CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 1 août 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC0714C9E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.69pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s9696F728 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.69pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE02F58E0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s2775F78B { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:11.6pt; 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 } .s131617B8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE89AC62E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s162AB3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:11.6pt; 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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s20AFED81 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s930BE8DA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC10BA3A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .s687FC4CF { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s132D428C { width:18.68pt; display:inline-block } .s1E0D05ED { width:166.6pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s11709F00 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sFA22F38 { height:36pt } .s7011202D { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .sBF1DB780 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s48B70781 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sFC0D6575 { height:35.25pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD5D10549 { margin-left:14.17pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:21.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4FB79177 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-1.7pt; font-size:11pt } .s597F99F5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-1.7pt; font-size:11pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s98F9E78A { height:12.4pt } .s16C51393 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:11pt } .s7F95B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s780D430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s794E44BE { height:6.75pt } .sEF08530D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:1.7pt; font-size:11pt } .sA3383609 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:1.7pt; font-size:11pt } .sC70726C3 { height:9.15pt } .sF1DFF07F { height:97.25pt } .sDD8056D4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.65pt; font-size:11pt } .sD9DA4DFD { height:45pt } .s93261CD8 { border-style:dotted solid solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEBE5305F { height:68pt } .s1230263B { height:24.9pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sE188E4CB { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse; } .s57165D7A { height:28.05pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s67F5E8B1 { height:49.2pt } .s47276D70 { height:48.55pt } .s29D4AF69 { height:124.5pt } .s60AF0776 { height:54.3pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF KAYKHAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 11554/07, 7862/08, 56745/08 and 61274/09)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG     1 August 2013   FINAL   09/12/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Kaykharova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 July 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in four applications (see Annex I) 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 Russian nationals (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated in Annex I. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny, lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with the NGO Astreya). The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants alleged that their eight relatives had disappeared in Grozny or Grozny District, Chechnya, between 2000 and 2002 in four unrelated episodes and that no effective investigation had taken place. 4.     On 22 March 2011 the Court decided to communicate the applications to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time (Article 29   §   1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES 5.     Two applicants in case no. 56745/08 reside in Austria; the remaining applicants live in different districts of the Chechen Republic. 6.     The applicants are close relatives of eight individuals who disappeared in the Chechen Republic after being apprehended by groups of armed men whom the applicants believed to have belonged to the Russian military or security forces. In all cases the applicants’ relatives were abducted in Grozny or the Grozny District of the Chechen Republic between 2000 and 2002. In one case ( Gakayev and Others , no.   56745/08), two bodies of the victims have been found with signs of violent deaths. In each case a criminal investigation file was opened by the local prosecutor’s office. Afterwards, the proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions. Judging from the documents submitted by the parties, the investigations consisted mainly of collecting the applicants’ testimonies, forwarding inquiries and making formal requests to the authorities in Chechnya and the North Caucasus to carry out operative search measures. 7.     