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 } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; 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 }       FIRST SECTION               CASE OF MAKAYEVA v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 37287/09)                   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 Makayeva 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 2 September 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 37287/09) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Ayma Makayeva (“the applicant”), on 15 July 2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by lawyers of the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. 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 applicant alleged that her son had been unlawfully detained in Chechnya in July 2009 and had then disappeared. 4.     On 7 October 2010 the President of the First Section, acting in response to a request from the applicant, granted priority treatment to the case under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. At the same time he decided not to indicate to the Russian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, interim measures as sought by the applicant. 5.     On 9 February 2010 the Court asked the Government to provide further factual information, under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court. 6.     On 17 June 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. Her son, Mr Apti Zaynalov, was born in 1980. A.     Background information 8.     In October 2005 Mr Apti Zaynalov was convicted of belonging to an illegal armed group. In July 2006 he was released from detention and after that date lived in Saratov, working in the construction industry. The applicant often stayed with him in Saratov. 9.     On 25 June 2009 the applicant travelled back to Grozny from Saratov. Before her departure Mr Apti Zaynalov told her that he was going to study in Egypt and that he had to go to Moscow to finalise certain formalities. 10.     On 26 June 2009 the applicant received a message from her son on her mobile phone saying that he would be flying to Egypt the next day. She did not hear from him again and had assumed that he was in Egypt. B.     The applicant’s account of Mr Apti Zaynalov’s abduction and placement in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital 11.     The applicant alleged that her son had been abducted in June 2009 by unknown servicemen and had disappeared in July 2009. Below is a summary of her submissions to the Court and to the national authorities. 1.     The applicant’s submissions to the Court of 15 July 2009 12.     According to the applicant’s submissions of 15 July 2009, on 2   July 2009 an unknown person had contacted the offices of Memorial in Grozny, claiming that a young man called Apti, whose body exhibited signs of torture, had been placed under guard in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. Staff from Memorial decided to follow up this information, believing that the young man might be Mr Apti Sh., who was considered to be a missing person. 13.     On 3 July 2009 Memorial staff member Mr G. had gone to Achkhoy-Martan together with Mr Apti Sh.’s uncle, Mr   I. Sh. They had found a patient under guard in the hospital’s surgical department. Mr G. had peeped into the ward and had seen two armed guards wearing camouflage uniform and black caps bearing the letters “K.R.A.” in Cyrillic. Two more guards had been sitting on beds near the door. On a bed near the window there had been a young man who was being assisted by a nurse. He was about thirty years old, had bruises on his face, his head was bandaged, and he was covered by a sheet displaying red stains. Mr I. Sh. realised that the patient was not his nephew. A hospital nurse had allegedly told Mr G. that the patient was twenty-nine years old, that his name was Apti Zaynalov, and that he was from the village of Makhety. He had been brought from Grozny, the medical staff had not been allowed to talk to him, his file contained no personal information, and he had been registered as “unknown”. Judging from his wounds, he might have been subjected to ill-treatment. 14.     Later that day Mr G. had contacted a relative of Mr Apti Zaynalov. That relative had showed Mr G. and Mr I.   Sh. a photograph of Mr   Apti Zaynalov and they had identified him as the patient. 15.     On 3 July 2009 the applicant’s elder son, Mr R., had told her that he had received information from Memorial stating that there was a patient resembling Mr Apti Zaynalov under guard in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. 16.     On 4 July 2009 the applicant and Mr R. had visited the Memorial office in Grozny. 17.     On 5 July 2009 Mr G. and Mr R. had travelled to Achkhoy-Martan but had obtained no new information. 18.     On 7 July 2009 the applicant and Memorial staff member Mrs   Natalia Estemirova had been received by the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor Mr P. The latter had ordered two officers to go with them to Achkhoy-Martan Hospital in order to conduct an inspection there. Then he had left for a meeting. According to the applicant, the two officers had accompanied her and Mrs Estemirova to the Achkhoy-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD). The officers had entered the premises but the applicant and Mrs Estemirova had remained waiting outside. After about an hour the applicant and Mrs   Estemirova had returned to the prosecutor’s office. However, they had not been admitted to the premises and had gone from there to the hospital. There they were met by Mr G., who explained to the applicant in which ward Mr Apti Zaynalov was allegedly being held. 19.     