CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 31 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE89AC62E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s5CE530E1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; 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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2775F78B { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s131617B8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s162AB3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sC74A4668 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s230971FB { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-23.85pt; 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 } .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 } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s86439055 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s11709F00 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sE50F5D7A { height:21.65pt } .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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE87DE78A { height:11.3pt } .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 } .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 } .s4AACE76C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.7pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s8414C82F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.7pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s74FF2729 { height:110.9pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sF2EF8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s15BC0B56 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:2.55pt; font-size:11pt } .s767C1699 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:2.55pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       FIRST SECTION                 CASE OF TOVBULATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 26960/06, 27926/06, 6371/09 and 6382/09)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   31 October 2013     FINAL   24/03/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Tovbulatova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 October 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in four applications (nos.   26960/06, 27926/06, 6371/09 and 6382/09) 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 and lawyers of the EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre, an NGO with offices in Moscow and London. The applicants in case no.   26960/06 have been granted legal aid. 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 disappeared in 2001 and 2006 in Chechnya in two unrelated episodes and that no effective investigation had taken place. 4.     On 12 July 2006 the Government were requested to submit factual information under Rule 54 § 2 (a) in case no.   26960/06. The applications were communicated to the Government on the dates indicated in Annex I. It was also decided to grant priority to the applications (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES 5.     The applicants are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in the Chechen Republic after being apprehended, in 2001 and 2006, by armed men whom the applicants believed to have belonged to the Russian military or security forces. In each case a criminal investigation file was opened by the local prosecutor’s office. The proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions thereafter. 6.     When the latest rounds of observations were submitted to the Court, 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. 7.     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. In addition, they argued 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. 8.     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 Annex I. A.     Applications no. 26960/06, Tovbulatova v. Russia , no.   6371/09, Isayeva and Others v. Russia and no.   6382/09, Vadilova and Others v. Russia 9.     The applicants in the three applications complained about the detention and subsequent disappearance of their three relatives – Magomed Edilov, Akhamdi Isayev and Ali Vadilov – in the early hours of 9   December 2001 in the village of Valerik, in the Achkhoy-Martan district of Chechnya. All the men were detained at their respective family homes by a group of up to thirty armed masked men in camouflage uniforms. The fourth man detained on that night in Valerik, who also disappeared, Rizvan S., was a resident of Achkhoy-Martan and a relative of Akhamdi Isayev, with whom he had stayed that night. The description of the events is based on the applicants’ accounts and the documents submitted with the applications. The applicants and their neighbours, G., M. and O., gave detailed written statements about the intruders using up to four UAZ cars and one armoured personnel carrier (APC), which had been stationed in Sheripova Street. The men were well-built and equipped with special gear such as portable radios and spherical helmets, and spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants also informed the Court that at the material time a curfew had been in place in Valerik and the movement of vehicles had been monitored by roadblocks. 10.     One set of criminal investigations was carried out into the abduction of the four men. It failed to elucidate the crime, and the families have had no news of the detainees since 9 December 2001. The relevant details of the abductions and the investigation are set out below. 1.     Abduction of Magomed Edilov, application no. 26960/06 11.     At the material time the only applicant in this case and her common-law partner Magomed Edilov, born in 1979, lived at Sheripova Street, 11 (in the submitted documents the address is also referred to as Lenina Street, 89) in Valerik. At the time of the event, the applicant was pregnant; their daughter Sofi was born on 13   June 2002. 12.     At about 2 a.m. on 9 December 2001 a group of about seven armed masked men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s gate in two UAZ cars without registration plates. The men broke into the house and took Magomed Edilov outside. The applicant attempted to follow the intruders, but they hit her and she fell. The intruders put Magomed Edilov into one of the vehicles and drove away in an unknown direction. 