CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 janvier 2014

.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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; 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 } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5DA889E2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sC65EB21A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s424290C5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sFA22F38 { height:36pt } .s7011202D { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .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 } .s35F1B0A7 { height:17.45pt } .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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s699454AD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:2.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-2.85pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s87707FB4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.95pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s91294350 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:2.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .sC44B61E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:4.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5CB4CF56 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEBE99A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:4.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s6DCE261A { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s91294352 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:2.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s18916B37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:4.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6A6FE4B5 { width:19.98pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC78683BF { width:24.08pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s28255928 { width:18.52pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE39798F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:2.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s712FF4BD { width:20.38pt; display:inline-block } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s70F8227 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:2.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s1E6DE0E9 { width:13.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s56286EFC { width:23.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD71DE16A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:2.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCEF55305 { width:20.38pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8D589099 { width:10.58pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB6590063 { width:20.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6E7E33D { margin-left:18.9pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:17.1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s252FA2BF { width:16.13pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6BD39F1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s835DA23E { width:3.88pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA3D97597 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.95pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s8B8C0A03 { width:10.57pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s95414627 { height:63.1pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF9192762 { height:99.6pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left }       FIRST SECTION               CASE OF PITSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos.   53036/08, 61785/08, 8594/09, 24708/09, 30327/09, 36965/09, 61258/09, 63608/09, 67322/09, 4334/10, 4345/10, 11873/10, 25515/10, 30592/10, 32797/10, 33944/10, 36141/10, 52446/10, 62244/10 and 66420/10)         JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 18 February, 17 June and 23 October 2014 Under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court   STRASBOURG   9 January 2014     FINAL   02/06/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Pitsayeva 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,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 December 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in twenty applications (nos.   53036/08, 61785/08, 8594/09, 24708/09, 30327/09, 36965/09, 61258/09, 63608/09, 67322/09, 4334/10, 4345/10, 11873/10, 25515/10, 30592/10, 32797/10, 33944/10, 36141/10, 52446/10, 62244/10 and 66420/10) 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 Appendix   I. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev and Mr Z. Sobraliyev, lawyers practising in Russia, Mr B. Risnes, a lawyer practising in Norway, lawyers from the NGO Stitching Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya), lawyers from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), an NGO based in the UK, and lawyers from the Committee Against Torture, an NGO based 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 on various dates between 2000 and 2006 their thirty-six relatives had been abducted by State servicemen in Chechnya and that no effective investigation into the matter had taken place. 4.     With regard to Yusupovy v. Russia (application no. 33944/10), the first applicant died on 7 October 2010. The second applicant expressed her wish to pursue the application on his behalf. Given the circumstances of the case, the Court accepts that the second applicant, who is the wife of the first applicant, may pursue the application on his behalf. 5.     On 31 August 2011 the applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants in the present cases are Russian nationals. Four of the applicants in Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 53036/08) reside in Belgium, the applicant in Ibragimova v. Russia (no.   30592/10) resides in Norway, and the remaining applicants live in various districts of the Chechen Republic, as specified in the attached table (Appendix I). 