The applicant had approached the surgical department alone and had seen men in camouflage uniforms at its entrance. She had gone to the maternity department since it offered a good view of the surgical department and, having guessed that the patient was likely to be taken out through the security exit, had stood within seven or eight metres of that exit. Within a few minutes a white Volga car with number 367 on the registration plate had approached the security exit and a couple of minutes later Mr   Apti Zaynalov had been led out through the security exit. The applicant claims to have recognised him from his face, his height and his build. There had been stains of brilliant green antiseptic on his head and dark shadows around his eyes. He had been put into the back seat of the Volga car. The car had then approached the main hospital entrance, where two servicemen had got into the car. The Volga car had then driven off and – beyond the gates – had been joined by a black car with number 364 on the registration plate. The applicant had then returned to the surgical department and saw that the ward described by Mr   G. was empty. 20.     On 8-9 July 2009 the applicant lodged applications with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic, the Achkhoy-Martan Inter ‑ district Investigative Department and the Investigative Committee at the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic (“the Investigative Committee”) requesting that an investigation be instituted into her son’s disappearance. 21.     To support her submissions the applicant enclosed her own statement, statements by Mrs Estemirova and Mr G., and copies of her applications to the State authorities. 2.     The applicant’s submissions to the Court of 14 September 2009 22.     According to the applicant’s submissions of 14 September 2009, she had learnt that on 28 June 2009 Mr Apti Zaynalov had arrived in Grozny by train. At the railway station he had taken a taxi driven by Mr Z.   Kh. On the way, the taxi driver had stopped at a service station where he and Mr   Apti Zaynalov had been apprehended by armed men and driven away. Shortly after Mr Z.   Kh. had been apprehended, unidentified armed men had conducted an unauthorised search of his home. 23.     On 7 July 2009 Mr S.   Kh., Mr Z.   Kh.’s father, had lodged an application with the Zavodskoy District ROVD concerning the disappearance of his son. Two deputy heads of the ROVD had allegedly confirmed that he had been detained by the police. 24.     On 15 July 2009 Mrs Estemirova had been abducted by unknown persons in front of her house in Grozny. Her body had been found later the same day with gunshot wounds by the side of a road in Ingushetia. 25.     On 16 July 2009 Mr Z.   Kh. had been released. However, according to the applicant, he and his relatives had been so scared by what had happened to him that they had refused to make any witness statements in relation to the present case. C.     Investigation into Mr Apti Zaynalov’s disappearance 26.     The following information was provided by the parties in reply to the Court’s requests for information and questions concerning the communication. 1.     Pre-investigation inquiry and the decision not to institute criminal investigation 27.     On 7 July 2009 the Achkhoy-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) had received an application lodged by the applicant which stated that her son had been ill-treated by unidentified persons and was being held under guard in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. The applicant stated, in particular, that on 3   July   2009 she had received a phone call from which she learned that her son was being kept under guard in the surgical department of that hospital with haematomas and head wounds. On the same date her application had been transferred to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD. 28.     On 7 July 2009 the ROVD officers had been given explanations by Mr Ts., the deputy director of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. He had submitted that on 3 July 2009 he had been on duty at the hospital and Mr   Apti Zaynalov had not been admitted. It was the first time he had heard this name and it had not been listed in the patients’ register. Furthermore, no patient had been admitted at the hospital under guard. 29.     On 9 July 2009 Mr H., the head of the surgical department, had made a similar statement. 30.     On the same date Mr D., deputy prosecutor of the Achkhoy-Martan district, had submitted a written statement to the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic. He stated that at approximately 2 p.m. on 7 July 2009 he had received the applicant’s application alleging that her son was under guard in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital with haematomas and wounds. He had forwarded the application to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD in order that an inspection be conducted. The inspection of the hospital had been carried out by Mr A., the prosecutor’s senior assistant, and M., the head of the criminal investigations department of the ROVD, who had checked all the hospital wards, inspected the hospital register and questioned the medical staff in order to establish Mr   Apti Zaynalov’s whereabouts. However, the allegations of his placement in the surgical department of the hospital had not been confirmed. 31.     In a written statement of the same date Mr A., the prosecutor’s senior assistant, had confirmed Mr D.’s statement. 32.     On 10 July 2009 the Investigative Committee had received the applicant’s application concerning the disappearance of her son, who had allegedly been taken from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital to an unknown destination. 