CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 octobre 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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC422C878 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17.85pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s13654E54 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6DCE261A { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sF4F12EF6 { width:180.75pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sA5914500 { height:35.8pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s999756B { height:53.45pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8EB33583 { margin-left:13.34pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:22.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4FB79178 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-1.7pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7FB6B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s19770776 { height:59.8pt } .s37DB63F1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s739EC008 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-1.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC1AA89D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA4472762 { height:91.8pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s11416D70 { height:43.25pt } .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 } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sFA22F38 { height:36pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s35F1B0A7 { height:17.45pt } .s4A294500 { height:30.3pt } .sEC838919 { height:3.5pt } .s1230263B { height:24.9pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left }       FIRST SECTION               CASE OF DOVLETUKAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 7821/07, 10937/10, 14046/10 and 32782/10)     This version was rectified on 7 April and 4 July 2014 under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court.           JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   24 October 2013     FINAL   17/02/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Dovletukayev 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,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in four applications 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 below. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr A. Ryzhov and Ms O. Sadovskaya, lawyers practising in Nizhniy Novgorod, Mr   D.   Itslayev and Ms M. Irizbayeva, lawyers practising in Grozny, and lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants alleged that their relatives had been abducted and killed by State servicemen in Chechnya between 2001 and 2004 and that no effective investigations had taken place. 4.     On 4 July 2011 the Court decided to communicate the applications to the Government raising specific additional questions about the structural nature of the failure to investigate the disappearances. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants live in various districts of Chechnya. They are close relatives of five men who were allegedly abducted by State agents and whose bodies were subsequently discovered under various circumstances. In one of the applications, Tazurkayeva and Others (application no. 14046/10), the body of one of the two men abducted was never found. Below are the summaries of the facts relevant to each individual application. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I). The events complained of took place between 2001 and 2004. A.     Application no. 7821/07, Dovletukayev v. Russia 6.     The applicant, Mr Sharip [1] Dovletukayev, was born in 1949 and lives in Avtury, Chechnya. He is the father of Aslan Dovletukayev, born in 1973. The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr A. Ryzhov and Ms   O.   Sadovskaya. 1.     Abduction of the applicant’s son and subsequent events 7.     At the material time the applicant and his family, including his son Aslan Dovletukayev, were living at 41 Ordzhonikidze Street, Avtury. The area was under the full control of the Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the village. 8.   According to the applicant,   at about 11 p.m. on 9 January 2004 a group of about eighteen masked armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at his house in three APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and two grey UAZ minivans. The vehicles did not have registration numbers. The men were equipped with portable military radios. 9.     Without showing any documents three of the men searched the house of the applicant’s neighbours at 21 Ordzhonikidze Street. Afterwards one of them told the residents that it was a routine identity check and ordered them to stay inside. The group checked the identity documents of residents in three other houses in the street. 10.     The group then went to the applicant’s house and checked the passports of all the males present. The men did not return Aslan Dovletukayev’s passport; they instead led him from his yard into the street and forced him into one of their vehicles. The applicant’s relatives tried to stop the men, but were threatened at gunpoint. The abductors then drove away in the direction of Shali, passing through a military checkpoint on the way. 11.     