CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 février 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 } .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 } .s6CCF2F4C { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:56.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sC50659C1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:56.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s8F6A6C3B { margin-top:36pt; margin-right:56.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2AC4ED6 { margin:18pt 56.4pt 12pt 17.85pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s77AB3B98 { margin:12pt 56.4pt 6pt 36.6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBC1C6F0C { margin:12pt 56.4pt 6pt 48.75pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEE33EF77 { margin:12pt 56.4pt 6pt 59.5pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4FFF0664 { margin:0pt 56.4pt 0pt 7.1pt } .s14E3BBDB { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:56.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s925684DA { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:56.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B9AEA23 { margin:6pt 56.4pt 6pt 21.25pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s286A0011 { margin:6pt 56.4pt 6pt 21.25pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4A0927BB { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:56.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8533D0FA { margin:18pt 56.4pt 12pt 29.2pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .sD20DF6AF { margin:6pt 56.4pt 6pt 28.35pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4CF2A687 { margin-top:12pt; margin-right:56.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sD4B14862 { margin:6pt 56.4pt 6pt 21.25pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1B05472 { margin:0pt 56.4pt 0pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sA383E748 { margin:0pt 56.4pt 0pt 17.3pt } .s3B7D5A2B { margin-top:12pt; margin-right:56.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6A524C9B { margin-top:36pt; margin-right:56.4pt; 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E9AE8E6 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse; } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .s8EB571EB { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s7B60FD10 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s265AD245 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s86731D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s581CA061 { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s274645EE { height:210.7pt } .s76FA683B { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEEA85BC5 { margin-left:3.3pt; text-indent:3.8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .sB6FF9115 { width:4.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s46E6D682 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .sFA230F2B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39C03AB6 { width:5.93pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBF2CF81 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s18847BE9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-13.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s94229BC1 { width:0.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3356863B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s83BC64C1 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s1081C4CE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.35pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7B27C732 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.35pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD81AB0A7 { height:11.35pt } .s55908D43 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s4E616D00 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .sC17FCABC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1C891167 { width:1.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s54C12785 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:4.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF0F4299F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9741C08F { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s4273FCEC { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s387D3C78 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .sC7606FBC { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .sE511E089 { height:74.55pt } .s3517C930 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s95047288 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBDFD88E { height:67.45pt } .sAAD38A00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAF1DB252 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.3pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE472E089 { height:74.65pt } .sE21A6802 { height:0.9pt } .s788A5DB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s51FE57EB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:24.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.95pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5A8A3FE3 { width:7.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD29FA0C5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:244.95pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.05pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s72A1F778 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:6.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-6.65pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s48B70781 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .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 } .sEC9B6AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s8E48411D { 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; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s2F6AB271 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .sF7E0CD4A { 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; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }         FIRST SECTION             CASE OF DZHABRAILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 8620/09, 11674/09, 16488/09, 21133/09, 36354/09, 47770/09, 54728/09, 25511/10 and 32791/10)               JUDGMENT   This version was recified on 28 August 2014 under Rule 81 of the Rules of the Court     STRASBOURG   27 February 2014     FINAL   07/07/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dzhabrailov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in nine 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 in Appendix I. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with the NGO Astreya), lawyers from the NGO Memorial Human Rights Centre, and Mr   S. Visengereyev, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 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 claimed that on various dates between 2000 and 2004 their thirteen relatives had been detained by State servicemen in Chechnya and that no effective investigation into the matter had taken place. 4.     On 14 December 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 individuals who disappeared, allegedly after having been unlawfully detained by servicemen during a special operation. In each of the applications the events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. 6.     The applicants complained about the circumstances 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 have mainly consisted of   requests for information and formal requests for operational search measures to be carried out by counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and other regions of the North Caucasus. The requests received either negative responses or no reply 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 incidents. 9.     Below are summaries of the facts in respect of each individual application. Each account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and to the domestic investigative authorities. The personal details of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I). 1.     Application no. 8620/09, Dzhabrailov and Others v.   Russia 10.     The applicants are: (1) Mr Khamzat Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1941, (2) Ms Tamara Taysumova (also referred to as Dzhabrailova), who was born in 1955, (3) Ms Zarema Dzhabrailova, who was born in 1978, and (4) Ms Larisa Dzhabrailova, who was born in 1985. 11.     The applicants live in Argun, Shali District, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Memorial Human Rights Centre. 12.     The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr   Yakub Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1981; the third and fourth applicants are his sisters. (a)     Events surrounding the abduction of the applicants’ relative 13.     At the material time the applicants and Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov lived in Argun in one household consisting of two dwellings. Between 13 and 15   December 2001 Russian servicemen conducted a sweeping-up operation in that settlement. The town was surrounded by military checkpoints and the residents required authorisation to enter or leave it. On-duty servicemen patrolling the streets made it impossible for the residents to move around. 14.     On 14 December 2001 a group of twenty servicemen arrived at the applicants’ house in an armoured personnel carrier (APC) and a UAZ “ tabletka ” vehicle with obscured registration plates. The servicemen were camouflaged and unmasked, of Russian or Asian appearance, and spoke unaccented Russian. Having searched Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov’s dwelling, they threatened to take him with them and added that those whom they took away never returned. On the same day the servicemen took the applicants’ neighbour, Mr B.U., to the Argun district military commander’s office (“the military commander’s office”) He was later released, but his car had been taken away from him by the servicemen and remained at the office’s premises. 15.     On 15 December 2001, at around noon, the same servicemen returned to the neighbourhood in the APC and cordoned off the area. Some of them broke into the applicants’ dwelling and locked the applicants inside, while two others entered Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov’s part of the house. They forced Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov outside, put him in the APC and drove to the military commander’s office. Servicemen patrolling the streets witnessed the events but did not interfere. 16.     Later on the same day the second applicant went to the Argun town administration, where she met about fifty relatives of other men arrested during the special operation. Two representatives of the town council informed her that the arrested men had been taken to a “filtering” point on the outskirts of Argun, and they agreed to pass on clothes to Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov. In the evening the applicant learnt that the arrested men would be transferred to the military commander’s office. 17.     On 17 December 2001 the military commander’s office informed the applicants that the special operation had been conducted by a special forces unit which did not report to the office and that none of the arrested men had been brought to their premises. Subsequently, the applicants learnt that Mr   Yakub Dzhabrailov and seven other persons arrested between 13 and 15   December 2001 had not been released. 