CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 octobre 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; 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 } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s473F9C7D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:248.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2BC8A1DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:177.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2278C93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:180.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sE9A8D4B4 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s524167 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE3157440 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE31FA951 { vertical-align:middle } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF SULTYGOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 42575/07, 53679/07, 311/08, 424/08, 3375/08, 4560/08, 35569/08, 62220/10, 3222/11, 22257/11, 24744/11 and 36897/11)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   9 October 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 Sultygov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 September 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 below in Appendix I. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Russia, lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia, lawyers from the Memorial Human Rights Centre/the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), an NGO based in Russia and the UK and lawyers from Materi Chechni, an NGO based in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants alleged that on various dates between 2000 and 2005 their eighteen relatives had been abducted by State servicemen in Chechnya and Ingushetia and that no effective investigation into the matter had taken place. 4.     On the dates indicated in Appendix I the applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are Russian nationals who are close relatives of persons who disappeared after allegedly being arrested by servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. 6.     The applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. The investigations consisted mainly of the authorities making requests for information and formal requests to their counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and Ingushetia and other regions of the North Caucasus to take operational search measures. The requests received negative responses or no replies at all. 7.     From the documents submitted it appears that   the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions. 8.     In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions. 9.     Below are summaries of the facts relevant to each individual application. They are based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours and copies of the contents of the criminal investigation files furnished by the Government. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarized below and in the attached table (Appendix I). A.     Application no. 42575/07, Sultygov and Others v. Russia 10.     The applicants are: (1)     Mr Gerikhan Sultygov, born in 1972; (2)     Ms Fatima Sultygova, born in 1966; (3)     Mr Musadi Samrailov, born in 1943, and (4)     Ms Maus Nasayeva, born in 1953. The first applicant resides in Chippis, Switzerland. The second applicant lives in Boras, Sweden. The fourth applicant resides in Grozny, Chechnya; prior to his death, the third applicant also lived there. 11.     The third applicant, Mr Musadi Samrailov, passed away on 3   February 2013. Mr Viskhan Samrailov, his grandson and the son of Mr   Visadi Samrailov, expressed his wish to pursue the application. 12.     The first and second applicants are the siblings of Mr Alikhan Sultygov, who was born in 1969. The third and fourth applicants are the father and stepmother of Mr   Visadi Samrailov, who was born in 1964. 1.     Abduction of the applicants’ relatives and subsequent events 13.     In 2000 the Sultygov family, including the first and second applicants and their children, moved from Grozny to Ingushetia owing to armed hostilities. In the summer of 2000 Mr Alikhan Sultygov returned to Grozny to check on the family house left behind. 14.     On the morning of 4 August 2000 Mr D.U. and Mr Alikhan Sultygov drove in the latter’s Volga car to the house of the Samrailov family through checkpoint no. 7 on the outskirts of Grozny. The checkpoint was manned by servicemen of Special Police Forces Unit (OMON) from the Sverdlovsk Region. The servicemen checked Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s and Mr D.U.’s identity documents and let them through. 15.     On the way back, after having picked up Mr Visadi Samrailov, the three men were stopped at the checkpoint and detained. Mr Alikhan Sultygov, Mr Visadi Samrailov and Mr D.U. were placed in a UAZ vehicle and taken to the Leninskiy district military commander’s office which was situated in the same building as the Leninskiy district department of the interior (the ROVD). Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s car was driven by one of the servicemen. At the office the three men were blindfolded, their hands were bound and they were put in an APC which took them to the main base of the federal military forces in Khankala. 16.     Upon their arrival at the base the three men were put into a pit measuring about two or three metres in depth and about one and a half metres in diameter. The bottom of the pit was covered with stones and broken glass. The three men were not allowed to remove the blindfolds and their hands remained bound; they were not fed, and only given water. The soldiers threw stones at them. 17.     On the next day several servicemen took Mr Alikhan Sultygov out of the pit. He never returned. Two days later the servicemen took away Mr   Visadi Samrailov. Later on the same date Mr D.U. was also taken out of the pit, driven for about thirty minutes and released on a highway. The abductors told him to keep his blindfold on for thirty minutes and threatened to kill him if he shared any information about the detention. Then Mr D.U. walked to Grozny. 18.     The applicants have not seen their relatives Mr Alikhan Sultygov and Mr Visadi Samrailov since 4 August 2000. 2.     Official investigation (a)     Main witness statements taken in the course of the investigation 19.     On an unspecified date in September 2000 the third applicant was questioned about the abduction. He informed the investigators about the details of the events, as related by Mr D.U., including the arrest at the checkpoint and subsequent detention in a pit in Khankala. 20.     On 17 March 2001 the investigators questioned the wife of Mr   Visadi Samrailov, Ms M.S., whose statement was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the Court. In addition, she stated that along with her husband the servicemen had also arrested Mr Alikhan Sultygov and kept him in the pit and that the first and second applicants were searching for him. 21.     On 22 October 2004 the investigators questioned Mr Visadi Samrailov’s sister, Ms M.I., who stated that on 4 August 2000 an employee of the Leninskiy district military commander’s office, Ms Ya.Ya., had told her that Mr Visadi Samrailov had been brought over to their office and then taken to the military base in Khankala. 22.     On the same date, 22 October 2004, the investigators also questioned Mr Visadi Samrailov’s mother, Ms A.I., whose statement was similar to that of Ms M.I. In addition, she stated that on 4 August 2000 the district military commander had personally confirmed to her that her son had been brought to their office and detained there until 4 p.m. and then taken to Khankala. 23.     On the same date, 22 October 2004 the investigators also questioned the third applicant, whose detailed statement was similar to the ones given by Ms M.I. and Ms A.I. In addition, he stated that at the military base his son, Mr Alikhan Sultygov and Mr D.U. had been kept for several days in a pit and that he had learnt about the details of their detention from Mr D.U. 24.     On 25 October 2004 the investigators questioned Ms Ya.Ya., who stated that in 2000 she had worked at the Leninskiy district military commander’s office and that on an unspecified date in August 2000 she had seen, on the premises, Mr Visadi Samrailov, who had been standing in the hallway with his hands above his head against the wall. At the time the district military commander was officer S. Pe. 25.     On 10 November 2004 the investigators questioned Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s mother, Ms A.S., whose statement was similar to the one given by the third applicant. In addition, she stated that she had learnt the details of the arrest and the subsequent detention from Mr D.U. 26.     On 19 March 2007 Mr D.U. wrote to the investigators providing details of his arrest at the checkpoint and the subsequent detention in Khankala with the applicants’ relatives Mr Visadi Samrailov and Mr   Alikhan Sultygov. This information was included in the case file; he was not questioned by the investigators. (b)     The main investigative steps taken by the authorities 27.     On 7 August 2000 the third applicant was informed by Mr D.U. of the abduction of Mr Visadi Samrailov. From the documents submitted it follows that on an unspecified date prior to 13 September 2000 he complained about the abduction in writing to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office and the Leninskiy ROVD stating that his son had been detained at the checkpoint and then taken to the ROVD and the military commander’s office. 28.     At the end of August 2000 Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s mother, Ms A.S., received a note from Mr   D.U. stating that her son had been arrested. She immediately went to speak with him; having learnt the details of the arrest and subsequent detention in the pit, she complained thereof to the Grozny military commander’s office. 29.     On 17 March 2001 the district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 11094 to investigate the abduction of Mr Alikhan Sultygov and Mr   Visadi Samrailov. 