7.     The applicants are close relatives of persons who disappeared in the Chechen Republic between 2000 and 2006 allegedly after being abducted from their homes by groups of unidentified men. The applicants believed that the abductors were Russian federal servicemen since they were wearing camouflage uniforms, had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian. Armed with machine guns, the culprits broke into the applicants’ homes, searched the premises, checked the identity documents of the applicants’ relatives and took the latter away in military vehicles, such as armoured personnel carriers (APCs), UAZ minivans or Ural lorries. Only a few of the vehicles had official registration plates. In a number of cases the registration numbers were obscured with mud. None of the applicants have had news of their missing relatives since. 8.     The abductions took place in various districts of Chechnya and were primarily carried out during curfew hours late at night and early in the morning. In some cases the applicants reported that a special operation had been conducted by Russian troops in the area. Indeed, in Saraliyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 63608/09), Ibragimova v. Russia (no. 30592/10) and Abdulvakhidova v. Russia (no. 52446/10), the investigative authorities officially acknowledged that a special operation had been carried out in the area at the time of the events. 9.     The applicants reported the incidents to the law-enforcement authorities, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed.   From the documents submitted it appears that   the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions. 10.     In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. However, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions. 11.     The facts relevant to each individual case are summarised below. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I). 1.     Application no. 53036/08, Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia (a)     Abduction of Mulat Barshigov 12.     At the material time the first, second, third and fourth applicants and Mr Mulat Barshigov lived in Samashki, Achkhoy-Martan District, Chechnya. Mulat Barshigov was working as deputy head of the Samashki village administration. 13.     On 14 November 2002 a special operation was carried out in Samashki. The village was placed under curfew and at least three roadblocks were set up in the vicinity. A military commander’s office was located in the village. 14.     According to the applicants, at 2 a.m. on 14 November 2002 five or six men armed with sub-machine guns broke into their house. The intruders, who were wearing camouflage uniforms and masks, arrived in APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and UAZ vehicles. One of them, who was unmasked, was of Slavic appearance. The men, who spoke unaccented Russian, bound and gagged the first, second, third and fourth applicants, then beat Mulat Barshigov unconscious and took him away in one of their vehicles. 15.     There has been no news of Mulat Barshigov since that day. (b)     Official investigation 16.     The Government submitted copies of the contents of criminal case file no.   63091 (comprising three volumes) on the abduction of Mulat Barshigov. They noted that in accordance with Article 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the documents containing personal information on the servicemen who had taken part in counterterrorist operations were not furnished to the Court. The information submitted can be summarised as follows. (i)     Opening of the criminal investigation 17.     On 14 November 2002 the first applicant reported her husband’s abduction to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office, stating that at about 2 a.m. on 14 November 2002 unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house, gagged and bound the family members with duct tape, then had beaten her husband up and taken him away. 18.     On 16 November 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 63091 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). (ii)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 19.     On 14 November 2002 the first applicant was questioned by the investigator. She provided a detailed account of the events, stating that she and her minor children had been bound and gagged by the abductors, who had been armed with sub-machine guns. 20.     On the same day Mr N. Sh., the applicants’ neighbour, made a statement to the investigation. He said that at about 5 a.m. on 14   November 2002, one of Mulat Barshigov’s sons had come over and told him that armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house, tied them up and taken his father away. (iii)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities and progress of the investigation 21.     On 14 November 2002 an investigator examined the crime scene. Samples of duct tape with fingerprints were collected as evidence. 22.     On 16 November 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 23.     On 10 January 2003 the investigator ordered an expert examination of the fingerprints on the duct tape collected from the crime scene. 24.     On 16 January 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 25.     According to the expert’s report submitted on 24 January 2003, the fingerprints found on the duct tape were not of good quality and could not, therefore, be used for identification purposes. 26.     On 25 April 2003, in response to an inquiry by the first applicant, the investigator informed her that the investigation had been suspended but the search for her husband was in progress. 