CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s539148BA { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#000000 } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s6893305C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sF4F12EF6 { width:180.75pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8741533B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:center } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sB55870D9 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s1B9314DE { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .sA0D2E1E8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.3pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEC3A4225 { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s8D02089D { height:84.1pt } .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 } .s70FFC40C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s387D3C78 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3175920E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s78E3148A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.35pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s35C486CA { height:136pt } .s86731D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sAB2B8B6D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:2.85pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s946186CC { height:1.4pt } .s83845D90 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:4.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s76FA683B { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s83BC64C1 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sE188E4CB { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse; } .s57165D7A { height:28.05pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }       FIRST SECTION               CASE OF PETIMAT ISMAILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 25088/11, 44277/11, 44284/11, 44313/11, 48134/11, 49486/11, 52076/11, 52182/11, 55055/11, 56574/11, 64266/11 and 66831/11)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   18 September 2014     FINAL   16/02/2015   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Petimat Ismailova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 26 August 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in twelve 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 below. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev and Mr   T. Shamsudinov, lawyers practising in Grozny, lawyers from the NGO Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with the 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 2006 their sixteen relatives had been abducted by State servicemen in Chechnya and that no effective investigation of the matter had taken place. 4.     On 17 January 2012 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 the close relatives of people who disappeared after allegedly being arrested at their homes 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 military servicemen or law-enforcement agencies in the area, which was subsequently confirmed by the investigation (see, for example, Vezirov and Others (no. 44284/11), Nuraliyevy (no. 48134/11) and Sangariyevy (no. 52182/11)). 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. 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 alleged abductions. 9.     Below are summaries of the facts relevant to each individual complaint. Each account of events is based on statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and to the domestic investigative authorities. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in Appendix   I. A.     Application no. 25088/11, Petimat Ismailova v.   Russia 10.     The applicant, Ms Petimat Ismailova (in the documents submitted also referred to as Baskhanova), was born in 1980, and lives in Katyr ‑ Yurt in the Achkhoy-Martan district, the Chechen Republic. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. 11.     The applicant is the wife of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov, who was born in 1980. 1.     Abduction of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov 12.     At the material time, the applicant and her husband Mr Ruslan Baskhanov lived in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. Their house was situated in proximity to the Achkhoy-Martan district military commander’s office. 13.     At about 3 a.m. on 6 January 2004 a group of about fifteen masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and took Mr Ruslan Baskhanov away. 14.     There has been no news of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov since that day. 2.     Official investigation 15.     The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 16.     On 9 January 2004 the applicant reported the abduction, and on 15   January 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   38002. 17.     On 15 January 2004 investigators examined the crime scene and collected three bullet cartridges. The expert examination they carried out subsequently concluded that they had been fired from various types of firearms. 18.     On 26 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 replied to the investigators, denying that military servicemen had been involved in the abduction. 19.     On 15 May 2004 the investigation was suspended. 20.     From the documents submitted, it appears that on an unspecified date in July 2007 the investigation was resumed, several witnesses were questioned (see paragraph 29 below) and the proceedings were then suspended. 21.     On 11 June 2008 the investigation was again resumed, and on 16   July 2008 it was again suspended. The applicant was not informed thereof. 22.     On 24 March 2009 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed as the investigators had failed to take a number of basic steps, such as establishing the owners of the APCs used by the abductors and granting the applicant victim status in the criminal case. On the same date the orders were given, the applicant was granted victim status and the proceedings were resumed. 23.     