At about 10.20 a.m. on 17 January 2004 Aslan Dovletukayev’s body was found by two servicemen of the 34th squadron stationed in Argun, by the village of Dzhalka in the Gudermes district, Chechnya. 12.     The Government furnished part of criminal case no. 35002 opened in connection with the abduction and murder of Aslan Dovletukayev, without specifying the number of pages. The materials comprised two volumes. 2.     Main steps of the official investigation into the abduction 13.     On 12 January 2004 the applicant reported his son’s abduction to the Shali District Department of the Interior (ROVD), stating that his son had been taken away by “unknown armed persons in three APCs and two UAZ vehicles.” 14. The Shali district prosecutor’s office examined the crime scene that day. No evidence was collected. 15.   On the same date the investigators sent requests to the Shali District Department of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the military commander’s office and the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116, seeking information about whether special operations had been carried out in Ordzhonikidze Street in Avtury, whether Aslan Dovletukayev (in a number of documents also spelt Davletukayev or Dovletmurzayev) had a criminal record, and whether he was involved in illegal armed groups. No replies were given to these requests. 16.     On 14 January 2004 the search for Aslan Dovletukayev was officially ordered. 17.     On 17 January 2004, the day his body was recovered, an examination was carried out by the investigators with the participation of an expert. Numerous bruises to his chest, left leg and both wrists were established and recorded. 18.     On the same day the investigators ordered a forensic expert examination of the body. It established the cause of death as blunt complex blows to the head, chest, and upper and lower extremities, combined with severe brain damage. The body had borne signs of torture such as haematomas, fractures and wounds. Only part of the forensic report was furnished to the Court. 19.     On 18 January 2004 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into Aslan Dovletukayev’s abduction under Article 126   §   2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping).   From 20 January 2004, following the discovery of his body, the case was treated as a murder investigation, and was subsequently reclassified as aggravated murder under Article 105   of the Criminal Code. The case file was given the number   35002. 20.     On 27 January 2004 the deceased’s wife, Ms S.I., was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned about the circumstances of the abduction (see paragraph 39 below). 21.     On 27 February 2004 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned (see paragraph 40 below). 22.     On 20 March 2004 the investigators suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators. 23.     On 22 May 2004 the Gudermes district prosecutor overruled the investigators’ decision as premature and ordered them to take a number of investigative steps, including questioning the servicemen who had found Aslan Dovletukayev’s body. From the documents submitted it appears that this order was not complied with, as the investigators had failed to establish the servicemen’s whereabouts. 24.     On 27 July 2004 one of the investigators sent a request to the Gudermes ROVD seeking information about the owner of a VAZ-21099 vehicle with the registration number 814-95 RUS. A negative reply was given. The same request was later repeatedly sent to various departments of the interior, but to no avail. 25.     On 12 August 2004 one of the investigators ordered the questioning of a villager, Ms Sh.Y., stating as follows: “...The investigation established that on 9 January 2004 at about 11 p.m. Aslan Dovletukayev, who was subsequently found dead, had been abducted and put into a vehicle belonging to a convoy of APCs. The convoy had stopped at the edge of the village of Avtury at the premises of the military unit stationed in the area, known by the name of “Don”... The events were witnessed by Ms Sh.Y., a resident of the village, who had also heard gunshots coming from the convoy.” 26.     On 13 August 2004 the investigation was suspended again for failure to identify the perpetrators. 27.     On 15 February 2006 following a request by the investigator, the Lipetsk OVD questioned S.M, one of the servicemen who had found Aslan Dovletukayev’s body. 28.     On an unspecified date between 2004 and 2007 the investigation was resumed, but on 25 May 2007 was suspended yet again for failure to identify the perpetrators. 29.     On 12 May 2008 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and premature and ordered that a number of steps be taken. In particular, it was pointed out that the investigators had failed to question both of the servicemen who had found Aslan Dovletukayev’s body, establish the owners of the VAZ-21099 vehicle or identify the military unit stationed at the edge of Avtury, identify and question the servicemen who had manned the checkpoints at the material time, and to question a number of witnesses, including Mr E.I. 30.     