CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .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 } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s99C28F9F { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2924756B { height:57.35pt } .s55B086C9 { height:177pt } .s2C6ECF48 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-5.4pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt }         THIRD SECTION               CASE OF YANDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 5374/07 and 9 others – see list appended)                               JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG   4 December 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yandayeva and Khamayev 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 13 November 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 the 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 any tangible results being achieved. The applicants lodged requests for information and assistance in their search for their relatives with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies. Their requests received either only 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 to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours. 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.     Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07) 7.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Turpal-Ali Yandayev, who was born in 1982. The second applicant is the father of Mr Said-Ali Khamayev, who was born in 1984. 1.     The disappearance of Mr Turpal-Ali Yandayev and Mr Said-Ali Khamayev and subsequent events 8 .     On the afternoon of 19 June 2003 Mr Turpal-Ali Yandayev, Mr   Said ‑ Ali Khamayev and Mr Z.I. were on their way from the village of Tsa-Vedeno to the village of Serzhen-Yurt, Chechnya, when military servicemen stopped their Gazel vehicle at a checkpoint known as “SSG-4”, which was situated at the crossroads on the outskirts of the village of Elistanzhi. The servicemen ordered the men to get out of their car and then searched the vehicle. The search took place in the presence of numerous witnesses, who were passing through the checkpoint at the time. It is unclear what happened after the search. The whereabouts of Mr Yandayev, Mr Khamayev and Mr Z.I. have remained unknown ever since. 9.     On the next day, 20 June 2003, the burnt-out wreck of the car of Mr   Yandayev, Mr Khamayev and Mr Z.I. was found about 200 metres from the Benoy checkpoint, on the outskirts of Serzhen-Yurt. The checkpoint logbook had an entry which recorded the passage of the car through the checkpoint at 8   p.m. on 19 June 2003. Subsequently, the time was changed to 7 p.m. Servicemen manning the checkpoint told the applicants that at about 9 p.m. on 19 June 2003 they had seen something burning not far from the checkpoint. 10 .     On an unspecified date after the abduction, the second applicant learned from Colonel B., an officer at the Grozny remand prison, that Mr   Yandayev, Mr Khamayev and Mr Z.I. had allegedly been detained at the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala, Chechnya for about six months, and then transferred to the Mozdok district of Chechnya. It is unclear whether the applicants submitted this information to the investigators. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 11.     On 23 June 2003 the Shali district prosecutor in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 22096 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) (abduction) into the events of 19 June 2003. 12.     It appears that on the same day the investigators found and examined the burned-out remains of the Gazel vehicle. A plastic bottle containing a combustible mixture was found nearby. That evidence was not collected or added to the case-file. 13.     On 24 June 2003 the investigators questioned Mr U.I., who stated that between 5 and 6 p.m. on 19 June 2003, as he had been passing a checkpoint on the Serzhen-Yurt road, he had seen a Gazel vehicle parked nearby. One man had been in the car and another had been speaking with a serviceman. 14.     On various dates at the end of June 2003 the investigators questioned several traffic police officers who had been on duty at the Benoy checkpoint on the day of the incident. The copies of the records of their questioning submitted to the Court are illegible. 15.     On 10 July 2003 the applicants were granted victim status in the criminal case. 16.     On 23 August 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Shortly thereafter the applicants lodged a request for the proceedings to be resumed, but on 28 August 2003 their request was refused. 17.     On 1 September 2003 the investigators asked the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) whether the abducted persons had been detained by FSB officers. On 4 September 2003 the FSB replied in the negative. 18.     On 7 June 2004 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision of 23   August 2003 to suspend the investigation, noting various shortcomings in the investigation. He pointed out that the bottle containing a combustible mixture found near the burned car had not been collected and that the investigators had not identified a military unit stationed in the vicinity of Serzhen-Yurt that might have had information about the abducted persons. 19.     On 10 July 2004 the investigators established that military unit no.   62372 had been stationed near Serzhen-Yurt at the relevant time. However, since 2003 the personnel making up that unit had been changed four times. Therefore, according to the investigators, it was impossible to find persons who could shed light on the circumstances of the abduction. 20 .     On 22 July 2004 the investigation was suspended. 21.     On 5 May 2005 the first applicant asked the Shali district prosecutor to resume the proceedings. 