested on 28 April 2007 in the same flat, with Mr S.S. and Labaz (Ramazan Umarov). Late in the evening of 28 April 2007 the witness and his wife had arrived at the Sovietskiy ROVD, where they had met their son’s lawyer Ms Larisa, who had told them that the three arrested men had been taken from the flat in Salavatova Street to the ROVD. The witness had spent several hours at the police station and had managed to speak with officer A. Zabitov, who had told him that his son, Mr S.S. and Labaz had been arrested together. Then the officer had promised to question Labaz and find out whether Mr M.R. had been involved in the same activities as Labaz. On 29 April 2007 the witness had returned to the ROVD, but he had been told that his son and Mr S.S. had been brought before the judge at the Sovietskiy District Court; when the witness had arrived at the court, his son and Mr S.S. were there, but Labaz was not with them. According to the witness, lawyer Larisa and the lawyer of Mr S.S. had told him that Labaz had remained either in the Sovietskiy ROVD or in the UBOP. 60.     On 31 July 2007 the Dagestan MVD requested the UBOP and the UBE to confirm the following: “... The investigation conducted by the Sovietskiy district prosecutor’s office, Makhachkala, established that on 28 April 2007, following a special operation, Mr   Ramazan Umarov, who was born in 1974, was arrested by representatives of law-enforcement agencies in flat 46 at 41 Salavatova Street, with Mr S.S. and Mr   M.R. After the arrest the three men were taken to the building of the UBOP of Dagestan MVD. In connection with the above you are requested to confirm the above as fact.” 61.     On the same date, 31 July 2007, the Dagestan MVD requested the Sovietskiy ROVD to confirm the following: “The investigation conducted by the Makhachkala Sovietskiy district prosecutor’s office established that on 28 April 2007, following a special operation, Mr Ramazan Umarov, who was born in 1974, was arrested by representatives of law-enforcement agencies in flat 46 at 41 Salavatova Street, with Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. After the arrest the three men were taken to the Makhachkala Sovietskiy ROVD (according to the entries in the registration log for 28 April 2007). In connection with the above you are requested to confirm the arrest of Ramazan Umarov.” There was no response to this request. 62.     On 2 August 2007 the blue VAZ-2107 car belonging to Ramazan Umarov, without its registration number, was found at the local car pound. 63.     On 9 August 2007 the Dagestan MVD replied to the investigators’ request of 6 July 2007 (see paragraph 57 above) stating that on 28 April 2007 the police, working with the FSB and the Sovietskiy ROVD, had arrested Mr M.R. and Mr S.S. at 41 Salavatova Street, whereas ‘the arrest of Ramazan Umarov was not confirmed’. 64.     From the contents of the criminal case file submitted by the Government it follows that on 31 August 2007 the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigation of the abduction and ordered that a number of actions be taken (see paragraph 87 below). However, the content of this document was not disclosed by the Government. 65.     On 19 October 2007 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were not informed of this. 66.     Between the end of October and 8 November 2007 the criminal case opened against Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. was examined by the Sovietskiy District Court in Makhachkala, Dagestan (see paragraph 28 above). The Government furnished the Court with part of the transcript of the court hearing, which indicates that a number of witnesses, including Ms Z.Ga., the investigator Mr A.A., Mr R.M., officer A.Ch., Mr A.O. and district police officer N. Dzh., stated that a third person had been arrested with Mr   S.S. and Mr M.R. and taken away in a car. In addition, Mr S.S. and Mr   M.R. had themselves confirmed to the court that they had been arrested at the flat with Ramazan Umarov. 67.     On 13 November 2007 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation of the criminal case be resumed because it was necessary to take further investigative action. 68.     On 21 November 2007 the first applicant’s lawyer complained to the head of the Investigations Department at the Dagestan Prosecutor’s office that the investigation into Ramazan Umarov’s disappearance was ineffective. In particular, the investigators had not identified the police officers who had participated in the special operation on 28 April 2007; they had failed to question the officers who had been in charge of the operation, to examine the circumstances of the disappearance of Ramazan Umarov’s car from the car park, and to follow up on the information received in connection with Ramazan’s subsequent detention in Gudermes, Chechnya. 69.     On 21 November 2007 the first applicant’s lawyer complained to the Dagestan Prosecutor that Ramazan Umarov had been arrested unlawfully and had then disappeared, and pointed out that the investigators had failed to take such basic steps as to identify the policemen who had participated in the special operation on 28 April 2007. There was no response to this complaint. 70.     On 28 November 2007 the investigators again questioned the investigator in charge of the criminal case opened against Mr S.S. and Mr   M.R., Mr A.A., who stated that he had heard from someone that following the special operation conducted on 28 April 2007 in Salavatova Street three people had been detained. He did not know for sure who the third person was, but it could have been Labaz Umarov. He further explained that the head of Sovietskiy ROVD, Mr A.B., had been in charge of the special operation, along with the head of the criminal search division and other senior officers from the ROVD, and that he had no idea where this third person had been taken after the special operation. 71.     