33.     On 10 July 2009 the principal physician of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital had been asked to provide information about Mr Apti Zaynalov’s placement in the hospital. According to the reply received, Mr   Apti Zaynalov had never been admitted to the hospital. 34.     On 14 July 2009 Ms M., a nurse at Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, had submitted her explanations. On 7 July 2009 she had been on duty at the hospital. Mr Apti Zaynalov had not been admitted to the hospital during her duty hours and there had been no patient under guard in the hospital. Ms   I., the chief nurse, had made a similar statement. 35.     On 15 July 2009, having taken account of the results of the inspection conducted, the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD had decided to refuse to institute criminal proceedings. The applicant had been informed of the decision. 2.     Information about Mr   Z.   Kh.’s alleged detention 36.     According to the Government, the applicant had not provided the investigating authorities with any information about the alleged detention of the taxi driver Mr   Z.   Kh. The authorities had decided to check the version involving the latter after coming across an article by Mrs   Estemirova, published on the Internet, which had linked the disappearance of Mr   Z.   Kh. to that of Mr Apti Zaynalov. The Government enclosed a copy of the article. 37.     On 17 July 2009 Mr S.   Kh., Mr   Z.   Kh.’s father, was asked to make a statement. He explained that his son was a driver and had a Toyota Camry provided by his employer as well as his own car, a GAZ-3102. On Sunday, 28 June 2009, at approximately 9 a.m. Mr   Z.   Kh. had taken the GAZ-3102 to the service station for repair. At approximately 11 a.m. the same day Mr   S.   Kh. had called his son on his mobile phone but there was no reply. Later the phone had been switched off. At approximately 4.30 p.m. Mr   S.   Kh. had gone outside and had seen three cars near Mr   Z.   Kh.’s house: a silver Lada Priora and two white VAZ-2107s. In the yard of the house there had been about ten armed men, aged between twenty-five and thirty years old, wearing camouflage uniform. They had not been wearing masks and had appeared to be of Chechen ethnic origin. At the time there had been no one in Mr   Z.   Kh.’s house because his wife and children had gone to visit relatives. When Mr S.   Kh. approached the armed men, they had not offered any explanation and had forbidden him to come closer to his son’s house, threatening him with automatic weapons. Mr S.   Kh. had called the local ROVD and informed them of the situation. About thirty minutes later the armed men had left, taking Mr   Z.   Kh.’s Toyota Camry with them. Five or ten minutes later a man who had introduced himself as B. had called Mr   S.   Kh.’s other son, Mr   Sh., and had told him to come to a certain junction to fetch his brother’s car. Ten or fifteen minutes later an investigation team from the ROVD had arrived. They had gone to the junction along with Mr Sh. and had found Mr   Z.   Kh.’s car there. On the evening of the same day the head of the ROVD had visited Mr   S.   Kh., and had informed him about the disappearance of Mr   Z. Kh. On the date of questioning, Mr   Z.   Kh. had still been missing. 38.     On the same date Mr S.   Kh. had informed the investigating authorities that his son, Mr   Z.   Kh., had just returned home safely. 39.     Later that day Mr Z. Kh. had been questioned. He had explained that on 28   June   2009 at approximately 9 a.m. he had gone out in his GAZ-3102 car and, having told his relatives that he was going to a service station, decided instead to go to the Black Sea resort of Gelendzhik for a couple of days, since his wife and children were away. He had been unable to call home because his phone had been lost. In Gelendzhik Mr Z. Kh. spent a few days living with a girl in a tent on the beach. In reply to the investigator’s question why he had not called his family, Mr Z. Kh. replied that while in Gelendzhik he had been drinking a lot and it had slipped his mind. Having returned home, he discovered that his relatives had been worried about him and had informed the authorities about his disappearance. Mr Z. Kh. had confirmed that he had not been a victim of any criminal offence. The fact that his Toyota Camry had been taken from his house and later found in a specified place surprised him. He had no idea who could have done it or for what reason. 40.     On 24 July 2009 Mr S. Kh. was questioned again. He confirmed his son’s statements and confirmed that nothing bad had happened to Mr   Z.   Kh. 41.     Following the institution of criminal proceedings into Mr   Apti Zaynalov’s disappearance (see below), Mr S. Kh. had been questioned as a witness on 23 September and 15 December 2009. He had confirmed his previous statements and had informed the investigator that on 2   August 2009 his son, Mr Z. Kh., had left for an unspecified European country. Mr   S. Kh. said that he had preferred it this way as he had been worried for the latter’s safety. Later his other son, Mr Sh., had also left the Chechen Republic. He had also stated that he had not known of Mr   Z.   Kh.’s acquaintance with Mr   Apti Zaynalov, and his son had never mentioned the latter’s name. 3.     Criminal investigation into Mr Apti Zaynalov’s disappearance (a)     Preliminary inquiry 42.     On 20 July 2009 the ROVD’s refusal to institute a criminal investigation of 15 July 2009 was quashed. The applicant was informed accordingly. 43.     