On 9 August 2009 the investigation was suspended yet again for failure to identify the perpetrators. 31.     On 10 August 2009 the investigators asked the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior to inform them of the outcome of a criminal case against a relative of the deceased, Mr D. Abdurzakarov (also spelt Abdurzakov), in connection with the murder of FSB servicemen and police officers in 2000. The relevant parts of the request stated as follows: “... The criminal case ... contains information about the involvement of officers of the Chechnya FSB stationed in the Shali district in Dovletukayev’s abduction and murder as revenge for the killing and wounding of FSB officers during the armed conflict of 16 April 2000 in which [Dovletukayev’s] relative [Abdurzakarov] had also taken part ...” 32.     The criminal investigation was subsequently suspended and resumed on at least fourteen occasions and is still pending. 3.     Witness statements taken by the investigators 33.     On 12 January 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant. The Government only furnished the first page of his statement. According to the information available, he stated that at about 11 p.m. on 9 January 2004 a group of about fifty armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in three ACPs and two UAZ vehicles at his house and broken in. The intruders, some of whom had been masked, had gathered all the men in the courtyard, searched the house, and checked their identity documents. They had then taken his son away. 34.     On the same date Mr S.Kh., a relative of the applicant who was staying at their house during the abduction, gave a similar statement. 35.     The applicant’s neighbour, Mr I.L., was also questioned that day. Again only the first page of his statement was furnished to the Court. According to the information available, he stated that on the night of Aslan Dovletukayev’s abduction three men with machine guns in green camouflage uniforms had searched his house. 36.     On 17 January 2004 Mr S.M. and Mr V.I., the servicemen of the 34th squadron stationed in Argun who had discovered the body, were questioned by the Gudermes ROVD. Mr S.M. stated that at around 10 a.m. on 17   January 2004 he had found a body next to the Gudermes-Argun road, which had borne signs of violence, such as blood stains and a fracture of the leg. As for Mr V.I.’s statement, the Government only furnished the first page, from which it appears that Aslan Dovletukayev had sustained such injuries as a fracture of the right leg and bruises to the forehead. No objects had been found next to the body. 37.     On 20 January 2004 the applicant and his relative Mr S.Kh. were questioned again. In addition to their initial statements, they informed the investigators that Aslan Dovletukayev had never been involved in illegal armed groups. The applicant stated that the abductors had spoken unaccented Russian and that according to the forensic experts, his son’s body had displayed fractures and a bullet wound to the back of the head. As for Mr S.Kh.’s statement, only the first page was furnished to the Court. 38.     On the same date the applicant’s neighbour Mr Z.Sh. was also questioned. Only the first page of his statement was furnished to the Court. According to the information available, at around 1.30 p.m. on 9 January 2004 he had seen a blue VAZ-21099 vehicle with the registration number 814-95 RUS driving around the neighbourhood. 39.     On 27 January 2004 Aslan Dovletukayev’s wife Ms S.I. stated that at about 11 p.m. on 9 January 2004 seven or eight armed men had broken into their house. All the men had been masked, except for two who had “looked Asian”. The men had searched the house, checked identity documents, put her husband into a UAZ vehicle and had taken him away. 40.     On 27 February 2004 the applicant was questioned again. In addition to his previous statements, he stated that his son had been providing assistance to human rights organisations. 41.     On 2 March 2004 the applicant and his relative, Ms D.M., who lived in the same house, were questioned and gave statements similar to those they had given previously. 42.     On the same date the investigators questioned the neighbour, Mr I.L. Only the first page of his statement was furnished to the Court. From the information available it appears that Aslan Dovletukayev’s abductors had also searched his house, that they had used military radios, and that one of them had used a special call name which the witness could not remember. Once the perpetrators had left, he had found out from the other neighbours that the men had taken away Aslan Dovletukayev. The witness also told the investigators that he had a son, Mr Dzhabrail Abdurzakov, who had gone into hiding from the authorities. 43.     