CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 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 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .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 } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F2E4500 { height:39.1pt }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF MEZHIDOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 50606/08 and 9 others – see list appended)                             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   23 October 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mezhidovy and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in ten applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). 3.     The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, were living in the Chechen Republic. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. The events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives alive since the alleged arrests. 5.     The applicants reported the abductions 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 applicants lodged requests for information and assistance in the search for their relatives with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies. Their requests received either formal responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. 6.     Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases as presented by the applicants, but questioned the allegation that servicemen had been involved in the events. A.     Mezhidovy v. Russia (no. 50606/08) 7.     The first applicant is the mother, and other applicants are brothers of Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov, who was born in 1980. 1.     Abduction of Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov 8.     Between 13 and 20 May 2002 a military unit of the Russian federal forces in Chechnya under the command of General Bronivitskiy conducted a special operation in the village of Avtury. The military servicemen cordoned off the area and ran identity checks on all the residents. Detained residents were taken to a special filtration camp set up on the outskirts of the settlement. 9.     On the morning of 15 May 2002 Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov was at home with the first and second applicants. Another relative, Mr M., and a neighbour, were also present. At around 10 a.m. two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) arrived at the applicants’ house located in the centre of the village. A group of about twenty armed and masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into the courtyard and threatened all those present with firearms. Having checked the identity documents, the servicemen forced Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov into one of the APCs and drove off in the direction of the filtration camp. According to the applicants, the arrest was filmed by journalists. 10.     The applicants submitted written statements from Mr B.Dzh., a village resident arrested on 15 May 2002. He had seen Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov in the filtration camp. The latter had been exhausted and had complained of ill-treatment by the servicemen. 11 .     In 2010 Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov’s skeletal remains with a bullet hole in the skull were found in a forest near Avtury (see paragraph 17 below). According to the applicants, along with the remains, Mr   Magomed ‑ Emin Mezhidov’s t-shirt, which he had been wearing on 15   May 2002, was found. It had two gunshot holes and a further hole that had been caused by stabbing with a knife. 2.     Official investigation 12 .     Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities about it and requested that a criminal investigation be opened into the incident. 13.     On 28 November 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59266 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code of Russia (“the CC”) (abduction). On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status. 14 .     On 28 January 2003 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the first applicant was informed of that decision on 11 April 2006. 15.     On 13 May 2003, in response to an enquiry from the applicants, the investigator informed them that the investigation had been suspended but that operational search activities were under way. 16 .     On 24 December 2003 and 26 February 2006 the first applicant asked various authorities for assistance in the investigation. It appears that her requests were forwarded to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office. By letters of 23 January 2004 and 11 April 2006 the prosecutor’s office informed her that the operational search for the perpetrators was ongoing. 17 .     On 22 April 2010 the investigating authority found the skeletal remains of Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov, and resumed the investigation. On 22   May 2010 the investigation was again suspended. 18.     On 21 January 2011 the investigation was resumed again. Three days later the investigating authority obtained a thirty-second video, allegedly made on 15   May 2002. It depicted armed men forcing a person, possibly Mr   Magomed-Emin Mezhidov, into an APC. The footage was included in the criminal case file. 19.     On 27 January 2011 a new criminal case was opened into the circumstances of Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov’s death under Article 105 of the CC (murder). On the same day the investigation in the case was joined to the investigation into the abduction, and suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the joint investigation is still pending. B.     Shakhidova and Others v. Russia (no. 27066/09) 20.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Akhyad Shakhidov, who was born in 1964, and of his brother, Mr Khamzat Shakhidov, born in 1968. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Akhyad Sakharov; the second, third and fourth applicants are his children. The fifth applicant is the wife of Mr   Khamzat Shakhidov; the sixth applicant is his son. 1.     