2.     Abduction of Mr Akhamdi Isayev, application no.   6371/09 13.     The first applicant in this case is the mother, the second applicant is the wife and the third applicant is a brother of Akhamdi Isayev, born in 1981. At the material time the applicants and Akhamdi Isayev lived at Sheripova Street, 91 in Valerik. The family occupied two houses (“house no. 1” and “house no. 2”), connected by a fence roof (a roof covering part of the courtyard) and sharing a common courtyard. 14.     On the night of 8 to 9 December 2001 Akhamdi Isayev was in house no.   1 together with the second applicant, the first applicant and his father, while house no.   2 was occupied by the third applicant, the first applicant’s nephew and Rizvan S., the third applicant’s guest. 15.     At about 2 a.m. on 9 December 2001 the second applicant was woken up by the noise of the opening of the metal gate to the courtyard. Through the window she saw about ten armed masked men in camouflage uniforms breaking into the courtyard. They were wearing spherical helmets usually worn by Russian federal troops. 16.     Three armed men broke into house no.   1 and started searching it. They spoke Russian without an accent. One of them asked Akhamdi Isayev to give his name. When he identified himself, the man hit him with the butt of his machine gun and asked him to give his name again. At the request of the same man, the second applicant confirmed the identity of Akhamdi Isayev. Two armed men then tied Akhamdi Isayev’s hands behind his back with a television cable and moved him towards the exit. The second applicant tried to prevent them from taking him away but was pushed back into the room. She fell to the ground and fainted. Meanwhile the armed men took Akhamdi Isayev to the courtyard. 17.     Several armed men broke into house no. 2, searched it and, after an identity check, tied Rizvan S.’s hands and took him to the courtyard. 18.     Subsequently, they put Akhamdi Isayev and Rizvan S. into a UAZ car and drove off towards the centre of the village. 3.     Abduction of Ali Vadilov, application no. 6382/09 19.     The three applicants in this case are the mother, brother and sister of Ali Vadilov, born in 1974. At the material time the applicants and Ali Vadilov lived at Frunze Street,   29 in Valerik. They occupied two houses (“house no. 1” and “house no. 2”), connected by a covered area and sharing a common courtyard. 20.     According to certificates issued by the Grozny expert medical commission and the head of the Valerik local administration, Ali Vadilov had had a disability of the first degree since childhood and required permanent help. In particular, he suffered from a club hand, a club foot, dislocation of the left hip and deformity of the elbow and knee joints. According to the applicants, Ali Vadilov could not move without another person’s assistance. 21.     On the night of 8 December 2001 the second applicant was in house no. 1 together with his wife and three of their children, while house no.   2 was occupied by Ali Vadilov, the first applicant and the second applicant’s daughter. 22.     At about 2 a.m. on 9 December 2001 several armed masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into house no.   2. They did not introduce themselves and started searching the house, swearing and shouting insults. The first applicant and the second applicant’s daughter started to cry. 23.     At the same time the second applicant was woken up in house no.   1 by gunshots in the courtyard. Immediately thereafter, three armed masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into the house. They ordered the second applicant to kneel down and to hand his passport over to them. They spoke Russian without an accent. They took the second applicant out of the house. 24.     In the courtyard the second applicant saw twenty to twenty-five armed masked men in camouflage uniforms. They were searching the courtyard, the garden and the garage. The second applicant was put against the wall and ordered to kneel down. Since he sat down instead, he was hit several times with a submachine gun and almost fainted. Once he had returned to his senses, the second applicant was told to take his passport and return to the house. One of the armed men pushed him towards the house, hit him on the back and told him “You haven’t seen anything”. The armed men then fastened the house door with wire. 25.     Thereafter two armed men took Ali Vadilov by his hands and carried him into the courtyard. The first applicant cried and asked them not to take him away, saying that he was disabled. Nonetheless they put Ali Vadilov in a UAZ car and drove away. 26.     The first applicant removed the wires and opened the door of house no.   1. She told the others that the armed men had taken away Ali Vadilov. 4.     The applicants’ search for the disappeared men and the official investigation 27.     The following morning the applicants complained about the abductions of the three men to a number of law-enforcement agencies and offices in the Achkhoy-Martan district. On 9 December 2001, after the curfew, Ali Vadilov’s mother and brother went to see the head of the local administration. They allegedly learnt from him that the previous night, Russian security forces had carried out a special operation in the village and had apprehended three other persons, including two residents of the village, Akhamdi Isayev and Magomed Edilov. They also learnt that the armed men had arrived in the village in an APC and four UAZ cars. 28.     Ali Vadilov’s brother learnt from a certain Mr I., who allegedly had connections with representatives of the Russian security forces, that according to the military personnel at the village checkpoint, the operation had been carried out jointly by members of the FSB of the Urus-Martan and Achkhoy-Martan districts. 29.     The applicants contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the Russian President, the Administration of Chechnya, and departments of the interior and prosecutors’ offices at different levels. Copies of some of those complaints were submitted to the Court. 