CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 janvier 2013

.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 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s272203FB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FDF77E7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sB3E56D84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s233BA2AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s6E0F97D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCE31BAC7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAFB4985C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE2CFEA19 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:71.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE568865C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sBAC23CD7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5D969027 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s54118365 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s233A2488 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:24pt; 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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s89C0E1B4 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4A7C2BD0 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:23pt; text-align:justify } .sE5FF2FDD { margin-top:23pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s467D3C82 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s25CAFCFE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7F07EFA { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:11pt; text-indent:17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s431A873C { margin-top:11pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5141EF81 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sCDCBE903 { width:225.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FORMER FIRST SECTION           CASE OF SULEYMANOV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 32501/11)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   22 January 2013   FINAL   27/05/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Suleymanov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 32501/11) 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 a Russian national Mr Doka Suleymanov, (“the applicant”), on 25 May 2011. 2.     The applicant was represented before the Court by lawyers from EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre, an NGO with offices in Moscow and London. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     Referring to Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention the applicant alleged that his son had been ill-treated and unlawfully detained by law-enforcement officers in Grozny, Chechnya, in May 2011, and that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate the matter. 4.     On 29 July 2011 the President of the Chamber to which the case was allocated decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to make a request to the Government of Russia, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, for the provision of concrete information concerning the applicant’s allegations of his son’s unlawful detention at a specified location. 5.     On 29 July 2011 the Court decided to apply Rule   41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application. On 22 August 2011 it decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 1 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 6.     The applicant, who was born in 1940, lives in Grozny. He is the father of Mr Tamerlan (also known as Timur) Suleymanov, who was born in 1982. A.     Abduction of Tamerlan Suleymanov and subsequent events 1.     Information submitted by the applicant (a)     Events prior to the abduction 7.     According to the applicant, on at least seven occasions between 2005 and 2011 his son Tamerlan Suleymanov was unlawfully detained by State agents on suspicion of membership of illegal armed groups. 8.     On 7 May 2011 Tamerlan Suleymanov was detained for a few hours by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD”), who subjected him to ill-treatment and pressured him to confess to the preparation of a terrorist act in May 2011. Upon his release the applicant’s son neither lodged complaints about this detention nor applied for medical help. (b)     Abduction of Tamerlan Suleymanov 9.     At the material time Tamerlan Suleymanov worked as a car mechanic at the Mustang car repair garage in Kirova Street, Grozny. A police station (in the documents submitted it is also referred to as a police checkpoint) was located next to the garage. 10.     At about 11.30 a.m. on 9 May 2011 a group of eight armed men in black uniforms arrived at the garage in two civilian VAZ-217030 cars (both of them the Lada Priora model), with the registration numbers 991 AA/05 and E423EE95. The men did not identify themselves. They asked the employees who Tamerlan was. As soon as the applicant’s son identified himself, they punched him and beat him with rifle butts until he was unconscious. After that the men, who spoke Chechen, put him into one of the vehicles and drove away. 11.     The incident took place in the presence of witnesses, twenty metres from the police station. According to the applicant, police officers witnessed the incident but did not intervene. (c)     Subsequent events 12.     The applicant was immediately informed about the incident. He went straight away to the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Oktyabrskiy ROVD”) in Grozny and made a complaint about it. An officer named Anzor or Aslan spoke with him and promised to look into the matter. 13.     