CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 octobre 2018

.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 } .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 } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA0A2D76C { width:172.92pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       THIRD SECTION                 CASE OF TSAKOYEVY v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 16397/07)           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG     2 October 2018     FINAL   02/01/2019   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tsakoyevy v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Dmitry Dedov,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková,   Jolien Schukking,   María Elósegui, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 September 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 16397/07) 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 two Russian nationals, Mr Dzhamal Tsakoyev and Ms Zukhra Tsakoyeva (“the applicants”), on 9 April 2007. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers from the Memorial Human Rights Centre. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of Russian to the European Court of Human Rights and then by his successor in the office Mr   Mikhail Galperin. 3.     The applicants alleged that in September 2004 their son Mr Rasul Tsakoyev had been abducted by State agents in Kabardino-Balkaria, unlawfully detained and ill-treated whilst in detention, had subsequently died as a result of that ill-treatment, and that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate the matter. 4.     On 10 June 2009 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants were born in 1940 and 1950 respectively and live in the village of Khasanya situated on the outskirts of Nalchik, the capital of Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, a region in the North Caucasus. They are the parents of Mr Rasul Tsakoyev, who was born in 1978. At the material time, he lived with them and worked in a shop selling mobile phones. A.     Abduction of the applicants’ son 1.     The applicant’s account (a)     Background information 6.     According to the applicants, their son Mr Rasul Tsakoyev was suspected of membership of the illegal armed group, “Yarmuk”, and was under the surveillance of the Department for Combating Organised Crime of the Ministry of Interior for Kabardino-Balkaria ( Управление по Борьбе с Организованной Преступностью Министерства внутренних дел по Кабардино-Балкарской Республике – “the UBOP”). On several occasions   −   in particular, on 4 May and 8 September 2003 and again on 18   August 2004 − he had been unlawfully detained for a number of hours, had been beaten and questioned by State agents, but had then been released without charge. 7.     On 27 and 28 September 2004, a special antiterrorist operation against Yarmuk members was carried out in the town of Nalchik, in the nearby village of Khasanya, and in other settlements in the Elbrusskiy district in Kabardino-Balkaria (see paragraph 15 below). (b)     Mr Rasul Tsakoyev’s disappearance on 27 September 2004 8 .     On the morning of 27 September 2004 Mr Tsakoyev went to the shop where he worked. In the afternoon he told his colleague, Mr M.T., that he needed to go out for a short while. Later he called the colleague from his mobile phone and said: “They are following me again, I will be back soon”. Mr M.T. understood that Rasul Tsakoyev was talking about the police. Since Mr Tsakoyev did not return to work, between 4 and 5 p.m. Mr M.T. called him, but his mobile phone was switched off. Later in the evening, he again tried calling Mr Tsakoyev, but his telephone was still off. Rasul Tsakoyev did not return home that night. 9.     At about 6 a.m. on 28 September 2004 the police conducted a search at Mr M.T.’s home. The applicants learned about the search from his wife, who called them to warn that their house might be searched too. After the search, Mr M.T. was taken to the premises of the UBOP. He was held there for about twenty hours and then released. 10.     Also on the morning of 28 September 2004, the applicants learned that another friend of Rasul Tsakoyev, Mr R.M., had also been taken to the premises of the UBOP. They went to the building to find out whether Rasul Tsakoyev was likewise detained there and asked the duty officer about their son. The officer told them that he had been brought there and would soon be released. No information regarding the grounds for their son’s detention, the possible charges against him, or the exact time of his release was given. They waited at the entrance to the UBOP for a while and then returned home. Sometime later Mr R.M. and Mr M.T. were released, but Rasul Tsakoyev did not return home. 11.     On 29 September 2004 the applicants again went to the UBOP and requested information as to their son’s whereabouts. They told Mr A.Z., the head of Khasanya village administration, that their son had been detained by UBOP officers and asked him to speak to the police and establish their son’s whereabouts. After spending about an hour at the UBOP premises, Mr A.Z. told the applicants that he had spoken with the head of the UBOP, superior officer K., who had told him that their son had not been detained on those premises but had been taken to Khankala in the Chechen Republic. 12.     That afternoon the applicants again went to the UBOP and requested information about their son. However, they were given no information and the head of the UBOP, officer K., refused to see them. 13 .     On the same date, the applicant’s daughter complained in writing to the Nalchik prosecutor about the abduction of her brother Rasul Tsakoyev, it was to be presumed by representatives of the law-enforcement agencies. 