Between 20 and 28 July 2009 requests for information about Mr   Apti Zaynalov were sent to various law-enforcement and security services in Chechnya, including the Ministry of the Interior, the Department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB), the Temporary United Alignment of Agencies and Units of the Ministry of the Interior [ ОГ ВОГО и П МВД – временная объединенная группировка органов и подразделений МВД ] and the Investigative Committee. 44.     On 27 and 28 July 2009 the applicant was questioned. She reaffirmed her previous submissions. The applicant stated, inter alia , that in Saratov on 23 June 2009 her son had told her that he was going to Moscow and then to Egypt. He had had no intention of coming to Chechnya. She also submitted that she had learned from Mrs Estemirova that Mr   Apti Zaynalov had been taken from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital to a hospital in Gudermes, where he had also been placed under guard. She was later questioned again, and reaffirmed her previous submissions. (b)     Opening of the investigation 45.     On 28 July 2009 criminal investigation no. 74032 was instituted into the disappearance of Mr   Apti Zaynalov. The applicant was informed of the decision. On the same date the acting prosecutor of Achkhoy-Martan transferred the case file from the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD to the Investigative Committee for further investigation. 46.     On 3 August 2009 the case was transferred to department no. 2 of the Chechnya Department of the Investigative Committee investigating cases of high importance. (c)     Information obtained from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital 47.     On 30 July 2009 Mr G. from Memorial was questioned. He confirmed that, to his knowledge, the applicant’s son had been detained in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. 48.     Twenty-one doctors and nurses from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital were questioned between 13 and 31 August 2009. Among those questioned were the director of the hospital, his deputy, the head of the surgical ward, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and operational and post-operational nurses. Their submissions were largely concordant and confirmed that an unknown young man had been treated on the surgical ward between 28 June and 7   July 2009, whilst under the guard of unknown armed men. The personnel had not asked the patient’s name, and in his medical file he had been recorded as “unknown”. No information about his admittance had been entered in the hospital’s records. The provenance of the guards had also been unknown, and no one remembered any insignia or marks on their uniforms, except the hospital director who believed that it had been the insignia of the Ministry of the Interior; no one had seen or noted their service badges or IDs or the registration plates of the cars they had used; no one had informed the law-enforcement authorities about a patient with gunshot wounds and trauma to the head. The guards had been armed with automatic weapons, had been of Chechen origin and had spoken in Chechen to the staff of the hospital and to the patient. They had treated the patient correctly and had done most of the everyday care, such as changing, washing and feeding the patient; the doctors and nurses had not spoken to him, had had very little contact with him and, if at all, it had always been in the presence of the guards. Some doctors and nurses were asked if they would be able to describe or identify the guards, or to identify or sketch the patient, but they responded in the negative. The medical file opened for the unknown patient at the hospital disappeared after his departure, as did the bullet extracted from his wound. 49.     The hospital director Mr Rizvan Kh. testified on 14 August 2009 that on 28 June 2009 at about 2 p.m. a group of five or six men had arrived to the hospital in two grey VAZ-21110 cars. The men had been dressed in camouflage uniforms bearing the Ministry of the Interior insignia and were armed with Kalashnikov automatic rifles and hand pistols. They had said that they worked for the ROVD, and Mr Rizvan Kh. assumed that they meant the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD. The men had brought in a wounded man, aged around 29, about 170 cm tall, dark-skinned, dark haired. He had a gunshot wound to the right leg, a piercing wound to the abdomen and a head trauma. His wounds had been operated on, and a neurosurgical team from Grozny had been called in to treat his head trauma. The armed guards had forbidden the hospital personnel, including the director, to talk to the patient. The hospital director had presumed that the patient was employed by the security services, perhaps by the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD, since at that time a number of servicemen were being treated at the hospital. For this reason, he had not passed on information about the patient to the police. At about 4 p.m. on 7 July 2009 the guards had removed the patient from the hospital without any warning. At that time the patient had been on the path to recovery, but was not completely healed. 50.     On 5 February 2010 the applicant’s counsel lodged an application with the investigating authorities requesting that criminal proceedings be instituted against the staff of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital on the grounds of their failure to inform the relevant authorities that a patient with gunshot wounds had been admitted. On 8 February 2010 this request was refused. (d)     Information about the detention of two men at the service station 51.     