18.     According to the second applicant, on 18 December 2001 she heard Mr   Yakub Dzhabrailov screaming in the district military commander’s office. 19.     The applicants have not seen Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov since 15   December 2001. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction (i)     Main witness statements taken in the investigation 20.     On 12 January 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. In his statement he described in detail the circumstances of his son’s abduction by armed men in military uniforms who had arrived in an APC and a UAZ vehicle. He also stated that prior to the abduction, on 14 December 2001, the same group of men had searched his house. The applicant provided a detailed description of the perpetrators and their vehicles and insisted that the APC was the same that had been used by the abductors the day before, on 14 December 2001. 21.     On 17 and 18 January 2002 the investigators questioned the second and third applicants, whose statements about the abduction were detailed and similar to the one given by the first applicant. 22.     On 19 January 2002 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative, Ms M.M., whose statement about the abduction was also similar to the one given by the first applicant. In addition, she stated that from the abductors’ actions it had been clear to her that they were familiar with the house and that they must have been the same men who had searched the applicants’ house on 14 December 2001. 23.     On 3 September 2003 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms A.D., whose statement about the abduction was similar to the ones given by the first, second and third applicants. She also stated that the APC used to take away Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov had been the same as that used on 14 December 2001 by the men who had searched the applicants’ house. 24.     On 9 September 2003 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Mr B.U., who stated that on 14 December 2001 armed men who had arrived at his house in an APC had ordered him to take his Mercedes car to the military commander’s office and leave it there for two weeks. 25.     On 10 September 2003 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who stated, amongst other things, that during their first visit on 14   December 2001 the abductors, having searched his house, had gone to his neighbour’s dwelling and taken the Mercedes car. 26.     On various dates in February 2004 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours Mr A.U. and Mr R.U., whose statements concerning the abductors’ visit on 14 December 2001 were similar to the ones given by the first applicant and Mr B.U. (see paragraphs 20 and 24 above). They also questioned the first applicant, who reiterated his previous statements. 27.     On 30 March 2004 the investigators questioned Mr M.S., who had been the head of the Argun department of the Federal Security Service (FSB) at the time of the abduction. The officer denied having any pertinent information concerning the disappearance of Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov. 28.     On various dates in September 2006 the investigators questioned six of the applicants’ neighbours, all of whom confirmed that a special operation had been conducted in Argun on 15 December 2001. 29.     On 21 September 2006 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who stated that his son’s abduction had been organised by the head of the Argun FSB, Mr M.S., and that the Argun prosecutor, Mr   R.T., had been aware of it. 30.     On 25 September 2006 the investigators questioned Mr R.T., who denied having any pertinent information about the abduction. 31.     On various dates in August 2011 the investigators questioned the first applicant and several of his relatives and neighbours. No new information concerning the abduction was obtained. (ii)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 32.     On 9 January 2002 the Argun district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   78010. 33.     On 5 February 2002 the investigators requested the Military Commander of the United Group Alignment (UGA) to inform them whether their servicemen had detained the applicants’ relative. On an unspecified date the UGA replied that on 15 December 2001 a joint police and military group had conducted a special operation in Argun. 34.     On 30 March 2002 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 35.     On 21 January 2004 the district prosecutor’s office criticised the lack of progress in the investigation and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. 36.     On 14 September 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 informed the investigators that no military servicemen had been involved in the abduction. 37.     On 10 August 2006 the first applicant wrote to the investigators requesting that they take a number of steps to expedite the search for his son. He also stated that he suspected that Mr M.S., who had been the head of the Argun FSB at the time, was responsible for his son’s abduction, and that the Argun Public Prosecutor and the Argun military commander had known about it but failed to take any action. 38.     