On 21 July 2004 the applicant was questioned again and stated that his son had been providing assistance to a human rights organisation where he had been working with Mr E.I. He had also been providing welding services to servicemen stationed in Grozny. The applicant also submitted that Dzhabrail Abdurzakov had been living in the same street, and on account of his being a member of illegal armed groups had gone into hiding. There had been rumours that Dzhabrail Abdurzakov had been in the village on the date of his son’s abduction and that the abductors must have mistaken his son for him. He stated that according to Ms Sh.Y., who also lived in his village, following his son’s abduction the APCs had stopped at the military unit stationed at the edge of the village and fired several gunshots. 44.     On 20 July 2006 the investigators questioned Mr I.S., an officer of the Gudermes ROVD. Only the last page of his statement was furnished to the Court. According to the information available, the reason for Aslan Dovletukayev’s abduction was that he must have been mistaken for a relative of his nicknamed “Shram” ( Scar ), who was wanted for the murder of police and FSB officers. 45.     On 29 March 2007 Ms Sh.Y., who had witnessed the convoy of APCs on the night of the abduction, was questioned by the investigators. Her statement was not furnished to the Court. 46.     On 7 August 2009 Mr E.I., a colleague of Aslan Dovletukayev, was questioned. The relevant part of his statement reads as follows: “... In 2002 Aslan Dovletukayev ... was researching human rights violations in Chechnya ... some information was then published on our internet site and in official reports. The information supplied by Aslan concerned war crimes in Chechnya, the bombardment of villages, and the unlawful detention and abduction of Shali district civilians by law-enforcement officers and servicemen stationed in the Chechen Republic ... It was established that servicemen of the military and law-enforcement agencies, namely the GRU (the military intelligence units), had been involved in Aslan’s abduction and murder ... our colleague, Mr K.Kh., was collecting information concerning the involvement of the above-mentioned units and the military officer in charge of Avtury at the material time, ‘Turpal-Ali’ or ‘Turko’, in Aslan’s abduction and murder ... Mr K.Kh. also found out information about the VAZ-21099 vehicle which ‘Turpal-Ali’ aka ‘Turko’ had been in during the abduction ... I think that the reason for Aslan’s abduction and murder was his human rights activities ... I heard that one of Aslan’s relatives was a member of illegal armed groups who was eliminated by the secret services.” 47.     On various dates between 2004 and 2007 the investigators questioned the applicant’s relatives, neighbours and Aslan Dovletukayev’s colleagues. Only parts of their statements were furnished to the Court, which did not contain any pertinent information about the abduction or its perpetrators. 4     Proceedings against the investigators 48.     On 23 November 2005, 5 March 2008 and 27 January 2010 the Gudermes District Court rejected complaints by the applicant that the criminal investigation was ineffective and suspended unlawfully as the supervising prosecutors had already ordered that it be resumed. 49.     On 19 April 2010 it allowed the applicant’s complaint that the criminal proceedings were ineffective, holding that that the investigation was not comprehensive, thorough and effective and had not been concluded within a reasonable time. B.     Application no. 10937/10, Magamadova [2] v. Russia 50.     The applicant, Ms Tamara Magamadova [3] , was born in 1949. She is the mother of Khizir Gulmutov, born in 1982. She lives in Kurchaloy, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev and Ms   M.   Irizbayeva. 1.     Abduction of the applicant’s son and subsequent events 51.     At the material time the applicant and her family, including her son Khizir Gulmutov, were living at 20 Ordzhonikidze Street, Kurchaloy. The area was under the full control of the federal forces. Military checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the village. 52.     According to the applicant, at about 3 a.m. on 30 December 2002 a large group of armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into her house after having cordoned off the area. They spoke unaccented Russian, and arrived in an APC and a military Ural vehicle.     They ordered Khizir Gulmutov to get into the Ural vehicle and drove away to an unknown destination. 53.     On 8 January 2003 blown-up remains (consisting of the lower extremities and spine and scalp fractions) were found about 1.5 km from the northern outskirts of Kurchaloy, 2 km from military checkpoint KPPM-95. 54.     On 9 January 2003 the applicant’s relatives were able to identify the remains as belonging to Khizir Gulmutov by shoes and trousers found at the scene. 55.     The Government furnished a copy of criminal case no. 75146 into the abduction and murder of Khizir Gulmutov, without specifying the number of pages. The documents comprised one volume. 2.     Main steps of the official investigation into the abduction 56.     On 30 December 2002 the applicant complained to the Kurchaloy ROVD that her son had been abducted by unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms. 57.     On the same day the Kurchaloy district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into the abduction and examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 58.     