30.     On 10 December 2001 Ali Vadilov’s mother (the first applicant in application no.   6382/09) complained about the abduction of her son to the district prosecutor’s office. On 14   December 2001 the deputy district prosecutor forwarded her complaint to the head of the Achkhoy-Martan Department of the Interior. 31.     On 21 December 2001 she reiterated her complaint about the disappearance of Ali Vadilov before the district prosecutor’s office. On the same day the prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the abduction of four persons, under Article 127 § 2 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). The case file was assigned number 27056. In July 2009 the Government submitted 109 pages from that file to the Court. The most relevant documents as well as the parties’ submissions may be summarised as follows. 32.     In December 2001 and January 2002 the investigators questioned several applicants and their relatives about the circumstances of the abductions. All the witnesses to the abductions stated that the intruders had taken money, documents and valuables from the households. The first applicant in application no.   6371/09 (Akhamdi Isayev’s mother) described the intruders as servicemen or police officers, tall and well-built, wearing camouflage uniforms and masks, armed with machine guns and using portable radios and call-names to address each other in Russian. Some of the applicants or their relatives were granted victim status. 33.     In January 2002 the investigation questioned the head of the Valerik village administration and the village policeman. Both stated that on the night of 8 to 9   December 2001 a “special operation” had been carried out in the village. An unidentified group of persons wearing camouflage uniforms, without informing the local authorities, had entered the village in grey UAZ cars and taken four men away. No information about the service which had carried out the operation or the whereabouts of the missing men was available to those officials. Both confirmed, too, that they had no information that any of the detained men had been involved in illegal activities. 34.     In December 2002 an investigator from the district prosecutor’s office examined two of the households where the abductions had taken place. 35.     In January 2003 one of the Isayev family’s neighbours stated that after the abductors had left in UAZ cars, he had found the third applicant in application no.   6371/09 with a bleeding wound on his head and had taken him to hospital. 36.     On 29 April 2003 the third applicant in application no.   6382/09 complained about the abduction of her brother to the deputy head of the Government of the Chechen Republic, the head of the republican Security Council and a member of the State Duma. In her complaints she averred that her brother was disabled and could not have been involved in unlawful activities. She also stated that, according to some sources, Ali Vadilov and other residents of the village had been detained by the security forces of the Achkhoy-Martan and Urus-Martan districts and that they had been kept in the former building of the Urus-Martan town boarding school (used by the Urus-Martan temporary district department of the interior, the VOVD). 37.     On 17 June 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 informed the third applicant in application no.   6382/09 that there was no evidence of the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction of Ali Vadilov. 38.     In June and July 2003 the investigation again questioned some of the applicants. 39.     Also in July 2003 the investigators questioned several residents of Valerik who, in short identical statements, confirmed that they had heard of the detention of four men by unidentified persons in December 2001, but had no first-hand knowledge of that crime. A similar exercise was repeated in June and July 2007 and July 2008. It does not appear that witnesses G., M. and O., whose statements have been submitted to the Court (see paragraph 9 above), were questioned. 40.     On 23 November 2005 a group of residents of the Achkhoy-Martan district complained to the Russian President about numerous abductions committed by State agents, stating that “since the beginning of the counter-terrorist operation ... law enforcement bodies and troops of the Ministry of Defence, using APCs (armoured personnel carriers), and Ural and UAZ cars, took away in an unknown direction 140 persons from our district. Their whereabouts are still unknown”. The residents also complained about the failure of the local authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearances. Among others, the letter referred to the applicants’ relatives. 41.     The investigation was regularly suspended for failure to identify the culprits, and then reopened. In the meantime, the applicants submitted written and oral complaints to the prosecutor’s office, but no progress was made. Thus, on 2 March 2006 the district prosecutor’s office replied to a complaint by the applicant in case no.   26960/06 and stated that the investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of Magomed Edilov; that on an unspecified date the investigation had been suspended; and that operational search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way. 42.     On 25 March 2007 the NGO Mothers of Chechnya ( Materi Chechni ) wrote to the Prosecutor General complaining about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the abduction of Magomed Edilov. In particular, they stressed that although the investigation had failed to carry out sufficient investigative steps, it had been suspended. The letter requested that the Prosecutor General undertake a number of specific measures aimed at carrying out an effective and thorough investigation into the abduction. 43.     In reply to that letter, on 14 May 2007 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the applicant in application no.   26960/06 that the investigation had been resumed for thirty days from 10 May 2007. 