In the morning of 10 May 2011 the applicant went to the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and complained that his son had been taken away. The duty investigator asked him what had happened, then called the Oktyabrskiy ROVD and asked Police Officer Anzor to come over. The latter arrived soon afterwards and told the applicant that he should not have complained to the prosecutor’s office and should have known that his son was connected with members of illegal armed groups. 14.     Some time in May 2011 the applicant learnt from unspecified sources that his son Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained at the premises of the Kurchaloy District Department of the Interior (“the Kurchaloy ROVD”) in Yalkhoy-Mokhk, a village a few kilometres from Kurchaloy, Chechnya. 15.     On an unspecified date in July 2011 the applicant’s wife, Ms   L.   Dzh., and the wife of Tamerlan Suleymanov, Ms E.A., went to Yalkhoy-Mokhk and spoke with local residents. They were told that there was a building belonging to the Kurchaloy ROVD on the southern outskirts of the village. When the applicant’s relatives went there, they saw that the building did not have any signs indicating that it belonged to the ROVD; it was surrounded by a brick fence with a barrier gate. A man in police uniform came out and identified himself as the duty officer of the village police department. The women asked him about Tamerlan. The officer told them that he had no information about their relative and that they did not have detention cells on the premises. 16.     According to the applicant, in July 2011 he received confirmation from a trusted source – whose identity he could not disclose out of fear for that person’s safety – that his son had been detained in the building in Yalkhoy ‑ Mokhk, subjected to ill-treatment and pressured to confess to membership of illegal armed groups and preparation of a terrorist act. 17.     The applicant informed the investigator in charge of the investigation that Tamerlan had been detained in Yalkhoy-Mokhk. On 20   July 2011 the investigator confirmed to the applicant that he was aware of Tamerlan Suleymanov’s detention at this place, but told him that it would be impossible to release him [Tamerlan Suleymanov] through a legal process. 18.     On 20 July 2011 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 23 June 2011) the investigator provided the applicant with a police officer for personal protection. 19.     According to the applicant, one of the abductor’s vehicles with the registration number E423EE95 belonged to the Department for Presidential and Governmental Affairs of the Chechen Republic. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 20.     The Government did not dispute the matter as presented by the applicant. They submitted that the domestic authorities had obtained information concerning Tamerlan Suleymanov’s membership of an illegal armed group. They stated that there was nothing to indicate that the applicant’s son had been unlawfully detained or ill-treated by State agents and submitted that unidentified persons had been responsible for the incident of 9 May 2011. B.     The official investigation into the abduction 1.     Investigative steps taken by the authorities 21.     On 10 May 2011 the applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Investigations Department in Grozny (“the investigations department”) that his son had been unlawfully arrested and detained. The applicant stated that the men who had arrested his son had arrived in two VAZ cars, with the registration numbers 991 AA/05 (a sand-coloured vehicle) and E423EE95 (a grey or silver-coloured vehicle). 22.     On 10 May 2011 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 23.     On 10 and 11 May 2011 the investigators forwarded requests to a number of district departments of the interior and district hospitals in Chechnya for information on the whereabouts of the applicant’s son, his possible arrest and detention by law-enforcement agencies, whether his body had been found or if he had received medical treatment in their area. On the latter date they also asked the Chechnya FSB to inform them whether Tamerlan Suleymanov was suspected of membership of illegal armed groups and the State Road Traffic Police to provide information concerning the owners of the registration numbers of the cars used by the abductors. 24.     On 11 May 2011 the applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor that on 7 May 2011 his son had been detained by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, who had subjected him to ill ‑ treatment and had pressured him to confess to the preparation of a terrorist act. 25.     On 11 May 2011 the applicant complained of his son’s abduction to the Chechnya Federal Security Service (“the FSB”). 26.     On 16 May 2011 the applicant’s representatives complained to the Chechnya Prosecutor that Tamerlan Suleymanov had been unlawfully detained by law-enforcement officers. They described the circumstances of the incident, stressing that the abductors had punched Tamerlan until he was unconscious, had put him into one of their cars, and had then driven away, and asked to be informed whether the applicant’s son had been detained on suspicion of a crime. 27.     On 18 May 2011 the State Road Police informed the investigators that registration number E423EE95 was listed as a lost/invalid one and that registration number 991 AA/05 did not belong to a Lada Priora car. The agency invited the investigators to obtain further information from the law ‑ enforcement authorities in Dagestan. 28.     On 18 May 2011 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 15 May 2011) the Zavodskoy District Investigations Department in Grozny initiated a criminal investigation of the events under Article 126   §   2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping) and the case file was given the number 49012. The applicant was informed thereof. 29.     