Also on that day the applicant’s husband and Khizir Gulmutov’s father, Mr A.G., was granted victim status. 59.     On 8 January 2003 investigators examined the scene where the remains were discovered and found shoes, trousers and a detonator with a wire and a metal ring. 60.     On 3 February 2003 the investigators ordered forensic expert examinations of the remains and objects found at the scene. According to the experts’ conclusions, the objects belonged to an explosive device and the body had been blown to pieces as a result of the explosion. 61.     On 28 February 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was not informed thereof. 62.     On 15 August 2006 the investigation was resumed. 63.   On 15 September 2006 the investigation was suspended yet again. The applicant was not informed thereof. 64.     On 13 November 2008 the applicant asked the investigators to inform her of the progress of the investigation into her son’s abduction and to provide her with access to the case file. In the request, she mistakenly gave the name of her son as Abubakar Gulmutov. 65.     On 16 November 2008 the investigators informed the applicant that her request had not been dealt with as there was no abduction case in the name of Abubakar Gulmutov, and that the case numbered 75146 she had referred to concerned the abduction of Khizir Gulmutov. 66.     On 6 August 2009 the applicant’s lawyer asked the investigators to provide her with a copy of the decision to suspend the investigation. 67.     On 9 August 2009 the investigators granted the lawyer’s request. 68.     On 16 August 2009 the applicant’s lawyer requested access to the case file. 69.     On 18 August 2009 her request was granted. 70.     On 14 September 2011 the investigation was resumed. The proceedings are still pending. 3.     Witness statements taken by the investigation 71.     On 30 December 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant’s husband Mr A.G., who stated that at 3 a.m. on 30 December 2002 about ten armed men in masks and green camouflage uniforms had broken into their house. They had arrived in an APC and a military Ural lorry. The intruders, who had spoken Russian, had forced his son into the lorry and driven away to an unknown destination. The father further stated that in May 2002 his son had already been abducted by unidentified individuals but released several days later and that Khizir had never been involved in illegal armed groups. 72.     On the same date, the investigators also questioned   Khizir Gulmutov’s wife, Ms E.Kh., who stated that a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their bedroom at night, held Khizir at gunpoint and ordered him to go outside. When she had tried to speak to her husband in Chechen, the intruders had angrily ordered her to speak Russian and forced him to go outside. The abductors had refused to tell her where they were taking her husband and had driven away to an unknown destination. 73.     The investigators also questioned the applicant’s brother, Mr I.M., that day. He stated that on the night of the abduction two armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had burst into his room, woken him up, kicked him several times and forced him to go outside. He and his father had been ordered to stand against a wall in the courtyard. There had been about ten armed men there speaking Russian. Ten minutes later the intruders had brought his brother to the courtyard with his hands tied behind his back. They had forced him into the Ural lorry which had then driven away escorted by an APC. The vehicles had headed in the direction of Kurchalayevskaya Street. 74.     The applicant’s neighbours, Ms D.M. and Ms M.S., both submitted that they had been indoors during the abduction and had not witnessed the events. According to Ms M.S., she had heard the noise of the military vehicles but had been afraid to go outside. 75.     On 17 January 2003 some local residents, Mr D.T., Mr Kh.E. and Mr   Ch.S., told the investigators that they had learnt about Khizir’s abduction from their neighbours. 76.     On 14 September 2006 the investigators questioned Khizir Gulmotov’s wife again. She reiterated her previous statement. C.     Application no. 14046/10, Tazurkayeva and Others v. Russia 77.     The applicants in this case are: 1)     Ms Taus Tazurkayeva, born in 1942; 2)     Ms Luiza Tazurkayeva, born in 1971; 3)     Ms Laura Tazurkayeva, born in 1977; and 4)     Ms Arbiyat Ayubova, born in 1960. 78.     The applicants are the relatives of Islam Tazurkayev and Abubakar Tazurkayev, brothers born in 1968 and 1962 respectively. The first applicant is their mother, and the second, third and fourth applicants are their sisters. The applicants currently live in Oslo, Norway. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative. 1.     Abduction of Islam Tazurkayev and subsequent events 79.     