CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s40E223D1 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE2263CF9 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s60636784 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s55D550F5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6E8A3574 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4219E0E5 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC533701 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48D61AB0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE57C276B { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s38AB6644 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFE6327B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5811DCC9 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sC790D588 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s6AD8534E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s9CF13DC7 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s86725BB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s4AD8A65C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11110ED { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6E97E8AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8DCCCE3B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sE27D9C81 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F43FB07 { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left } .s83A3CD4C { width:223.64pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s24238E10 { width:232.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s69A82CF5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left } .s3BC1B487 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s96C827F3 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD9A1B9EE { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s351934E1 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s9741C08F { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sD81AB0A7 { height:11.35pt } .s2074955B { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEDDA22A8 { margin-left:17.85pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s38F34D94 { width:22.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC3E07CE2 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9E16B676 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.55pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s133DFE18 { width:13.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s6DCE261A { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE76E8EDF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:4.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s68FE8614 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .sFA3D25F1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:4.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s35460B25 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.15pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s188215D4 { width:9.63pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F5931BD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC9C3FAEF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.15pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s39C03AB6 { width:5.93pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s70FFC40C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC3D5C03A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s78E3148A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.35pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA8851017 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:2.25pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFB0AFDA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7E9E0C2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8627AB6F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s902DC867 { width:8.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s59888373 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:10.15pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4E9C9A20 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s4366C4C0 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .sD68C3E0C { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF9923458 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:92.2pt; text-align:center } .s304E8EB7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sE35648A { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:15.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6CEC9F51 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-1.7pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s64074A31 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-1.7pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s4A294500 { height:30.3pt } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC7F8CD86 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9EC3D246 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s1BC7305F { height:62pt } .s6153EA4C { margin-left:36pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .sB6FF9115 { width:4.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1230263B { height:24.9pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF AKHMATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 38828/10, 2543/11, 2650/11, 2685/11, 7409/11, 14321/11 and 26277/11)             JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 7 March 2014 under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court   STRASBOURG   16 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 Akhmatov 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 17 December 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in seven applications (see details in Appendix I) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Russian nationals (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated below in Appendix I. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny, lawyers from the NGO Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (in partnership with NGO Astreya), and lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. 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 2001 and 2005 their fourteen relatives had been abducted by State servicemen in Chechnya and that no effective investigation of the matter had taken place. 4.     On 21 October 2011 the applications were communicated to the   Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are Russian nationals who live in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of persons who disappeared after allegedly being arrested at home by servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces.     The alleged abductions were primarily carried out during curfew hours, at night or early in the morning. In some of the cases the applicants submitted that at the material time a special operation was being conducted by Russian servicemen in the area, which was subsequently confirmed by the investigation. 6.     The applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. The investigations consisted mainly of the authorities making requests for information and formal requests to their counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and other regions of the North Caucasus to carry out operational search measures. The requests received negative responses or no replies at all. 7.   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. 8.     In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions. 9.     Below are the summaries of the facts relevant to each individual complaint. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I). A.     Application 38828/10, Akhmatov v. Russia 10.     The applicant, Mr Pakhrudin (also spelt as Pakhruddin and Bakhrudin) Akhmatov, was born in 1950 and lives in Noybera (in the documents submitted also referred to as Melchikhi and Nizhniy Noyber), Gudermes district, in the Chechen Republic. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev. 11.     The applicant is the father of Mr Lom-Ali Akhmatov, who was born in 1978. 1.     Abduction of Lom-Ali Akhmatov 12.     Between 1 and 5 January 2005 the applicant’s son Lom-Ali Akhmatov was celebrating his wedding and staying at the applicant’s house. 13.     At around 4 p.m. on 6 January 2005 three armed men in military uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in a silver VAZ-21099 car without official registration numbers, and asked to speak to Lom-Ali outside. Once in the street they put him in their car and drove away towards Gudermes. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicant’s fellow villagers. 14.     The applicant has not seen Mr Lom-Ali Akhmatov since 6   January 2005. 2.     Official investigation of the abduction (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 15.     On 8 January 2005 the applicant complained to the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office (the investigators) and the Gudermes district department of the interior (the ROVD) that his son had been arrested by unidentified military men who had arrived in a civilian VAZ-2199 car without registration numbers. 16.     On 5 March 2005 the Gudermes ROVD informed the investigators that the abduction of the applicant’s son had been perpetrated under the pretext of an “informal inquiry” by the police and that it could have been connected to the arrest of Lom-Ali’s acquaintance who was a member of an illegal armed group, Mr U.-M. D. 17.     On 15 March 2005 the applicant wrote to the the prosecutor’s office asking for a criminal case not to be opened as his son Lom-Ali “has not been abducted”. 18.     On the same date the prosecutor’s office refused to initiate a criminal investigation. 19.     On 12 August 2005 the applicant stated to the investigators from the prosecutor’s office that his son had indeed been abducted in January 2005 and that he had written the request of 15 March 2005 asking for a criminal case not to be opened while under pressure from officers of the Gudermes ROVD. The applicant insisted that the prosecutor’s office must investigate his son’s abduction and open a criminal case in connection with it. 20.     On 26 September 2005 the Gudermes district interim prosecutor overruled the refusal to open a criminal case. On the same date an investigation of the abduction (in the documents submitted it was also described as the murder) of the applicant’s son was initiated and the criminal case file was given the number 45107. 21.     On 13 December 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene. 22.     On 26 December 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to establish the identity of the culprits. The applicant was informed thereof on 9 November 2007 when he enquired on 8 November 2007 about the progress of the investigation. 23.     On 17 February 2010 the investigation was resumed and the investigators were instructed, amongst other things, to question a number of witnesses. 24.     