On 19 May 2011 the investigators forwarded a number of requests for assistance in the search for Tamerlan Suleymanov to a number of district departments of the interior in Chechnya. 30.     On 24 May 2011 the Chechnya FSB informed the investigators that they had no information about either Tamerlan Suleymanov’s whereabouts or any involvement on his part in the activities of illegal armed groups. 31.     On 3 June 2011 the investigators forwarded requests for information as to whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had a criminal record to various regional information centres of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation (“the MVD”). Replies were received in the negative. On the same date they asked the relevant hospitals in Chechnya to provide information as to whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had received any psychiatric or drug-addiction treatment. 32.     On 8 June 2011 the investigators informed the applicant that the investigation of his son’s abduction was in progress. 33.     On 14 June 2011 the investigation of Tamerlan Suleymanov’s abduction was transferred from the Zavodskoy District Investigations Department to the Third Serious Crime Investigation Unit of the Chechnya Investigations Committee. 34.     On 15 June 2011 the deputy head of the Chechnya Investigations Committee issued supervisory instructions to the investigators of Tamerlan Suleymanov’s abduction, stating amongst other things that the investigators were to identify the owners of the cars used by the abductors and take steps to find out whether any special operations had been conducted by law ‑ enforcement authorities targeting Tamerlan Suleymanov on 9 May 2011. On the following day he issued supervisory instructions, stating amongst other things that the investigators were to find out whether the alleged detention of the applicant’s son on 7 May 2011 had been recorded in the registration log of detainees kept by the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD in Grozny, that they were to identify and question Officer Anzor from the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Grozny, and to find out whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained by the Kurchaloy ROVD. The investigators were to report on their findings by 4 July 2011. 35.     On 20 June 2011 the investigators prepared the plan of investigative measures to be taken in criminal case no. 49012. The document stated, amongst other things, that the investigation was to establish whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had been abducted by law-enforcement agents from Chechnya or the neighbouring regions; whether he had been abducted by members of illegal armed groups; or whether the abduction had been staged by relatives of Tamerlan Suleymanov to cover up his criminal activities or hide him from other persons. 36.     On 21 June 2011 the investigators requested that their colleagues from the Public Relations Office of the Chechnya Investigations Committee publish an announcement of the search for Tamerlan Suleymanov in the local media. 37.     On that date the investigators also conducted a reconstruction of the crime scene (the Mustang car repair garage) and made follow-up phone calls. Furthermore, as a result of the reconstruction, the investigators sought permission from the Staropromyslovskiy District Court to identify the owners of the mobile telephone numbers used between 11 a.m. and noon on 9 May 2011 at the Mustang car repair garage. The investigators stated that this information would assist in establishing who the perpetrators had called during the abduction. 38.     Again on 21 June 2011 the investigators requested that the temporary detention centre (“IVS”) located on the premises of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD provide them with certified copies of their registration logs reflecting the custodial records for all those detained on their premises between 7 and 11 May 2011. According to the copies of the contents of the investigation file furnished to the Court, on an unspecified date the investigators obtained a copy of the registration log reflecting the records made between 2 and 15 May 2011, in which Tamerlan Suleymanov was not listed as a detainee in the IVS. 39.     On 22 June 2011 the investigators asked the head of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD to identify Officer Anzor, who had spoken with the applicant on 9   May 2011 when the latter had arrived at the police station. On 30 June 2011 the steps requested were taken and Officer Anzor was identified and questioned (see below). 40.     On 23 June 2011 the applicant requested that the investigators put security measures in place for him, stating that he was concerned for his personal safety. On the same date his request was granted and the applicant was provided with personal protection until the end of the investigation of the criminal case. 41.     On various dates in June 2011 the investigators forwarded requests to a number of detention centres in Chechnya and other regions of the Russian Federation, asking whether the applicant’s son had been detained on their premises. Replies were received in the negative. 42.     On various dates in June and July 2011 the investigators forwarded requests to various transportation authorities for information on the identity of the current owners of the vehicle registration numbers used by the abductors. As a result of the information received, it was established that the owners of the registration numbers were not implicated in the abduction of the applicant’s son. 43.     On 13 July 2011 the applicant complained to the Chechnya Prosecutor about the events of 9 May 2011 and claimed that his son had been detained by the abductors on the premises of the Kurchaloy ROVD in the settlement of Yalkhoy-Mokhk, and that prior to his abduction, on 7 May 2011, his son had been detained by Officer Magomed M., who the applicant maintained had been responsible for the abduction on 9 May 2011. 