On 28   March 2009 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof. 24.     On 21 April 2012 the investigation was resumed again. It is still pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 25.     On 9 January 2004 the investigators questioned five of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, all of whom stated that they had learnt of the circumstances of the abduction from the applicant. 26.     On an unspecified date in January 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant, whose statement concerning the events was similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, she told the investigators that the perpetrators of her husband’s abduction had been federal servicemen. 27.     On 22 January 2004 the applicant’s relative and the aunt of Mr   Ruslan Baskhanov, Ms A.M., wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, stating that on an unspecified date between 6 and 21 January 2004 she had been invited by the head of the Achkhoy-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD) to a meeting with law-enforcement and military officers at the police station. During the meeting, she had pointed out to those present that the military commander had acknowledged that Mr Ruslan Baskhanov had been detained on 6 January 2004 by a law-enforcement agency. From the documents submitted, it transpires that no steps were taken by the investigators to verify this information. 28.     Between February 2004 and May 2005 the investigators questioned about thirty of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, all of whom provided statements similar to the account furnished by the applicant to the Court. 29.     On 18 July 2007 the investigators questioned another four of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, whose statements did not yield any new information. 30.     On various dates between 1 and 10 July 2008 the investigators questioned several more of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, whose statements did not yield any new information either. 31.     On 24 March 2009 the applicant was questioned again. She reiterated her previous statements. (c)     The applicant’s contact with the authorities 32.     On 3 June 2004 the investigators replied to a request by the applicant for information, stating that they had taken a number of steps to establish the whereabouts of her abducted husband and that even though on 15   May 2004 the proceedings had been suspended, the measures to identify the perpetrators and establish her husband’s whereabouts were still in progress. 33.     On 26 November 2008 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr   Ruslan Baskhanov missing. 34.     On 24 February 2009 in reply to a request by the applicant of 27   January 2009, the investigators informed her that she had the right to review only certain documents from the investigation file, but not its entire contents. 35.     On 11 October 2010 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court partially allowed a complaint by the applicant against the decision to suspend the investigation of 28 March 2009 and ordered the investigators to take all necessary steps. B.     Application no. 44277/11, Idigova and Others v.   Russia 36.     The applicants are: (1)     Ms Khava Idigova, born in 1961, (2)     Mr Ibragim Khamzatov, born in 1999, and (3)     Ms Marem Khamzatova, born in 2000. 37.     The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 38.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed Khamzatov, who was born in 1959. The first applicant is his wife, and the second and third applicants are his children. 1.     Abduction of Mr Magomed Khamzatov 39.     At the material time, the applicants and Mr   Magomed Khamzatov lived at 93 Saltykova ‑ Szhedrina Street in the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny. 40.     At about 5 a.m. on 5 December 2004 the first applicant saw from her window a group of about ten to twelve armed servicemen in military uniforms, masks, bulletproof vests and helmets running down the street and breaking into a nearby house, which belonged to the applicants’ relatives. 41.     Shortly afterwards, the armed men went to the applicants’ house and demanded that the first applicant open the door. They said that they were the police and were conducting identity checks. The intruders, who spoke unaccented Russian, took Mr Magomed Khamzatov outside, along with his passport and some clothing. The first applicant followed the abductors and saw that they had arrived in the neighbourhood in a UAZ minivan parked on a neighbouring street. A number of the applicants’ neighbours saw the servicemen forcing Mr Magomed Khamzatov into the vehicle and driving off. 42.     On the same night the same group of servicemen broke into a neighbouring house occupied by Ms   A.T. and her family. The men quickly checked the family’s identity documents and searched the premises. 43.     The applicants have not seen Mr Magomed Khamzatov since his abduction on 5   December 2004. 2.     Official investigation 44.     The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 45.     On 6   December 2004 (in the documents submitted also referred to as 5   December 2004) investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 46.     On 15 December 2004 (in the documents submitted also referred to as 7   December 2004) the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   33090. On 18   December 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status. 47.     On 15 February 2005 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 48.     On 20 May and then on 24 June 2005 an operational search officer reported to the investigators that Mr Magomed Khamzatov had been an active member of illegal armed groups, which could have been the reason for his detention by law-enforcement agencies. 49.     On 26 May 2005 the investigation was resumed. 50.     On 26 June 2006 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 51.     