14 .     Later on 29 September 2004 Mr M.T. received a phone call in which he was told that two men from the village of Khasanya had found Rasul Tsakoyev next to a local gas station. He had been severely beaten. 15 .     On 30 September 2004 the local newspaper “ Газета Юга” ( Gazeta Yuga ) in its issue no. 40 (553) published an official statement by the Ministry of the Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria, stating that as a result of the special operation a resident of Khasanya had been arrested, along with two residents of Nalchik. According to the applicants, nobody from Khasanya except their son had been arrested during the special operation. (c)     Rasul Tsakoyev’s return, his account of the detention and ill-treatment and his subsequent death 16.     Between 8 and 8.30 p.m. on 29 September 2004 two residents of Khasanya, Mr A. A. and Mr R.A., brought Rasul Tsakoyev home. He was severely beaten and groggy. His body was covered with bruises and abrasions, there were cigarette burns on his neck, punctures under his nails, lacerated wounds on his shoulders, marks left by handcuffs and wires on his wrists, and traces of injections on his left forearm and fingers. His heels were smashed and he smelled of medicines. 17 .     Mr Tsakoyev told the applicants that on the evening of 27 September 2004, while walking not far from his shop, police officers in masks and camouflage uniforms bearing the stripes of the SOBR ( спецотряд быстрого реагирования – quick response unit) had stopped him. They had put a bag over his head and forced him into a car. They took him to a building where they had taken the bag off. He had immediately recognised the UBOP premises since he had already been questioned there many times. During the three days of his detention there he had been tortured by UBOP officers who, under the orders of the superior officer K., pressurised him into confessing in writing to participation in an illegal armed group. Specifically, he had been given no food or water, the UBOP officers had beaten him with rubber truncheons, had burned cigarettes against his face, head, neck and shoulders, put needles under his nails, and tied his hands and feet with steel wire which had left marks. Once he had been given a liquid to drink which made him sick and he had thrown up. Then he had been given some pills that he had spat out. The officers had also tortured him with electric shocks. After lengthy beatings, a doctor in white overalls had entered the room, examined him, checked his pupils and made some injections that left marks on his shoulders. On the afternoon of 29   September 2004, he had been taken out of the UBOP premises, driven by car to a rubbish dump some two kilometres from the village of Khasanya and left there. He had walked to the gas station on the outskirts of Khasanya, where two local residents Khasanya had found him and taken him home. 18 .     On 29 September 2004 after Mr Tsakoyev had been brought home, his relatives called an ambulance. The ambulance doctors diagnosed Mr   Tsakoyev with closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion, multiple contusions, closed fracture of the ribs and contusion of the kidneys. They said he needed to be urgently hospitalised and took him to the Republican Clinical Hospital. 19 .     On 4 October 2004 Rasul Tsakoyev died in hospital. According to the medical report of the same date, his death was caused by renal failure, myoglobinemia, right-side pneumonia and severe multi-trauma. 20 .     According to the forensic report of 13 October 2004 (see paragraph   61 below), Rasul Tsakoyev had the following injuries: massive blunt trauma with crushing of body muscles complicated by myoglobinemia, renal failure, respiratory failure and encephalopathy; contusion of the heart, lungs, kidneys and bowels; fracture of the sixth and seventh ribs on the left side; posttraumatic pneumonitis on the right side; closed craniocerebral injury and brain concussion; large bruises of the chest and extremities; abrasions of the head and extremities. The above injuries had been caused by hard blunt objects. Abrasions on the wrists had most likely been caused by handcuffs. 21 .     On 8 October 2004 residents of the Khasanya village organised a protest meeting demanding prosecution of the police officers responsible for the ill-treatment and death of Rasul Tsakoyev. The head of the Kabardino ‑ Balkaria Government, Mr Gubin, and the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor, Mr   Ketov, had promised the crowd that the perpetrators would be prosecuted. 22 .     On 19 October 2004 two hundred and forty residents of the Khasanya village submitted a joint petition to the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor asking him to ensure the prosecution of the police officers who had abducted Rasul Tsakoyev on 27 September 2004 next to the prosecutor’s office and then tortured him until 29 September 2004, causing his death from the ill-treatment they had inflicted. 23.     On 20 December 2004 the residents of Khasanya sent their joint petition to the Russian Prosecutor General and demanded an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Rasul Tsakoyev. 2.     Information submitted by the Government 24.     The Government did not dispute the circumstances of the case, as presented by the applicants. They agreed that Mr Tsakoyev had been subjected to ill-treatment as a result of which he had died. However, the alleged involvement of the police in the incident was not confirmed by the criminal investigation. 25 .     