On 1 May 2010 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof. 25.     From the documents submitted it appears that on an unidentified date in the spring of 2010 the applicant complained to a local court that the investigation was ineffective. On 5 May 2010 the domestic court examined the complaint. The outcome of the examination is unknown. 26.     On 23 January 2012 the investigation was resumed again. 27.     The proceedings are currently pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken during the investigation 28.     On 12 October 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. He described the circumstances of the abduction and provided names of witnesses to the abduction, Mr I.A. and Mr I.V. 29.     On 6 or 8 December 2005 the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour Mr V.A., who stated that before the abduction the abductors had pulled over at his house and inquired about Lom-Ali. They had said that they were from Tsentoroy, Chechnya. 30.     On 13 December 2005 and 6 January 2006 the investigators questioned Mr I.A., who described the circumstances of the abduction. During the first questioning he stated, amongst other things, that he had thought that the abductors were law-enforcement officers, but he could not recall their appearance. 31.     On 6 January 2006 the investigators questioned Mr I.V., whose statement was similar to the one given by Mr I.A. 32.     On 18 April 2010 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who confirmed his previous statement of 12 October 2005. 33.     On 20 April 2010 the investigators questioned the applicant’s relatives, Ms Z.Sh. and Ms B.M., whose statements about the abduction were similar to that of the applicant. B.     Application no. 2543/11, Mukhtarova and Others v. Russia 34.     The applicants are: 1) Ms Zargan Mukhtarova, born in 1958; 2) Mr Rizvan Shakhgareyev, born in 1978; 3) Ms Tamara Kagirova, born in 1956; 4) Mr Zhamalayla Kagirov, born in 1952; 5) Mr Surkho Kagirov, born in 1985; 6) Mr Turpal Kagirov, born in 1988; 7) Mr Abdula Kagirov, born in 2002; 8) Ms Malika Latayeva, born in 1964; 9) Ms Berlant Aliyeva, born in 1962. 35.     The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative/Astreya. 36.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Rustam Shakhgareyev, who was born in 1978, and the second applicant is his brother. The third and fourth applicants are the parents of Mr Zelimkhan Kagirov, who was born in 1977; the fifth and six applicants are his brothers and the seventh applicant is his son. The eighth applicant is the mother of Mr Zelimkhan Latayev, who was born in 1984. The ninth applicant is the mother of Mr Khavazhi Aliyev, who was born in 1984. 1.     Abduction of the applicants’ relatives 37.     Early in the morning of 16 July 2003 about 100 military servicemen conducted a sweeping operation in Chernorechye, in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny. They cordoned off the area between Pyatigorskaya and Vyborgskaya Streets with armoured personnel carriers (APCs), Ural lorries and UAZ cars. The servicemen randomly broke into blocks of flats situated in the area, searched them and checked the residents’ identity documents. During the check they fired weapons and detonated explosives. 38.     At the relevant time Mr Rustam Shakhgareyev, Mr Zelimkhan Kagirov and their respective families, including the first, second, and seventh applicants were living in two separate flats in the area. Mr   Zelimkhan Latayev and Mr Khavazhi Aliyev were staying at a flat also situated in the neighbourhood. 39.     Between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. on 16 July 2003 groups of up to ten servicemen in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns broke into Mr Rustam Shakhgareyev’s and Mr Zelimkhan Kagirov’s flats. Some of the servicemen were not wearing masks and were of Slavic appearance. After brief questioning and a search of the premises the servicemen took the two men outside, put them in their vehicles, whose registration numbers were obscured, and drove away. The servicemen told the second applicant to look for his brother Rustam at the Ministry of the Interior. 40.     Meanwhile,   Mr   Zelimkhan   Latayev   and Mr Khavazhi Aliyev noticed that their building was surrounded by servicemen and tried to escape through the window. However, once in the street they were arrested by the servicemen, who drove them away. 41.     According to the applicants, ten other residents were arrested by the servicemen on the same day. A convoy of several vehicles freely passed through checkpoint no. 4 situated on an exit road from Chernorechye. 42.     The applicants have not seen their four relatives since 16 July 2003. 2.     Official investigation of the abduction (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 43.     On 16 and 17 July 2003 the applicants and other relatives of Zelimkhan Kagirov, Rustam Shakhgareyev and Zelimkhan Latayev complained to the law-enforcement authorities about the abduction. On the same day, 16 July 2003, officers of the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office and the Zavodskoy ROVD visited the applicants. The officers questioned them and their neighbours, examined the crime scene and collected a number of spent cartridges and explosives. 44.     