On 31 October 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that criminal case no. 78027 had been opened in connection with the discovery of four mutilated corpses on the eastern outskirts of Argun on 28   February 2002. One body was identified as being that of Mr A ‑ W.   Ya., who had been abducted from his home in Argun in January 2001 under similar circumstances. 39.     On 28 February 2008 the first applicant requested that the investigators allow him access to the investigation file. On 6 March 2008 the Shali District Investigation Department granted his request. However, on 1   July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer was denied access to the file’s entire contents on the grounds that the investigation was still pending. 40.     On 17 July 2008 the investigators informed the applicant that the decision of 6 March 2008 had granted him only limited access to the case file. 41.     The contents of a number of documents from the investigation file reflect that the abduction took place “during a sweeping-up operation” by special forces. Such references are made in the decision to suspend the investigation and in the investigators’ request for police assistance, both dated 25 December 2011. 42.     The investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions; the last suspension took place on 25 December 2011. The proceedings are still pending. 2.     Application no. 11674/09, Suleymanova and Others v.   Russia 43.     The applicants are: (1) Ms Mata Suleymanova, who was born in 1956, (2) Mr Ostambek Suleymanov, who was born in 1950, (3) Ms Marem Magamaliyeva, who was born in 1981, and (4) Mr Abdul-Malik Suleymanov, who was born in 2002. The applicants live in Gudermes, Gudermes district, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 44.     The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Salambek Suleymanov, who was born in 1974, Mr Khasanbek Suleymanov, who was born in 1979, and Mr Anderbek (also spelt as Andarbek) Suleymanov, who was born in 1981. The third applicant is the wife of Mr Salambek Suleymanov, and the fourth applicant is his son. (a)     Events surrounding the abduction of the applicants’ relatives 45.     At the material time the applicants and the three Suleymanov brothers resided in two neighbouring houses in Gudermes. Mr   Salambek Suleymanov lived with the third and the fourth applicants while Mr   Khasanbek Suleymanov and Mr Anderbek Suleymanov lived with the first and second applicants. The town was under curfew. 46.   On an unspecified date in September or October 2002 federal servicemen conducted a special operation in Gudermes and arrested about thirty persons, including the Suleymanov brothers. The servicemen took the arrested men to the Gudermes district department of the interior (“ROVD”) in buses belonging to the FSB. After their fingerprints had been checked and photographs taken, the arrested men were released. 47.     On 28 October 2002 two neighbours, Mr Ali M. and Mr   Musa   Z., visited the applicants. Mr Anderbek Suleymanov joked that his family kept a bomb in the basement. It appears that Mr Musa Z. had previously been detained by the FSB and released in exchange for providing information. According to the applicants, it was possible he had informed the FSB about the joke. 48.     On 29 October 2002, at around 4 a.m., a group of camouflaged servicemen in masks and helmets arrived at the applicants’ houses in two UAZ minivans. They were armed with short-barrelled automatic rifles. The servicemen stormed inside and quickly searched the houses, looking for drugs, firearms, and, in particular, for the bomb allegedly hidden in the basement. Threatening the applicants in unaccented Russian, the servicemen ordered them to lie down on the floor. They collected the applicants’ and the three brothers’ identity documents, forced the latter into the UAZ and drove off in the direction of the town centre, passing unhindered through a checkpoint on the way. 49.     At the beginning of November 2002, about a week after the abduction, a former classmate of Mr Khasanbek Suleymanov told the applicants that their relatives were detained at a temporary detention centre (“IVS”) on the premises of the Gudermes ROVD and that FSB officers guarded them and occasionally took them out. Mr Khasanbek Suleymanov had passed an item of his clothing to his parents through another person and asked him to inform them of his place of detention. However, the ROVD officers denied that the brothers were detained there and refused to allow the applicants to enter the premises. 50.     One of the applicants’ neighbours, a police officer, also confirmed that the three men had been held at the ROVD. 51.   At some later   point the applicants heard from anonymous sources that in 2003 the brothers had been detained on the premises of an FSB department, that in 2003 Mr Salambek Suleymanov had been transferred to detention elsewhere, and that Mr   Aslan Dzh., the head of the criminal search unit at the Gudermes ROVD, had ordered the brothers’ abduction. 52.     The applicants have not seen their three relatives since 29   October 2002. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction (i)     Main witness statements taken by the investigation 53.     On 15 November 2002 the first and third applicants were questioned. Both of them provided a detailed description of the abduction similar to the one furnished to the Court. 54.     On the same date, the second applicant was also questioned and granted victim status in the criminal case. His statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one given by the first and third applicants. The second applicant was subsequently questioned again on two occasions: on 18 June 2005 and 20 April 2006. 