27.     On 18 March 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the Achkhoy-Martan district issued a progress report on the investigation. Having summarised the main steps taken by the investigators, the deputy prosecutor noted, inter alia , that there had been a “lack of cooperation between the authorities responsible for the operative search measures”. 28.     On 31 May 2006 the investigation was resumed and the applicants were informed thereof. 29.     On 1 July 2006 the investigation was suspended. 30.     On 16 June 2007 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature, and ordered the investigators to carry out additional investigative measures. 31.     In August 2007 an investigator again questioned the applicants and other witnesses. 32.     On 10 June 2008 the investigation was resumed and the investigators were ordered to take basic steps. The investigation is still pending. (c)     The applicants’ complaints concerning the investigation 33.     It appears from the case file that throughout the relevant period the applicants wrote to various State authorities complaining about the abduction, asking for assistance in the search, inquiring about the progress of the investigation and complaining of the delays. Their complaints included the following: a letter of 17 April 2003 to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office; a letter of 21 April 2003 to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office; a letter of 7 July 2003 to the Russian Prosecutor General; and a letter of 21 May 2008 to the Achkhoy-Martan district investigations department. 2.     Application no. 61785/08, Salamova and Others v. Russia (a)     Abduction of Isa and Usman Eskiyev 34.     At the material time the first seven applicants were living with Mr   Isa Eskiyev and Mr Usman Eskiyev (the Eskiyev brothers) in Koshkeldy village, Gudermes District, Chechnya. Their family house consisted of two separate dwellings sharing a common courtyard. One of the dwellings was occupied by the first applicant, while the other, which had two different entrances, was occupied by the other applicants. 35.     At 2 a.m. on 6 June 2003 about thirty men of Slavic appearance driving four military UAZ vehicles broke into the applicants’ courtyard. They were armed, using portable radios and wearing green camouflage uniforms. They spoke unaccented Russian. Ten masked men entered into the house. They bound the hands of the first, second and eighth applicants and ordered them to lie down on the floor. After searching the house, the intruders beat up Isa and Usman Eskiyev, seized their passports and those of their spouses and took the two brothers away. Their vehicles passed freely through a checkpoint on the outskirts of the village. 36.     Later that night, the same group of men broke into the house of Mr   Kaim Eskhiyev, a neighbour. They were looking for his son, Mr   Dalambek Eskiyev, who allegedly belonged to an illegal armed group and who had left the village two years prior to the events. The applicants heard the men asking someone over the radio “We did not find the guilty one, only two innocent men. What should we do?” and the reply, “Never mind, take them.” 37.     Isa and Usman Eskiyev have been missing ever since. (b)     Official investigation 38.     The Government submitted copies of part of the contents of criminal case file no. 35006 concerning the abduction of Isa and Usman Eskiyev (comprising two volumes). They noted that in accordance with Article   161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the documents containing personal information on the servicemen who had taken part in counterterrorist operations were not furnished to the Court. The information submitted can be summarised as follows. (i)     Opening of the criminal investigation 39.     According to the Government, the first applicant reported the abduction of her sons by State servicemen to the Gudermes ROVD on 23   January 2004. According to the documents submitted by the applicants, they reported the abduction to the Gudermes ROVD on 15   October 2003. The applicants pointed out that the brothers had been abducted from their home at night by law-enforcement officers wearing camouflage uniforms and driving four UAZ vehicles. The applicants stressed that the abductors had threatened to kill them and had passed unhindered through the checkpoint. 40.     On 3 February 2004 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 35006 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). (ii)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 41.     On 23 January 2004 investigators questioned the first applicant, who stated that at 2 a.m. on 6 June 2003 armed men in camouflage uniforms had burst into the courtyard of their family house. She had thought that they had come, as they had previously done, to search for a certain Mr Dalambek Eskiyev, a member of illegal armed groups, and the applicants’ neighbour and relative. However, the armed men had taken away Isa and Usman Eskiyev. 42.     On 9 February 2004 the second applicant informed the investigators that at 3 a.m. on 6 June 2003 she had heard some noise and thought that State servicemen were again searching for Dalambek Eskiyev. He was wanted for his involvement in illegal armed groups; therefore, servicemen had often checked his house. This time, however, they broke into the second applicant’s house. They bound her hands, ordered her to lie down on the floor and then took her husband away. She managed to unbind her hands and went outside where she learnt that the servicemen had also taken away Usman Eskiyev. The second applicant told the investigators that Isa and Usman Eskiyev might have been abducted because of their kinship with Dalambek Eskiyev. 