The Government submitted that between May and June 2005 the Kabardino-Balkaria police had obtained information indicating that Rasul Tsakoyev had actively aided members of the illegal armed group Yarmuk and those leaders had given him and Mr M.A. a large amount for money for the preparation of terrorist attacks in Kabardino-Balkaria. After the failure of the attacks, members of Yarmuk group had been displeased with Rasul Tsakoyev and had claimed their money back. Members of the Yarmuk group used camouflage uniforms and balaclavas and might have impersonated representatives of law-enforcement agencies. 26 .     The Government also submitted the following information concerning Rasul Tsakoyev’s friends and/or colleagues Mr M.A., Mr A.Z., Mr M.T., Mr R.M. and Mr Z.S. as well as the UBOP superior officer K. According to their submission, between January 2005 and April 2009 these five friends of Mr Tsakoyev had all been put on the wanted list and then eventually killed as results of various special operations carried out by law ‑ enforcement agencies. As for officer K., on 12 January 2008 he had been shot dead by unidentified culprits. B.     The official investigation into the death of the applicants’ son 27 .     In response to the Court’s request for a copy of the entire contents of the criminal investigation file, the Government furnished a copy of some of its contents. The Government stated that the parts of the file recording the steps taken against members of illegal armed groups could not be submitted to the Court. The partial contents as submitted ran to 560 pages and could be summarised as follows. 28 .     On 30 September 2004 the first applicant had complained to the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor, stating that his son had been unlawfully detained and severely beaten by UBOP officers and that he was being treated in the intensive care unit at the Republican Clinical Hospital. The first applicant also stated that his son had been unlawfully detained by the police on several occasions, namely on 4 May and 8 September 2003 and on 18 March and, finally, on 27 September 2004, and requested that the perpetrators of his son’s abduction and ill-treatment be prosecuted. 29.     On 7 October 2004 the Nalchik prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 21/175-04 under Article 111 of the Criminal Code (infliction of grave injuries leading to death). 1.     Witness statements taken by the investigation 30.     On 9 October 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. The applicant stressed that his son had told him that he had been abducted and tortured by UBOP officers on the premises of the police unit and that he had been subjected to severe beatings on the direct orders of the head of the UBOP, officer K. 31 .     On 9 October 2004 the investigators questioned Rasul Tsakoyev’s sister, Ms Kh. Ts., who gave a statement similar to that given to the investigation by the first applicant and to the applicants’ submission before the Court. In addition, she stated that, while he had been at home on 29   September 2004 Rasul Tsakoyev had told her that at least six police officers had participated in his abduction and two police officers of Kabardian ethnic origin had subjected him to the severe beatings. 32.     On 9 October 2004 the investigators questioned Rasul Tsakoyev’s aunt, Ms Z. E., who gave a statement similar to that given by the first applicant and to the applicants’ submission before the Court. 33.     On the same date, 9 October 2004 the investigators questioned the second applicant, who gave a statement similar to that given to the investigation by the first applicant. In addition, she stated that whilst her son had been at home after the ill-treatment he had told her that he had been abducted by six policemen, taken to the UBOP premises and beaten there by two policemen who had spoken Kabardian between themselves and Russian to him. They had tortured him, pressurising him to admit to assisting members of illegal armed groups. They had demanded that he identify a bearded man in a photograph. The applicant also stated that on 8 September 2003 the police had searched their family home with a warrant. During the search the police officers had told her that her family was suspected of aiding members of illegal armed groups in Chechnya and illegally storing firearms in the house. However, the police had found nothing and had merely taken Rasul for questioning. Rasul had been under surveillance by the police on suspicion of participation in a radical movement. 34.     On 11 October 2004 the investigators questioned Mr A.A., who stated that on 29 September 2004 he and Mr R.A. had seen Rasul Tsakoyev next to the gas station. The latter had been severely beaten and could barely walk. He had told them that he had been subjected to beatings on the premises of the UBOP and that the police officers who had carried out the beatings had spoken Kabardian and Russian. The witness and Mr R.A. had taken Mr   Tsakoyev home, where they had helped his relatives to call for an ambulance. 35 .     On the same date, 11 October 2004, the investigators questioned Mr   R.A., who gave a statement similar to that of Mr A.A. He also stated that Rasul Tsakayev had alleged that he had been severely beaten by the police officers on the premises of the UBOP. 36 .     On 11 October 2004 the investigators also questioned the head of the Khasanya village administration, Mr A.Z., who gave a statement similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. In addition, he stated that when he had asked the head of the UBOP, officer K., whether Rasul Tsakoyev had been detained on their premises, the latter had replied in the negative but told him that he was suspected of aiding an illegal armed group run by a certain Mr M. Atabayev by supplying it with money and telephones. The witness further stated that on 29   September 2004 he had seen the Imam of the Khasanya mosque, Mr   Kh.M., who had told him that Rasul Tsakoyev and two of his friends were being held in detention on the police premises in Nalchik. 