Abduction of Mr Khamzat Shakhidov and Mr Akhyad Shakhidov 21.     On the morning of 14 May 2002 a group of about thirty armed military men in camouflage uniforms arrived in APCs and military lorries in the village of Makhkety to carry out an identity check on residents. The men were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. 22.     At about 10.30 a.m. the servicemen entered the applicants’ house. Mr Akhyad Shakhidov, Mr Khamzat Shakhidov, the applicants and other family members were at home. The men checked the brothers’ identity documents and searched the premises. Then they forced Mr   Khamzat Shakhidov into an APC and took him in the direction of the village of Khattuni, in the Vedeno district. Shortly thereafter, several armed men remaining in the house forced Mr Akhyad Shakhidov into their military lorry and took him in the same direction. 23.     On their way out of the village, the military convoy passed a broken ‑ down UAZ vehicle. The car’s driver, Mr M.K., the head of the Khattuni police department, asked the servicemen for their help with the vehicle, but to no avail. The first applicant, who was following the convoy, asked Mr   M.K. where the servicemen were from. The officer replied that they were from Grozny. 24 .     Another village resident, Mr Zh., was abducted on the same day under similar circumstances. He was released several days later and stated that on the day of the abduction the perpetrators had put him in the same APC as Mr   Akhyad Shakhidov and Mr Khamzat Shakhidov. After the ride the men had been separated and he had not seen them again. 2.     Official investigation 25.     Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested assistance in the search for their relatives. 26.     On 16 June 2002 the Vedeno district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 73038 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 27.     On 22 July 2002 the case file was transferred to the Shali military prosecutor’s office for further investigation. 28.     On 17 December 2002 the case file was destroyed by fire. It was reassembled about two years later, in October 2004. 29.     On 18 November 2004 the investigation in the case was suspended. 30.     On 8 September 2005 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed. On the same day an examination of the crime scene was conducted. 31.     Two days later, on 10 or 11 September 2005, the first and fifth applicants were granted victim status in the case. 32.     On 16 September 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office replied to a request from the applicants for information, stating that operational search activities were in progress. 33 .     On 8 October 2005 it was decided to suspend the investigation. The fifth applicant was informed thereof two days later. 34 .     On 21 January 2009 the first applicant asked the investigating authorities to provide her with information about the progress of the investigation. On 28 February 2009 the investigators replied that the proceedings were pending. 35.     Five years later, on 28 February 2014, the investigation was resumed, particularly, due to the need to examine the applicants’ consistent allegation of the involvement of State servicemen in the abduction, which had not been duly examined since the beginning of the criminal proceedings. On 5 April 2014, the investigators again suspended the proceedings, without having taken any meaningful steps. It appears that the investigation is still pending. C.     Israilovy v. Russia (no. 58253/10) 36.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed Israilov, who was born in 1980. The first and second applicants are his late father and mother, who died on 11 June 2013 and 26 March 2014 respectively. The third applicant is Mr Magomed Israilov’s brother. 1.     Abduction of Mr Magomed Israilov 37.     At the material time Mr Magomed Israilov lived with the applicants in the town of Shali, Chechnya. Mr Magomed Israilov’s sister, Ms G.A., was also staying in the house with her son, who was a minor. 38.     At around 3 a.m. on 16 August 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 17 August 2002) the family was at home when two APCs and a Ural lorry with a group of about forty to fifty armed servicemen arrived at their house. The servicemen, all of whom were in balaclavas, broke into the house. Having threatened the family members with firearms, they checked their identity documents and searched the premises. They then forced Mr Magomed Israilov and the third applicant out of the house, blindfolded them, tied their hands behind their backs and put them into different APCs. Thereafter, the convoy of military vehicles drove off in the direction of Avtury. 39.     The second applicant followed the abductors’ vehicles up to a military checkpoint at the entrance to the military compound of Special Investigative Group-1 (“the military compound”) ( Первая Специальная Следственная Группа ), located about five hundred metres from their house in the direction of Avtury. He saw the convoy enter the military compound. 40 .     Mr Magomed Israilov has not been seen since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. 2.     The applicants’ search for their relative and subsequent events 41.     At around 11 p.m. on 17 August 2002 the third applicant was released by the abductors. He was dropped off by the servicemen in front of his aunt’s house in the town of Shali. 42.     According to the third applicant, after his abduction he was taken to the military compound. The drive was short, but it was unclear in what direction the vehicle was going. While in detention, he did not see his brother, but heard him screaming. He also heard the guards conversing in unaccented Russian. 43.     Searching for their son, the first and second applicants spoke to Colonel   T.K., who confirmed to them that Mr Magomed Israilov was detained at the military compound and promised to release him in exchange for money. 3.     Official investigation 44.     