55.     On 16 November 2002 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Mr Kh.A., who confirmed seeing a group of armed men in UAZ vehicles next to the applicants’ house on the night of the abduction. 56.     On 18 May 2005 the first applicant was also granted victim status and was questioned. She reiterated her previous statement, adding that she had made an official complaint about the abduction on the following day. 57.     On 20 April 2006 the first applicant was questioned again. She reiterated her previous statements and added that in her opinion her sons had been abducted by law-enforcement agents. 58.     On 5 and 6 May 2006 the investigation team questioned the head of the IVS and a senior inspector at the ROVD, who denied having any knowledge of the Suleymanov brothers. According to the IVS registration log of detainees examined on 5 May 2006, the brothers had not been detained there. 59.     On 23 September 2008 the first applicant was questioned again. She stated that she had learnt from Mr Uvais, who had died in 2007, that Mr   Aslan Dzh., the head of the criminal search unit at the ROVD, was resposible for her sons’ abduction. 60.     On 8 October 2008 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative Ms M.A., whose statement concerning the alleged organisation of the abduction by Mr   Aslan Dzh. was similar to the one given by the first applicant. (ii)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 61.     On 30 October 2002 an investigation team examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 62.     On 1 November 2002 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 57098 in connection with the abduction. According to the investigation plan drawn up on the same day, the abduction could have been perpetrated by criminals pursuing a blood feud, by creditors, by members of illegal armed groups, or by officers of law ‑ enforcement agencies. 63.     In November 2002, May and June 2005, April 2006 and September 2008 the investigators sent out requests for information to a number of law ‑ enforcement agencies in Moscow and the Southern Federal Circuit, including the Ministry of the Interior and various ROVD offices, detention centres, military commander’s offices and FSB departments. Only negative replies were received. 64.     On 12 December 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office stated in a procedural document that “the investigation [had] failed to establish to which power structure the abductors belonged”. Subsequently, on 16   August 2006, the investigators stated in another procedural document that “the only substantiated investigative theory was that the culprits belonged to power structures”. 65.     On 5 April 2006 the first applicant requested information on the progress of the investigation. In reply she was informed that the proceedings were still in progress. 66.     On 17 November and December 2006, and then on 4 March and 10   November 2008, the first applicant requested access to the investigation file. Her two latest requests were granted, on 7 March and 11   November 2008. 67.     On 10 September 2008 the applicants’ relatives and neighbours Ms   M.A. and Ms N.D. wrote to the investigators stating that Mr   Aslan Dzh., the head of the criminal search unit at the Gudermes ROVD, had been involved in the abduction of the applicants’ sons. Following that complaint, on 12 September 2008 a supervising prosecutor ordered the questioning of Mr   Aslan Dzh. by the investigators. From the documents submitted it appears that this order was not complied with. 68.     On 19 July 2010 and 26 January 2011 the Russian President’s Human Rights Envoy in Chechnya (“the Envoy”) wrote to the investigators on behalf of the first and second applicants requesting assistance in the seach for the applicants’ sons. In reply he was informed that operational seach measures to solve the crime were under way. 69.     According to the information obtained by the investigation, none of the Sulyemanov brothers were detained in penal institutions in the Russian Federation (see paragraph 51 above). 70.     According to the information received by the investigators at the Gudermes ROVD, the Suleymanov brothers were members of illegal armed groups and Salambek Suleymanov had participated in the activities of illegal Sharia courts. 71.     The investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions; the last suspension took place on 14 October 2008. It is still pending. 3.     Application no. 16488/09, Chankayevy v.   Russia 72.     The applicants are Mr Viktor Chankayev, who was born in 1948, and Ms Zaynap Chankayeva, who was born in 1954. The applicants live in Urus-Martan, Urus-Martan district, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 73.     The applicants are the parents of Mr Ramzan Chankayev, who was born in 1985, and the uncle and aunt of Mr Aslan Chankayev, who was born in 1985. (a)     Events surrounding the abduction of the applicants’ relatives 74.     At the material time the applicants, their son Mr Ramzan Chankayev and their nephew Mr Aslan Chankayev lived together in Urus-Martan. The area was under curfew. Roads leading to and from the settlements were blocked by checkpoints. 75.     