37 .     On 11 October 2004 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the Khasanya village administration, Mr R.F., who stated that at the end of September 2004 he had learnt from the Imam of the Khasanya mosque Mr   Kh.M. that Rasul Tsakoyev had been detained and taken to the UBOP unit and that he had died at the beginning of October 2004 as a result of the beatings to which he had been subjected by the police. 38 .     On 12 October 2004 the investigators questioned Mr S.Ch. and Mr   A.B., who stated that they had found Rasul Tsakoyev in a severely beaten condition next to the gas station on 29 September 2004. Mr   Tsakoyev had told them that he had been subjected to ill-treatment at the UBOP premises. 39 .     On 12 October 2004 the investigators also questioned Mr Z.S., who stated that he had visited Rasul Tsakoyev at home before he had been taken to the hospital. Mr Tsakoyev had told him that he had been beaten by officers from the UBOP. The witness further stated that on 3 October 2004 he had spoken with police officer Kh.G., who had told him that he had not personally participated in Mr Tsakoyev’s ill-treatment but that it had been the UBOP the superior officers who had issued the orders to beat him. 40 .     On 13 October 2004 the investigators questioned Rasul Tsakoyev’s colleague Mr M.T., who stated that early in the morning of 28 September 2004 several police officers had searched his house after showing him their warrant. After that he had been taken to the first floor of the UBOP building, where he had been questioned first by by officer E. and then, about three or four hours later, by another policeman on the second floor. The police officers had told him that his telephone had been tapped due to the suspicion that he had been aiding members of illegal armed groups. On the evening of 28 September 2004 he had been released and at the entrance to the UBOP building he had met the applicants, who had been searching for their son. The following day he had learnt that Rasul Tsakoyev had been abducted and ill-treated by UBOP officers, who had lied about it to the applicants on 28 September 2004 when they went to the police station searching for their son. 41 .     On 13 October 2004 the investigators questioned Rasul Tsakoyev’s friend Mr R.M., who stated that on 28 September 2004 police officers and the officers from the Federal Security Service (the FSB) had searched his house with a search warrant. After that he had been taken to the second floor of the UBOP building and had been questioned about Rasul Tsakoyev by an officer named Anzor and had been told that his detention had been ordered by the head of the UBOP, officer K. He had then been handcuffed to the radiator for the whole night. The following day, 29   September 2004, he had been allowed to go home at about 10 a.m. At the entrance to the building, he had seen the applicants, who had been searching for Rasul Tsakoyev. Later on, when he visited Mr Tsakoyev at the hospital, the latter had told him that he had been beaten on the UBOP premises. 42 .     On 14 October 2004 the investigators questioned Mr Kh. M., the Imam of the Khasanya mosque, who stated that he had assisted the applicants and Rasul Tsakoyev’s friends in their search after his abduction by masked policemen. On 27 or 28 September 2004 he and Mr R.N. had arrived at the UBOP premises, where they had spoken with a police officer whose office was on the second floor in the same building as the UBOP. In their presence, the officer had telephoned someone in the UBOP and had told them that Rasul Tsakoyev and his two friends had been detained by the UBOP but would be released after questioning (see also paragraph   49 below). The following day, when the witness returned to the building, he had not been allowed to enter, but had been given permission to leave food for the three men. The following day he had seen Rasul Tsakoyev at home, beaten to a pulp. 43 .     On 14 October 2004 the investigators questioned Mr R.N., who gave a statement similar to that given by the Imam Kh.M. In particular, he stated that Rasul Tsakoyev and two other men had been detained in the UBOP building and that he and the Iman had been allowed to leave some food and drink for them. 44 .     On 18 October 2004 the investigators questioned Rasul Tsakoyev’s friend Mr Z. G., who stated that he had visited him in hospital at the beginning of October 2004 and that the latter had told him and the others that he had been abducted and beaten by UBOP officers on the direct orders of the head of the UBOP. 45 .     On 3 and 5 November 2004 the investigators questioned medical doctors Mr A.M., Mr K.M. and Mr A. Ch., who stated that they had treated Mr Tsakoyev in the hospital until his death on 4 October 2004. According to the doctors, his condition had been very serious, he could barely talk and had been put on a ventilator, but to no avail. Mr Tsakoyev had not informed them about the origin of his injuries. 46 .     On 9 November 2004 the investigators questioned the police investigator Ms Kh. K., who stated that she had questioned Rasul Tsakoyev on 30 September 2004 at the hospital. He had been very weak and had told her that on 27 September 2004 he had been abducted in Nalchik, next to the prosecutor’s office, by four unidentified police officers who had arrived in a red VAZ-model vehicle. He said that they had taken him somewhere for two nights and had severely beaten him, and that he would not be able to identify the policemen, who had spoken Russian, as they had had balaclavas over their faces. Even though Mr Tsakoyev had told her that he had been beaten by police officers, he had not said that they had been from the UBOP. 47.     