30.     On 17 March 2001 Mr Visadi Samrailov’s wife, Ms M.S., was granted victim status in the criminal case. 31.     On 17 May 2001 the investigation was suspended and on 5   June 2001 it was resumed. The applicants were not informed thereof. 32.     On 6 July 2001 the investigators examined the detainee registration log of the Leninskiy ROVD. According to entry no. 262, on 4 August 2000 Mr Visadi Samrailov had been taken to the ROVD and then handed over to colonel Korolev. 33.     On 13 August 2003 Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s mother, Ms A.S., wrote to the investigators describing the circumstances of her son’s arrest at the checkpoint, his transfer from the ROVD by colonel Korolev to the military base in Khankala and his subsequent detention with Mr D.U. 34.     On 10 November 2004 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 7 August 2006) Ms A.S. was granted victim status in the criminal case. 35.     On 29 March 2007 the third applicant wrote to the investigators asking them to resume the proceedings. He also stated that Mr D.U., who had previously refused to give statements to the authorities out of fear for his life, had agreed to be questioned. 36.     Between 2001 and 2007 the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. It was last suspended on 5 May 2007. The applicants were not informed thereof. 37.     From the documents submitted it follows that on various dates between 2001 and 2007 the applicants and their relatives sent numerous requests to various authorities asking for assistance and information on the search for their relatives. 38.     On 9 June 2007 the third applicant requested an update on the progress of the investigation. No reply was received. 39.     On 26 October 2009 the investigation was resumed. It is still pending. B.     Application no. 53679/07, Bekova v. Russia 40.     The applicant, Ms Fatima Bekova, was born in 1963 and lives in Nazran, Ingushetia. 41.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev, who was born in 1982. 1.     Abduction of the applicant’s son and subsequent events (a)     Abduction of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev 42.     At the material time the applicant and her son, Mr Ruslan Yandiyev resided in a block of flats at 19 Moskovskaya Street in Nazran, Ingushetia. A block of flats was under construction nearby. 43.     On the morning of 29 September 2005 the applicant left for work. At about 9 a.m. on 29 September 2005 Mr Ruslan Yandiyev went to the construction site and met Mr M.-A.B., an acquaintance who worked there. After a while they were joined by Mr I.Kh., another worker from the site, who had arrived in his “Moskvitch” vehicle. The three men went to the workers’ trailer situated at the site. 44.     Shortly afterwards two vehicles arrived at the construction site: a silver VAZ-21099 vehicle with a registration number containing the digits “06” and a red VAZ-2107 vehicle with the registration number “586   mr   95”. A group of armed men in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles and broke into the trailer. Most of the armed men were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. Some others wore civilian clothing and spoke Ingush. 45.     Having broken into the trailer, the armed men immediately started beating Mr I.Kh. and dragged him outside. When Mr M.-A.B. and Mr   Ruslan Yandiyev tried to intervene the armed men took them outside and forced them into their vehicles. They then put Mr I.Kh., unconscious and bleeding, into the boot of one of the vehicles and drove away with the three men. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. 46.     The applicant has not had any news from her son, Mr Ruslan Yandiyev since that day. (b)     Subsequent events 47.     On the following day, 30 September 2005, the applicant arrived at the construction site and learnt about the abduction. She immediately complained thereof to various law-enforcement authorities, including the Ministry of the Interior, the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) and the Nazran town prosecutor. 48.     On 14 October 2005 a convoy of four white Gazel minivans, a UAZ minivan (“таблетка”) and some other vehicles, arrived at the construction site. A large group of representatives of law-enforcement agencies searched the site looking for hidden explosives and ammunition. Mr P.E. and Mr   P.A., who had been present at the site on 29 September 2005, recognised some of the officers as the latter had participated in the abduction of Mr   Ruslan Yandiyev. 49.     The Government submitted that on 14 October 2005 a large group of law-enforcement officers had searched the construction site looking for explosives and that on 29 September 2005 no special operations had been conducted to detain Mr Ruslan Yandiyev. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction (a)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 50.     