At the end of 2011 the investigation in each case remained pending without having produced any tangible results as to the whereabouts of the applicants’ missing relatives or the identity of the perpetrators of the crimes. 8.     In their observations the Government did not challenge the essential facts as presented by the applicants, but noted that as the investigations were pending, it would be premature to draw any conclusions about the exact circumstances of the cases. They argued further that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abduction and/or subsequent killing of the applicants’ relatives, or that the missing persons were dead. 9.     Summaries of the facts relevant to each complaint are set out below. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives and some other key facts are summarised in the attached table (Annex I). A.     Application no. 11554/07, Kaykharova v. Russia 1.     Abduction of Gelani Kaykharov 10.     Gelani (also referred to as “Gilani”) Kaykharov, the second applicant (his wife) and their minor daughter lived at 4 Vagonnaya Street in the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny, in a single-storey apartment block. The building was located near the Oktyabrskiy District department of the interior (“the Oktyabrskiy ROVD”), the district military commander’s office and the local administration office. In 2002 military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from Grozny. 11.     According to the two applicants of this application, on the night of 20 December 2002 the second applicant, Gelani Kaykharov and their minor daughter were at home. At about 5 a.m. approximately eight to ten men wearing camouflage uniforms, gloves, masks and black hats and armed with automatic weapons, jumped over the fence of the apartment block, broke through the doors and burst into the apartment. The men neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. They locked the second applicant in her bedroom with the child. She heard one of the men ordering her husband to put clothes on and to dress warmly. The second applicant called out from the room to ask where her husband was being taken. One of the men answered that they would run a check on his identity and would then release him by 9   a.m. 12.     As soon as the intruders left the house, the second applicant went outside the building. She saw her husband being led on foot along Dalnyaya Street (adjacent to the Oktyabrskiy ROVD building) by the same group of armed men. She later discovered that some of her family’s belongings, such as clothing, medicines and silverware, had disappeared. Various documents, including her daughter’s birth certificate, her husband’s passport and his car registration documents, were also gone. 13.     At about 4.45 a.m. on the same date the first applicant (Gelani Kaykharov’s mother) went to the ROVD in order to apply for a new passport. On her way she passed her son’s house and noticed two military vehicles – a large white armoured UAZ jeep and a smaller grey UAZ car with two blue stripes on the side and without a registration plate – parked nearby. The registration number of the white UAZ jeep was either 307 or 317 – the car was dirty so the numbers were partly obscured. On the same day the first applicant noticed the same two UAZ vehicles parked outside the ROVD building. 14.     There has been no news of Gelani Kaykharov since 20 December 2002. 15.     In support of their statements, the applicants submitted the following documents: the second applicant’s account dated 13 September 2006; a complaint by Mr A. Kh, Gelani’s father, dated 20 December 2002; the first applicant’s complaints to the authorities dated 15   January, 30 May and 17   June 2003, containing a detailed description of the events; and witness testimonies by Mr M. (dated 10 September 2006), Mr Kh. (submitted on 11   September 2006) and Mr G. (given on 12 September 2006). 2.     Official investigation 16.     The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file no.   52159 on the abduction of Gelani Kaykharov (588 pages). The relevant information may be summarised as follows. (a)     Opening of a criminal investigation 17.     On 20   December 2002 the first applicant complained about the abduction to the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in the following terms: “I ask you to search for my son, Gilani Arturovich Kaykharov, born in 1972, who on the night of 20   December 2002 was taken away by armed men in camouflage uniforms in an unknown direction...” 18.     On the same date the investigator of the ROVD examined the crime scene. No evidence such as fingerprints or tyre tracks was collected. The investigator questioned the applicants and several other witnesses and forwarded the materials to the Grozny prosecutor’s office. 19.     On 25 December 2002 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into the disappearance of Gelani Kaykharov under Article 126 §   2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned no.   52159. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigator 20.     On 20 December 2002 the investigator of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD collected statements from several persons. The first applicant stated that at 5.40 a.m. on the same date the second applicant had come to her house in tears and told her that a group of approximately eight to ten armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their home and abducted Gelani. 