On 29 November 2007 the investigators questioned the head of the Sovietskiy ROVD, officer A.B., who stated that as a result of the special operation on 28 April 2007 only two people had been arrested; that he had already explained this to the first applicant along with the fact that his son Labaz had been legitimately detained on previous occasions, as Labaz was a member of illegal armed groups. The officer further stated that he had not been involved in the disappearance of the applicants’ relative and that in his opinion Labaz had most probably absconded from the authorities as he was suspected of participation in terrorist attacks against the police. 72.     On 30 November and 13 December 2007 the deputy head of the Makhachkala Investigation Department wrote to the Dagestan Minister of the Interior and the Head of the Dagestan FSB requesting information concerning the investigation of Ramazan Umarov’s disappearance. Both letters stated, amongst other things, the following: “... the preliminary investigation established that on 28 April 2007 Ramazan Umarov had been arrested with Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. in flat 46 at 41 Salavatova Street... ... the fact that following the special operation three people were arrested is confirmed not only by statements of Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. but also by witness statements from the policemen and neighbours in this block of flats. ... The investigation established undeniably that Labaz Umarov had been arrested on 28 April 2007 by representatives of law-enforcement agencies, who were conducting a special operation. Representatives of the Ministry of the Interior and the heads of the units provided the investigation with untruthful statements to the effect that their officers had not conducted a special operation, and that Labaz Umarov was not taken to the UBOP ... ...in connection with the above I request that you provide information about the units and about each of the policemen who participated in the special operation to arrest Labaz Umarov with Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. on 28 April [2007] ...” 73.     On 12 December 2007 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were not informed about this decision. 74.     On 25 December 2007 the investigation was resumed because it was necessary to take additional investigative actions. 75.     On 25 December 2007 the investigators questioned Mr S.S., who confirmed his previous statement, that he had been arrested with Labaz Umarov. The witness added that he had been taken to the UBOP in the same car as Mr M.R., and that Labaz had been taken separately; that in the UBOP building he had heard the policemen talking about their interrogation of Labaz and Mr M.R. From the questions he had been asked, the witness had understood that the police had been after Labaz Umarov, that the latter had been their primary interest, and that he and Mr M.R. had just happened to be arrested with him. 76.     On 26 December 2007 the investigators questioned Mr M.R., whose statement about the arrest was similar to the one given by Mr S.S. on 25   December 2007. 77.     On 9 January 2008 the investigators questioned officer A.Ch. who stated that he had not witnessed the arrest, but had heard from people whose names he was unable to remember that as a result of the special operation on 28 April 2007 three men had been arrested and that one of them had been called Labaz. 78.     On 15 January 2008 the investigators questioned Mr R.Me., who stated that he lived next to the place where the special operation was conducted on 28 April 2007 and that he had seen three men being arrested and taken away in UAZ cars. He saw two of these men, Mr S.S. and Mr   M.R., later, during their trial at the District Court, but he did not see the third one again. 79.     On 23 January 2008 the investigators questioned Ms Z.M., who stated that she lived next to the place where the special operation was conducted on 28 April 2007 and that she had seen three men being arrested and taken away in UAZ cars. She saw two of these men, Mr S.S. and Mr   R.M., later, during their trial at the District Court, but she did not see the third one, whom she had seen being beaten by the police during the arrest on 28 April 2007, again. 80.     On 24 January 2008 the Dagestan FSB replied to the investigators’ request of 13 December 2007 (see paragraph 72 above) stating that they had not been able to confirm either whether the three men arrested on 28 April 2007 had been taken to the UBOP nor to identify the officers who had participated in the special operation. 81.     On 25 January 2008 the investigation of criminal case no. 702789 was again suspended, for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were not informed about this decision. 82.     On 7 February 2008 the second applicant complained to the Head of the Investigations Department of the Dagestan Prosecutor’s office that investigation into her brother’s disappearance was ineffective. She stated that her brother had been abducted by police officers and that the investigation had failed to take adequate steps to identify the perpetrators. She pointed out that she and her father had provided the authorities with the phone numbers of the people who had contacted them in May 2007 concerning the whereabouts of Ramazan Umarov; that they had found out from Chechen police officers that prior to the abduction, the head of the UBE, Mr M. Magomedov, had pledged to kill Ramazan Umarov; that Ramazan had told her over the phone that he had been abducted by three officers from the UBE, Mr M.M., Mr A.B. and Mr N.B., and that she had submitted this information to the investigators, but they had failed to follow up on it. She further stated that the investigator in charge of the criminal case was biased against Ramazan Umarov and considered him to be a religious extremist. Finally, she stated that their complaints of 21