On 9 October 2005 the investigators questioned the applicant, whose statement was similar to the one submitted to the Court. In particular, she stated that she had learnt from workers at the construction site that on 29   September 2005 a group of armed men speaking unaccented Russian had arrived at the site in two vehicles, had beaten Mr I.Kh., Mr M.-A.B. and her son up and taken them away. 51.     On 28 November 2005 the applicant informed the investigators that she had information concerning the possible identities of the police officers from the special forces unit who on 29   September 2005 had taken away her son and two other men from the construction site and on 14   October 2005 had returned to the site. She requested that those officers be questioned. 52.     On 11 August 2006 the investigators questioned Ms F.A., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one furnished by the applicant to the Court. In addition, she stated that on 14 October 2005 a large group of policemen had searched the construction site and that among them had been several officers who had participated in the arrest of the applicant’s son on 29 September 2005 and whom she would be able to identify. On 30 October 2005 another group of policemen had searched the site with metal detectors. 53.     On 30 August 2006 the investigators questioned the senior investigator of the Directorate of the Federal Drug Control Service (“the FDCS”), Mr T.S., who submitted that in the autumn of 2005 he had received information concerning explosives hidden at the construction site. He had gone and inspected the site and the trailers with a number of other officers, including officer I.T. They had found nothing of interest. On that date the FDCS officers had used a UAZ-452 minivan (“таблетка”), an armoured Gazel minivan and a VAZ-2105 car. 54.     On 10 September 2006 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the FDCS, officer I.T., whose statement was similar to that of the senior investigator T.S. In addition, he stated that upon receiving information concerning hidden ammunition or explosives at the construction site, he had informed his superiors and the regional department of the Federal Security Service about it. Then he had gone to the site with Mr Ib.T., the senior investigator Mr T.S., an expert and officers from the special forces unit of the FDCS. At the site they had been joined by officers from the regional department of the Federal Security Service and the Ingushetia Ministry of the Interior. Nothing of interest had been found during the search and the law-enforcement officers had left the site. About a month later he had again searched the trailer and the site with a group of officers from the service and the police but had found nothing of interest. According to the witness, he had learnt of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev’s abduction at some point later. 55.     On 15 September 2006 the investigators again questioned Ms F.A., who confirmed her previous statement and specified that she would be able to identify the abductors. 56.     On an unspecified date in September 2006 the investigators questioned officer M.D., the head of the FDCS special forces unit, who stated that in September 2005 his unit had received an order to search the construction site. He had gone there with his group of officers, about forty in total. They had inspected the trailers at the site and the adjacent area. The witness stated that he had no information concerning the abduction. At some point later he had heard that the officers had subsequently returned to the construction site. 57.     On 4 April 2008 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who reiterated her previous statements and pointed out that two witnesses, Ms F.A. and Ms P.E., had seen the perpetrators at the construction site during the abduction and then during the search on 14 October 2005 and that both of them could identify the culprits. 58.     On 23 April 2008 the investigators again questioned officer M.D., who reiterated his previous statement. 59.     On 14 April 2008 the investigators questioned Ms E.P. A copy of her complete statement was not furnished to the Court; its partial contents did not contain information pertinent to Mr Ruslan Yandiyev. 60.     On 21 April 2008 the investigators again questioned officer I.T., who reiterated his previous statement. 61.     On 22 April 2008 the investigators again questioned Ms F.A., who reiterated her previous statements, gave a detailed description of three of the abductors who spoke Ingush and stressed that she would definitely be able to identify them. 62.     On 13 May 2008 the investigators held an identification parade by showing photographs of the potential suspects to Ms F.A. She identified one of them as one of the officers who had been in charge of the search and the abduction of the applicant’s son on 29 September 2005 and who had subsequently returned to the construction site on 5 October 2005. 63.     On 21 May 2008 the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms   F.A. and officer M.D., whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators. Ms F.A. reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that this officer had participated in the abduction. The latter stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in October 2005 but denied any involvement in the abduction. 