21.     The second applicant stated that on 20 December 2002 she had been at home with her husband and their minor daughter. At 4.20 a.m. approximately eight to ten armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had burst into their apartment. They spoke Russian without an accent. They searched the house and took Gelani’s passport, their child’s birth and medical certificates, family photos and some of their belongings. One of the abductors told her that they would carry out an identity check and release Gelani by 9   a.m. on the same day. She had not seen any cars, but had seen the abductors leading Gilani on foot down the street. 22.   Their neighbours, A.K., R.K and Sh.K., stated that they had heard nothing during the night of Gelani’s abduction. 23.     Between 10 and 13 January 2003 the investigator again questioned the applicants and several other witnesses. R.K., in addition to his initial submissions, stated that on 19   November 2002 he and Gelani had been called to the prosecutor’s office to give evidence as witnesses in the investigation of the murder of V.’s family. 24.     An officer of the ROVD, Mr M.M., stated that he did not know Gelani’s whereabouts, but had been sent by the investigator to deliver a summons to Gelani so that he could be questioned as a witness in the case of the murder of V.’s family. 25.     On 29 March 2006 the first applicant stated that during the search for her son, she had found out from N.S., the deputy head of the criminal investigation division of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, that her son had been suspected of the murder of V.’s family. N.S. also said that to his knowledge her son was being beaten in order to extract information from him but had not confessed. However, N.S. told her that he did not know where Gelani was being detained and promised to help in his search. Thereafter, N.S. had avoided meeting her. The first applicant subsequently learnt from I., the head of the criminal investigation division of the ROVD, about the involvement of N.S. in her son’s abduction. She also submitted that in July 2005 at the premises of the Grozny administration, V.M., the deputy head of the military commander’s office, had showed her a register in which her son’s name and the date of his conviction (25 June 2003) had been recorded. (c)     Main investigative steps 26.     On 10 January 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. 27.     On 15 January 2003 the investigator sent requests to the Chechen Republic department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) and the military commander’s office of the Oktyabrskiy District about Gelani Kaykharov’s arrest and detention. Both agencies replied that they had no information on the subject. The investigator also asked the ROVD to carry out operative search measures in order to establish Gelani Kaykharov’s whereabouts and to identify his abductors. The ROVD replied that it was not possible to establish Mr Kaykharov’s whereabouts. 28.   On 2 August 2003 the ROVD informed the investigator that on 29   March 2003 Gelani Kaykharov’s name had been added to the list of persons wanted on suspicion of involvement in the robbery and murder of V.’s family in September 2002. 29.     On 18 August 2003 the first applicant complained to a number of prosecutors’ offices. The relevant parts of her complaint read as follows: “Between 20 December 2002 and 17 June 2003 I have addressed law-enforcement agencies on numerous occasions asking them to search for my son, Kaykharov Gelani Arturovich, who was abducted by unidentified men in masks and camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns ... On 17 June 2003 I again addressed the issue concerning the abduction of my son to the prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy District, [R.]. After examination of the case file, the prosecutor [R.] told me that my son was alive and was detained in the SIZO of the Tsentralniy District of Grozny and that the criminal case had been assigned to [D.]...I addressed [D.] who denied the existence of such a criminal case...” 30.     In response to the first applicant’s inquiries the investigative authorities on several occasions informed her that they were taking steps to establish Gelani Kaykharov’s whereabouts. 31.     On 27 March 2004 the first applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic and other State agencies about the abduction of her son. She noted that the operation had been led by N.S. and that despite her numerous complaints to various prosecutor’s offices and other law-enforcement agencies, neither N.S. nor his colleagues had been questioned. 32.     On 10 September 2004 the Criminal Investigations Department of the Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya informed the first applicant that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of N.S. on suspicion of unspecified crimes in Chechnya, but that his whereabouts were unknown. 33.     On 21 December 2004 the investigator asked the ROVD for N.S.’s service history and residential address in order to question him. 34.     On 15 January 2005 the ROVD provided the investigator with copies of N.S.’s employment records. 35.     