On 26 July 2003 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 30125 in connection with Mr Zelimkhan Kagirov’s abduction, criminal case no. 30126 in connection with the abduction of Rustam Shakhgareyev, and criminal case no. 30127 in connection with Zelimkhan Latayev’s abduction. Subsequently, on 13 March 2005 the three criminal cases were joined under the number 30125. 45.     On 30 July 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. 46.     On 4 October 2003 the Chechnya FSB informed the investigators that their servicemen had not arrested Mr Shakhgareyev and that they did not suspect him of criminal activities. On 31 December 2003, 30 June 2005 and 16 May 2006 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (the UGA), in interviews with the investigators, denied any involvement of their servicemen in the abduction. 47.     On 22 December 2005 the investigators ordered a ballistic expert evaluation of a bullet cartridge found at the crime scene. According to the expert’s report, the latter belonged to a special kind of bullet used for a certain type of sniper rifle. 48.     According to the Government, on 21 January 2006 the relatives of Khavazhi Aliyev made an official complaint about his abduction. Subsequently, on 23 January 2006 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 51007, which was joined with criminal case no. 30125 under the common number 30125. 49.     On 9 September 2008 the investigators ordered an expert assessment of the remains of the explosive device found at the crime scene. According to the expert’s report, the device was part of a tear gas grenade. 50.     On 15 September and 6 November 2008 the Grozny Zavodskoy District Court dismissed the applicants’ complaints concerning ineffective investigation of the abductions as premature and unsubstantiated. 51.     The investigation has been suspended and resumed on several occasions since. For instance, it was resumed on 30 November 2011 and then suspended again on 30 December 2011. 52.     The proceedings are currently pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigation 53.     On 16 July 2003 the applicants’ neighbour Ms T.S. provided the investigators with a detailed description of the incident. She stated, amongst other things, that the abductors had used military vehicles such as two APCs and two UAZ cars, and that they had checked the residents’ identity documents and ordered everyone to stay inside. 54.     On 28 July 2003 the investigators questioned the third applicant, who had not been present during the abduction but had learned from her relatives of the abduction of her son, Mr Zelimkhan Kagirov, by men in camouflage uniforms who had arrived for an identity check in APCs and UAZ vehicles. 55.     On 29 and 31 July 2003 the investigators questioned Ms E.D. and the fourth applicant, who stated that Zelimkhan Kagirov’s abductors had used APCs and had arrived to run an identity check. 56.     On 28 and 29 July 2003 the investigators questioned the second and first applicants respectively. Their statement about the abduction of their relative Rustam Shakhgareyev was similar to the one given by their neighbour Ms T.S. on 16 July 2003. In addition, they stated that during the abduction they had heard gunfire next to their house. 57.     On 30 July 2003 the investigators questioned Zelimkhan Latayev’s grandfather, Mr Kh.L., who stated that he had learned of his grandson’s abduction by servicemen in APCs from his relatives. 58.     On 15 August 2003 the investigators questioned officers Mr   V.P., Mr   O.Ya and Mr M.G., all of whom had been on duty at the checkpoint on the night of the abduction. They stated that early in the morning on 16 July 2003 two APCs and two UAZ vehicles packed with armed men in camouflage uniforms had crossed the checkpoint without stopping either on the way to Chernorechye or on the way back an hour later. 59.     On 16 and 20 January 2004 the investigators again questioned the first and second applicants, who reiterated the statements they had given previously and stated that they would not be able to identify the abductors. 60.     On 13 February, 31 May and 10 June 2004 the investigators again questioned the third applicant, who stated that on the day of her son’s abduction two young women, Malika and Fatima, had also been abducted and taken to the police, where for some time they had been detained with her son Zelimkhan Kagirov. 61.     On 27 July 2004 and again on 27 March 2005 the investigators questioned the second applicant, who stated that along with his brother Rustam Shakhgareyev, three other men had been abducted by the same group, namely Zelimkhan Kagirov, Zelimkhan Latayev and Khavazhi Aliyev, and that the abductors had used three APCs, six UAZ vehicles and two Ural lorries. 62.     On 3 March 2005 the investigators again questioned Mr Kh.L., who stated that as well as his grandson Zelimkhan Latayev, three other men and two young women had been abducted by the same group. He had learned from these two women that they and the abducted men had been detained in a basement situated a few minutes’ drive from the place of the abduction. On 15 March 2005 the witness stated to the investigators that he was not aware of the current whereabouts of the two young women. 63.     On 16 March 2005 the investigators again questioned the third applicant, who stated that she and her husband had met the two young women who had been detained with her son on 19 July 2003, but that she was not aware of their current whereabouts. 64.     