43.     On 30 June 2004 a local police officer, Mr A.N., was questioned. He stated that he had learnt about the Eskiyev brothers’ abduction the following day. He had asked their relatives to immediately lodge an official complaint, but they had refused to do so out of fear that an official inquiry would only worsen the situation. They had believed that an official complaint would make the brothers’ return impossible and had hoped that both brothers would be released once questioned and checked. He also stated that he had gone to the checkpoint and asked for information concerning the passage of the abductors’ vehicles. The police officers from the Amur Region who had been manning the checkpoint at the time had explained to him that the abductors had not gone through the checkpoint but refused to confirm that in writing. (iii)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities and progress of the investigation 44.     Investigators examined the crime scene on 26 January 2004. No   evidence was collected. 45.     On 9 February 2004 the second and fifth applicants were granted victim status. The first applicant was granted victim status in March 2004. 46.     On 24 February 2004 the investigators asked the Gudermes district department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) to inform them whether the Eskiyev brothers had been detained by their officers. A negative reply was given. 47.     The investigation was suspended on 1 April 2004 and resumed on 15   April 2004. 48.     The investigation was suspended again on 30 April 2004 and then resumed on 15 June 2004. 49.     On 30 June 2004 a police officer of the Gudermes ROVD informed the investigators that in September 2003 the police officers from the Amur Region who had been manning the roadblock on the Rostov-to-Baku motorway had been transferred back to their region. 50.     On 8 July 2004 the investigation was suspended again; it was resumed on 2 November 2004 and suspended again on 16 December 2004. 51.     On 17 December 2004 the prosecutor’s Office of the Amur Region informed the investigators that it was impossible to identify and question the police officers who had been manning the checkpoint in Koshkeldy, as all of the relevant documents had been destroyed. 52.     It appears that at some point at the beginning of 2005 the investigation was resumed, but was suspended again on 4 April 2005. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended and resumed at least five more times. 53.     On 5 March 2009 the supervising prosecutor criticised the progress of the investigation and ordered that the proceedings be resumed and additional steps be taken. 54.     The investigation is still pending. (c)     The applicants’ complaints concerning the investigation 55.     Throughout the relevant period the applicants wrote to various authorities complaining of the abduction, asking for assistance, and inquiring about the investigation and its progress. They furnished the following letters to the Court: a letter dated 12 August 2004 to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office; a letter dated 21 February 2005 to the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office; a letter dated 20 March 2005 to the Gudermes ROVD; a letter dated 1 June 2005 to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102; and a letter dated 7 August 2008 to the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office. 3.     Application no. 8594/09, Yagayeva v. Russia (a)     Abduction of Zayndi Ayubov 56.     At the material time the applicant and her husband, Mr Zayndi Ayubov, lived in flat no. 24 of a block located in Dyakov Street in Grozny. At 11 p.m. on 17 March 2006 fifteen servicemen broke into the flat to carry out an identity check. They had previously searched the adjacent flats and exploded a grenade near the entrance to the block. Some of the men spoke unaccented Russian, while others spoke Chechen. The servicemen were wearing military uniforms, caps and helmets with torches. They were carrying machine guns and shields. After a quick search of the flat, the men pulled Mr Ayubov’s jacket over his head, dragged him outside, put him in one of their two white Gazel minivans and drove away. 57.     The applicant has not seen Mr Zayndi Ayubov since. (b)     Official investigation 58.     The Government submitted copies of part of the contents of criminal case file no. 50040 on the abduction of Zayndi Ayubov. They noted that in accordance with Article 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the documents containing personal information on the servicemen who had taken part in counterterrorist operations were not furnished to the Court. The information submitted can be summarised as follows. (i)     Opening of the criminal investigation 59.     On 17 March 2006 the applicant reported the abduction to the Leninskiy ROVD in Grozny. She stated that her husband had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms and helmets, who had broken into their flat having arrived in two white Gazel minivans without registration plates. 60.     On 18 March 2006 the Leninskiy ROVD forwarded the applicant’s allegations to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office. 61.     On 20 March 2006 the applicant reported the abduction of her husband to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office and provided a detailed description of the events. 62.     On 28 March 2006 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 50040 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). (ii)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 63.     