64.     On 26 May 2008 the investigators questioned the applicant, who stated that two men had arrived at her home and threatened to blow her house up if she insisted on further investigation into her son’s abduction. The applicant stated that four officers, that is, Mr M.D., Mr T.S., Mr A.Kh. and the investigator Mr I.T. were suspected of her son’s abduction and that they could have been behind those threats. 65.     On 28 May 2008 the investigators questioned a relative of the applicant, Mr M.B., who stated that his nephew Mr Ruslan Yandiyev and two other men had been abducted by law-enforcement officers and that officer I.T. had been in charge of the operation. 66.     On 28 May 2008 the investigators held another identification parade by showing photographs of the potential suspects to Ms F.A. She identified one of them as one of the officers who had been in charge of the search at the construction site and the abduction of the applicant’s son on 29   September 2005 and who had subsequently returned to the site on 5   October 2005. 67.     On 29 May 2008 the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms   F.A. and officer I.T., whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators. Ms F.A. reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that he had participated in the abduction. The latter stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in September and October 2005 but denied any involvement in the abduction. 68.     On 2 June 2008 the investigators questioned Mr M.B., who stated that he had witnessed the abduction and provided a detailed description of the events similar to the one submitted by the applicant to the Court. In addition, he stressed that the abduction had been perpetrated by law ‑ enforcement officers M.D. and I.T. 69.     On 2 June 2008 the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms F.A. and officer T.S., whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators. Ms F.A. reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that he had also participated in the abduction along with officers M.D. and I.T. Officer T.S. stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in October 2005 but denied any involvement in the abduction. (b)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 70.     On 9 October 2005 the Nazran town prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev, Mr   M. ‑ A.B. and Mr I.Kh. The case file was given the number 05560115. 71.     On the same date, 9 October 2005, the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 72.     On 1 December 2005 the investigators decided to follow up on the applicant’s information of 28 November 2005 concerning the perpetrators’ identities. 73.     On 15 September 2006 the investigators informed the applicant that the steps taken had not led to the identification of the perpetrators. 74.     On 15 September 2006 the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office, the supervisor of the investigators, informed the applicant that all possible steps to solve the crime had been taken. In particular, from the statements of the FDCS officers questioned by investigators it followed that on 14 October 2005 the officers had indeed inspected the trailer and the site but had not arrested the applicant’s son. 75.     On an unspecified date between October 2006 and February 2007 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 19 March 2007 76.     On 20 August 2007 the applicant was allowed to access the case file. 77.     The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions between October 2005 and August 2007 the applicant complained to various law ‑ enforcement agencies about her son’s abduction by officers of the Ministry of the Interior, stating that a number of witnesses could identify the abductors, requesting that the investigators take a number of urgent steps to solve the crime and asking to be kept abreast of the progress of the investigation. 78.     On 26 May 2008 the applicant complained to the head of the Nazran Town Department of the Interior that the night before two unidentified persons had threatened to blow her house up if she continued to persist with the investigation into her son’s abduction. 79.     On 1 July 2008 the FDCS informed the investigators that their internal inquiry had not confirmed that the three officers who, according to witness Ms F.A., had participated in the abduction on 29 September 2005 had actually been present at the construction site on that date. 80.     The investigation into the abduction was suspended and resumed on numerous occasions. It was last suspended on 26 June 2009. The investigation is still pending. C.     Application no. 311/08, Isayevy v. Russia 81.     The applicants, Ms Zeyna Isayeva and Ms Raisa   Isayeva, were born in 1950 and 1981 respectively and live in the village of Valerik, Chechnya. 82.     