On 29 August 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59221 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). On the same day the second applicant was granted victim status in the case. 45.     On 29 October 2002 the investigation in the case was suspended. 46.     On 6 June 2003 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the proceedings and ordered that the investigation be resumed. Subsequently, it was suspended and resumed on several occasions. In particular, it was suspended on 6 June 2003, then resumed on 17 April 2006 and then suspended again on 19 May 2006. 47.     On numerous occasions between 2002 and 2006, in particular on 17   March 2003 and 13 March 2006, the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in their search for Mr Magomed Israilov. In reply they received letters stating that their complaints had been examined or forwarded to other authorities for examination and that the law ‑ enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their relative’s whereabouts. 48.     In 2007 the criminal proceedings were resumed and suspended several times, without any tangible results having been achieved. It appears that the investigation is still pending. D.     Isiyevy v. Russia (no.   52167/11) 49.     The first, second and third applicants are respectively the mother, sister and daughter of Mr Razambek Isiyev, who was born in 1983. 1.     Abduction of Mr Razambek Isiyev and subsequent events 50.     On 22 July 2002 Mr Razambek Isiyev was driving his car on the Argun-Shali highway. At about 3 or 4 p.m. a group of servicemen in APCs stopped him on the highway and took him to the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) office in the town of Argun. 51.     Later the same day the first applicant contacted Mr M.Kh., the head of a unit at the FSB office, where Mr Razambek Isiyev had been hired the previous day. According to Mr M.Kh., the FSB officer, D.Ts., had told him that Mr   Razambek Isiyev had been detained for questioning. 52.     At 5 p.m. on 23 July 2002 an APC, a UAZ vehicle and a Ural lorry parked near garages situated next to the applicants’ house. The first applicant saw her son, Mr Razambek Isiyev, inside the UAZ vehicle through its open door. He was pointing in the direction of the garages and explaining something. He saw his mother but before he could say anything the servicemen shut the vehicle door and drove off. 53.     At 10 a.m. on 24 July 2002 the servicemen returned to the same place with Mr Razambek Isiyev. This time they used an excavator to dig the ground. They did not find anything and left. 54 .     On 25 July 2002 the applicants and their relatives gathered in front of the military commander’s office in Argun. Mr M.Kh., the head of the FSB unit, assured the first applicant that he would bring Mr Razambek Isiyev home. For the next several days the first applicant visited the office of the military commander and each time Mr M.Kh. assured her that her son would be released soon. However, Mr Razambek Isiyev has not been seen since. 2.     Official investigation 55.     On 3 August 2002 the first applicant complained of the disappearance of her son to the Argun district prosecutor’s office. On the same date the prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 78081 under Article 126 of the CC and granted the applicant victim status in the proceedings. 56.     On 3 October 2002 the investigation was suspended, on 27   January 2004 it was resumed, and on 28 January 2004 it was suspended again. 57.     On 13 July and 5 August 2004 the North Caucasus military prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s requests for assistance in establishing her son’s whereabouts to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. On 16 August 2004 the latter informed the first applicant that the involvement of their servicemen in her son’s abduction had not been confirmed. 58.     On 26 August 2004 the Argun district prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that the investigation of the abduction had been suspended but that search activities were under way. 59.     On 12 September 2006 the first applicant asked the investigating authorities to provide her with access to case-file documents. It is unclear whether the request was granted. 60.     On 22 February 2007 the first applicant requested the authorities to expedite the search for her missing son. As a result, on 27 March 2007 the investigation was resumed. It was again suspended a month later, on 27   April 2007. 61.     On 20 February 2009, 5 August 2010 and 14 February 2011 the applicants asked the investigators to provide them with an update on the progress of the investigation. In reply to the first letter the authorities informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended, but that search activities were being undertaken. No reply was given to either the second or the third enquiry. It appears that the investigation is still pending. E.     Limayevy v. Russia (no.   62560/11) 62.     The first applicant is the mother, and the second applicant the brother of Mr Movsar Limayev, who was born in 1978. 1.     Abduction of Mr Movsar Limayev 63.     At 3.30 a.m. on 28 October 2002 three APCs with smeared registration numbers stopped at the first applicant’s house in the village of Mesket-Yurt. Six armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas jumped over the fence into the courtyard. Two servicemen broke into the house and demanded that the lights be turned on. Then they handcuffed Mr   Movsar Limayev, who was in his underwear and barefoot, and took him outside. The intruders ordered the applicants and their relatives to remain in the house. However, the first applicant went outside and saw Mr Movsar Limayev being forced into one of the APCs, which then drove off in the direction of Shali. 64 .     The applicants have had no news of Mr Movsar Limayev since. 2.     Official investigation 65.     On the same day, 28 October 2002, the applicants complained of the abduction to the Shali district police and subsequently to a number of other law ‑ enforcement agencies. 