Between 9 and 22 November 2004 the investigators questioned several residents of Nalchik: Ms M.Ch. ,Ms Z.Ch., Mr Al. Kh. and Mr   An.K., whose mobile telephone numbers had been used to call Rasul Tsakoyev or receive calls from his number on the afternoon of 27   September 2004. All of them stated that they had not used those SIM   cards with their respective phone numbers and denied knowing anything about either Mr   Tsakoyev or his abduction. 48 .     On 11 November 2004 the investigators questioned police officers A.Ch. and R.K., both of whom stated that on 29 September 2004 they had been on duty at the entrance of the UBOP building and that they did not recall any visitors wanting to speak with officer K. 49 .     On 16 November 2004 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the Dolinskiy Department of the Interior in Nalchik, officer A.K., who stated that at the end of September 2004 the Imam of Khasanya village had arrived at his office with another man and had asked him whether three or four acquaintances of his had been arrested by the police and held in detention. The witness had made several phone calls to various police stations and had been told that several men had been detained by the UBOP. He, the Imam and the other man had gone to the UBOP, where he had seen officer Z.Sh., who confirmed that several men from Khasanya had been taken there for questioning. 50 .     On 17 November 2004 the investigators questioned police officers M.M., I.S., A.K. and V.L., who gave similar statements to the effect that on 29   September 2004 they had been the duty officers at the UBOP premises and that they did not recall anyone visiting their office and asking about Rasul Tsakoyev. All of them also stated that at the time officer K. was travelling a lot for work and had frequently been out of the office. 51 .     On 23 November 2004 the investigators questioned Ms Dzh.G., who stated that at the end of September 2004 her father had witnessed the abduction of a young man by several men in balaclavas who had pulled over in a car and quickly forced him inside. After the car had driven off, her father had found a mobile telephone, which had fallen out the young man’s pocket, and had given it to her as a gift. She had received several calls from young men who had asked her in the Balkar language who she was and why she had the phone. After that she had turned the telephone off and had used it only when needed. At the end of October 2004 she had thrown away the young man’s SIM card and put a new one in. She did not know Rasul Tsakoyev and had no information about his abduction or ill-treatment.   The investigators seized the telephone from Ms Dzh.G. on the same day, 23   November 2004. 52 .     On 23 November 2004 the investigators questioned the father of Ms   Dzh.G., Mr A.G., who gave a statement similar to that of his daughter (see the paragraph above). 53 .     Between 10 and 14 December 2004 the investigators questioned the UBOP officers M.G. and Z.Sh., both of whom gave similar statements to the effect that at the end of September 2004 they had been asked by relatives and friends of Rasul Tsakoyev’s about his possible whereabouts on their unit’s premises. They had checked some offices, but had not found him. In addition, they stated that at the material time officer K., like a number of other officers, had work in the Elbrusskiy district. 54 .     On 16 December 2004 the investigators questioned the deputy head UBOP officer, A.E., who stated that at the end of September 2004 he had seen Mr M.T., who had been detained on the premises of their building. He was unaware of the reasons for his detention and did not know whether Rasul Tsakoyev had been taken there. 55 .     On 1 February 2005 the investigators conducted a face-to-face confrontation between Rasul Tsakoyev’s friend Mr Z.S. and officer Kh.G., during which the witnesses maintained their contradictory statements. According to Mr Z.S., the UBOP police officers had tortured Mr Tsakoyev, whereas Mr Kh.G. denied seeing him on the UBOP premises. 56 .     On 1 February 2005 the investigators carried out another face ‑ to ‑ face confrontation, this time between Rasul Tsakoyev’s friend Mr   Z.G. and officer Kh.G., during which the witnesses maintained their contradictory statements. According to Mr Z.G., officer Kh.G. had told him that the police officers had tortured Mr Tsakoyev on the direct orders of officer K., whereas Mr Kh.G. denied giving such information. 57 .     On 3 February 2005 the investigators carried out a third face-to-face confrontation, this time between Rasul Tsakoyev’s friend Mr Z.G. and officer E.B., during which the witnesses maintained their contradictory statements. According to Mr Z.G., officer E.B. had been present at the hospital where Rasul Tsakoyev had been hospitalised at the end of September 2004 and in his presence officer Kh.G. had admitted that Rasul had been detained in the UBOP and tortured on the direct orders of the superior officer. Mr E.B. admitted being at the hospital at that time but denied hearing any such conversation. 58.     On 8 November 2005 the investigators questioned Mr Sh.D. and Mr   M.B. The copies of their statements submitted to the Court were illegible. 2.     Main stages of the investigation and the applicants’ requests 59.     On 4 October 2004 the investigators carried out an examination of the crime scene in room no. 3 of the intensive care unit of the Republican Clinical Hospital, where Rasul Tsakoyev was treated between 29 September and 4 October 2004. 