The first applicant is the mother and the second applicant is the sister of Mr Nurdi Isayev, who was born in 1979. According to the information submitted by the applicants, Mr Nurdi Isayev suffered from mental problems which had arisen as a result of a head wound sustained during the first military campaign in Chechnya in the 1990s. 1.     Abduction of the applicants’ relative and subsequent events 83.     On the morning of 3 February 2000 Russian security forces started a special operation in Valerik aimed at identifying members of illegal armed groups. As part of the operation the servicemen blocked the perimeter of the village. 84.     On the morning of that day about thirty to thirty-five armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in three APCs with obscured registration numbers.     The servicemen checked the applicants’ identity documents and opened gunfire. On hearing the shots, Mr   Nurdi Isayev ran away and the servicemen started shooting at him. The first applicant ran to the servicemen, asking them not to shoot at her son as he was mentally ill. However, the servicemen did not stop firing and the first applicant saw him fall to the ground. She fainted and was taken by her relatives to a neighbour’s house. 85.     On the evening of 3 February 2000, after the servicemen had left the village, the applicants returned home. Their house and their car had been burnt. They did not find Mr Nurdi Isayev at home and did not know what had happened to him. 86.     Between 4 and 9 February 2000 the first applicant searched for Mr   Nurdi Isayev, but only in Valerik, as the village was blocked for the large ‑ scale special operation being carried out by the federal forces in the district, including the nearby village of Katyr-Yurt (for the details of the operation see Isayeva v. Russia , no. 57950/00, § 74, 24 February 2005, and Abuyeva and Others v. Russia , no. 27065/05, § 8, 2 December 2010). 87.     On 9 February 2000 the first applicant found several items of Mr   Nurdi Isayev’s clothing with traces of blood on them and first-aid materials next to them in a field adjacent to the village. The first applicant inferred that her son had been given medical aid. She collected all those objects and subsequently submitted them to the investigators. 88.     On an unspecified date in 2002 a neighbour of the applicants’ who had been detained in Chernokozovo remand prison, Ms I., returned home. According to a statement by Ms I. produced by the applicants, while in detention in Chernokozovo she had seen two inscriptions made with a sharp object on the cell wall reading “Nurdi Isayev, village of Valerik” and “3   February 2000”. 89.     The applicants have not seen Mr Nurdi Isayev since 3 February 2000. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction (a)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 90.     On 26 February 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose detailed description of the circumstances of her son’s abduction was similar to the one submitted to the Court. In addition, she stated that her neighbour, Mr U.Kh., had also been taken away with her son in the same APC and that the special sweeping-up operation had been conducted by servicemen from the Police Special Task Units of the Penza and Yaroslavl regions. 91.     On 26 February 2001 the investigators questioned one of the first applicant’s daughters, Ms R.I., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant. 92.     On various dates in February and March 2001 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ neighbours, whose statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to that of the first applicant. 93.     On 9 June 2005 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statement. 94.     On 9 June 2005 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Mr U.Kh., who confirmed that he had been abducted by military servicemen along with Mr Nurdi Isayev and taken away in an APC. According to the witness, in the APC he had seen that Mr Nurdi Isayev was in a serious condition as he had sustained gunshot wounds to the head and chest. Mr U.Kh. had been detained for about six days and then released. 95.     On 14 March 2007 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statements. (b)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 96.     On various dates in 2000 the first applicant complained in person about her son’s disappearance to various State authorities. She described the details of the events and requested assistance in the search for him. Her complaints remained unanswered. 97.     On 23 February 2001 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 27009. 98.     On 7 April 2002 the investigation was suspended. 99.     On 6 June 2005 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 6 July 2005. 100.     On 11 June 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 101.     The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions between 2001 and 2007 the applicants complained of their relative’s abduction to various authorities and requested assistance in the search for him. They received either no replies or replies to the effect that the investigation was in progress. 