66.     On 31 March 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22053 under Article 126 of the CC. On the same day the first applicant was questioned and granted victim status in the criminal case. 67.     On 31 May 2003 the investigation was suspended. 68.     On a number of occasions between 2003 and 2005 the applicants complained to various law ‑ enforcement agencies about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received formal letters, stating either that the investigation was in progress, or that their requests had been forwarded elsewhere. 69.     Between November 2005 and August 2006 the criminal case was suspended and resumed several times. The last decision to suspend the investigation of which the applicants were informed was taken on 3   August 2006. 70.     On 26 March 2008 the Materi Chechni ( Mothers of Chechnya ), an NGO with offices in Moscow and the Republic of Ingushetia, complained on behalf of the first applicant to the Prosecutor General’s Office that the investigation into her son’s death had been ineffective. The complaint was forwarded to the investigating authority and included in the criminal case file, but no reply followed. It appears that the investigation is still pending. F.     Sadulayeva and Mintsaligov v. Russia (no.   77744/11) 71.     The first applicant is the wife, and the second applicant the son of Mr   Musa Mintsaligov, who was born in 1968. 1.     Abduction of Mr Musa Mintsaligov 72.     At about 3 a.m. on 10 October 2004 the applicants were at home when a large group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house in the village of Valerik, in two APCs and two Ural lorries without registration numbers. A group of about six servicemen broke into the house, forced Mr Musa Mintsaligov outside and took him away to an unknown destination. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian, most of them were in balaclavas and helmets; those without were of Slavic and Asian appearance. 73 .     The whereabouts of Mr Musa Mintsaligov remain unknown. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. 2.     Official investigation 74.     Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested that a criminal investigation be initiated. 75.     On 15 October 2004 investigators examined the crime scene. 76.     On 16 October 2004 an officer of the Valerik traffic police informed the head of the Achkhoy-Martan district police that on the night of the abduction a convoy of military vehicles, consisting of two APCs and two Ural lorries without registration numbers, had left Valerik, passed through a checkpoint, and driven off in the direction of Urus-Martan. 77.     On 1 November 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 38052 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 78.     Between 26 November and 24 December 2004 the investigators questioned numerous witnesses to the events, most of whom were the applicants’ neighbours and members of their family. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 79.     On 25 December 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned by the authorities. 80.     On 1 March 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed on 10 June 2008 and 21 July 2011 following criticism by the supervisors, and then again suspended on 10 July 2008 and 31 July 2011 respectively. 81.     In the meantime, on numerous occasions between 2004 and 2006 the applicants complained to various military and law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish Musa Mintsaligov’s whereabouts. 82.     On 2 July 2010 the first applicant asked the authorities to inform her about the progress in the investigation and to resume the proceedings in the criminal case. Three days later the investigator informed her that the proceedings had been suspended on 10 July 2008 but that operational search activities were in progress. 83.     On 2 February 2011 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her full access to the contents of the investigation file. On 8 February 2011 her request was rejected. 84.     On 21 February 2011 the first applicant challenged her lack of access to the criminal case file before the Achkhoy-Martan District Court. 85.     On 24 March 2011 the court allowed the applicant’s complaint, having ordered the investigators to grant her full access to the file. 86.     On 23 June 2011 the first applicant lodged another complaint with the court, challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps. The complaint was rejected on 25 July 2011, because on 21 July 2011 the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. Then, ten days later, the investigation was suspended again. It appears that it is still pending. G.     Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (no.   2679/12) 87.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev, who was born in 1956. The first applicant is his wife, and the second and third applicants are his sons. 1.     Abduction of Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev 88 .     On 22 April 2002 seven or eight armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms entered the applicants’ house in the village of Goyty. The three applicants, Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev’s father, mother, minor daughter and his daughter-in-law were at home and witnessed the events that followed. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen, who were of Slavic appearance, checked the family’s identity documents. They then said that they would take Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev to the Urus-Martan military commander’s office. After the servicemen had left, the first applicant ran outside and saw an APC and a UAZ- minivan driving away from the house. Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev has been missing ever since. 2.     Official investigation 89.     On 22 April 2002 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office. On the same day the latter opened criminal case no. 61077 under Article 126 of CC (abduction) and granted the first applicant victim status in the case. 90.     