On 25 December 2007 the supervising prosecutor criticised the way the investigation was being conducted and ordered that it be resumed. 52.     On 2 February 2008 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 2 March 2008. The applicants were informed thereof. 53.     On 24 March 2008, again upon criticism and orders from the supervising prosecutor, the investigation was resumed. 54.     On 25 April, 8 August and 3 October 2008 the investigation was suspended again, and was resumed on 7 July, 3 September and 24   November 2008 respectively upon orders from the supervising prosecutor. The applicants were informed of the last suspension. 55.     On 28 January 2009 the investigation was again resumed and then suspended on 27 February 2009. 56.     On 23 April 2012 the investigation was again resumed. It is still pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 57.     On 5   December 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant and eight of her relatives and neighbours. The witnesses’ descriptions of the abduction were similar to the account furnished by the applicants to the Court. 58.     On 18 December 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statement. 59.     Between 25 December 2004 and 20 January 2005 the investigators questioned eight of the applicants’ relatives and neighbours, whose statements did not yield any new information. 60.     On 26 March 2008 the investigators questioned six of the applicants’ neighbours, who did not provide any new information about the circumstances of the abduction. (c)     The applicants’ contact with the authorities 61.     On 24 February 2005 the father of Mr Magomed Khamzatov, Mr   Kh., wrote to the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences, asking them to confirm whether his son was being detained on the premises of the main Russian military base in Khankala, Chechnya. No reply was given to this request. 62.     On 1   April 2005, in reply to a request by the first applicant of 25   March 2005 concerning the progress of the proceedings, the investigators informed her that they were ongoing. 63.     On 12 July 2005 the first applicant requested that the investigators take steps to establish her husband’s whereabouts and resume the proceedings if they had been suspended. 64.     On an unspecified date in October or November 2008 the applicants’ relative and the mother of Mr Magomed Khamzatov, Ms   Kh. Kh., complained to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny that the investigators had failed to take a number of basic steps to solve her son’s abduction and requested that the proceedings be resumed. On 28   November 2008 the District Court rejected the complaint, stating that the investigation had already been resumed that day. 65.     On 25 May 2010, upon a request by the first applicant, the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny declared Mr   Magomed Khamzatov dead. C.     Application no. 44284/11, Vezirov and Others v.   Russia 66.     The applicants are: (1)     Mr Zaurbek Vezirov, born in 1954, (2)     Ms Aminat Vezirova, born in 1957, (3)     Ms Raisa Bibulatova, born in 1979, (4)     Ms Eliza Vezirova, born in 1990, (5)     Ms Elina Vezirova, born in 1990, (6)     Ms Rukiyat Vezirova, born in 1986 and (7)     Ms Zhansari Vezirova, born in 1980. 67.     The first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants live in the settlement of Ilyinovskoye (also spelt Ilyinovka) in the Naurskiy district, the Chechen Republic. The sixth applicant lives in the Rostov region and the seventh applicant lives in Grozny. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 68.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Kharun Vezirov, who was born in 1977, and Mr Askhab Vezirov, who was born in 1979. The first and second applicants are their parents, and the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are their sisters. The third applicant is the wife of Mr   Askhab Vezirov. 1.     Abduction of Mr Kharun Vezirov and Mr Askhab Vezirov 69.     At the material time the applicants, along with Mr Kharun Vezirov and Mr Askhab Vezirov and other relatives, lived at 4 Nagornaya Street in Ilyinovskoye. 70.     At about 4 a.m. on 7 July 2003 a group of about ten servicemen arrived at their house in several UAZ vehicles and a GAZEL minivan. The servicemen, who were armed and in camouflage uniforms and masks, checked the identity documents of the family members and then dragged Mr   Kharun Vezirov to the backyard, where they subjected him to beatings, demanding in unaccented Russian that he show them the firearms he had allegedly hidden in the house. Having searched the house, the servicemen forced Mr Kharun Vezirov and Mr Askhab Vezirov into the minivan and drove off in the direction of Argun, a nearby town. 71.     The applicants have not seen the two brothers since that date. 2.     Official investigation 72.     The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 73.     On 27 February 2004 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   34025. 74.     On various dates in March and April 2004 the investigators requested that the Grozny ROVD assist them in the search for the Vezirov brothers stating, amongst other things: “[...] on 7 July 2003 in Ilyinovskoye, a special operation involving a large number of military servicemen and policemen was carried out...” 75.     On 9 March 2004 the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case, and on 25 May 2004 the first applicant was also granted that status. 76.     On 27 May and 29 July 2004 the investigation was suspended and then on 22 June and 17 August 2004 respectively it was resumed upon orders from the supervising prosecutor. 77.     On 12 March 2007 and 14 April 2011 the applicants were informed that the investigation had been suspended on 19   September 2004 for failure to identify the perpetrators. 78.     From the documents submitted, it appears that the investigation was resumed on or around 29 May 2012 and is still pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 79.     