102.     The investigation was further suspended and resumed on several occasions in 2007 and 2008 and for the last time on an unspecified date in 2010. D.     Application no. 424/08, Idigov v. Russia 103.     The applicant, Mr Tukhan Idigov, was born in 1933, and lived in the village of Shalazhi, Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. On 5 January 2013 the applicant passed away; his daughter, Ms Tamara Idigova, who was born in 1964 and lives in Grozny, expressed her wish to pursue the application on his behalf. 104.     The applicant is the father of Mr Anzor Idigov, who was born in 1976. Ms Tamara Idigova is his sister. 1.     Abduction of the applicant’s son 105.     On the night between 3 and 4 May 2003 Mr Anzor Indigov, his parents and wife were sleeping in the applicant’s house on Lenina Street in Shalazhi (also spelt as Salazhi and Shalazi). 106.     At about 2 a.m. on 4 May 2003 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks who spoke unaccented Russian broke into the house. The applicant and his relatives thought that the intruders were federal servicemen. Holding the applicant at gunpoint, the servicemen grabbed Mr Anzor Idigov, who was undressed and barefoot, bound his hands, sealed his mouth with adhesive tape and took him away to an unknown destination. Immediately after that two perpetrators returned and ordered the applicant to hand over Mr Anzor Indigov’s identity documents, saying that they were in a pocket of his jacket. 107.     The applicant has not seen his son since that day. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction (a)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 108.     On 4 May 2003 the investigators questioned the applicant and the wife of Mr Anzor Idigov, Ms Kh.E., both of whom provided detailed descriptions of the abduction and stated that the abductors had been military servicemen. 109.     On the same date, 4 May 2003, the investigators also questioned the applicant’s other son, Mr B.I., whose statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction was similar to those given by the applicant and Ms Kh.E. 110.     On 23 May 2003 the investigators again questioned the applicant, Mr B.I. and Ms Kh.E., all of whom reiterated their previous statements. 111.     On 15 June 2006 the investigators again questioned the applicant, Mr B.I. and Ms Kh.E., all of whom reiterated their previous statements. (b)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 112.     On 4 May 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 113.     On 18 May 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 34059. 114.     On 23 May 2003 the applicant was granted victim status. 115.     On 18 July 2003 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was not informed thereof. 116.     On 13 June 2006 the investigation was resumed. The applicant was informed thereof. 117.     On 13 July 2006 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was not informed thereof. 118.     On 14 August 2007 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court that the investigation was ineffective and requested that the investigators take a number of necessary steps. 119.     On 28 August 2007 the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the investigators had taken all the relevant steps. 120.     From the documents submitted it follows that on several occasions between 2003 and 2007 the applicant complained about the abduction to various authorities. In reply he was either informed that the proceedings were in progress or that his request had been forwarded to another authority. 121.     The investigation is still pending. E.     Application no. 3375/08, Saayeva and Others v. Russia 122.     The applicants are: (1)     Ms Larisa Saayeva, born in 1971, (2)     Ms Mariyat Beksultanova, born in 1953, (3)     Mr Islam Saayev, born in 2001, (4)     Ms Lala Saayeva, born in 2003, and (5)     Ms Iman Saayeva, born in 2005. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. 123.     The first applicant is the wife and the third to fifth applicants are the children of Mr Idris Saayev, who was born in 1978. The second applicant is his mother. 1.     Abduction of the applicants’ relative and subsequent events 124.     At the material time the applicants resided at 14/1 Stantsionnaya Street in Grozny. Their property consisted of two houses with a shared courtyard. 125.     On the night between 2 and 3 March 2006 the second applicant and her son Mr Idris Saayev were in one house, whilst the second applicant’s husband, Mr Kh.S., was in the other one. 126.     At about 5 a.m. on 3 March 2006 the second applicant woke up and saw a group of six armed men in camouflage uniforms. All of them but one, who was in charge of the group, were masked and wearing bulletproof jackets and spherical helmets. They were armed with submachine guns with silencers and pistols secured at the thighs by special rifle belts. The applicants thought they were federal servicemen. 127.     