On 22 June 2002 the investigation was suspended and on 21   October 2003 it was resumed. A month later it was suspended again. 91.     In October-November 2003 the investigators questioned the three applicants, Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev’s father, mother, minor daughter and his daughter-in-law. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 92.     On 12 April 2004 the applicants requested that the Urus-Martan district police assist them in their search for Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev. On 2   June 2005 the applicants forwarded a similar request to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. 93.     On 22 February 2006 the applicants requested that the investigation be resumed. It was resumed on 17 July 2006, and then on 28 April 2006 it was suspended again. 94 .     On 7 August 2006 the applicants requested information on the progress in the investigation and on 28 April 2010 they requested permission to access the investigation file. Their requests were refused, but the applicants successfully challenged the refusal before the Achkhoy ‑ Martan District Court. Their complaint was granted on 5   October 2010. 95.     On 22 June 2011 the applicants asked the investigators to resume the proceedings and inform them of their progress. The next day they received a letter saying that the proceedings had been suspended, but that operational search activities were in progress. 96 .     On 5 July 2011 the applicants lodged a complaint against the investigators with the Urus-Martan Town Court, seeking the resumption of the investigation. 97.     On 21 July 2011 the investigators resumed the proceedings, so the court rejected the applicants’ complaint as groundless. An appeal lodged by the applicants against that decision was upheld by the Chechnya Supreme Court on 24 August 2011. 98.     On 31 July 2011 the proceedings were suspended again. 99.     In April 2012 the investigators resumed and then again suspended the criminal proceedings. It appears that the investigation is still pending. H.     Zaurbekovy v. Russia (no.   27987/12) 100.     The first and second applicants are respectively the sister and the wife of Mr Musa Zaurbekov, who was born in 1964. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are his children, and the seventh applicant is his mother. 1.     Abduction of Mr Musa Zaurbekov 101.     At about 3 a.m. on 6 May 2003 the applicants and Mr Zaurbekov were at home in Grozny when a group of about ten armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into their house. Most of the servicemen were in balaclavas and those without were of Slavic appearance. They forced Mr Zaurbekov outside and took him away on foot in the direction of a nearby school, where two APCs and two UAZ vehicles were waiting. The servicemen put Mr Zaurbekov into one of the vehicles and drove off in the direction of Grozny city centre. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicants and their neighbours. 102.     The written statements of four neighbours, submitted by the applicants to the Court, confirm the account of the events as described above. 103 .     The whereabouts of Mr Musa Zaurbekov remain unknown. 2.     Official investigation 104.     On 6 May 2003 the first applicant informed the Chechnya prosecutor’s office of the abduction and requested that a criminal investigation be opened. 105.     On 16 May 2003 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 50052 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 106.     On 5 June 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. 107.     On 16 July 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 108.     On 20 July 2004 the above-mentioned decision was overruled and the proceedings were resumed. A month later, having not achieved any tangible results, the investigation was suspended. 109 .     The investigation was subsequently resumed on 30 April 2006, suspended on 30 May 2006, resumed on 2 March 2007, and then suspended again on 3 April 2007. The applicants were not informed of those decisions. 110 .     On 6 October 2010 the first applicant asked the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO based in Moscow, to assist in the search for her brother and lodge information requests with various authorities in an attempt to establish his whereabouts. The second applicant submitted a similar request to the NGO in April 2011. 111 .     From the documents submitted it transpires that between 2010 and 2011 the applicants contacted the authorities with requests for information, but to no avail. In the autumn of 2011 the first applicant requested that she be allowed to access the investigation file. On 3 November 2011 the investigators granted the request. In 2012 their close relatives and those of Mr   Musa Zaurbekov contacted a local human rights NGO, which on their behalf requested various authorities to resume the investigation. 112.     On 26 March 2014 the investigation was resumed. The second applicant was granted victim status and questioned by the investigators. It appears that the investigation is still pending. I.     Abdurzakova and Others v. Russia (no.   39694/12) 113.     The first applicant is the sister of Mr Aslambek Abdurzakov, who was born in 1976. The second applicant is his mother and the third and fourth applicants are his children. 1.     Abduction of Mr Aslambek Abdurzakov 114.     At the material time, Mr Aslambek Abdurzakov was living with his family in the village of Duba-Yurt, Chechnya. 115.     At about 4 a.m. on 20 July 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 15 May 2002) the family was at home when a large group of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house in an APC and a grey military UAZ minivan. A group of about ten servicemen broke into the house, searched the premises, forced Aslambek Abdurzakov outside, then put him in one of the vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination. 116.     