On 25 February 2004 the investigators questioned the first, second and third applicants, whose statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, the second applicant provided the investigators with a detailed description of the appearances and uniforms of two of the abductors. 80.     On March 2004 the investigators questioned the first and third applicants and one of the applicants’ neighbours, Mr Kh.-A.A. again, whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. 81.     On 2 September 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who stated that he suspected that the abduction of his sons had been perpetrated by State agents because of his family’s kinship with a certain Mr   Abubakar, who had been an active member of illegal armed groups. He also stated that his son Mr Kharun Vezirov had fought against the federal forces during the first military campaign in Chechnya in 1996. 82.     On 6 September 2004 the investigators questioned the third applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements. 83.     On 9 September 2004 the investigators questioned the head of a local state enterprise, Mr A.A., who stated that there were no detention facilities on their premises. (c)     The applicants’ contact with the authorities 84.     On 9 June 2004 the third applicant wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, asking for assistance in the search for her abducted relatives. 85.     On an unspecified date between January and March 2007 the applicants requested information on the progress of the investigation. They were informed in reply on 12 March 2007 that the proceedings had been suspended on 19 September 2004 (see paragraph 77 above). 86.     Between 24 and 27 July 2009 the applicants requested their representatives to assist them in dealing with the investigative authorities and establishing the circumstances of the abduction. 87.     On an unspecified date between January and March 2011 the applicants again requested information on the progress of the investigation. They were informed in reply on 14 April 2011 that the proceedings had been suspended since 19 September 2004 (see paragraph 77 above). D.     Application no. 44313/11, Ismailova and Others v.   Russia 88.     The applicants are: (1)     Ms Khazan (also spelt as Khaza) Ismailova, born in 1957, (2)     Ms Medni Isayeva, born in 2003, and (3)     Ms Zina Ismailova, born in 1939. The first and second applicants live in Goyty, and the third applicant lives in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 89.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Aslambek Isayev, who was born in 1981. The first applicant is his aunt, the second applicant is his daughter, and the third applicant is his grandmother. 1.     Abduction of Mr Aslambek Isayev 90.     At the material time, the applicants and Mr Aslambek Isayev lived together in flat no.   8 (in the documents submitted also referred to as no.   11) in a block of flats at 54   Tobolskaya Street in Grozny. The applicants’ neighbourhood was surrounded by military checkpoints and the area was under curfew. 91.     At about 3 a.m. on 16 April 2003 a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the block of flats in two UAZ vehicles. They broke into the applicants’ flat, asked the applicants in unaccented Russian whether any firearms were hidden on the premises and quickly searched it. Afterwards, they told the applicants that identity checks had been conducted in the area and that more than fifty people had already been arrested as a result. They then said that they would check Mr   Aslambek Isayev’s identity, put him in one of the UAZ cars and drove off. 92.     The applicants have not seen Mr Aslambek Isayev since 16   April 2003. 2.     Official investigation 93.     The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 94.     On 1 May 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 40070. 95.     On 19 May 2003 the wife of Mr Aslambek Isayev, Ms   M.M., was granted victim status in the criminal case. 96.     On 22 May 2003 the crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected. 97.     On 1 August 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 98.     On 12 May 2005 the decision to suspend the proceedings was overruled for failure on the part of the investigators to take basic steps and the proceedings were resumed. On 15 June 2005 they were again suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 99.     From the documents submitted, it appears that on an unspecified date in 2012 the investigation was resumed and that it is still pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 100.     On 15 May 2003 the investigators questioned the third applicant, whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, she told the investigators that Mr   Aslambek Isayev’s abductors had informed her of the identity checks in the area resulting in the arrest of about fifty local residents. 101.     On the same date, 15 May 2003, the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative and Mr Aslambek Isayev’s wife, Ms M.M., who stated that on the morning of 16   April 2003 Mr Aslambek Isayev had been arrested by military servicemen who had arrived in two UAZ vehicles. 102.     On 19 May 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement about the events was similar to the one given by Ms   M.M. on 15 May 2003. 103.     On 8 June 2005 the investigators questioned Ms   M.M. again, who reiterated her previous statement. (c)     The applicants’ contact with the authorities 104.     On 12 May 2003 Ms   M.M. requested that the Chechnya prosecutor’s office assist her in the search for her husband. 105.     On 7 June and 21 December 2005 and then in March 2006 the first applicant complained to a number of law-enforcement authorities, including the Chechnya military prosecutor’s office and the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, that Mr Aslambek Isayev had been abducted by “representatives of power structures” and that the investigation into the matter had been ineffective. 106.     