According to the applicants, at about 2 p.m. on 20 January 2001 Islam Tazurkayev and three other men were driving in a VAZ vehicle around Grozny when they were stopped by a group of Russian military servicemen in an APC and a white VAZ-2121 (Niva) vehicle for an identity check. Having checked the documents, the servicemen blindfolded Islam Tazurkayev, forced him into the APC and drove away in the direction of the Khankala military base, the headquarters of the Russian military forces in Chechnya. 80.     On 20 February 2001 a body bearing signs of violence was found in a mass grave in Zdorovye, an abandoned holiday village in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny, along with the bodies of about fifty other people, including that of Nura Luluyeva (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia , no.   69480/01, § 28, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIII). The grave was located less than a kilometre from the military base. 81.     On 5 March 2001 Islam Tazurkayev’s father, Mr T.Kh., identified the body as being his son. 2.     Main steps of the official investigation into the abduction of Islam Tazurkayev 82.     On 24 February 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 21037 in connection with the discovery of the mass grave and Islam Tazurkayev’s body. According to the crime scene examination report, he had suffered injuries to the top of his head, and his hands had been tied behind his back. 83.     On 2 March 2001 the investigators ordered a forensic expert examination of the body. It does not appear that the examination was ever carried out (see paragraph 90 below). 84.     On 5 March 2001 the body was handed over to the relatives for the burial. 85.     On the same day Islam Tazurkayev’s father, Mr T.Kh., was granted victim status in the criminal case. 86.     On 15 April 2003 the investigators sent requests to the Chechnya FSB, the Grozny ROVD and the military commander’s office, seeking information about Islam Tazurkayev’s detention on their premises and the extent of his involvement in illegal armed groups. Negative responses were given; only the FSB gave a substantive response. In their reply of 18 April 2003, they claimed that Islam Tazurkayev had been listed as a member of illegal armed groups between 1994 and 1996. 87.     On 23 May 2003 the investigators decided to separate the Islam Tazurkayev murder case from the other cases related to the discovery of the mass grave in February 2001. The case file was given the number 40090. 88.     On 23 August 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 89.     On 30 March 2004 the investigation was resumed by a supervising prosecutor who ordered additional investigative measures to be carried out. In particular, the investigators were asked to identify potential witnesses and to question them in connection with Islam Tazurkayev’s abduction. 90.     On 12 April 2004 the investigators asked the forensic experts to provide a copy of their conclusions concerning the examination of Islam Tazurkayev’s body. The experts informed them that no forensic examination of Islam’s body had been carried out. 91.     The investigation into Islam Tazurkayev’s abduction and murder was suspended and resumed repeatedly and is still pending. 92.     The Government furnished a copy of criminal case no. 40090 into the abduction and murder of Islam Tazurkayev, without specifying the number of pages. The documents comprised one volume. 3.     Witness statements taken by the investigation 93.     On 5 March 2001 Islam Tazurkayev’s father Mr T.Kh. identified his son’s body and was questioned by the investigators. He stated that on 20   January 2001 his son had been arrested and taken away by unidentified servicemen in APCs. 94.     On 8 April 2001 he was questioned again. He stated that an unidentified woman had informed him that his son had been arrested on Minutka Square by armed men in camouflage uniforms. He and his relatives had searched for his son in various departments of the interior, including the Oktyabrskiy and the Zavoskoy ROVDs, but to no avail. He had not reported the abduction to the authorities; on 4 March 2001 he had found his son’s body with a gunshot wound to the head. The bullet extracted by the forensic expert had been identified as having been fired from a Stechkin pistol. He told them his son had not been involved in any military action against the federal forces. 95.     In April 2004 the investigators questioned several local residents, all of whom stated that they had not witnessed the abduction. 96.     On 24 April 2004 an officer of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, Mr A.A., prepared an internal report on the criminal case which reads, in its main part, as follows: “... it was established that in 1999 Islam Tazurkayev was the leader of a group involved in military action against the federal forces. ... On 20 January 2001 unidentified servicemen in armoured vehicles carried out an identity check on Minutka Square, where checkpoint no. 28 was located ... When vehicles passed through the checkpoint, servicemen checked [the identity of] all passengers. Islam Tazurkayev (who was among them) was escorted from the bus and taken away to an unknown destination ... It was established that this operation had been carried out by special units of the federal forces stationed in the Chechen Republic in order to apprehend members of the illegal armed groups Islam Tazurkayev had belonged to ...” 