On 24 August 2009 Mr M. was questioned. He worked at a service station in Grozny. On 28 June 2009 at approximately 11 a.m. a white GAZ ‑ 3102 car bearing the registration plates of Mr   Z.   Kh.’s car had entered the station. Soon afterwards a man wearing a black uniform and armed with a Kalashnikov submachine gun had entered the service station. He had aimed the gun at them and told Mr   M. to lie on the floor. He had then taken the driver outside and made him lie down on the ground. Mr M. could hear screaming in Chechen outside and from the talking of approximately six armed men he had grasped that they were tying down a guy who was resisting them. The man in the black uniform had returned and asked for a piece of wire. Mr M. had understood that the men had used it to tie the hands of the passenger in the GAZ-3102 car. At some point he had heard two shots. The men then left in two white Lada Priora cars, taking with them both the passenger and the driver. Later, officers from the checkpoint near the service station had removed the GAZ-3102 car. Later that day and the following day, law-enforcement officers, including investigators, had come to the station and questioned Mr M. about those events. Mr M. would not have been able to identify the passenger, having noted only that he must have been twenty-eight to thirty years old. However, he would probably have been able to identify the driver, whom he described in detail. He might also have been able to identify the man in black uniform. At the end of July   2009, a man had come to the service station and had introduced himself as the brother of the driver apprehended on 28 June 2009. He had said that his brother had been released. (e)     Internal inquiry into the actions of the Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor 52.     On 24 September 2009 the Deputy Prosecutor of Chechnya concluded an internal inquiry into the actions of the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor Mr P. and his deputy Mr D. 53.     The document summarised the findings as follows: “On 7 July 2009 [the applicant] and Memorial representative Mrs Estemirova personally informed the acting Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor, Mr P., that on 26   June 2009 [the applicant’s] son, Mr Apti Zaynalov, had been kidnapped in Saratov and that at the time in question he was being held on the surgical ward of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital with numerous wounds and head traumas, guarded by unidentified armed persons. On the same day Mr P. recorded the application and gave it to his deputy Mr D. for transfer to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD. On 7 July 2009 the deputy district prosecutor Mr D. forwarded [the applicant’s] application to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD for the conduct of a preliminary inquiry, in line with Sections 144 and 145 of the [Code of Criminal Procedure]. On 7 July 2009 Mr Apti Zaynalov was abducted from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital by unidentified armed men and taken to an unknown destination. On 27 July 2009, further to [the applicant’s] submissions, criminal investigation file no.   74032 was opened by an investigator of the Achkhoy-Martan [department of the Investigative Committee] under Section 105 part 1 [murder] of the [Criminal Code]. On 2 August 2009 the criminal file was transferred for further investigation to department no. 2 of the [Chechnya Department of the Investigative Committee] investigating cases of high importance. The measures undertaken by the investigation department have not resulted in the ascertainment of Mr Apti Zaynalov’s whereabouts or the identification of the persons who committed the crime. From [the applicant’s] explanations it follows that on 7 July 2009 she and Mrs   Estemirova from Memorial informed the acting Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor, Mr P., that on 26 June 2009 her son had been kidnapped in Saratov and was being held on the surgical ward of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital... In their presence Mr P. instructed his deputy Mr D. and a senior assistant Mr A. to go to the hospital together with [the applicant] ... and find out what was happening there. At about 2   p.m. Mr D. and Mr A. walked into the ROVD building, having asked the two women to wait outside. After waiting for over one hour, she and Mrs Estemirova decided to enter the building but were not allowed to. They then went to the Achkhoy ‑ Martan district prosecutor’s office ..., but the guards refused to let them enter, saying that there was no one inside. At about 4 p.m. they finally went to Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, where the applicant saw four armed men putting her son into a car. There were no officers from the prosecutor’s office at the hospital. Mr P., the acting Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor, explained that on 26   June 2009 he had received information from Mr S., the head of the Achkhoy-Martan district [department of the FSB], that an active member of the [illegal armed groups] was being treated at Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, guarded by a group of unknown armed persons. In order to check up on this information, Mr P, his deputy Mr D. and deputy head of the Achkhoy-Martan district [investigative committee] went to Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. There, guarded by two unidentified men dressed in camouflage uniforms, they found a young man aged between 28 and 32 years, between 180 and 185 cm tall, with his head covered in bandages. The guards prevented the prosecutor from entering the room to ascertain the patient’s identity and, brandishing guns, they threatened to kill him. The director