On 20 January 2008 Ms M.M. complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Grozny that the investigation had been ineffective. The complaint was left without examination. 107.     On 15 April 2009 the first applicant requested that the investigators allow her to access the investigation file. On 16 April 2009 the investigators replied that she was allowed to make copies of only certain documents from the file. 108.     On 26 January 2011 the applicants complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court, stating that the investigation into the abduction had been ineffective. The outcome of this complaint is unknown. E.     Application no. 48134/11, Nuraliyevy v.   Russia 109.     The applicants are Ms Maret Nuraliyeva, who was born in 1970 and lives in Grozny, and Ms Aset Nuraliyeva, who was born in 1972 and lives in Dyshne ‑ Vedeno, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. 110.     The applicants are sisters of Mr Daud Nuraliyev, who was born in 1979, and Mr Khalid Nuraliyev, who was born in 1974. 1.     Abduction of Mr Daud Nuraliyev and Mr Khalid Nuraliyev 111.     At the material time, the applicants, their two sisters and four brothers, including Mr Daud Nuraliyev and Mr Khalid Nuraliyev, lived together in Chechen-Aul in the Grozny district. 112.     Between 10 and 24 June 2002 the federal military forces conducted a ‘sweeping-up’ operation in Chechen-Aul. The temporary headquarters of the operation were stationed on the outskirts of the village. 113.     On 16 June 2002 a group of about ten armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in two APCs. The servicemen, some of whom were masked, searched the house and demanded Mr   Daud Nuraliyev in unaccented Russian to proceed with them for an identity check; Mr Daud Nuraliyev was put into one of the APCs, which drove off towards the temporary military headquarters. 114.     On 23 June 2002 by the corner of Sadovaya Street and Sovkhoznaya Street the same group of military servicemen in APCs detained Mr Khalid Nuraliyev and took him to the temporary headquarters. 115.     The applicants have not seen their brothers since their abduction. 2.     Official investigation 116.     The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 117.     On 28 June 2002 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   56099. The document stated that Mr Khalid Nuraliyev had been abducted “by unidentified persons during [a] special operation”. 118.     On 6 January 2003 the applicants were informed that the investigation of the abduction had been suspended, but that operational ‑ search measures were being taken to establish the whereabouts of the abducted men and identify the culprits. 119.     On 30 November 2006 the investigation was resumed. 120.     On 19 December 2006 the applicants’ sister, Ms Ya.N., was granted victim status in the criminal case. 121.     On 30 December 2006 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 122.     On 17 September 2010 the investigation was resumed and on 21   September 2010 the crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected. 123.     On 11 November 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 124.     On 18 October 2010 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 125.     On 11 November 2010 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation and ordered its resumption. On the same date the first applicant was again granted victim status and questioned. 126.     On 14 November 2010 the investigation was again suspended. It appears, however, that the investigation has been resumed and that the proceedings are still pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 127.     On 29 June 2002 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement about the circumstances of her brothers’ abduction was similar to the account furnished to the Court. She stressed to the investigators that, in her opinion, the abductors had been federal servicemen. 128.     On the same date, 29 June 2002, the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms R.T., whose statement was similar to the one given by the first applicant. 129.     On 19 December 2002 and then on 20 January 2003 the investigators questioned the second applicant, whose statement concerning the circumstances the abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant. She also stressed that the abductors had been in the federal forces. 130.     On 19 December 2006 the investigators questioned the applicants’ sisters Ms Ya.N. and Ms Ma.N. and their relative Ms P.N., whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the ones given by the applicants. 131.     On 28 December 2006 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements and added that the district police officer had admitted participating in her brothers’ arrest. 132.     On 29 December 2009 the investigators questioned a local police officer, Mr A.I., who confirmed the conduct of the ten-day special operation in June 2002 in Chechen-Aul. 133.     On various dates in September and October 2010 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ fellow villagers, whose statements did not provide any relevant information. 134.     On 7 October 2010 the investigators questioned the applicants’ sisters again, who reiterated their previous statements. 135.     On 11 November 2010 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements. (c)     The applicants’ contact with the authorities 136.     According to the applicants, at some point in 2005 they heard a rumour that Mr Khalid Nuraliyev was allegedly being detained in a prison in the Rostov region. In the same year they forwarded a number of requests to various authorities asking them to verify this information. The replies given were in the negative. 137.     On 26 May 2010 the first applicant complained to the Grozny district prosecutor that the investigation of her brothers’ abduction by servicemen during the special operation had been ineffective, and requested to be informed of its progress. 138.     