On 3 April 2006 the ROVD informed the investigator of the following: “... it has been established that [N.S.], the former deputy head of the criminal investigation division of the VOVD, resident of Yaroslavl, with the rank of Police Major, was involved in [Gelani]’s abduction. [N.S.] arrested [Gelani] and brought him to the [premises of the ROVD]. At present [N.S.] has been put on the federal wanted list ...” 36.     On 4 April 2006 the second applicant was granted victim status. 37.     On 28 September 2006 the investigator informed the department of the interior of the Yaroslavl Region (“the UVD”) that N.S., who had been involved in Gelani Kaykharov’s abduction, had been seconded to Chechnya by their department, and asked them to establish his whereabouts and provide his residential address. 38.     On 31 May 2007 the UVD informed the investigator that it was not possible to establish N.S.’s whereabouts. 39.     On 9 October 2008 the investigator showed the second applicant photographs from which she identified N.S. 40.     On 21 October 2008 the Oktyabrskiy ROVD informed the investigator that it was not possible to establish N.S.’s whereabouts. The relevant parts of the report read as follows: “...The prosecutor’s office of Chechnya asked the UVD to provide information concerning [N.S.] to which they replied that the Police Major [N.S.], was not listed among the officers of the UVD. Nor is [N.S.] listed in [the database of registered residents] of the Yaroslavl region. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the documents in the name of [N.S.] are false, that such a person does not exist and that this individual is an officer of the secret services ...” 41.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. B.     Application no. 7862/08, Muzayeva and Others v. Russia 1.     Abduction of Suleyman Surguyev, Adam Suleymanov and Mirza Elmurzayev 42.     In 1999 the three applicants of this application and their relatives mentioned above were living in the Stroiteley settlement in Grozny. In January 2000, when the hostilities began in Grozny, about thirty local residents, including the first applicant, Suleyman Surguyev, Adam Suleymanov and Mirza Elmurzayev, hid in the basement of school no. 50. By the end of January 2000 the Chechen fighters had left the settlement, and by the beginning of February 2000 it was under the control of the federal forces. 43.     According to the applicants, in the afternoon of 2 February 2000 three APCs arrived at the school building and several armed servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms got out. They ordered everyone to leave the basement, forced the men to stand up against a wall and searched them. Then they took Suleyman Surguyev, Adam Suleymanov, Mirza Elmurzayev and another man, S.A., to an infantry fighting vehicle (“IFV”) with the registration number 318. When the neighbours attempted to intervene, one of the servicemen, addressed by his colleagues as S., removed the safety pin from a hand grenade and threw it at the crowd; it exploded but no one was hurt. 44.     The first applicant asked where the men were being taken. A serviceman replied that the four men were being taken for “interrogation”. The vehicles then left the schoolyard, taking Suleyman Surguyev, Adam Suleymanov, Mirza Elmurzayev and S.A. with them. The settlement inhabitants ran after the vehicles, but were stopped by gunfire from two other IFVs parked near the school. One of the soldiers told the first applicant that the men were being taken to a military unit. 45.     On 3 February 2000 military servicemen under the command of Major A. went to the schoolyard. Major A. told the first applicant and her mother that the previous day the four arrested men had been taken to a military base. He suggested that the women went to the military unit and discussed the detainees’ release on their personal guarantee. On the same day the servicemen took the first applicant and four other women to a military base located within half an hour’s drive from the school. The first applicant submitted that they had passed the Karpinka settlement and a cemetery on their way to the base. 46.     Once the women arrived, the servicemen told the first applicant that the detainees were no longer there and the women should leave. On the way back one soldier told the applicant that the detainees had been transferred to “Alkhan-Kala”. The first applicant thought that he must have meant Khankala, the headquarters of the Russian military forces in Chechnya. 47.     On 7 March 2000 the Itogi magazine published an article about “filtration points” where individuals whom the federal authorities suspected of being linked to illegal armed groups were taken. It was accompanied by a picture of four men detained in a pit guarded by two armed servicemen. The applicants identified them as Suleyman Surguyev, Adam Suleymanov, Mirza Elmurzayev and S.A. 48.     The applicants furnished the following documents in support of their submissions: the first applicant’s account dated 3 August 2007; a witness testimony by R.A. dated 8   September 2007; an account by witness A.M. given on 23 September 2007; and a testimony by witness Kh.T., produced on 20   September 2007. The applicants also submitted a copy of the article published in the Itogi magazine together with the photograph. 2.     Official investigation 49.     