of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, Mr Kh., explained that the patient was being treated by a doctor from another hospital, but refused to make written submissions. These events were not reported by the prosecutors because they believed that the young man was a witness in a criminal case under investigation in the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, and that his anonymity should be preserved in line with the requirements of the criminal procedure because he had disclosed information about the members of the [illegal armed groups]. On 7 July 2009, having accepted [the applicant’s] complaint concerning the presence of her seriously wounded son under the guard of unknown armed persons at Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, Mr P. registered it ... but did not realise that Mr   Apti   Zaynalov was the person he had seen at the hospital two weeks earlier. He ordered his deputy Mr D. to send the complaint to the ROVD and to go to the hospital in order to find out whether Mr Apti   Zaynalov was there. On the evening of 7   July 2009 Mr D. orally informed the prosecutor that Mr Apti   Zaynalov was not at the hospital. Deputy district prosecutor Mr D. explained that ... on 7 July 2009 he had gone to Achkhoy-Martan Hospital together with senior assistant Mr A., the head of the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD, Mr Ay., and the head of the [operative criminal department] of the ROVD, Mr M. They examined the register of persons with traumas who had been admitted to the hospital and did not find Mr Apti   Zaynalov’s name there. In breach of p. 1.1 of the General Prosecutor’s Directive of 4 October 2007 No.   158 “On the submission of special dispatches and other indispensable information”, the acting Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor, Mr P., failed to inform the [Chechnya] prosecutor about the threat of murder made to him on 26 June 2009 while he was on duty, which constituted a crime against his person. In breach of the requirements set by the General Prosecutor’s Directive of 27   December 2007 No.   212 “On recording and tracking by the prosecutors of information about crimes”, the acting prosecutor of Achkhoy-Martan, Mr P., having on 7 July 2009 received information about a crime, failed to take steps in order to protect citizens against a criminal act and to immediately inform the relevant investigation body. In breach of Section 151 of the [Code of Criminal Procedure], having been given information about kidnapping and the unlawful deprivation of liberty – crimes under Sections 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code – [Mr P.] did not submit that information to the Achkhoy-Martan [district department of the Investigative Committee] but instead, without any reason, instructed Mr D. to forward it to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD. Improper handling by Mr P. of [the applicant’s] petition facilitated the kidnapping by criminals of Mr Apti   Zaynalov from Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, following which his fate remains unknown and a serious crime remains unresolved.” 54.     The document concluded that disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against Mr P. for the improper execution of his duties, while his deputy Mr D. should be reprimanded. 55.     On 27 April 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the applicant’s counsel in reply to an earlier request, that in the course of a disciplinary investigation it had been established that Mr P., the former acting prosecutor of Achkhoy-Martan, had failed to fulfil his duties when examining the applicant’s application concerning her son’s disappearance. In this connection disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on him. (f)     Witness statements by the applicant 56.     On 7 October 2009 the applicant was questioned as a victim. To her submissions she added that, after having heard from Mr G. that her son had been detained in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital, she had verified the information “through her own source”, unrelated to Memorial. The applicant also stated that she had not known anything about her son’s acquaintance with Mr   Z.   Kh. She also asked that no further investigative activities at Achkhoy ‑ Martan Hospital be conducted involving her participation since, given her state of health, she could not endure the recollection of those traumatic events. 57.     On 19 and 20 February 2010 the applicant was again questioned. She submitted that on 17 February 2009 her daughter had shown her a photo of Mr   Apti Zaynalov that she had printed off from an Internet page together with the accompanying text. The text alleged that officers of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic had apprehended a resident of Ingushetia aged twenty-nine years who had confessed to being a member of an illegal armed group in the Achkhoy-Martan District. Later the applicant had learned from her representatives that the photograph had been changed. The new photograph showed a man standing against the wall with his back towards the camera. The applicant provided the investigating authorities with both print-outs. The investigator then showed her a short video of a man walking out of a cell and subsequently standing facing a wall and asked her whether it was her son. The applicant stated she was positive that it was not her son. 58.     On 14 October 2009 the applicant sent a letter to the investigating authorities reiterating her request that they should not conduct any investigative activities requiring her participation due to the emotional impact on her. She stated at the same time that she was not refusing to cooperate with the investigation and had no grievances regarding its conduct. (g)     Various intermediary procedural decisions 59.     