44.     On 22 July 2011 the Investigations Department of the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s complaint of 13 July 2011, stating that the investigation of his son’s abduction was under way and that a number of steps had been taken to have the matter resolved. 45.     On 22 July 2011 the investigators requested that the Kurchaloy ROVD inform them whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained there and provide them with a list of the officers serving in their branch in Yalkhoy ‑ Mokhk. 46.     On 27 July 2011 the investigators asked the Kurchaloy ROVD to provide them with certified copies of the registration logs and custody records of persons detained in their IVS between 9 May and 27 July 2011. 47.     On 28 July 2011 the Oktyabrskiy ROVD replied to the investigators that they were taking operational-search measures to establish whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained in Yalkhoy ‑ Mokhk, and that the investigators would be kept abreast of the developments. 48.     On 30 July 2011 the Kurchaloy ROVD informed the investigators that they could not state whether Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained on their premises between 9 May and 30 July 2011, as owing to renovation work at the IVS all detainees were being held in the IVS of the Shali ROVD at the time. 49.     On 1 August 2011 the investigators again examined the crime scene at the Mustang car repair garage. No evidence was collected. 50.     On 2 August 2011 the investigators asked the Oktyabrskiy ROVD to establish whether the CCTV cameras at the Mustang car repair garage and the shops across the road had recorded the events of the day of the abduction. They also asked the head of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD to assist them in finding the police officers who had been in the security cordon on 9   May 2011 in the area where the abduction had taken place. In their request they submitted, inter alia , as follows: “...from the contents of the investigation file it is evident that on 9 May 2011, in connection with the public Victory Day celebration, the entire perimeter of Kirova Street in Grozny was secured by servicemen of law-enforcement agencies, who could have witnessed the abduction. It is necessary to identify and question the servicemen who were on duty in Kirova Street, taking information from the order [establishing the security cordon] and the internal duty roster ...” 51.     On 3 August 2011 the investigators asked the head of the Kurchaloy ROVD to oblige two officers of the Yalkhoy-Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD, Officers As. Do. and Sha. El., to make statements to the investigation. They also asked the Chechnya MVD to conduct an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations that on 7 May 2011 his son had been subjected to ill-treatment during his detention for some hours at the premises of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD. 52.     On 6 August 2011 the investigators examined the premises of the Yalkhoy-Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD. No evidence was collected. 53.     On 12 September 2011 the Chechnya Minister of the Interior replied to the investigators, stating that the inquiry had established that on 7 May 2011 three police officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, Mr   Magomed M., Mr Mu. As., and Mr Is. Ga., had gone to the Mustang car repair garage, as they had been informed earlier that day that Tamerlan Suleymanov was assisting members of illegal armed groups. The officers had taken Tamerlan Suleymanov into their car, spoken with him and had then released him without subjecting him to physical or psychological ill ‑ treatment. Therefore, the applicant’s allegations that his son had been beaten by police on 7 May 2011 were not confirmed. 54.     On 12 October 2011 the investigators asked the mobile telephone company MegaPhone to provide them with a list of the owners of seven numbers from which Tamerlan Suleymanov had received phone calls. According to the company’s reply, six of the seven numbers were registered as belonging to district departments of the interior located in the Otradniy district of the Krasnodar Region and in the Grozny, Naurskiy, Achkhoy ‑ Martan and Shali districts of Chechnya. On the same date the investigators asked the Vimpelcom mobile telephone company to provide them with a list of the owners of four numbers from which Tamerlan Suleymanov had received phone calls. 55.     On 13 October 2011 the investigators again asked their colleagues from the Kizlyar Investigations Department in Dagestan to question Mr   R.   Yus., the owner of car registration number AA 991 H 05 RUS, as this registration number had been used by the abductors. As a result of the ensuing questioning, no pertinent information was given by the witness. 2.     Witnesses questioned by the investigation 56.     On 12 May 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant, who stated, amongst other things, that on 9 May 2011 his son Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained at work by law-enforcement officers, who had arrived there in VAZ-217030 cars with the registration numbers   991   AA/05 and E423EE95. He further stated that prior to those events, on 7   May 2011 Tamerlan had been detained for several hours by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, who had questioned him about a terrorist act. The applicant also informed the investigators that his son did not have financial problems, was not a member of any illegal armed groups, and was not involved in a blood feud. 57.     