On 20 January 2006 the investigators questioned Ms Malika Z., who stated that early in the morning on 16 July 2003 she and her sister Fatima had been taken from their flat by armed men in uniform and placed in a UAZ vehicle which was parked next to an APC, a tank and another UAZ. Both of them, with some men who had also been detained, had been taken to an abandoned two-storey building, where their hands had been bound, plastic sacks had been pulled over their heads and they had been forced to lie on the floor. After that they had been questioned about a member of an illegal armed group and shown photographs of some young men. On the same morning, at about 10 a.m., she and her sister had been put into a Gazel minivan and then released in Grozny. According to the witness, she had been detained with a man named Ramzan, with Zelimkhan Latayev and a man named Shakhgareyev. 65.     On 23 January 2006 the investigators questioned Khavazhi Aliyev’s father, Mr L.A., who stated that his son had been abducted on 16 July 2003 and then detained together with Zelimkhan Latayev and Zelimkhan Kagirov. 66.     On 16 July 2006 the investigators again questioned Mr L.A., who stated that his son Khavazhi Aliyev was a friend of Rustam Shakhgareyev and that in the evening of 15 July 2003 he had left the house to spend the night at Rustam’s flat. In the morning of 16 July 2003 he had learned from his neighbours that his son had been arrested and taken away with Shakhgareyev, Latayev and Kagirov. C.     Application no. 2650/11, Mazhiyeva and Others v. Russia 67.     The applicants are: 1) Ms Ayshat Mazhiyeva, born in 1953; 2) Ms Luiza Reshiyeva, born in 1977; 3) Mr Khamzat Mazhiyev, born in 2001; 4) Ms Anzhelika Bagayeva, born in 1975; 5)   Ms   Iman Mazhiyeva, born in 2003; 6)   Ms   Petimat Mazhiyeva, born in 1999; 7)   Ms   Madina   Mazhiyeva, born in 2001. 68.     The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative/Astreya. 69.     The applicants are relatives. The first applicant is the wife of Mr   Alik Mazhiyev, who was born in 1948, and the mother of Mr Khasan, Mr Khuseyn and Mr Arbi Mazhiyev, who were born in 1974, 1975 and 1983 respectively. The second applicant is the wife of Mr Khuseyn Mazhiyev and the third applicant is his son. The fourth applicant is the wife of Mr Khasan Mazhiyev and the fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are his daughters. 1.     Abduction of the applicants’ relatives 70.     At the material time the applicants and their four male relatives were living in the same block of flats in Grozny. The first applicant, Mr Alik Mazhiyev and Mr Arbi Mazhiyev occupied one flat. Mr Khasan Mazhiyev and Mr Khuseyn Mazhiyev resided in two separate flats with their families. The city of Grozny was under curfew. A military commander’s office was located in the vicinity of the applicants’ neighbourhood. 71.     At around 4 a.m. on 4 January 2003 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms cordoned off the applicants’ block of flats. The men arrived in two APCs, two UAZ ( tabletka ) vehicles and a Ural lorry. They broke into the applicants’ flats, saying that they were conducting an identity check. Some of them were wearing masks and helmets with torches. Those without masks were of Slavic appearance. They asked the applicants and their relatives in unaccented Russian for their identity documents, firearms, money and valuables, and ordered them to lie down on the floor. Then the men tied Alik’s, Arbi’s, Khasan’s and Khuseyn’s hands, gagged them and sealed their mouths with duct tape, checked their identity documents and took them outside. They put the men into their vehicles and drove away. 72.     The applicants have not seen their four relatives since 4 January 2003. 2.     Official investigation of the abduction (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 73.     On 4 January 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 50002. On the same day the crime scene was examined. 74.     On 6 March 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. 75.     On an unspecified date the investigators were informed by the Federal Security Service that the abducted men had been actively involved in illegal armed groups. 76.     The investigation has been suspended and resumed on several occasions. The last suspension took place on 18 October 2009. 77.     The proceedings are currently pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigation 78.     On 4 January 2003 the investigators questioned the fourth applicant, who provided a detailed account of the abduction. She also stated that after checking identity documents the abductors had spent about an hour searching the house. They had left with her four male relatives and the passport of their relative Mr Yu. A., who had been staying in their flat that night. 79.     On 6 March 2003, 27 July and 10 November 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who provided a detailed description of the events. In particular, she stated that the abductors had broken down the entrance door and said that they had arrived for an identity check. The abductors had arrived in APCs, Ural lorries and UAZ vehicles. 80.     On 23 July 2004 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Mr U.S., who stated that the abductors had arrived in two APCs. 81.     On 25 July 2004 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative Mr   Yu. A., who stated that the abductors, who had arrived in military vehicles, had tied his hands and then taken away four male relatives of the Mazhiyev family. 