On 1 April 2010 the Investigative Committee suspended the investigation. It was stated in the decision that between 28   June and 7   July 2009 Mr   Apti Zaynalov had been anonymously treated in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital under the guard of armed men. The latter, having learned that Mr   Apti Zaynalov’s and Memorial’s staff had lodged applications with the law-enforcement agencies, had taken him from the hospital to an unknown destination. Mr   Apti Zaynalov’s whereabouts had not been ascertained. 60.     On 21 April 2010 the applicant asked a leave to study the case file and lodged a complaint against the decision of 1 April 2010 with a higher prosecuting official. 61.     On the same date the applicant’s counsel lodged a complaint against the refusal of 8 February 2010 to institute criminal proceedings against the staff of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. 62.     On 26 April 2010 the Investigative Committee dismissed this complaint. The decision stated, in particular: “...In the course of the investigation it has been established that on 28 June 2009 Mr   Apti Zaynalov was abducted by unidentified persons in an unestablished place and then taken with shotgun wounds to Achkhoy-Martan ... Hospital where he underwent treatment for ten days and was then taken away by unidentified armed persons wearing camouflage uniform. So far his whereabouts have not been established. In breach of [an applicable] instruction, the medical staff of [Achkhoy-Martan Hospital] did not inform the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD about the admittance of Mr   Apti Zaynalov. [...] In the course of the investigation ... all the staff of Achkhoy-Martan Hospital were questioned. [They] explained that they believed the armed men who were guarding the unidentified patient with gunshot wounds to be policemen, and for this reason had not informed the ROVD of the patient’s admittance. [...] Furthermore, during Mr   Apti Zaynalov’s stay at Achkhoy-Martan Hospital the former acting prosecutor of Achkhoy-Martan, Mr P., visited [the hospital] to conduct an investigation. [He] met the former director of the hospital ... and established the fact that Mr   Apti Zaynalov was in the hospital under armed guard, but took no further steps to investigate the situation properly. [...] In the circumstances, the failure of the medical staff to inform ... the ROVD of ... Mr   Apti Zaynalov’s admittance does not call for an additional investigation since all relevant materials are available in the case file. [...]” 63.     On 28 April 2010 the investigation was resumed. 4.     The applicant’s complaint to a court about the conduct of the proceedings 64.     In January 2010 the applicant’s counsel appealed to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny against the refusal of the investigating authorities to conduct certain investigative activities. 65.     On 29 January 2010 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court granted the appeal and declared the refusal unlawful. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 66.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Turluyeva v. Russia , no.   63638/09, § 56-64, 20 June 2013. III.     INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC REPORTS ON DISAPPEARANCES IN CHECHNYA AND INGUSHETIA Reports by international inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations 1.     Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Documents 67.     According to document CM/Inf/DH(2010)26E of 27 May 2010 entitled “Action of the security forces in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation: general measures to comply with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, a special unit has been set up within the Investigative Committee in Chechnya to address the issues raised in the Court’s judgments. An information document submitted by the Russian Government in March 2011 (DH-DD(2011)130E) stated that of 136 cases discussed (concerning the “Khashiyev group” and involving findings of violations of core rights in the North Caucasus), only two criminal cases have been concluded (one of which was terminated as a result of the suspect’s death). The remainder were still pending, most of them having been suspended for failure to identify the suspects. 68.     The relevant part of Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)292 of 2   December 2011 on “Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in 154 cases against the Russian Federation concerning actions of the security forces in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation” stated: “The Committee of Ministers ... 1.     General framework for domestic investigations carried out in cases which gave rise to a judgment of the Court or to an application before the Court Considering the important changes introduced after the events described in the Court’s judgments in the general framework governing domestic investigations and in particular those conducted in cases which gave rise to a judgment of the Court or an application before the Court; ... Noting with interest the efforts reported by the Russian authorities with a view to remedying the shortcomings of the initial investigations, establishing the facts as well as the identities of those responsible, including servicemen and other representatives of federal forces who might have been involved in the events described in the judgments; ... Noting however with concern that despite the efforts made by the Investigative Committee and by other competent