On 14 and 15 May 2011 the investigators questioned colleagues of Tamerlan Suleymanov, Mr M.Kh. and Mr Kh.Ya., both of whom stated that late in the morning of 9 May 2011 they and several other colleagues had been working at the car repair garage when a group of about ten armed men in black military uniforms had arrived there in two Lada Priora cars. Three of the men had spoken with Tamerlan in Chechen, and had then shoved him into one of their vehicles and driven away. 58.     On 20 May 2011 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. According to the applicant, he had learnt from his friend Magomed that on 9 May 2011 his son Tamerlan Suleymanov had been taken away from work by law-enforcement officers in VAZ ‑ 217030 cars with the registration numbers 991 AA/05 and E423EE95. He further stated that he had complained about the abduction to a number of law ‑ enforcement agencies, but to no avail. The applicant also informed the investigators that prior to the abduction on 9 May 2011 his son had been unlawfully detained on 7 May 2011 by police officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD on suspicion of participation in terrorist activities. 59.     On 20 and 23 May 2011 the investigators again questioned Mr   M.   Kh. and Mr Kh. Ya., whose statements about the circumstances of the abduction were similar to those given previously. 60.     On 1 June 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant’s other son, Mr Ya. S., who stated, amongst other things, that his brother Tamerlan had been taken away from work on 9 May 2011 by law-enforcement officers in two Lada Priora cars. The witness also stated that his brother Tamerlan had been detained on 7 May 2011 by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD on suspicion of participation in terrorist activities. 61.     On 4 June 2011 the investigators questioned Tamerlan Suleymanov’s wife, Ms E. A., who stated that her husband had been abducted by law-enforcement agents and whose statement was similar to the one given by Mr Ya. S. on 1   June 2011. 62.     On 18 June 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant’s other son, Mr A. S., who stated, amongst other things, that the applicant had told him that Tamerlan had been abducted from work on 9 May 2011. He further stated that at about 11 a.m. on 7 May 2011 he had been in the café at the Mustang car repair garage with his brother Tamerlan when Officer Magomed M. had arrived there and had asked Tamerlan to leave with him. Tamerlan had been put into a silver-coloured Lada Priora car and the car had driven away. The witness had immediately informed their brother, Ya.   S., about what had happened and the latter had contacted a Mr Akhyad, who had apparently assisted in getting Tamerlan released at about 4 p.m. on the same day. According to the witness, Tamerlan had told him that he had been detained at an unidentified place and that slight physical force had been used against him by the men who had taken him away. After his detention on 7 May 2011 Tamerlan had not sought medical assistance. 63.     On 18 June 2011 the investigators again questioned Mr M. Kh. and Mr Kh. Ya. from the Mustang garage, both of whom again described the circumstances of the abduction and stated that some of the abductors had been armed with Stechkin pistols, that they had been masked and of different heights, and that they would not be able to identify them. According to Mr Kh. Ya., after his detention on 7 May 2011 Tamerlan had told him that no physical force had been used against him during detention. According Mr Kh. Ya., on 9 May 2011 the abductors had beaten Tamerlan Suleymanov with rifle butts and had punched and kicked him. He also stated that the repair garage had been equipped with video surveillance cameras but he did not know whether these cameras had been working on 9   May 2011. 64.     On 18 June 2011 the investigators also questioned Mr M. L., another employee of the Mustang car repair garage, whose statement was similar to those given by Mr M. Kh. and Mr Kh. Ya. He also stated that on 9 May 2011 the abductors had knocked Tamerlan unconscious with rifle butts, had put him into one of their cars and had then taken him away. The witness did not know whether Tamerlan had previously been subjected to ill-treatment on 7 May 2011. 65.     On 20 June 2011 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who confirmed the statements he had made previously and stated that he had learnt from the eyewitnesses to the abduction that the abductors had knocked his son Tamerlan unconscious and had taken him away: they had travelled in two cars, with the registration numbers 991 AA 05 and E423EE95. On 9 May 2011, shortly after the abduction, he had gone to the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, where an officer who had identified himself as Aslan (also referred to as Anzor) had written down the information about the abduction but had refused to accept an official complaint, saying that he would look into the matter and would call the applicant. On the following day, 10 May 2011, the applicant had gone to the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and had complained about the abduction. The duty prosecutor, Mr A., had called police officer Aslan; the latter had arrived and had spoken with the prosecutor. The applicant further stated that on 7 May 2011 his son Tamerlan had been detained and subjected to ill-treatment by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD on the orders of Officer Magomed M., and that after his release Tamerlan had not sought medical help. 66.     