4.     Abduction of Abubakar Tazurkayev and subsequent events 97.     At the material time Abubakar Tazurkayev was living with his family in Nazran, Ingushetia. In September 2003 they went to Grozny for a few days to exchange their passports and were staying with the first applicant at 48   Tsimlyanskaya Street in the Novye Aldi district of the city. 98.     According to the applicants, on 7 September 2003 a group of three military servicemen came to their house. They spoke to Mr T.Kh., Abubakar Tazurkayev’s father, who at the material time was working as a herbal healer, providing unlicensed medical services to the local community. One of the three men was unwell and asked for his assistance. Mr T.Kh. spoke to the men for about three or four hours. 99.     On the night of 7 September 2003 the applicants’ neighbourhood was cordoned off by the military. Early next morning at about 3 a.m. or 4   a.m., a group of armed men in military uniforms arrived at the first applicant’s house and took Abubakar Tazurkayev away in a white VAZ vehicle. One of the abductors appeared to be one of the men who had visited the applicants’ house the previous day seeking medical assistance. 100.     After the abduction, at about 5 a.m., the applicants heard gunshots in the vicinity of their neighbourhood, which was still cordoned off by the military. 101.     On 10 September 2003 a local radio station broadcasted news that the leader of an illegal armed group, Abubakar Tazurkayev, had been eliminated as the result of a special operation carried out by the federal forces on 8 September 2003. 102.     The applicants have not had any news of Abubakar ever since. 5.     Main steps of the official investigation into the abduction of Abubakar Tazurkayev 103.     The Government furnished a copy of criminal case no. 30181 into the abduction of Abubakar Tazurkayev, without specifying the number of pages. The documents comprised one volume. 104.     On 12 September 2003 the second applicant reported her brother’s disappearance to the Zavodskoy ROVD, stating that he had disappeared from the courtyard of their house on the night of 7 September. 105.     On 14 September 2003 Abubakar Tazurkayev’s wife, Ms T.Z., signed a form requesting that a search for her husband be carried out and stating that on the night of 7 September 2003 armed men in camouflage uniforms had forcibly taken him away. 106.     On 17 September 2003 Abubakar Tazurkayev’s father Mr T.Kh. complained to the President’s Envoy that his son had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms. He stated that the abductors had broken into the house and that they had neither “introduced themselves nor explained the reason for his arrest.” The complaint was forwarded by the Envoy to the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny the same day. 107.     On 22 September 2003 the prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into the abduction of Abubakar Tazurkayev under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). 108.     On 30 October 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. 109.     On 22 November 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 110.     On 15 February 2004 a supervising prosecutor overruled the decision as premature and ordered that the investigation be resumed. 111.     On 17 February 2004 the crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected. 112.     On 12 March 2004 the Department for the Ministry of the Interior of the Southern Federal Circuit replied to the investigators’ request stating that according to information in their possession, Abubakar Tazurkayev had been involved in illegal armed groups. 113.     On 15 March 2004 the investigation was suspended yet again for failure to identify the perpetrators. 114.     On 30 January 2007 the applicants complained to the investigators that Abubakar Tazurkayev had been abducted by State agents and that they required information as to how the investigation was progressing. In reply they were informed that the investigation had been suspended and that operational search measures were being carried out to establish his whereabouts. 115.     The investigation was resumed and suspended repeatedly. 116.     On 20 May 2008 the fourth applicant asked the investigators to grant her victim status in the criminal case. She was granted that status on 18 September 2008. 6.     Witness statements taken by the investigation 117.     On 12 September 2003 the investigators questioned the second applicant, who stated that on the night of 7 September her brother had disappeared under mysterious circumstances and that his absence had only been noticed the morning after. 118.     On 14 September 2003 the investigators questioned several of Abubakar Tazurkayev’s relatives, including the first applicant, who stated that on the night of the abduction she had not been at home. 119.   The fourth applicant stated that on the night of 7 September 2003 unidentified armed men had abducted her brother. On 10 September 2003 she had heard her brother’s name read out on the radio as being the leader of an illegal armed group who had been eliminated by the authorities. 