authorities, more than six years after the first judgments of the Court, in the vast majority of cases, it has not yet been possible to achieve conclusive results and to identify and to ensure the accountability of those responsible, even in cases where key elements have been established with sufficient clarity in the course of domestic investigations, including evidence implicating particular servicemen or military units in the events; Underlining therefore the need to ensure that the investigating authorities make full and effective use of all means and powers at their disposal as well as to reflect on whether any other additional measures are still required, bearing in mind the difficulties inherent in investigations conducted into the consequences of a large-scale antiterrorist operation such as that at issue; Stressing in addition that the necessary action in this respect should be taken as a matter of priority since with the passage of time, the risk of loss of evidence increases and even if they are eventually identified, the prosecution of those responsible may become impossible given the expiry of the time-limits in the statutes of limitation ... URGES the Russian authorities to enhance their efforts so that independent and thorough investigations into all abuses found in the Court’s judgments are conducted, in particular by ensuring that the investigating authorities use all means and powers at their disposal to the fullest extent possible and by guaranteeing effective and unconditional co-operation of all law-enforcement and military bodies in such investigations; STRONGLY URGES the Russian authorities to take rapidly the necessary measures aimed at intensifying the search for disappeared persons; ENCOURAGES the Russian authorities to continue their efforts to secure participation of victims in investigations and at increasing the effectiveness of the remedies available to them under the domestic legislation; ...” 2.     Reports by other Council of Europe bodies 69.     The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) issued three public statements in relation to Chechnya between 2001 and 2007, deploring the absence of cooperation in the investigation of the alleged violations. The public statement of 13 March 2007 conceded that “the abductions (forced disappearances) and the related problem of unlawful detention ... continue to constitute a troubling phenomenon in the Chechen Republic”. In January 2013 the CPT – for the first time – submitted a report to the Russian Government, drawn up after its visit to the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation from 27 April to 6 May 2011. The report focussed on the allegations of ill-treatment and reported allegations of unrecorded detentions and detentions in unlawful locations. It raised the problems of the impunity of the law-enforcement personnel for such crimes and recommended the implementation of measures aimed at safeguarding the interests of the detainees from the first moments of their detention, including proper record-keeping of the detention, notification of relatives, access to a lawyer and to medical advice, and providing full information about their rights. 70.     On 4 June 2010 the PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights presented a report entitled “Legal remedies for human rights violations in the North-Caucasus Region”. On the basis of that report, on 22   June 2010 PACE adopted Resolution no.   1738 and Recommendation no.   1922 deploring the absence of any effective investigation or prosecution of serious human rights violations in the region, including disappearances. They found that “the suffering of the close relatives of thousands of missing persons in the region and their inability to get over their grief constitute a major obstacle to true reconciliation and lasting peace.” Among other measures, the Resolution called on the Russian authorities to: “13.1.2.   bring to trial in accordance with the law all culprits of human rights violations, including members of the security forces, and to clear up the many crimes which have gone unpunished ...; 13.1.3.   intensify co-operation with the Council of Europe in enforcing the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, especially where they concern reinforcement of the individual measures to clear up the cases of, in particular, abduction, murder and torture in which the Court has ascertained a lack of proper investigation; 13.1.4.   be guided by the example of other countries which have had to contend with terrorism, particularly as regards the implementation of measures conducive to the suspects’ co-operation with justice in dismantling the terrorist networks and the criminal entities that exist within the security forces, and to prevent further acts of violence; ... 13.2.   both Chambers of the Russian Parliament to devote their utmost attention to the situation in the North Caucasus and to demand exhaustive explanations of the executive and judicial authorities concerning the malfunctions observed in the region and mentioned in this resolution, and to stipulate that the necessary measures be applied.” 71.     In Recommendation no.   1922, PACE advised the Committee of Ministers to: “2.1.   pay the utmost attention to the development of the human rights situation in the North Caucasus; 2.2.   in enforcing the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) concerning this region, emphasise the prompt and complete elucidation of the cases in which the Court has ascertained an absence of effective investigation; ...” 72.     In Resolution 1787 (2011) entitled “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, PACE considered deaths and ill ‑ treatment by