On 23 June 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Ma. Ma., the head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD’s operational-search unit, who stated that on 7 May 2011 officers of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD had conducted a special operation, as a result of which they had been informed that Tamerlan Suleymanov had been aiding an illegal armed group. On the same date, 7 May 2011, Officer Magomed M., the deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, had spoken with Tamerlan in a car not far from the latter’s place of work. As a result of this conversation Tamerlan Suleymanov had been taken back to work; he had not been subjected to ill ‑ treatment. The witness further stated that he had learnt about Tamerlan’s abduction on 9 May 2011 from his colleague, Officer Su. Du., the head of the criminal search division of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, who had informed him about the incident and had asked whether their ROVD had any information about it. 67.     On 23 June 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Se. M., a lawyer from the Chechnya Public Chamber, who stated that on 30 May 2011 the applicant had complained that his son had been abducted and that in his complaint the applicant had referred to Officer Magomed M., the deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD. On the same date the witness had called the officer, who had explained that he had indeed detained Tamerlan Suleymanov on 7 May 2011 for a few hours, but that he had released him on the orders of a supervisor and that he had already tried to explain to the applicant the reasons for his son’s detention on 7 May 2011. 68.     On 24 June 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Magomed M., the deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, who stated that on 7   May 2011 he had participated in a special operation, as a result of which information had been obtained to the effect that Tamerlan Suleymanov had been aiding an illegal armed group. He and his colleagues, Officers Mu. As. and Is. Ga., had gone to see Tamerlan in the afternoon of 7 May 2011 at the car repair garage; they had asked him to follow them and had spoken with him in their car. After the conversation Tamerlan had gone back to work; he had neither been taken to the police station nor subjected to ill-treatment. As regards the events of 9 May 2011, the officer stated that he did not have any detailed information about the incident, and submitted that he had not threatened the applicant in connection with his application to the European Court of Human Rights and that the applicant had indeed told him that he suspected him of abducting his son. The witness also stated that he had no idea from what source the applicant could have learnt about his son’s alleged detention in the police station (the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD’s premises) and explained that he personally owned a silver-coloured Lada Priora car with the registration number A971 MK 95 RUS but that he did not own any other registration numbers which could have been used for an operational cover-up. 69.     On 27 June 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Mu. As. from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, whose statement about the events of 7 May 2011 was similar to the one given by Officer Magomed M. on 24 June 2011. 70.     On 29 June 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Sh. A., who stated that in May 2011 he had been deputy district prosecutor at the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and that at the beginning of May 2011 the applicant had complained to the prosecutor’s office that his son had been abducted. The witness could not remember his conversation with the applicant, owing to the significant number of complaints he had had to deal with at the relevant time. 71.     On 30 June 2011 the investigators questioned police officer A. D., also known as Anzor and Aslan, who stated that on 9 May 2011 he had been on duty at the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, but that he could not remember either the applicant’s complaint about the abduction on 9 May 2011 or the purpose of his own visit to the district prosecutor’s office on 10 May 2011. The witness stated that on 10 May 2011 he had not seen the applicant at the prosecutor’s office, that he had no information about any abduction, and that the applicant must have obtained his personal mobile phone number from one of his colleagues. 72.     On 1 and 4 July 2011 the investigators questioned three of the applicant’s neighbours, including Mr A. O., Mr I. M. and Mr A. Kh., all of whom stated that they did not know anything about any abduction. 73.     On 5 July 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Is. Ga. from the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, whose statement about the events of 7 May 2011 was similar to the one given by Officer Magomed M. on 24 June 2011. 74.     On 6 July 2011 the investigators questioned Ms T. Us., who stated that she worked in the café across the road from the Mustang car repair garage, but that she had not witnessed Tamerlan Suleymanov’s abduction and did not know anything about it. 75.     On 11 July 2011 the investigators again questioned Ms E. A., the wife of Tamerlan Suleymanov, who reiterated her previous statement and added that on 7 May 2011 her husband had been detained at the premises of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, where he had been subjected to ill ‑ treatment and questioned about his alleged involvement in the preparation of a terrorist act planned for 9 May 2011. As a result, Tamerlan had acquired bruises and haematomas, but had not sought medical assistance. 76.     On 14 July 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Is. Is., who stated that on 6 May 2011 he had been arrested by the police on suspicion of membership of illegal armed groups and taken to the premises of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD, where he had been detained for ten days. The witness stated that he neither had information about Tamerlan Suleymanov’s detention or abduction by the police, nor about the latter’s involvement in illegal armed groups. 