On 18 March 2006 the applicant’s neighbours, Mr S.Y., Mr   A.A. and Mr M.Ya., informed the investigators that at about 11 p.m. on 17   March 2006 between ten and fifteen armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at their block and searched several flats. They had detonated a grenade and forced open the door to one of the flats. After having found Zayndi Ayubov in the applicant’s flat, they had taken him away in two white Gazel vehicles. 64.     On 29 March 2006 the applicant related the details of the events to the investigation and added that she had learnt from a neighbour that one of the abductors’ vehicles had had on the front an official registration plate containing the digits 132XA. (iii)     Main investigative steps and progress of the investigation 65.     On 18 March 2006 investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 66.     On the same date an investigator sent requests for information to various law-enforcement agencies. 67.     On 29 March 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 68.     On 3 April 2006 the investigator asked the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior to provide information about vehicles with registration numbers containing the digits 132XA. 69.     On 9 April 2006 the Chechnya FSB informed the investigator that between 1994 and 2001, Zayndi Ayubov had been an active member of illegal armed groups. They also stated that they had not detained him and had no information about his whereabouts. 70.     On 24 March 2006 the President of the Parliamentary Committee for Security and Law Enforcement wrote to the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA”) and the head of the Chechnya FSB. The relevant parts of the letter read as follows: “[We] have been receiving new complaints from residents of the Chechen Republic concerning the unlawful actions of officers of law-enforcement agencies ... during the conduct of special and targeted operations in populated areas of Chechnya. Thus, on 17 March 2006 [Zayndi Ayubov] ... was beaten up and taken away to an unknown destination by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms. According to eyewitnesses, the arrest [of the applicant’s husband] was carried out in a very offensive manner, without the necessary procedural norms or an arrest warrant. It was carried out by men who had arrived in two Gazel vehicles. The neighbours had memorised part of one of the registration numbers – 132 XA. In addition, during the arrest special weapons were used, namely, stun grenades. One of them failed to go off and was later handed over to officers of the Leninskiy ROVD as material evidence. During one-on-one meetings, the eyewitnesses affirmed that the arrest had been carried out by FSB officers. Having regard to the above, I ask you to assist in establishing the whereabouts of Z.A. Ayubov and identifying the persons who carried out the arrest.” 71.     The investigation was suspended on 28 May 2006. It was resumed on 14 June 2006, when the investigators sent new information requests and questioned the witnesses again. 72.     On 19 July 2006 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior informed the investigators that no Gazel vehicles with 132XA95 registration numbers were listed in their database. 73.     On 26 July 2006 at the Leninskiy ROVD the investigators seized the two grenades which the perpetrators had left at the crime scene and which witnesses had then found and handed over to the police. 74.     On the same date the investigator ordered a ballistic expert examination of the grenades. 75.     The copies of documents from the criminal case file submitted by the Government did not contain any further information on the progress of the investigation. (c)     The applicant’s complaints concerning the investigation (i)     Judicial review 76.     The applicant complained to the domestic courts, under Article   125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of procrastination of the investigation (the complaint was allowed on 31 July 2007). She also applied for access to the investigation file (the request was rejected on 18 December 2007). 77.     On 23 December 2008 the Grozny District Court dismissed the complaint concerning the authorities’ failure to inform the applicant’s lawyer of the progress of the investigation. On 11 February 2009 this decision was upheld on appeal. (ii)     Civil proceedings 78.     In October 2009 the applicant brought civil proceedings seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of her husband’s abduction and the lack of an effective investigation into the incident. 79.     On 30 November 2009 the Grozny District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.   On 9 March 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 4.     Application no. 24708/09, Debizova and Others v. Russia (a)     Abduction of Khamzat (also spelt as Khamzan) Debizov, Akhmed Kasumov, Magomed Kasumov, Adam Eskirkhanov and Ismail Taisumov 80.     In the morning of 5 November 2002 the Russian federal forces conducted a special operation in the settlement of Novye Atagi. They set up military checkpoints around the settlement and blocked the passage of vehicles through the area. 81.     Between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. on that day, the applicants were in their homes located on the outskirts of the settlement when they heard the arrival military vehicles. Groups of between three and thirty men in camouflage uniforms with machine guns broke into their houses. Some of them were wearing masks and/or helmets. Most of the unmasked men were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. According to the applicants, they would be able to identify some of the intruders. 82.     