The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file no.   10/01/0412-02 on the abduction of Suleyman Surguyev, Adam Suleymanov and Mirza Elmurzayev (221   pages). The relevant information may be summarised as follows. (a)     Opening of a criminal investigation 50.     On 10 March 2000 F.D. reported the abduction of her spouse, Adam Suleymanov, to the Zavodskoy temporary department of the interior of Grozny (“the Zavodskoy VOVD”). On 15 March 2000 the first and third applicants also reported the abduction of their sons, Suleyman Surguyev and Mirza Elmurzayev, to the Zavodskoy VOVD. 51.     On 13 and 19 March 2000 the investigator decided not to open a criminal investigation into the complaints for lack of corpus delicti . 52.     On 10 and 17 November 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office quashed the above decision and ordered a criminal investigation into the abduction of Suleyman Surguyev (case no. 12276), Adam Suleymanov (case no. 12779) and Mirza Elmurzayev (case no. 12258). (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 53.     On 15 March 2000 several witnesses were questioned by the investigator. The first applicant stated that on 2 February 2000 armed servicemen from regiment no. 245 of the Ural military circuit had arrived at the school in an IFV with registration number 318. There were twenty women and eight men in the basement, and the servicemen checked the documents of all present. Afterwards, they moved in the direction of the stadium, where a fight had taken place. Some time later the same group returned, forced the men to stand up against a wall and searched them. The group, led by Se., put Suleyman Surguyev, Adam Suleymanov, Mirza Elmurzayev and another man, S.A., in the IFV and took them to “ Solyanaya balka ” (a military unit) for questioning. The first applicant further noted that on 6 February 2000 the   same serviceman, Se., had visited them in the basement of the school. He said that he had taken the abducted men in the heat of the moment and they would be released once their identities had been checked. On 17 February 2000 A.A., the head of the administration of Zavodskoy District, told the first applicant that he had learnt from the commander of the military unit, F., that the abducted men had been detained in Naurskaya village. 54.     N.K., M.M. and M.R. stated that on 2 February 2000, armed men had arrived in an IFV with registration number 318 at the school where they had been living. They had burst into the basement and taken four men away. 55.     The third applicant stated that following her return to Grozny on 16   February 2000, she had learnt from others that her husband had been abducted by armed men from a military unit of the Ural circuit. 56.     F.D., Adam Suleymanov’s spouse, was questioned on 14 November 2000. She stated that on 2 February 2000 four servicemen had come to check their documents and had abducted her husband with three other men. The servicemen came from a military unit of the Ural circuit and the commander’s name was Se. They took the men away in the IFV with the registration number 318. (c)     Main investigative steps 57.     On 16 November 2000 the third applicant was granted victim status. 58.     On 29 November 2000 the first applicant was granted victim status. 59.     On 20 December 2000 the criminal cases on the abduction of Suleyman Surguyev and Adam Suleymanov were joined under no. 12276. 60.     On 21 December 2000 the criminal case was forwarded to the military prosecution office of Grozny. The case file was registered under no. 14/33/0023-01. 61.     On 14 February 2001 a military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 ordered an extension of the investigation in order to question the commander of regiment no. 245, to identify the vehicle with registration number 318 and to establish the whereabouts of the abducted men. 62.     The investigation was further resumed and suspended on several occasions. 63.     On 15 January 2002 the investigator decided to append a copy of the Itogi magazine to the material evidence of the criminal case. 64.     On 10 April 2001 the military prosecutor decided to suspend the investigation as being time-barred. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “On 2 February 2000 during a passport check of the local residents, unidentified servicemen found among others [Adam Suleymanov], [Suleyman Surguyev], [Mirza Elmurzayev] and [S. A.]. On the same day those men were taken away in an armoured vehicle with registration number 318 in an unknown direction... ...The most probable version [of the crime] is that Suleymanov and Surguyev were abducted by servicemen of military unit no. 69771... The military unit of the Ural military circuit that took part in the military actions in Grozny in February 2000 was unit no. 69771 [which was] withdrawn to Yekaterinburg on 2 May 2000. According to the statements of V.Ch., the deputy commander of that unit, the first battalion had an armoured vehicle with the registration number 318...” 65.     On 25 May 2001 the investigator ordered the examination of the record book of weapons and equipment of military unit no. 69771. According to the report, the military vehicle with the registration number 318 was listed among the vehicles attached to that unit. 66.     