On 3 June 2010 the investigators replied to the applicant, stating that they were taking all possible measures to have the crime solved. 139.     On 24 February 2011 the first applicant complained to the Grozny District Court that the investigation of criminal case no.   56099 had been ineffective and requested the court to order the authorities to resume the proceedings and conduct an effective investigation into the abduction. 140.     On 14 March 2011 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint, stating that the investigation had already been resumed. On 13   April 2011 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Chechnya Supreme Court. F.     Application no. 49486/11, Khamstkhanova v.   Russia 141.     The applicant, Ms Arbiyat Khamstkhanova, was born in 1960 and lives in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny. 142.     The applicant is the wife of Mr Iles Khamstkhanov, who was born in 1960 (in the documents submitted the date is also stated as 1955). 1.     Abduction of the applicant’s husband 143.     At about 11 p.m. on 12 January 2006 a group of ten armed servicemen in bulletproof vests and special helmets (the uniform usually worn by special forces) arrived at the applicant’s house in Grozny in three UAZ vehicles. One of the vehicles was armoured, while the others were equipped with mobile radio stations. 144.     The servicemen smashed windows and broke their way inside. They grabbed Mr Iles Khamstkhanov and dragged him outside; two of the intruders held the applicant’s son Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov at gunpoint and ordered him not to move. The servicemen put Mr Iles Khamstkhanov in one of the vehicles and drove off in the direction of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Grozny. Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov went to the ROVD with his relatives immediately; they were told at the police station that Mr Iles Khamstkhanov had been arrested by mistake and that he would be released soon. 145.     The applicant has not seen Mr Iles Khamstkhanov since 12   January 2006. 2.     Official investigation 146.     The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows. (a)     Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 147.     On 12 January 2006 the applicant and her relatives reported the abduction in writing to the ROVD. 148.     On 13 January 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 149.     On 30 January 2006 the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no.   52007. On 31   January 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 150.     On 20 May 2006 the applicant was informed that the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 151.     On 25 June 2007 the investigation was resumed and then suspended the next day. 152.     On 16 June 2008 the investigation was resumed and then suspended the next day. 153.     On 20 October 2008 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 21 November 2008. 154.     On 26 April 2011 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 6 May 2011. 155.     On 23 April 2012 the investigation was resumed. The proceedings are still pending. (b)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 156.     On 13 and 14   January 2006 investigators questioned the applicant, her young daughter and her son Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov. Their statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, the applicant told the investigators that one of the abductors had told her that they had been from the Federal Security Service. 157.     On 31 January 2006 the investigators questioned the applicant and her son Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov and their neighbour Ms P.U. again; their statements contained the same information concerning the abduction as the account submitted to the Court. 158.     On 28 April 2006 the investigators questioned the applicant’s daughter Ms P.Kh., Mr Iles Khamstkhanov’s brother, Mr Kh.Kh., and Mr   Iles Khamstkhanov’s cousin, Mr A. Kh. Their statements concerning the incident were similar to the ones given by the applicant. (c)     The applicant’s contact with the authorities 159.     On various dates between 1 January and March 2006 the applicant wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office asking for assistance in the search for her husband. 160.     On 25 February 2011 the applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Grozny that the investigation of her husband’s abduction by representatives of power structures had been ineffective and requested that it be resumed and carried out effectively. On 27 April 2011 the court rejected her complaint, stating that the investigation had been resumed on 26   April 2011. G.     Application no. 52076/11, Aguyeva and Others v.   Russia 161.     The applicants are: (1)     Ms Khedi Aguyeva, born in 1960, (2)     Mr Inderpash Ismailov, born in 1956, (3)     Ms Marusa Aguyeva, born in 1921, (4)     Ms Luiza Makhmadova (also spelt Makhamdova and Makhamadova), born in 1985, and (5)     Mr Atama Ismailov, born in 2003. The first and third applicants live in Malorechnaya in the Kurchaloy district, the second applicant lives in Tsotsi-Yurt (also spelt Tsotsen-Yurt) in the Kurchaloy district, and the fourth and fifth applicants live in Gudermes, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 162.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Dzhandar (also spelt Zhandar) Ismailov, who was born in 1979, and Mr Dzhalil (also spelt Zhalil) Ismailov, who was born in 1982. The first and second applicants are their parents, the third applicant is their grandmother. The fourth applicant is the wife of Mr Dzhandar Ismailov and the fifth applicant is his daughter. 1.     Abduction of Mr Dzhandar Ismailov and Mr Dzhalil Ismailov 163.     At the material time, the town of Gudermes was under curfew; it was surrounded by military checkpoints. A special military unit, no.   291 of the 42nd regiment of the Motorised Infantry Division of the Russian Ministry of Defence, known as ‘Battalion Vostok’ ( батальон 291