44.     The applicants in application no.   6382/09 submitted that the investigators of the district prosecutor’s office had reassured them on several occasions that they were taking all necessary steps to find out the whereabouts of Ali Vadilov. The applicants were allegedly also asked not to bother the investigators and other bodies with complaints and requests for information because the former would then have to draft replies to their inquiries instead of advancing the investigation. The applicants did as they were asked because they trusted the official investigation. They also shared the information with the relatives of other persons abducted on 9   December 2001 in Valerik. 45.     The Government stated that the investigation of the criminal case was ongoing. B.     Application no. 27926/06, Chilayev and Dzhabayeva v. Russia 1.     Abduction of Bulat Chilayev and Aslan Israilov 46.     The first applicant in this case was the father of Bulat Chilayev, born in 1973. The second applicant is the mother of Aslan Israilov, born in 1978. 47.     The applicants submitted that on 9 April 2006 their sons had been detained by unknown servicemen on the road between Sernovodsk and Grozny. The applicants were not eye-witnesses to the events and the description below is based on witness statements collected by them and the investigation in the aftermath of the arrest. 48.     At the material time Bulat Chilayev lived in Sernovodsk. He worked as a driver for a Russian humanitarian NGO, Civic Assistance, using his own car VAZ-21074. Aslan Israilov lived in Moscow and on 8 April 2006 he arrived in Sernovodsk to visit his maternal grandfather. 49.     On 8 April 2006 a serviceman of the Ministry of the Interior and two of his relatives were killed in Sernovodsk. Early in the morning of 9 April 2006 the military and law-enforcement authorities conducted a large-scale “sweeping operation” in Sernovodsk. Apparently, the only person detained was the second applicant’s son, Aslan Israilov. Since he was registered in Grozny, he was invited to the local district department of the interior (“the ROVD”) where his documents were checked and he was released. 50.     It appears that at around 12 noon on 9 April 2006 Aslan Israilov and Bulat Chilayev left Sernovodsk for Grozny in the latter’s car. They passed through two military roadblocks situated between Sernovodsk and the Kavkaz highway. 51.     At the junction of the Sernovodsk road and the highway were a petrol station, a small market and several bus stops. There was also a permanent police presence; however at the material time the police were absent. 52.     Two witnesses identified by the applicants, whose statements were submitted to the Court, stated that at about 12.30 p.m. on 9 April 2006 two silver Zhiguli cars with tinted windows (a VAZ-2112 with the registration plate “t 591 RT 95” and a VAZ-21099 with a registration plate ending in “487 HC 95”) had arrived at the junction and parked on each side of the road. Six or eight men wearing camouflage uniforms got out of the cars, put on black masks and stopped Bulat Chilayev’s white car. They punched the two men and beat them with rifle butts, tied their hands behind their backs and put Aslan Israilov into the car boot and Bulat Chilayev in the back seat of his car. Two servicemen got in beside him and another took the driver’s seat. The three cars then drove off along the highway towards Grozny. 53.     A passer-by saw Bulat Chilayev’s car being driven away by a man in military camouflage uniform and immediately called his relatives to alert them. 54.     The first applicant learnt of the arrest at around 1.50 p.m. while he was at work in Grozny. He immediately contacted the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Achkhoy-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s office”). On the same day he wrote to the district prosecutor’s office, giving the registration plates of the two Zhiguli cars. The first applicant spent the rest of the day contacting various other law-enforcement authorities in Chechnya, but was unable to find out anything about the fate of his son and Aslan Israilov. 55.     In the meantime the eye-witnesses to the arrest collected, on the spot where the two men had been detained, a military cap and a military identification tag bearing the number   F142733. Those items were later transferred to the prosecutor’s office. 56.     The applicants have had no news of their sons since 9 April 2006. 2.     The applicants’ search for their sons and the official investigation into the abduction (a)     Initial search for the missing men 57.     Following a request by the applicants, in April 2006 Mrs Svetlana Gannushkina, head of the NGO Civic Assistance and member of the Presidential Council for Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights, contacted numerous officials, including the acting Minister of the Interior of Chechnya, the deputy head of the Chechnya Department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”), Russia’s Prosecutor General, the head of the Chechnya Government, and the headquarters of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA”) in Chechnya. She asked them to investigate the possible involvement of military servicemen in the abduction. 58.     On 29 May 2006 the head of the Chechnya Administration informed the head of the Presidential Council for Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights that the investigation of the crime had drawn the special attention of the authorities. The letter went on to say that the progress of the investigation had been made difficult because “the perpetrators of the abduction had used false registration plates (« знаки-двойники ») which had been copied from those attributed to detachments of the federal [military] forces and Russia’s Ministry of the Interior”. (b)     The official investigation 59.     On 17 April 2006 the district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation file into the abduction of Bulat Chilayev and Aslan Israilov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The file was given number 69010. In July 2009 the Government submitted 337 pages from that file. The most important developments as seen from the documents and as cited in the Government’s observations may be summarised as follows. 