82.     On 26 July 2004 the investigators questioned the second applicant, whose statement about the abduction was similar to the one given by the fourth applicant. 83.     On 16 October 2008 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms S. G., who stated that the abductors had arrived in APCs and that one of them had threatened to shoot her if she kept looking out of the window. D.     Application no. 2685/11, Baymuradova and Others v. Russia 84.     The applicants are: 1) Ms Birlant Baymuradova, born in 1954; 2) Mr Bislan Bedigov, born in 1986; 3) Ms Rukiyat Magomadova, born in 1989. 85.     The first and second applicants live in Serzhen-Yurt and the third applicant lives in Germenchuk, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from Materi Chechni. 86.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Sobur-Ali Bedigov, who was born in 1956; the second and third applicants are his children. 1.     Abduction of the applicants’ relative 87.     At around 3 a.m. on 14 July 2001 a group of about thirty masked men in camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns, broke into the applicants’ house in Serzhen-Yurt. They beat up Mr Sobur-Ali Bedigov and his son, the second applicant, put white cloths over their heads and dragged them into the back yard. The men continued beating the men outside. Then they tied Sobur-Ali’s arms and legs and sealed the two men’s mouths with duct tape. Then one of them, acting on an order received through his portable radio, locked the second applicant in the basement and mined the door. 88.     Meanwhile, the other group of intruders locked the first and third applicants in one of the rooms in the house. Then they searched the house and took away a number of valuables, leaving the house in disorder. 89.     After that the men put Sobur-Ali in an APC and, accompanied by a convoy of another APC and two Ural lorries, drove away. The vehicles’ registration numbers were obscured with mud. 90.     The applicants have not seen Mr Sobur-Ali Bedigov since 14 July 2001. 2.     Official investigation of the abduction (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 91.   On 16 July 2001 the first applicant and her relatives complained to the Shali district prosecutor’s office about Sobur-Ali Bedigov’s abduction by military servicemen. In their complaint they stated that after the abduction Sobur-Ali Bedigov was in detention at the DON ‑ 2 ( подразделение Дон-2 ) military unit special group, stationed between Serzhen-Yurt and Shali. 92.     On 12 August 2001 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 23178 in connection with the abduction of Sobur ‑ Ali Bedigov “by a special forces unit during a special operation”. 93.     On 21 August 2001 the first applicant was granted victim status. 94.     On 12 October 2001 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed of this. 95.   On 21 February 2002 the investigators issued a statement   to the effect that the abduction had taken place during a special operation in Serzhen-Yurt conducted by a special forces unit. 96.     On various dates between 2002 and 2008 the applicants and their relatives complained to law-enforcement authorities, including the investigators, about their relative’s abduction by military servicemen. These complaints either went unanswered or replies were received denying involvement of State representatives in the events. 97.     On 10 June 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigators allow her access to the criminal case file. On 12 June 2010 permission was granted. 98.     On 21 July 2010 the investigation was resumed. 99.     On an unspecified date in 2010 the first applicant complained to a domestic court that the investigation was ineffective. In particular, she pointed out that the investigation had failed to establish whether the DON ‑ 2 military unit, which at the material time had been stationed in the vicinity of Serzhen-Yurt, had been involved in the abduction. On 1 September 2010 the Supreme Court of Chechnya dismissed her complaint as unsubstantiated. 100.     On 18 November 2011 the investigation was suspended again. 101.     The criminal proceedings were subsequerntly resumed and are still pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigation 102.     On 21 August 2001 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Mr S.S., who stated that a large group of men, about forty of them, who had abducted Sobur-Ali Bedigov, had also broken into his house on the same night and beaten him and his son. 103.     On 21 and 22 August 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who described the circumstances of the abduction and provided a list of the valuables taken away by the culprits. She also added that prior to the abduction her husband Sobur-Ali Bedigov had been detained by the FSB (Federal Security Service) on a number of occasions, but had been released each time after several days. 104.     On 21 August 2001 the investigators also questioned the second applicant, who provided a description of the events. His statement was similar to the ones given by the first applicant. 105.     On 22 August 2001 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Ms M.V., who stated that the large group of men who had abducted Sobur-Ali Bedigov had also broken into her house on the same night. 106.     