The men subjected the applicants and their relatives to insults and beatings and searched the houses. Then they beat the applicants’ five male relatives, Mr Khamzat Debizov, Mr Akhmed Kasumov, Mr   Magomed Kasumov, Mr Adam Eskirkhanov and Mr Ismail Taisumov, bound their hands and put them in APCs. Eleven APCs were seen that day in the settlement; three of them were used for the abduction. Akhmed Kasumov was taken in an APC with registration number 304. The men opened fire and drove away in the direction of the town centre and the River Argun. They passed freely through the checkpoints, whereas the applicants were not allowed to do so. 83.     The applicants subsequently found out that Khamzan Debizov had been held at the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (“the ROVD”) and Akhmed Kasumov at the Shali ROVD, but this information has not been officially confirmed. 84.     According to the applicants, the servicemen belonged to the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) and the special unit of the Privolzhskiy Circuit of the Internal Forces of the Ministry of the Interior (Оперативная бригада Приволжского округа ВВ МВД) and they arrested the applicants’ relatives on suspicion of active membership of illegal armed groups. 85.     The applicants have not seen their five relatives since 5   November 2002. (b)     Official investigation 86.     The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no. 50040 on the abduction of Khamzat Debizov, Akhmed Kasumov, Magomed Kasumov, Adam Eskirkhanov and Ismail Taisumov. The   information submitted may be summarised as follows. (i)     Opening of the criminal investigation 87.     On 12 November 2002 the applicants complained to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office of the abduction of their relatives by Russian servicemen. 88.     On 15 November 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened joined criminal case no. 59254 into the abduction of the applicants’ five relatives under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). (ii)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 89.     On 18 November 2002 the first, fifth, ninth and thirteenth applicants stated that on 5 November 2002 armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in APCs, broken into their houses and taken their relatives away. They also stated that one of the APCs had had registration number 304. 90.     On 26 April 2006 the eleventh applicant made a similar statement. (iii)     Main investigative steps and progress of the investigation 91.     Between 18 and 20 November 2002 the first, fifth and ninth applicants were granted victim status and questioned. 92.     The investigation was suspended on 15 January 2003 and then resumed on 27 March 2006. 93.     In April and November 2006 the investigator examined the crime scenes. No evidence was collected. 94.     On 5 May 2006 the eleventh applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 95.     The investigation was suspended again 3 June 2006 and then resumed on 15 November 2006. 96.     In November 2006 and February 2007 the investigators again questioned the applicants and renewed their information requests to various law-enforcement agencies, asking whether they had detained or arrested the applicants’ relatives. 97.     On 3 March 2007 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed and suspended several more times, and is still pending. (c)     The applicants’ complaints concerning the investigation 98.   Throughout the proceedings the applicants complained to various authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in their search. They wrote in particular to the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for rights and freedoms in December 2002; to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office and the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 in March 2003; to the Shali district prosecutor’s office in February and April 2004; to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116 in June 2005; to the Shali district prosecutor’s office in February 2006; to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20116 and to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office in November 2006; and to the Chechen Government in August 2008. 5.     Application no. 30327/09, Adiyeva and Others v. Russia (a)     Abduction of Aslambek Adiyev, Albert Midayev and Magomed Elmurzayev 99.     On 30 July 2002 Mr Aslambek Adiyev (in the documents submitted also referred to as Mr Ibragim Madiyev), Mr Albert Midayev, Mr Magomed Elmurzayev and their respective families had gathered at Albert Midayev’s house in Shali. At 2.05 p.m. several vehicles pulled over at the gate and a group of men in camouflage uniforms with pistols, machine guns and shields got out. All but two were wearing masks. The men opened fire at Aslambek Adiyev and shot him in the leg. Then they dragged him into one of the vehicles. 100.     The men then broke into the house and ordered everyone in unaccented Russian to lie on the floor. They hit those who did not obey. Meanwhile, the sixth applicant walked outside to the backyard and saw Albert Midayev facing the wall with his hands above his head and one of the intruders kicking him in the leg. Shortly thereafter, the men put Albert Midayev and Magomed Elmurzayev in the same vehicle and drove them down Ivanovskaya Street towards the town centre. This vehicle was followed by a convoy of at least five vehicles, including an APC, a UAZ, a white VAZ car, a white Volga car and an armoured infantry carrier. The applicants tried to follow the convoy but were unsuccessful. 101.     On 29 August 2002 an officer of the Chechnya FSB told the sixth applicant in a private conversation that the intruders belonged to the 34th special military unit based in Argun. 102.     The applicants have not seen their three relatives since 30   July 2002. (b)     Official investigation 103.     