60.     Further to the opening of the criminal investigation file on 17 April 2006, on 18 and 19 April 2006, the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant, his wife and the second applicant accordingly. Victim status was granted to the first applicant’s wife on 17 April and to the second applicant on 24 April 2006. 61.     Lieutenant Ilyas B., a serviceman of the “West” battalion, was questioned on 26 May 2006. He explained that following the murder of a Ministry of the Interior serviceman and his two relatives on 8 April 2006 in Sernovodsk, he and other servicemen of “West” battalion had participated in a search operation. Between 10.45 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. the following day, they searched the forest near the crossroads of the Sernovodsk-Assinovskaya road and the Kavkaz highway, and then searched within a radius of two kilometres from the crossroads. During the operation, he lost his military identification tag. He had been severely reprimanded by his superiors for not taking proper care of the tag. 62.     On 12 June 2006 the district prosecutor extended the term of the investigation until 17 July 2006. The extension order summarised the investigative measures taken thus far. It stated that the close relatives of the kidnapped men had been questioned and granted the status of victims in the proceedings. Several eye-witnesses to the kidnapping had been identified and questioned. The owner of the identification tag found at the scene of the crime had been identified as Lieutenant Ilyas B., of “West” battalion, and questioned. The investigators also identified and questioned the owners of vehicles with registration numbers similar to those noted by the witnesses. They contacted various law-enforcement authorities in the region, none of which had information about the detention of the two men. The order indicated that the investigators should further question other servicemen who had participated in the operation in Sernovodsk and on the road, and other eye-witnesses to the event, and obtain additional information about the two missing men. The applicants were informed of the extension of the investigation on the same day. 63.     From further documents it appears that Ilyas B. was killed on 16   August 2006. 64.     In June 2006 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior concluded, in an internal report, that a GAZ-3307 vehicle with number plate “t 591 RT 95” (the witnesses have referred to VAZ vehicle – see paragraph 52 above) had been registered with the department of the interior of the Ryazan Region and had been temporarily used by the staff of one of the roadblocks in Chechnya, located in the Shelkovskoy district. The staff of the police station where the vehicle had been registered testified that on 9 April 2006 the car had not left the premises. An examination of the GAZ vehicle at the roadblock in Shelkovskoy district concluded that the plates had not been changed or dismounted and that members of illegal armed groups had used “doubles” of State registration plates assigned to the police, in order to discredit the law-enforcement bodies. 65.     No relevant information about the second car has been obtained. 66.     The investigation obtained a copy of an order issued by the military commander of a detachment of the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior, instructing those taking part in the special operation of 9 April 2006 to gather at 5   a.m. at the crossroads of the Sernovodsk-Assinovskaya road and the Kavkaz highway. 67.     On 20 June 2006 the military prosecutor’s office decided not to open a criminal investigation owing to the lack of information about the involvement of military servicemen in the crime. 68.     On 12 July 2006 the district prosecutor further extended the term of the investigation until 17 August 2006. The extension order, in addition to the information cited above, referred to the examination of the scene of the crime and of the applicants’ houses. It noted that both detained men had received positive references at their places of residence and employment. It mentioned the questioning of additional witnesses, including the police officers who had been manning the crossroads at the material time. The order also indicated the need to question other servicemen of “West” battalion who had participated in the operation in Sernovodsk on 9 April 2006 and to identify the owners of the vehicles implicated in the event. The document concluded by stating that the investigation had yet to find the two vehicles involved in the kidnapping and Bulat Chilayev’s car, to question about twenty additional witnesses and to obtain answers to information requests forwarded to various authorities. The applicants were informed of the extension of the investigation on the same day. 69.     In February 2007 the investigators examined the roadblock situated at the place where the two men had been abducted and the registration log of vehicles which had passed through the roadblock on 9   April 2006. They found no relevant information. 70.     On 5 February 2007 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. He stated that at around 1 p.m. on 9 April 2006 he had called his son’s mobile number. He later discovered that the most recent connection with that phone had been registered at the Staropromyslovsky Shosse in Grozny at about 1 p.m. on 9   April 2006. 71.     On 6 February 2007 the investigator sought a court order to obtain information about the time and location of connections from the two men’s mobile phones. The information obtained by the investigation confirmed that the last recorded connection from one of the phones had occurred at 1.06   p.m. from Staropromyslovsky Shosse, 6 in Grozny. On 26 March 2008 a manager of the mobile phone company testified that no further localisation of the calls was possible, and that a number of offices were located in that sector, including the prosecutors’ office, the military commander’s office, “West” battalion, the FSB and the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime (“the RUBOP”) of the Ministry of the Interior. The number had not been used since 10 April 2006. 