120.     Abubakar Tazurkayev’s wife Ms T.Z. (in the documents submitted also referred to as D.Z.) stated that on the night of the abduction at about 3   a.m. a group of armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms had broken into their house and had taken her husband away. She also stated that in August 2000 her husband had been detained by FSB officers for two weeks and released. 121.     Mr T.Kh. stated that his son had been abducted by armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms. He also stated that he had provided unlicensed medical services from home and that the day before the abduction, armed Chechen men in camouflage uniforms had come to his house and told him that they would be bringing a sick man to him. The men had arrived in a VAZ vehicle with a registration number containing the digits 909. Two of the men had introduced themselves as ‘Lomi-Ali’ and ‘Edilbek’. 122.     On 30 October 2003 the first applicant told the investigators again that on the night of the abduction she had not been home and that she had learnt about her son’s disappearance from her daughter-in-law Ms T.Z. 123.     On 30 October 2003 the investigators questioned Mr T.Kh. again, who stated that he had learnt about his son’s disappearance from his daughter-in-law and that he had learnt from a neighbour, Mr Y.S., that a radio station had broadcasted news that his son had been arrested. 124.     On 24 February 2004 the investigators questioned Ms T.Z. again. She reiterated that she had seen her husband being abducted from their courtyard by three armed men in camouflage uniforms. The abductors had put him into a white vehicle and had driven away in the direction of Grozny. She stated again that in 2000 her husband had already been taken away and released several days later. 125.     On 25 February 2004 the investigators questioned the second applicant again. She stated that she had learnt about her brother’s abduction from his wife. She said that at some point in 2000 her brother had been taken away by officers of the Zavovdskoy ROVD and released a few days later. 126.     On 9 March 2004 the investigators questioned the fourth applicant again. She stated that she had learnt about her brother’s abduction from her son, who was staying in the family house on the night of the events. According to her, in 2000 her brother had already been abducted by FSB officers and held for several days. After the incident, he had moved with his family to Nazran, Ingushetia. In August 2003 he had returned to Grozny to sort out his passport. On 10 September 2003 she had heard her brother’s name read out on the radio as being the leader of an illegal armed group who had been eliminated by the authorities. She had telephoned one of the radio stations broadcasting the news and found out that this information had been provided to them by the press secretary of the United Group Alignment (UGA), Mr   Shabolkin. D.     Application no. 32782/10, Khutsayeva v Russia 127.     The applicant, Ms Maryat Khutsayeva, was born in 1941. She is the wife of Supyan Khutsayev, born in 1936. She lives in Gekhi, Chechnya and is represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative. 1.     Abduction of the applicant’s husband and subsequent events 128.     According to the applicant, on 13 February 2001 a group of armed representatives of the federal forces arrived at her house in Gekhi and arrested her husband. The servicemen told the applicant that her husband was suspected of kidnapping.     On 16 February 2001 she paid a ransom of 4,000 United States dollars (USD) to the servicemen, who then released her husband from detention. According to him, he had been detained in the vicinity of the village of Tangi-Chu in the Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. 129.     At about 7 a.m. on 26 February 2001 a group of about thirty armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicant’s house. The men had arrived in an armoured Ural lorry. She and her relatives thought that the intruders were representatives of the federal forces. 130.     The men forced her husband into the lorry and the vehicle drove away, without being stopped at the military checkpoint situated between Urus-Martan and Gekhi. Her daughter, Ms Malika Ts., managed to follow the abductors’ vehicle, which eventually stopped at the district military commander’s office in Urus-Martan town centre. 131.     On 27 February 2001 the applicant and her daughter waited outside the military commander’s office for news about Supyan Khutsayev. At one point the Ural lorry drove out of the premises; they could not see its registration number as it was covered in mud. The women noticed that a blanket, which the abductors had taken from their house, was hanging off from the tailgate of the vehicle. 132.     On 4 March 2001 a body bearing signs of violence was found next to the Michurina state farm in the Urus-Martan district. Tyre tracks of military vehicles were found next to it. 133.     Later that day the applicant and her relatives identified the body as being Supyan Khutsayev. 2.     Main st