Without any explanation the servicemen requested in unaccented Russian that Mr Idris Saayev produce his identity papers and mobile telephone. They also asked the second applicant about her other son, Mr   A.S. Shortly thereafter they took Mr Idris Saayev outside without letting him put on any clothing. When the second applicant and her husband got outside, she saw the perpetrators’ UAZ minivan driving away. 128.     At about 6 a.m. on 3 March 2006 the second applicant, her husband Mr Kh.S. and a relative went to the Staropromyslovskiy department of the interior in Grozny (“the ROVD”) to complain about the abduction of Mr   Idris Saayev. A police officer told them that Mr Idris Saayev had been detained by the security forces and that he would return home if he cooperated with them and if the applicants did not lodge any official complaints. The second applicant then decided not to lodge a formal complaint, as suggested by the police officer. 129.     In the days that followed the applicants applied in person to various State authorities seeking assistance in the search for their relative; none of the law-enforcement agencies admitted arresting or detaining Mr Idris Saayev. 130.     About a week later the police officer from the ROVD told the applicants that Mr Idris Saayev had been transferred to Operational Search Bureau no.   2 (“ORB-2”) in Grozny. On the same day the applicants requested information at the bureau but were told that their servicemen had not arrested Mr Idris Saayev. 131.     On an unspecified date a certain Mr R.K. told the applicants that Mr   Idris Saayev had been abducted by officers of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”). Subsequently, the applicants provided Mr   R.K.’s phone number to the investigators (see paragraph 138 below). 132.     The applicants have not seen Mr Idris Saayev since 3 March 2006. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction (a)     Main witness statements taken by the investigators 133.     On 5 April 2006 the investigators questioned the second applicant, whose statement was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the Court. She pointed out that the perpetrators had been Russian servicemen and that she had tried to find her son without recourse to an official investigation but to no avail. She stated that the abductors had called her neighbours’ phone, asked to speak to her, and told her that they would discuss the details of her son’s release with her. When at the end of March 2006 she had arrived at the place of the meeting suggested by them, she had seen a vehicle with servicemen in it who had filmed her and left without demanding anything. Having realised that her efforts to find her son were unproductive, about four weeks after the abduction she decided to lodge an official complaint about it. 134.     On the same date, 5 April 2006, the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours Ms Z.I., Mr R.Zh., Mr A.M., Ms A.D. and Mr R.A., all of whom stated that they had not witnessed the abduction but had learnt about it from the applicants. 135.     On 12 April 2006 the investigators again questioned the same neighbours, who reiterated their previous statements. 136.     On 20 July 2007 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement was similar to the one given by the second applicant. (b)     Main investigative steps taken by the authorities 137.     On 5 April 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. The applicants provided the investigators with Mr   Idris Saayev’s photo. 138.     On 6 April 2006 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) opened criminal case no. 53037. 139.     On 12 April 2006 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 140.     On 6 August 2006 the investigation was suspended. 141.     On 26 June 2007 the investigation was resumed. 142.     On 20 July 2007 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 143.     On 11 August 2007 the investigation in the criminal case was again suspended. 144.     On 15 August 2007 the first applicant complained to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court (“the district court”) stating that the investigation had been unlawfully suspended and requested that the court order the investigators to take effective steps to solve the crime. 145.     On 18 August 2006 the investigation was resumed. 146.     On 11 September 2007 the district court dismissed the first applicant’s complaint, stating that the investigation had been resumed on 18   August 2007. 147.     On 18 September 2007 the investigation was suspended again and on 24 October 2007 it was resumed. 148.     On various dates in 2008 and 2009 the investigation was suspended and resumed; it was last suspended on 29 July 2009. 149.     The proceedings are still pending. F.     Application no. 4560/08, Amerkhanova v. Russia 150.     The applicant, Ms Dzayanu Amerkhanova, was born in 1954 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. 151.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Rustam Amerkhanov, who was born in 1978. 1.     Abduction o