On 30 August 2001 the investigators questioned Colonel E.P., the commander of military unit no. 64684 (or no. 64634), which was stationed near the village. The officer denied any knowledge of either a special operation in Serzhen-Yurt or Sobur-Ali Bedigov’s arrest. 107.     On 6 August 2010 and 28 October 2011 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who reiterated the statements she had given previously, asserting that her husband had been abducted by servicemen from the DON-2 military unit. E.     Application no. 7409/11, Salmurzayeva v. Russia 108.     The applicant, Ms Ayznat Salmurzayeva, was born in 1955 and lives in Goy-Chu, Urus-Martan District, in the Chechen Republic. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev. 109.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Alkhazur Salmurzayev, who was born in 1973. 1.     Abduction of the applicant’s son 110.     At the material time the applicant and her family were living in Goy-Chu. The settlement was under curfew and surrounded by a number of military checkpoints. 111.     At about 2.30 a.m. on 21 July 2002 ten to fifteen men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns broke into the applicant’s family house. All but one were masked. The intruders locked the applicant and her husband in a room, searched the house, then searched Alkhazur and his brother and checked their passports. Then they took Alkhazur outside and walked away with him towards the Urus-Martan-Alkhazurovo road, where a military checkpoint manned by servicemen from the Special Task Police Unit (ОМОН) from the Yaroslavl Region was situated. Shortly afterwards the applicant heard engines starting up. Other witnesses saw an APC and three UAZ vehicles in the vicinity. 112.     On the same night the servicemen also went into the applicant’s neighbour’s house. 113.     The applicant has not seen Mr Alkhazur Salmurzayev since 21   July 2002. 2.     Official investigation of the abduction (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 114.     According to the applicant, since the day after Alkhazur’s abduction she has been complaining to various law-enforcement agencies about her son’s abduction by State servicemen. According to the Government, the applicant officially complained about the abduction on 22   March 2003. 115.     On 10 April 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 34042. 116.     On 11 April 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 117.     On 10 July 2003 the investigation was suspended. 118.     On 15 September 2003 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed. 119.     On 16 September 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene. 120.     On 15 October 2003 the investigation was suspended again. 121.     On 9 December 2003 the supervising prosecutor again ordered that the investigation be resumed on the same date. On 9 January 2004 the investigation was suspended again. 122.     On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan District Court that the investigation was ineffective. On 20   September 2004 her complaint was rejected as unsubstantiated. 123.     On 15 October 2004 the investigation was suspended again. 124.     On 24 November 2005 the applicant requested the investigators to provide her with information on the progress of the criminal proceedings. On 30 November 2005 she was informed that the investigation was in progress. 125.     On 31 March 2010 the applicant complained to the Head of the Investigations Committee that the investigation of her son’s abduction was ineffective. Following her complaint, on an unspecified date the investigation was resumed. 126.     On 23 February 2012 the investigation was suspended again. 127.     The proceedings were subsequently resumed and are still pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigation 128.     On 10 July 2003 the investigators questioned two of the applicant’s neighbours, Mr Sh.A. and Ms R.A., both of whom stated that they had learned of Alkhazur Salmurzayev’s abduction from local residents. 129.     On 20 September 2003 the investigators questioned the applicant’s husband, Mr V.S., and the applicant’s daugther, Ms R.A., both of whom provided a detailed account of the abduction similar to the one submitted before the Court. 130.     On 20 September and then on 15 December 2003 the investigators also questioned the applicant. The contents of her statement was not disclosed by the Government. F.     Application no. 14321/11, Musliyevy v. Russia 131.     The applicants are: 1) Ms Rukiyat Musliyeva, born in 1956; 2) Mr Ramzan Musliyev, born in 1976; 3) Ms Zalikhan Musliyeva, born in 1980. 132.     The applicants live in Shali, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from Materi Chechni. 133.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Rizvan Musliyev, who was born in 1977, and Mr Bislan Musliyev, who was born in 1981. The second and third applicants are their siblings. 1.     Abduction of the applicants’ relatives 134.     At about 6 a.m. on 8 June 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also given as 7 June 2002) an APC with the registration number   023 and a UAZ vehicle without registration plates arrived at the applicants’ house in Shali. A group of at least fifteen masked men in camouflage uniforms carrying shields and machine guns got out of the vehicles. Some of them cordoned off the house, while the others entered into the building. After searching the premises, the servicemen took Rizvan and Bislan o