The same morning, at some point before the abduction, the same servicemen had broken into the house of Aslambek Abdurzakov’s neighbour, Ms Z.U., and had shot her in the leg. 117.     Sometime after the abduction the second applicant received a note, allegedly handwritten by Aslambek Abdurzakov, saying that he was detained in the Urus-Martan remand prison. 118 .     The whereabouts of Aslambek Abdurzakov remain unknown. 2.     Official investigation 119.     On 25 July 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59168 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 120.     On 26 July 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status. She and several other witnesses to the abduction were questioned. The applicant’s submissions before the investigators were similar to her account before the Court. 121.     On the same date, 26 July 2002, the investigators collected two machine-gun shells found in the house of Ms Z.U., who had been shot in the leg by the abductors. The shells were sent for a ballistics expert examination. 122.     On 27 July 2002 the first applicant was questioned again. She confirmed the statement she had given previously and submitted additional information on the registration numbers of the abductors’ APC and the UAZ vehicle. 123.     On the same date, 27 July 2002, the investigators questioned the second applicant, who stated, in particular, that a few days after the abduction she had seen the abductors’ UAZ vehicle entering the premises of the Shatoy district police station. 124.     On 25 September 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were not informed thereof. 125 .     In 2003 the applicants complained to various authorities about the abduction and requested that an effective investigation be carried out. 126.     Between 2006 and 2007 the investigation was suspended and resumed several times. The applicants were not informed of those decisions. 127.     On 16 February 2008 the first applicant requested that the investigators inform her about the progress in the proceedings, and sought information from the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences on the possible detention of Mr Aslambek Abdurzakov in Russian detention facilities. 128.     On 20 June 2009 the request was granted in part. The investigators asked the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences to inform them whether Mr Aslambek Abdurzakov had been detained in a detention facility after his abduction. The outcome of that enquiry is unknown. 129.     On 5 March and 20 October 2011 the first applicant was allowed to access the investigation file. 130.     On 1 March 2012 the investigation was resumed. The first applicant gave the investigators a blood sample for inclusion in the database for identification of bodies found in the Chechen Republic. A month later, in April 2012, the investigation was suspended again. 131.     On an unspecified date in 2012 the first applicant complained to the Shali Town Court of the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps. The outcome of those proceedings is unknown. It appears that the investigation is still pending. J.     Askhabayeva v. Russia (no.   79940/12) 132.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Saykhan Isayev, who was born in 1984. 1.     Abduction of Mr Saykhan Isayev 133.     During the night between 17 and 18 January 2005 armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicant’s village of Chechen-Aul in an APC, two UAZ- vehicles and a Niva car. The servicemen were armed with machine guns and spoke unaccented Russian. At about 3   a.m. that night a group of about seventeen of them broke into the applicant’s house, searched the premises, violently beat up the applicant’s husband, her three sons and the pregnant wife of one of them. Then the intruders took Mr   Isayev away to an unknown destination. 134 .     The applicant submitted to the Court written statements of several neighbours who saw armed men entering her house and then leaving it with a man on their shoulders. As soon as they left, the neighbours entered the house, saw the injured members of the applicant’s family and learned that Saykhan Isayev had been taken away. His whereabouts remain unknown. 2.     Official investigation 135.     On 18 January 2005 the applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her son. 136.     On an unspecified date a decision not to open a criminal case was taken. 137.     According to the applicant, shortly after the abduction several agents from the Grozny prosecutor’s office arrived at her house in Chechen-Aul. They advised the applicant and her family not to lodge any official complaints concerning the events. Therefore, for some time after the abduction, fearing for her life and the lives of her family members, she refrained from asking the authorities to open a criminal case. 138.     In May 2005 one of the witnesses to the abduction, Mr R.I., was questioned. Her statement was similar to the applicant’s account before the Court. 139.     On 8 June 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44048 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 140.     On 20 June 2005 the applicant was granted victim status. 141.     On 18 August 2005, 25 and 27 March 2007, and 23 October 2008 several other witnesses, including the applicant’s family members present during the incident, were questioned. Their statements were similar to the applicant’s account before the Court. 142.     On 8 October 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 2 March 2007 that decision was overruled as premature and the investigation was resumed. The proceedings were subsequently resumed and suspended several times, including at least four suspensions and resumptions between June 2007 and October 2010. 143.     In the meantime, on 28 March 2007 two officials from the Chechen-Aul village administration were questioned. They stated, in particular, that prior to the abduction, law-enforcement agencies had made enquiries about Mr Isayev’s home address. 144.     