60.     On 11 October 2004 the investigators seized Rasul Tsakoyev’s clothing from the first applicant for forensic examination. On 19 October 2004 the forensic report was received. It stated that no biological material had been found on the outer items of the clothing and that the traces of blood on Mr Tsakoyev’s underwear had not belonged to his blood group. 61 .     On 12 October 2004 the investigators ordered a report on Rasul Tsakoyev’s body based on his medical records. On 13 October 2004 the experts issued their report, according to which the injuries had been inflicted about seven days prior to his death, that is to say on 27 or 28 September 2004, and that those injuries had been caused by hard blunt objects (see paragraph 20 above). 62.     On 18 October 2004 counsel G. hired by the applicants requested that the investigators question witnesses Mr Z. S., Mr Yu. S., Mr Z. G. and officers G. and B. On the same date, the request was granted in the part relating to the questioning of Mr Yu. S., Mr Z. G. and officers G. and B. It was dismissed in the part relating to Mr Z. S. since he had already been questioned. 63.     On 19 October, 20 and 22 November 2004 the applicants complained to various State authorities, including the Russian Prosecutor General, about the inefficiency of the investigation. In their complaints they stated that their son had been abducted by UBOP police officers, had been tortured on the direct orders of officer K., and that he had died as a result. They argued that the head of the Kabardino-Balkaria Government, Mr   Gubin, and the Prosecutor of Kabardino-Balkaria, Mr Ketov, had failed to keep their promise to bring the perpetrators to justice (see paragraph   21 above). 64.     On 21 October 2004 the first applicant requested that the investigators provide him with the following documents: a statement of calls made from and received on Rasul Tsakoyev’s mobile phone between September and October 2004; excerpt from the UBOP detention register for the period from 27 to 28 September 2004; transcript of Rasul Tsakoyev’s questioning on 18 September 2004. The first applicant also requested that a search be conducted for the persons who now had Rasul Tsakoyev’s mobile phone and that it be tapped. He said that he suspected that his son’s telephone was in the hands of the UBOP officers who had abducted him. 65.     On the same date, 21 October 2004, the investigators granted the above request in full. The text of their decision included the following: “... On 21 October 2004 the victim D. Tsakoyev requested that the investigators obtain a court authorisation for the tapping of mobile telephone number   8 ‑ 928 ‑ 637 ‑ 61-27 ‒ which had belonged to Rasul Tsakoyev and had been lost after [his] arrest by the officers of the UBOP of the Kabardino-Balkaria Ministry of the Interior ‒ obtain a detailed list of the phone calls, and take operational search steps to establish the whereabouts of Mr Tsakoyev’s telephone. This request should be granted in full for the following reasons. The circumstances referred to by [the first applicant] D. Tsakoyev, are considered to be substantiated by the investigation and necessary for a full, objective investigation into the circumstances of the incident ...” From the documents submitted it appears that, although the request was formally granted, the steps it specified therein were not taken. 66.     On 22 October 2004 the investigators received a list of the ten police officers who had participated in the search of Mr R.M.’s and Mr M.T.’s households on 28 September 2004. 67 .     On 25 November 2004 the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor received the first applicant’s complaint, which had been forwarded by the Representative of the Russian President in the Southern Federal Circuit on 20   November 2004. According to the first applicant, his son Rasul Tsakoyev had been tortured on the premises of the UBOP on the direct orders of the superior officer K., and his son had told him about it prior to his death in hospital. The applicant stressed that his son had been detained on several occasions prior to the last detention and that he had been a person of interest for the local police. According to the applicant, the following evidence proved that his son had been abducted and tortured specifically by UBOP officers and not by any other policemen: “1.     On 4 May and 8 September 2003 and then on 18 August 2004 Rasul Tsakoyev was detained by the officers from that particular unit; 2.     A search was conducted on 28 September 2004 in the households of Rasul Tsakoyev’s friends Mr M.T. and Mr R.M. and they, in particular Mr   R.M., had subsequently been questioned only about Rasul Tsakoyev; 3.     On 28 September 2004 the Imam of the Khasanya village Kh.M. asked officers from the UBOP whether they were detaining Rasul Tsakoyev, Mr   R.M. and Mr   M.T.; the officers replied that all three of them had been detained on the premises of that unit and that at that time there were no superiors in the station to order their release; 4.     On 29 September 2004, I, as the father of Rasul Tsakoyev, went to that police unit with the head of the Khasanya village administration, Mr A.Z., ... but only Mr   A.Z. was allowed to enter the premises. After a 30-40 minute conversation there, Mr A.Z. came out and told me that, according to officer K., Rasul had been transferred to Khankala. After that we went home. However, sometime later Rasul’s friends told us that he had not been taken anywhere but had been detained in the UBOP building. This information was confirmed by one of the duty officers at the entrance to the UBOP premises. In addition, the local press stated that on 28 September 2004 several residents of Khasanya, Kendelen and Nalchik had been detained as a result of a special operation. Nobody from Khasanya village except for Rasul Tsakoyev had been detained on 27   or   28 September 2004. ... 