The Government submitted copies of documents from criminal case file no. 59194 on the abduction of Aslambek Adiyev, Albert Midayev and Magomed Elmurzayev (comprising two volumes). The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (i)     Opening of the criminal investigation 104.     On 30 July 2002 the applicants reported the abduction of their three relatives by armed men in camouflage uniforms to the head of the Shali district administration. The applicants’ complaint was forwarded to the Shali district prosecutor’s office. 105.     On 8 August 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59194 into the abduction of Ibragim Madiyev, Albert Midayev and Magomed Elmurzayev, under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 106.     On 7 February 2011 the investigator corrected the decision of 8   August 2002 because the name of one of the applicants’ abducted relatives was wrongly mentioned as “Ibragim Madiyev”. It was changed to “Aslambek Adiyev”. (ii)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 107.     The majority of the witness statements submitted by the Government were incomplete as there were pages missing. From the documents submitted it appears that on 12 August 2002 the thirteenth and fourteenth applicants informed the investigator that in the afternoon of 30   July 2002 a group of armed men had broken into their house, shot Aslambek Adiyev in the leg and beaten up Albert Midayev and Magomed Elmurzayev. They had then put all three men in a grey UAZ vehicle, and driven away accompanied by two VAZ cars. On 24 May 2004 the first and sixth applicants made similar submissions. (iii)     Main investigative steps and progress of the investigation 108.     On 12 August 2002 the fourteenth applicant was questioned and granted victim status. 109.     The investigation was suspended on 12 April 2004 and then resumed on 29 April 2004. 110.     On 30 April 2004 the investigator sent information requests to various law-enforcement agencies concerning the whereabouts of the abducted men. Negative replies were given. 111.     On 24 May 2004 the first and sixth applicants were granted victim status. 112.     The investigation was suspended on 29 May 2004 and then resumed on 28 September 2006. 113.     In October, November and December 2006 the investigator forwarded the same information requests and again questioned the same witnesses. 114.     The investigation was suspended and resumed several more times. The criminal proceedings are still pending. (c)     The applicants’ complaints concerning the investigation 115.     Throughout the investigation the applicants wrote to various authorities requesting assistance in the search for their relatives and inquiring about the progress of the investigation. They complained to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 in September 2003; to the Ministry of the Interior of Russia and the military commander of Argun in March 2004; to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office in June 2005; to various departments of the Ministry of the Interior in August 2006; and to the Shali district investigations department in November 2008. 116.     In reply to those inquiries the applicants were informed that investigative measures were being taken to establish the whereabouts of their relatives and that they would be kept abreast of the results of the investigation. 6.     Application no. 36965/09, Petimat Magomadova v. Russia (a)     Abduction of Buvaysar Magomadov 117.     On 27 October 2002 Mr Buvaysar Magomadov and other relatives were sleeping in the applicant’s house in Mesker-Yurt, Shali district. At about 6 a.m. two APCs and a Gazel minivan arrived at the house. A group of up to twenty masked armed men in camouflage uniforms and bullet-proof vests jumped out of the vehicles and entered the house. Speaking unaccented Russian, they checked Buvaysar’s and his father’s identity documents. They told the father that they were taking Buvaysar away for an identity check. The applicant asked them whether they had come from Shali and whether they had been checking other villagers. The servicemen nodded in the affirmative. Then they put Buvaysar in the minivan and departed. 118.     The applicant’s brother, Ismail Magomadov, immediately reported the abduction to the head of the local administration. Together they found out that the servicemen had driven to Shali. According to the servicemen manning the checkpoint on the outskirts of Mesker-Yurt, a convoy of two APCs and a minivan had passed through and driven in the direction of Shali. 119.     On the same day the applicant went with her relatives to the Shali district military commander’s office. An on-duty serviceman told her that an arrested man had been brought in and handed over to the district FSB. Later that day the head of the district FSB told the applicant that Buvaysar Magomadov would be questioned and then released in three days. However, subsequently the officer denied having any knowledge of the events. 120.     On 31 October 2002 the relatives learnt that Buvaysar Magomadov had been taken to Khankala, where the main base of the Russian military in Chechnya was situated. 121.     The applicant has not seen Buvaysar Magomadov since 27   October 2002. (b)     Official investigation 122.     The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no. 22144 on the abduction of Buvaysar Magomadov. The documents mainly cover the period after 6 May 2008 because documents concerning the preceding period have been lost (see paragraph 145 below). The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (i)     Opening of the criminal investigation 123.     On 29 October 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22144 on the abduction of Buvaysar Magomadov under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). (ii)     M