On 2 August 2010 and 24 October 2010 two of the applicant’s sons, who had witnessed the abduction, were questioned again. They confirmed the statements they had previously given to the investigators. 145.     On 20 October 2010 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 146.     On 4 November 2010 the investigation was suspended again. 147. On 6 April 2016 the investigators resumed the proceedings in order to question the applicant and take a sample of her saliva for inclusion in a database for identification of corpses found in the Chechen Republic. It appears that the investigation is still pending. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS 148.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law and international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012). THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 149.     In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background. II.     COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH RULE A.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The Government 150.     In their observations the Government argued that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court several years after the abduction of their relatives and more than six months after the date when they ought to have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigations. They pointed out that the applicants had remained passive and had not maintained contact with the investigating authorities for a significant time, and that in several cases their representatives had unduly delayed lodging the applications with the Court. Therefore, according to the Government, the applications should be declared inadmissible as lodged “out of time”, unless the applicants were to admit that the respective investigations had been effective. 2.     The applicants 151.     The applicants submitted that they had complied with the six ‑ month rule. They had taken all possible steps within a reasonable time to initiate the search for their missing relatives and assist the authorities in the proceedings. They submitted that there had been no excessive or unexplained delays in lodging their applications with the Court, which had been brought as soon as they had considered the domestic investigations to be ineffective. According to them, the armed conflict which had been taking place in Chechnya at the material time had led them to believe that investigative delays were inevitable. Owing to their lack of legal knowledge and financial means to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of any domestic provisions for free legal assistance to victims of enforced disappearances, they had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the investigations. It had only been with the passage of time and on account of the lack of information from the investigating authorities that they had begun to doubt the effectiveness of the investigation and had started looking for free legal assistance to assess the effectiveness of the proceedings. They had subsequently lodged their applications with the Court without undue delay. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     General principles 152.     A summary of the principles concerning compliance with the six-month rule in disappearance cases may be found in Sultygov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§   369 ‑ 74, 9 October 2014. 2.     Application of the principles to the present case 153.     Turning to the circumstances of the present cases, the Court notes that in each application the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court within less than ten years of the incidents and the initiation of the related investigations (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.   16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR 2009). 154.     Furthermore, in each of the applications the applicants informed the authorities about the abductions either shortly after the incident, or within two weeks. 155.     The authorities opened an official criminal investigation into each of those complaints; in each case the investigation was still pending when the application was lodged with the Court. 156.     In each case at hand, the investigation was repeatedly suspended and resumed throughout the periods concerned. Each time, it was suspended and then resumed following criticism by the supervisors. The Court notes that there were certain lulls during the proceedings. 157.     In Mezhidovy v. Russia (no.   50606/08) and Zaurbekovy v. Russia (no.   27987/12) the longest periods of inactivity comprised more than five years. In Mezhidovy v. Russia (no.   50606/08) the lull in the proceedings lasted between January 2003, when the decision to suspend the investigation was taken, and September 2008 when the application was lodged with the Court. In Zaurbekovy v. Russia (no.   27987/12) the investigation was suspended in April 2007 and the application was lodged in April 2012. In both cases, for the purpose of the six-month rule, the lulls ended when the applicants lodged their applications with the Court (see paragraphs 14 and 109 above and the appended table). The Court notes that in neither case were the applicants duly informed of the suspensions in the investigation and that they remained unaware of those procedural decisions for years; nonetheless, they contacted the investigating authorities, who assured them that the search for their relatives was ongoing (see paragraphs 14-16, and 110-111 above). 158.     In Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (no.   2679/12) the longest lull in the proceedings took place between April 2006 and July 2011, comprising five years and three months. During that period the applicants were in contact with the investigating authorities. They enquired about the progress in the proceedings, requested access to the case file, and challenged the decision to suspend the investigation (see paragraphs 94-96 above). 159.     In Abdurzakova and Others v. Russia (no.   39694/12) the longest period of inactivity in the investigation occurred between September 2002 and Jul