On 15 June 2001 the criminal case on the abduction of Mirza Elmurzayev was joined to case no. 14/33/0023-01. On the same date the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators, but later resumed. 67.     On 4 March 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 decided to forward the criminal case for jurisdiction to the military prosecutor’s office of the Privolzhsk-Ural military circuit. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “On 29 January 2000 during persistent military actions ... on the western outskirts of Grozny in the vicinity of school no. 50... the battalion of motorised infantry regiment no. 276 incurred the loss of four servicemen ... whose bodies were left on the battlefield ... On 2 February 2000 during military actions an assault group consisting of sixteen servicemen commanded by [Se.] found the bodies of the above servicemen ... afterwards [Se. ] ordered them to arrest [Surguyev], [Suleymanov], [S.A.] and [Elmurzayev], who were found in the basement of school no. 50, and to bring them to the command post of regiment no. 276, in order to check their possible involvement in the killing of the servicemen. The investigation has established that the above persons were forced at gunpoint from the basement of school no. 50, put in IFV number 318 and taken to the command post of the regiment. ... Upon arrival [Se.] reported to [U.] and [E]., the commander and the deputy commander of the regiment... afterwards under [E.]’s instructions the civilians were put in a pit specially dug for this purpose located at the command post. ... These circumstances were proved by the witness statements of [Se.] [and other officers] of the regiment. It was established that between 3 and 5 February 2000 the above persons were indeed held in a pit located at the command post under the guard of the servicemen ... It appears from the statements of [U.], the former commander of military unit no. 69771, that on 3 February 2000 after it had been reported that there was no information about the involvement of the detained men in the illegal armed units, [U.] ordered their release. However, he does not remember to whom he gave that order. ... It was also established that on 5 February 2000 ... military journalist [S.] had taken a photograph of the detained persons. This photograph was published in the Itogi magazine on 7 March 2000 ... and the photographed men were further identified by their relatives. ... It was established that the guard of the command post of the regiment was assigned to a separately deployed platoon of military unit no. 69771 ... commanded by [O.] who performed tasks and instructions given by [U.] ... At present [U.] is serving in military unit no. ... stationed in Chebarkul, the Chelyabinsk Region. Other servicemen of [O.]’s platoon also live mainly in the Chelyabinsk and Kurgansk Regions... Having regard to the data collected by the investigation, it is necessary to carry out investigative and operative measures in respect of [O.] and [other servicemen]...” 68.     On 9 December 2002 the criminal case with a new number, 10/01/0412 ‑ 02, was assigned to the military prosecutor’s office of the Yekaterinburg Garrison, who suspended and then, upon the applicants’ complaints, resumed the investigation. It transpires from the case file that throughout the investigation, and up until September 2008, the applicants regularly complained to various authorities about the abduction of their relatives and the procrastination in the criminal inquiry, and sought access to the investigation case file. Their complaints were routinely forwarded to the relevant investigative authorities, who informed them of the suspensions and reopening of the proceedings. The case is pending at present. C.     Application no. 56745/08, Gakayev and Others v. Russia 1.     Abduction of Markha Gakayeva, Raisa Gakayeva and Zavalu Tazurkayev 69.     The facts of this application are linked to the application Luluyev and Others v.   Russia (no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIII (extracts)) in that the three relatives of the ten applicants in the present case were abducted together with Nura Luluyeva, a relative of Turko Luluyev, on 3 June 2000 at Mozdokskaya Street in Grozny. 70.     According to the applicants, on 3 June 2000 Markha Gakayeva and Raisa Gakayeva, along with their cousin Nura Luluyeva, went to the market place at Mozdokskaya Street in the northern part of Grozny. Markha Gakayeva had 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) with her. 71.     Between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. that morning an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) with the registration number 110 appeared at the market. It was accompanied by two other vehicles: a Ural truck and a UAZ all-terrain vehicle. A group of servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns disembarked from the vehicles. The servicemen detained several persons, mostly women, put sacks over their heads and loaded them into the APC. Markha Gakayeva, Raisa Gakayeva, Nura Luluyeva and Zavalu Tazurkayev were among those detained. 72.     