On 19 September 2001 a group of about fifteen servicemen arrived at the applicants’ neighbourhood in Urus-Martan and cordoned off the area. Their UAZ car had no registration plates and the registration number of their Ural lorry was obscured by mud. All the servicemen were armed and wore camouflage uniforms and masks, save for the commanding officer. The latter was unmasked, had Slavic features and had an FSB emblem on his sleeve. After a quick search of the applicants’ house, the servicemen told them in unaccented Russian that they had to take Mr Ramzan Chankayev and Mr Aslan Chankayev with them to check their fingerprints at a laboratory situated on the premises of an Azeri market on the western outskirts of Urus-Martan. As the applicants refused to let their relatives go, the commander started shooting in the air. The servicemen then collected the bullet shells, put Mr Aslan Chankayev in the UAZ and Mr   Ramzan Chankayev in the Ural and drove away. 76.     On the same morning the servicemen conducted an identity check at the house of a neighbour, Mr N.S. 77.     Immediately after the arrest, the first applicant went to the Azeri market and the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office but his arrested relatives were not there. Then he went to the district prosecutor’s office, where he was told that the two men had been taken to the IVS at the Urus-Martan ROVD. In the evening, an official from the local administration confirmed this information to the second applicant, adding that both young men would be released as soon as they had had their fingerprints checked. Mr Radmir Arbekov, an assistant to the district prosecutor, agreed to pass on some food brought by the applicant for the arrested relatives. However, Mr Ramzan Chankayev and Mr   Aslan Chankayev were not released on that day. 78.     On 20 September 2001 the ROVD officers informed the applicants that their relatives had been transferred to the district military commander’s office. None of the officers at that office acknowledged the detention. 79.     On 8 October 2001 the second applicant saw the commanding officer who had participated in her relatives’ arrest on the premises of the military commander’s office. Sometime later she saw two other servicemen who she thought might also have participated in the abduction. When approached, one of the servicemen introduced himself as “Vitaliy”. 80.     The applicants have not seen Mr Ramzan Chankayev and Mr   Aslan Chankayev since 19 September 2001. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction (i)     Main witness statements taken by the investigation 81.     On 20 October 2001 the investigators questioned the second applicant, who provided a detailed description of the events similar to the one furnished to the Court. In addition, she stated that she had noticed FSB service stripes on the shoulder of the uniform of one of the abductors. The abductors had told her that they were from the Urus-Martan temporary department of the interior. At about 5 p.m. on the same day she complained to the prosecutor’s office about the abduction; near the office she met the deputy head of the Urus-Martan town administration, Mr L.M., who promised to expedite her relatives’ release from detention. 82.     On 2 November 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant’s brother and the father of Mr Aslan Chankayev, Mr A.Ch., whose statement concerning the events was similar to the one given by the second applicant. He also added that the abductors had told them that Mr   Ramzan Chankayev and Mr Aslan Chankayev would be released an hour later at the Azeri market. 83.     On 3 November 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement concerning the events was similar to the one given by his wife, the second applicant. In addition, he stated that on 8 October 2001, near to the military commander’s office his wife had identified one of the abductors in the presence of the district military commander and the head of the town administration Mr Sh.Ya. 84.     On various dates in November and December 2001 the investigators questioned five of the applicants’ neighbours, none of whom had witnessed the abduction but had learnt about it from the applicants. 85.     On 20 September 2006 the investigators again questioned the second applicant, who reiterated her previous statement and added that the man in charge of the abduction had been called Radmir. 86.     On 20 or 21 September 2006 the investigators questioned the applicants’ daughter, Ms Z.Ch. (also referred to as E.Ch. in the documents submitted), whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to those given by the applicants. In particular, she stated that one of the abductors had had FSB stripes on his uniform. (ii)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 87.     According to the applicants, they complained of the abduction to various law-enforcement agencies on 20 September 2001. According to the Government, the applicants complained of the abduction on 27   October 2001. 88.     On 1 October 2001 Mr Arbekov, the assistant to the district prosecutor, wrote to the Chechnya FSB that, according to the registration log of the Khankala FSB department, both Mr Ramzan Chankayev and Mr   Aslan Chankayev had been detained there. On 15 October 2001 the district military commander’s office sent out queries to the military units of the Ministry of Defence and the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior. On 16   October 2001 the ROVD informed the applicants that their relatives were not listed in their databases and that operational search files had been opened in connection with their abduction. 89.     On 27 October 2001 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   25137. 90.     On 20 March 2002 the head of the Main Service for the Execution of Sentences stated that the applicants’ relatives had not been detained in the detention centres in the Rostov Region. 