5.     Prior to his death Rasul told us that he had been beaten and tortured by two police officers in balaclavas who had demanded that he confessed to aiding terrorists and supplying them with telephones and food. During those inhumane procedures, officer K. had entered and asked the officers: “So, anything?” and they had replied: “He would not confess”. Officer K. had ordered them to continue. As a result of those actions by the police officers from the UBOP unit, my son Rasul Tsakoyev died. 6.     During Rasul’s stay at the hospital, police officers Kh.G. and E.B. visited him and confirmed [to us] that Rasul Tsakoyev had been detained in the UBOP building at the material time [27-29 September 2004]. Given the above, I have reasons not to trust the law-enforcement bodies in Kabardino-Balkaria and request that you take the investigation of the criminal case under your personal control and transfer it to the prosecutor’s office of the Southern Federal Circuit for a full and complete investigation ... I request that you take those steps as the investigative authorities are not taking sufficient measures and not interested in solving the crime and prosecuting the perpetrators in court.” No reply was given to this request. 68.     On 7 February 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 69.     On 2 March 2005 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the investigation and take the following investigative steps: question the person who had Rasul Tsakoyev’s mobile phone; arrange a face-to-face confrontation between the applicants, their daughter and the head of the UBOP, officer K.; arrange a face-to-face confrontation between officer K. and another witness. 70.     On 7 March 2005 the first applicant’s request was refused. The applicant appealed against the refusal to the investigators’ superiors. 71.     On 1 April 2005 the investigators’ superior, the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor, dismissed the complaint. The decision stated, inter alia , that the statements made by officer K. and by Mr Z. contained no conflicting information and there was therefore no need for a face-to-face confrontation. Officer K. had provided information on his whereabouts between 27 and 29 September 2004. He had neither met with the applicants nor talked to them. Accordingly, there was no need for a face-to-face confrontation either. As regards Ms   Dzh. G., who was using Rasul Tsakoyev’s mobile phone, it had been found by her father. Neither of them had been involved in the infliction of injuries on Rasul Tsakoyev and no face-to-face confrontation was therefore required. 72 .     On 13 May 2005 the investigation was resumed. The decision stated that it was necessary to verify the possible involvement of an illegal armed group headed by Mr M.A. in the offence and to take other steps. 73.     On the same date, 13 May 2005, unidentified persons broke into the house of the applicants’ counsel, G., while he was absent. They opened his safe but did not steal anything. Later somebody called him on the phone and said that he had been warned. Since at the time counsel G. was working solely on Rasul Tsakoyev’s case, he concluded that the trespassing and the phone call must have been related to it. At the end of May the applicants had to accept the withdrawal of his assistance. 74.     On 27 and 30 May 2005 the first applicant complained to the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor about the attempt to put pressure on his counsel. In his complaints, he also mentioned the murder of Mr A. Z. on 14   May 2005. 75.     On 1 June 2005, the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor’s office replied that his complaint of 30 May 2005 had been enclosed in the case file. 76.     On 16 June 2005 the investigation was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 77.     On 23 August 2005 the applicants’ new legal counsel, D., requested that the investigators provide her with copies of documents from the case file. 78.     On 24 August 2005 the investigators provided the counsel with copies of the decisions to institute and suspend the investigation but refused to provide copies of other documents. 79.     On 29 August 2005 counsel D. again requested that the investigators provide her with copies of documents in the case file, including records of witness questioning and the expert reports. 80.     On 30 August 2005 the investigators allowed the request in part only concerning provision of copies of the procedural decisions and of other documents in the case file. 81.     On 16 September 2005 the first applicant applied to the Minister of the Interior asking the latter to take steps to ensure an effective investigation in the case and to resume the proceedings. His request was forwarded to the investigators. 82.     On 15 December 2005 the investigators replied to the first applicant that all possible investigative steps had been taken and that there were no grounds for resuming the proceedings. 83.     On 9 March 2006 the first applicant requested that the investigators take the following steps: grant victim status to the second applicant; join the medical evidence of 29 October 2004 to the case file; give him Rasul Tsakoyev’s mobile phone; question him again; arrange face-to-face confrontations between the applicants, officer K. and Ms Dzh. G.; request from the UBOP a copy of the transcript of Rasul Tsakoyev’s questioning on 18   September 2004. 84 .     