The eighth and the ninth applicants (the wife and daughter of Zavalu Tazurkayev), informed of the events by a neighbour, called the Leninskiy temporary district department of the interior (“the Leninskiy VOVD”), which was situated a few hundred metres from the scene. When the police appeared and tried to intervene, the soldiers started shooting in the air with a machine gun. They told the police that a special operation was being carried out at the market place. Having received this explanation the police left the site. The APC then drove away. 73.     On 24 February 2001 the blindfolded bodies of Nura Luluyeva, Markha Gakayeva and Raisa Gakayeva were found in a mass grave in Zdorovye, an abandoned holiday village on the outskirts of Grozny, less than one kilometre from the Khankala military base. 74.     The fate and whereabouts of Zavalu Tazurkayev have not been established; his relatives have had no news of him since his abduction. 75.     The applicants refer to the eighth applicant’s written testimony dated 18   March 2007, the seventh, ninth and tenth applicants’ written statements dated 26 March 2007, and the testimonies of the eighth applicant’s sisters, K.T. and L. Ya., dated 22 and 26 March 2007, in support of their account of the events. 2.     Official investigation 76.     The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal case file no.   12073 on the abduction and murder of Nura Luluyeva, Markha Gakayeva and Raisa Gakayeva and the abduction of Zavalu Tazurkayev (2,550 pages). The relevant information may be summarised as follows. (a)     Opening of a criminal investigation 77.     On 6 June 2000 the eighth applicant wrote to the prosecutor’s office with a request to investigate her husband’s disappearance. 78.     On 23 June 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into the abduction of Nura Luluyeva, Raisa Gakayeva, Markha Gakayeva, Zavalu Tazurkayev and M.S. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 79.     On 6 June 2000 T.S. stated that she had witnessed the events. At   9   a.m. on 3 June 2000 near 15 Mozdokskaya street in Grozny she saw masked servicemen arresting civilians   – three women and one man. She ran to the local department of the interior to alert the police. When the police appeared at the scene, the soldiers opened fire and the police could not stop them. Afterwards, she found out that the abducted persons had been Nura Luluyeva, Markha Gakayeva, Raisa Gakayeva and Zavalu Tazurkayev. 80.     S.L., the spouse of Nura Luluyeva, stated that he had learnt from his wife’s relative that between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. on 3 June 2000 his wife and two other women had been apprehended by masked servicemen in Mozdokskaya street in Grozny. They had been taken away in an APC. 81.     The eighth applicant stated that on 5 June 2000 she had found out that on 3 June 2000 her husband, Zavalu Tazurkayev, had been apprehended by masked servicemen. 82.     The ninth applicant stated that on 3 June 2000 while at work she had heard shouts coming from nearby and had seen an APC driving away with a large group of armed men. 83.     The tenth applicant (daughter of Zavalu Tazurkayev) stated that on 3 June 2000 she and her father had been at home when a woman had visited them searching for her husband. Zavalu Tazukayev went out to help her. Shortly afterwards, the woman returned and told her that her father had been apprehended. 84.     K.T. submitted that on 3 June 2000, after she had learnt that a military operation was being carried out near her house and that a relative of hers had been apprehended, she had arrived at the scene and seen armed men in an APC. When she, together with other local residents, attempted to approach the servicemen, they started shooting in the air. Afterwards, the APC drove away in the direction of the 9th city hospital. 85.     On 10 May 2004 S.L. was additionally questioned by the investigator. The relevant parts of his statements read as follows: “To my initial statements given at the first questioning as a victim, I can only add that as a lawyer I cannot understand the conduct of certain prosecution and interior officers whose job, according to the law, is to identify and punish those responsible. First of all, I could not seek the opening of an investigation into the abduction of my wife, Luluyeva N.S., and her sisters, Gakayevy, for a long time, even though there were many witnesses [of the abduction]. The criminal case was opened only on 23   June 2000 whereas the abduction had taken place on 3 June 2000 and I had reported it on 3 June 2000. I contacted [B.], the acting prosecutor of Grozny, several times. He was always drunk and threatened me that if I bothered him, people would search for me as well. After the criminal investigation was opened, investigators and high officials of the prosecution office told me during informal meetings that the military were preventing them from uncovering the truth and conducting the necessary operative search measures... At the Leninskiy VOVD of Grozny there were ... [officers K., M. and U.] ... who tried to help me. At the beginning they were actively involved in the search for the abducted persons. It was them who established that the abducted persons had been driven away in an APC with the registration number 110 of regiment no. 245 of the Sofrinskiy brigade and that serviceman [F.] had been driving that APC. However, after a while they told me that they sympathised with me but they valued their own lives and they were afraid to continue to handle this case ...”. (c)   &#xa0