72.     In December 2008 the investigators brought before the court seven requests to allow access to and, where necessary, collection of documents that could contain State secrets from the archives of various military and law-enforcement bodies which had taken part in the special operation of 9   April 2006. It does not appear that any relevant information was obtained from the subsequent documents. 73.     In March 2009 the investigators sought and obtained court permission to tap the mobile numbers of the two missing men. On 10 April 2009 that decision was forwarded to the mobile phone operator. 74.     The investigation was again suspended on 10 April 2009 for failure to identify the culprits. C.     Court proceedings initiated by the applicants 1.     Proceedings in case no.   26960/06 75.     On 15 February 2006 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court (“the District Court”) granted the applicant’s claim and declared Magomed Edilov missing as of 10 December 2001. In its decision the District Court relied, inter alia , on the witness statements provided by Ms Z. Kh. and Ms   A. M., residents of Valerik, who had testified during the hearing that on 9   December 2001 Magomed Edilov had been abducted by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms. 76.     On 16 January 2006 the applicant lodged a claim with the District Court seeking to establish the paternity of Magomed Edilov in respect of her daughter, born on 13 June 2002. The claim was granted and on 3 April 2006 the Achkhoy-Martan district civil registration office issued a certificate stating that Magomed Edilov was the father of the applicant’s daughter. 2.     Proceedings in case no.   6371/09 77.     On 6 June 2006 the District Court declared Akhamdi Isayev missing as of 10   December 2001. It relied, among other things, on statements by witnesses to the effect that on the night of 8 to 9   December 2001 Akhamdi Isayev had been abducted from his home by armed men in camouflage uniforms and that since that time, despite his relatives’ complaints to various authorities, his whereabouts had remained unknown. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 78.     For a recent summary, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos.   2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, §§ 43-59, 18   December 2012). THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 79.     In accordance with Rule 42   §   1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background. II.     THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.     The parties’ submissions 80.     The Government argued that the applications should be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They stressed that the applicants had had various remedies at their disposal to which they could have recourse with respect to the ongoing investigation. The applicants had failed to appeal against the investigators’ decisions by way of judicial review. They also stated that the investigations were still pending and it was premature to conclude that the applicants had exhausted domestic remedies and that the remedies had not been effective. Lastly, the applicants could have claimed damages in civil proceedings. 81.     The applicants argued that the investigations had been pending for a long time without producing any tangible results. That remedy had proved to be ineffective and their complaints, as well as any other potential remedies, had proved futile. B.     The Court’s assessment 82.     In a recent judgment the Court concluded that the non-investigation of disappearances that had occurred, principally, in Chechnya between 1999 and 2006 constituted a systemic problem and that criminal investigations were not an effective remedy in this respect (see Aslakhanova and Others , cited above, §§   217 and 219). 83.     In such circumstances, and noting the absence of tangible progress in any of the criminal investigations over the years, the Court concludes that the objection in relation to the pending criminal investigation should be dismissed, since the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances. 84.     As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained as a result of the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia , nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 119-21, 24   February 2005, and Estamirov and Others v. Russia , no. 60272/00, § 77, 12   October 2006). Accordingly, the Court confirms that the applicants were not obliged to pursue civil remedies. The preliminary objection in this regard is also dismissed. III.     THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The applicants 85.     All applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away their relatives had been State agents. In support of this assertion they referred to the evidence contained in their submissions and the criminal investigation files. They submitted that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by State agents and that the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government. In view of the absence of any news of their missing relatives for a long time and the life-threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in Chechnya at the relevant time, they asked the Court to consider their relatives dead. 2.     The Government 86.     The Government did not contest the essential facts as presented in each application. At the same time, they claimed that during the investigations no information had been obtained proving beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions. The mere fact that the abductors had been armed and had worn camouflage uniforms without distinctions was not enough to presume so. Nor could the deaths of the applicants’ relatives be established with certainty. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     General principles 87.     A number of principles have been developed i