91.     On 26 March 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 92.     On 13   October 2005 the applicants requested permission to access the investigation file. No response was given to this request. 93.     On 21 November 2005 the Urus-Martan ROVD informed the investigators that on the date of the abduction of the applicants’ relatives, no special operations had been conducted by the servicemen of the military units stationed in the area. 94.     On 28 September 2006 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed. 95.     On various dates throughout the proceedings, such as 9   November 2001, 4   June 2003 and 13 October 2005, the applicants contacted the investigators to ask about the progress of the investigation and to request assistance in the search for their relatives. In reply they were informed that an investigation was in progress and operational search measures were under way. 96.     On 2 February 2009, having been contacted by the applicants on 27   January 2009, the investigators informed them that the investigation had been suspended on an unspecified date. 97.     The investigation is still pending. 4.     Application no. 21133/09, Sultanova and Others v.   Russia 98.     The applicants are: (1) Ms Maret Sultanova, who was born in 1958, (2) Ms Madina Sultanova, who was born in 1993, (3) Mr Khusain Sultanov, who was born in 1984, (4) Ms Razet Sultanova, who was born in 1988, (5) Ms Zalina Sultanova, who was born in 1989, and (6) Mr Ibragim Razhipov, who was born in 1982. The applicants live in Samashki, Achkhoy-Martan district, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 99.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Dzhamali (also referred to as Khasan) Sultanov, who was born in 1986. The other applicants are his siblings. (a)     Events surrounding the abduction of the applicants’ relative 100.     Mr Dzhamali Sultanov suffered from a disability. In September 2004 he had an argument with Mr R.S., a local police officer. According to the applicants, Mr   R.S., in order to get back at Dzhamali, might have deliberately misinformed the Achkhoy ‑ Martan ROVD that Mr Dzhamali Sultanov was involved in illegal activities. 101.     On 5 November 2004, at around 3 a.m., a group of servicemen arrived at the applicants’ house. Five of them broke in. They were in camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns; three of them wore masks and the others wore helmets and caps. Those whose faces were not covered were of Slavic appearance; the servicemen spoke Russian and Chechen. They asked whether the applicants had any weapons or drugs, then checked Mr Dzhamali Sultanov’s passport, forced him outside and put him in a khaki UAZ car saying that they were taking him to Grozny. Then the UAZ departed in the direction of Achkhoy ‑ Martan, accompanied by a convoy of about ten vehicles, including UAZs, Gazelle minivans, and VAZ ‑ 21099 and Lada ( Жигули ) civilian cars. Later that night a serviceman manning a roadblock in the vicinity confirmed that the convoy had entered Achkhoy-Martan. 102.     According to the applicants, the abductors were acting on the false information given to the ROVD by police officer R.S. 103.     Five days later, an acquaintance of the applicants, Mr Akhdan, who served at the seventh military commander’s squadron ( седьмая комендантская рота ) stationed in Achkhoy-Martan, confirmed that he had seen the convoy in Achkhoy-Martan. According to him, a UAZ car had entered the premises of the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD, while the rest of the convoy had continued to drive on. According to Mr Akhdan, Mr   Dzhamali Sultanov had been detained at the ROVD and had been questioned by Mr   V.K., the head of the ROVD’s criminal search department. According to the applicants, Mr V.K. was head of the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD in Voronezh in the Voronezh Region and was on a temporary assignment in Achkhoy-Martan. In a meeting with the first applicant Mr A.S., Mr   V.K.’s deputy at the Achkhoy ‑ Martan ROVD, denied that Mr Dzhamali Sultanov had been detained at the ROVD. Mr Akhdan was killed several days after the conversation with the applicants. 104.     The applicants have not seen Mr Dzhamali Sultanov since 5   November 2004. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction (i)     Main witness statements taken by the investigation 105.     On 26 November 2004 the investigators questioned the first and the third applicants, whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the one submitted to the Court. In addition, the first applicant stated that Mr   Dzhamali Sultanov suffered from a learning disability, and had neither been to school nor had any friends. She further stated that she recognised one of the abductors as a police officer from the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD, Mr   V.K., also known under the nickname ‘Liman’. The first applicant was subsequently questioned again on 28 December 2004, 10 October 2006 and 25   July 2007 and provided similar statements; the third applicant was questioned again on 25 July 2007 and provided a similar statement. 106.     On 26 November 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant’s husband and the father of Mr Dzhamali Sultanov, Mr   Z.   Sultanov, whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the ones given by the first and third applicants. He was subsequently questioned again on 10 October 2006 and reiterated his previous statement. 107.     On various dates in November and December 2004, September 200