77.     On 17 July 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Ar. A., the owner of a shop located near the place of the abduction, who stated that his shop’s CCTV camera did not have a recording function and therefore no video footage of the abduction was available. 78.     On 18 July 2011 the investigators again questioned Tamerlan Suleymanov’s colleague Mr M. Kh., who reiterated his previously given statements and added that on 9 May 2011 the abductors had used physical force against Tamerlan and that, according to his colleagues, on 7 May 2011 Tamerlan had been taken away by someone from the police station for about three hours and released. The witness did not know whether Tamerlan had been subjected to ill-treatment on 7 May 2011. 79.     On 29 July 2011 the investigators questioned the head of the Kurchaloy ROVD’s IVS, Officer Ab. Um., who stated that he was not aware of Tamerlan Suleymanov’s abduction and that the latter had not been detained in the Kurchaloy ROVD’s IVS. The witness further stated that in February 2011 the temporary detention centre had not been operational owing to repair works, and that all detainees had been held in the IVS of the Shatoy ROVD at the time. Only one cell in the Kurchaloy ROVD’s IVS had been operational: it had been checked by a supervisory prosecutor on a daily basis. The officer also stated that there were no detention facilities at the Yalkhoy ‑ Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD, and that he did not know the police officers who served in that branch as he rarely visited their premises. He also stated that his staff did not use cars similar to those described as having been used by the abductors. 80.     On the same date, 29 July 2011, the investigators questioned the head of the public safety department of the Kurchaloy ROVD, Officer   S.   Bi., who stated that he had never been to the Yalkhoy ‑ Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD and therefore did not know whether it had detention facilities on its premises, and that he did not know the whereabouts of the applicant’s son. He also stated that his staff did not use cars similar to those described as having been used by the abductors. 81.     Again on 29 July 2011 the investigators questioned the head of the Kurchaloy ROVD, Officer A. Be., who stated that Tamerlan Suleymanov had neither been brought to nor detained at their ROVD premises and that he had no information about any abduction. 82.     On 1 August 2011 the investigators questioned the manager of the Mustang car repair garage, Mr L.-A. Yu., who stated that he had been told by his colleagues that Tamerlan Suleymanov had been taken away. 83.     On 6 August 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Sha. El., an officer from the Yalkhoy-Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD, who stated that Tamerlan Suleymanov had not been brought to or detained in their police station in Yalkhoy-Mokhk; that there was no registration log of detainees in their station; and that their station did not have cars similar to the ones described as having been used by the abductors. The officer could not identify the applicant’s son from three pictures of young men shown to him. 84.     On the same date the investigators questioned Mr As. Do., another officer from the Yalkhoy-Mokhk branch of the Kurchaloy ROVD, who stated that: there was an administrative detention cell for short-term detention on the premises of the police station in Yalkhoy-Mokhk, but that this cell was not operational; he had not been aware of the applicant’s son’s abduction; and he had no information concerning the latter’s whereabouts. 85.     Again on 6 August 2011 the investigators questioned Mr T. Kh., an officer of the Kurchaloy ROVD, who stated that he had not participated in any special operations against the applicant’s son and that to his knowledge the administrative detention cell in the Yalkhoy-Mokhk police station was not operational. The officer could not identify the applicant’s son from three pictures of young men shown to him. 86.     On 17 August 2011 the investigators questioned Mr T. P., the owner of a shop located next to the Mustang car repair garage, who stated that his shop’s CCTV system would keep recordings for one month and that after that they were erased; therefore no video footage of the abduction was available. 87.     On 18 August 2011 the investigators questioned Officer Ar. S., the head of the operational-search department of the Chechnya MVD, who stated that he had been acquainted with Tamerlan Suleymanov but was unaware of the circumstances of his abduction. They also questioned Officer Akh. Kh. from the operational-search department of the Chechnya MVD, who stated that on 7 May 2011 Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained for a few hours but then released, and that he had no idea who could have abducted the applicant’s son on 9 May 2011. 88.     On 29 August 2011 the investigators questioned Mr R. Kh., who stated that he had called Tamerlan Suleymanov at the beginning of May   2011 to discuss a car service matter and that he did not know anything about his abduction. 89.     In August and September 2011 the investigators questioned eleven police officers, including R. D., M. Ba., Akh. E., T. Sh., A. I., M. I., Ad. Iz., D. M., M. Ya., A. K. and I. Ma., all of whom stated that they had been part of the enhanced security measures for the Victory Day celebration in Grozny on 9 May 2011, but had not been on duty in Kirova Street as indicated on the duty roster, but rather had been in another area, and that they had not witnessed any abduction. 90.   &