On 19 March 2006, following the decision of the Kabardino ‑ Balkaria Supreme Court of 28 February 2006 (see paragraph 102 below), the decision to suspend the investigation was overruled and the proceedings were resumed. 85.     In April 2006 the applicants applied in person to the deputy prosecutor of Kabardino-Balkaria, who promised to supervise the investigation personally. 86.     On 19 April 2006 the investigators examined Rasul Tsakoyev’s telephone and included it as evidence in the case file. 87.     On 20 April 2006 the applicant’s legal counsel D. asked the deputy prosecutor of Kabardino-Balkaria for assistance in obtaining a copy of the decision to resume the investigation. She stated that her previous request had been refused by the investigator. Her request was not granted. 88.     On 21 April 2006 the first applicant visited the investigators to collect Rasul Tsakoyev’s mobile phone but was unsuccessful. 89.     On 25 April 2006 the investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer K. and other UBOP officers for lack of corpus   delicti . In particular, according to the decision, relatives of Rasul Tsakoyev stated that he had told them that he had been ill-treated in the UBOP. However, officer K. stated that between 26 and 29 September 2004 he had been participating in a special operation in the Elbrusskiy district and had only returned to Nalchik on a few occasions. On 29 September 2004 he had come to the UBOP to fetch certain documents from his office. Mr   Z. had come to see him and had asked whether Rasul Tsakoyev was being detained at the UBOP. Officer K. had then called the duty officers, who had replied that he was not being held there. Officer Ger. stated that in September 2004 he had participated in a special operation in the Elbrusskiy District together with officer K. and other UBOP officers. On one of those days he had come to the UBOP in Nalchik. There had been a lot of people outside the UBOP building. Some men in the crowd had asked him to find out whether Rasul Tsakoyev was being detained at the UBOP. He had searched for Mr   Tsakoyev in the UBOP and, not having found him, had told the men so. Doctor K., who had examined Rasul Tsakoyev upon his admittance to the emergency ward of the Republican Clinical Hospital, stated that during the examination Mr Tsakoyev had only said that he ached all over but had given no details of what had happened to him. The Kabardino-Balkaria Ministry of the Interior confirmed that between 27 and 29   September 2004 UBOP officers had participated in a special operation in the Elbrusskiy District. The decision concluded that there was no evidence corroborating the suggestion that officer K. or other UBOP officers had been responsible for the injuries caused to Rasul Tsakoyev. 90.     On 26 April 2006 the investigation was suspended again. The suspension decision stated, inter alia , that the question had been raised whether Rasul Tsakoyev might have been abducted due to possible disputes relating to his business. However, it was impossible to question his business partner, Mr   M.T., who had absconded and had been put on a wanted list (see paragraph 26 above). 91.     On 2 June 2006 the first applicant asked the investigators to return Rasul Tsakoyev’s mobile phone to him and to provide him with copies of the procedural decisions taken in the case. 92.     On 6 June 2006 the investigators replied that the mobile phone had been returned to the first applicant. On the same date, he was provided with copies of the five procedural decisions taken in the case. 93.     On 17 July 2006 the first applicant wrote to the Russian Prosecutor General, the prosecutor of Kabardino-Balkaria, and the director of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) in Kabardino-Balkaria, asking them to resume the investigation and to hand it over to different investigative officers (see also paragraph 67 above). 94.     On 21 July 2006 the investigators rejected the request and informed the applicant of their decision on 23 March 2007. 95 .     On 2 September 2009 the investigators’ superiors ordered that the investigation be resumed and that a number of steps be taken: “The [last] decision to suspend the investigation was premature and unsubstantiated as not all of the steps it is possible to take in the absence of those to be charged with a crime have been taken. It must therefore be overruled. It is necessary that the investigators take the following steps: - question the medical nurses Ms N.S. and Ms A.A. to find out whether Rasul Tsakoyev informed them about the circumstances in which he had received the bodily injuries; - questioning of the UBOP officer B.M. ... concerning the circumstances of the transfer of Rasul Tsakoyev and others to the UBOP; establish whether Mr Tsakoyev was taken to the UBOP premises on 27-29 September 2004 and if so, who questioned him and whether physical force was used against him; - examine the crime scene with the participation of Mr A.G.; - establish eye-witnesses to Rasul Tsakoyev’s abduction; - establish which officers were on duty at the Kabardino-Balkaria prosecutor’s office on 27 September 2004 and find out the circumstances of Rasul Tsakoyev’s abduction; - obtain information from the Kabardino-Balkaria Ministry of Health as to whether any calls were made on 27-29 September 2004 for an ambulance to go to the UBOP premises; - examine the circumstances of the seizure by the UBOP officers of Rasul Tsakoyev’s car and its return [to the applicants] a month later; - ask the Kabardino-Balkaria Ministry of the Interior to provide information concerning the participation of officer K. in the special operation in the Elbrusskiy district; ...” 96.     From the documents submitted it appears that the orders were not complied with and non