22.     On 16 December 2005 the prosecutor informed the first applicant that the investigation would be resumed “in the nearest future”. 23 .     On 28 March 2006 the Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO based in Moscow, on behalf of the first applicant, enquired about the progress of the investigation. The reply from the investigators of 21 April 2006 stated that operational-search activity was ongoing. 24 .     It appears that the investigation is still pending. B.     Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) 25.     The first applicant is the son of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev, who was born in 1925. The second applicant was the wife of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev. According to a letter addressed to the Court dated 4 July 2018 from the first applicant, the second applicant has died. 1.     Abduction of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev 26.     At the material time, Mr Sultan Saynaroyev lived in the village of Galashki, Ingushetia. 27.     He was engaged in bee keeping and ran an apiary in a small area, known as “Berezhki”, located between the two neighbouring villages of Arshty and Galashki. 28 .     On the afternoon of 22 October 2002 Mr Sultan Saynaroyev left the apiary and was heading home to Galashki on foot when a group of forty-five to fifty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in four armoured infantry carriers (“AICs”) without registration numbers. One of the vehicles carried a large label reading “Rossiya”   ( Россия ). Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen stopped Mr Suleyman Saynaroyev and ordered him to go with them to a neighbouring apiary belonging to Mr M.O. The latter and his family members were in that apiary. The servicemen checked the identity documents of all those present and searched the premises. One of the servicemen, who was apparently in charge of the group, introduced himself as Sergey and said that he was from a military unit stationed in Arshty. After the search, the servicemen ordered Mr Sultan Saynaroyev to proceed with them to their headquarters for a further check, having assured him that the decision to apprehend him had been approved by the Arshty municipal administration. They put Mr Sultan Saynaroyev into one of the AICs and drove off in the direction of Chechnya. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. 29.     In the evening the first applicant spoke to the head of the Arshty police department, Mr A.Ts., who told him that a special sweeping-up operation was in progress in the village and that for that reason a large number of military servicemen were present in the village. 30.     On 24 October 2002 the first applicant spoke to Mr A.M, deputy head of the Ingushetia Government. The latter said that he had had a telephone conversation with the military commander of the headquarters of the federal forces at the military base in Khankala, Chechnya, who had informed him that Mr   Sultan Saynaroyev had been brought to the Khankala military base on 23 October 2002 and that he would soon be released. 31.     The whereabouts of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev have remained unknown ever since. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 32.     On 23 October 2002 the applicants lodged a complaint about the abduction with the authorities and asked that a criminal case be opened. 33.     On 14 November 2002 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 22600057 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 34 .     The Government did not provide the Court with a copy of the investigation file. From the applicant’s submissions it appears that the investigation proceeded as follows. 35.     On 20 November 2002 the Ingushetia Minister of the Interior informed the deputy head of the Ingushetia Government that the operational search activities conducted into the disappearance of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev showed that the latter had been abducted by unidentified military servicemen, who had taken him in a military vehicle in the direction of the Chechen Republic. 36.     On an unspecified date the criminal case was forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office for further investigation. 37.     On 29 November 2002 Colonel S.I., the commander of military unit no. 74814, reported, in particular, that Mr Sultan Saynaroyev had been detained on 22 October 2002 by servicemen of the Regional Operative Headquarters of the FSB in the North Caucasus ( Региональный Оперативный Штаб ФСБ России по Северо ‑ Кавказскому региону ). 38.     On 25 December 2002 the military prosecutor’s office, referring to its lack of jurisdiction over the investigation, forwarded the criminal case to the Ingushetia prosecutor. 39.     On 29 December 2002 the Ingushetia FSB informed the investigators that it had no information concerning Mr Sultan Saynaroyev’s whereabouts. 40.     On 10 January 2003 the acting head of the criminal investigation department of the Ingushetia Ministry of the Interior reported to the investigators that on 29 November 2002 the United Group Alignment had confirmed that Mr Sultan Saynaroyev had been detained by servicemen of the FSB, but that the FSB in a letter of 3 January 2003 had denied any involvement in the incident. 41.     On 14 March 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 42.     On 23 April 2003 the Deputy Minister of the Interior of Ingushetia informed the applicants that operational search activities had indicated that FSB servicemen had been involved in the abduction of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev. 43 .     On 4 September 2003 and again on 21 November 2003 the investigators informed the applicants that the proceedings in the criminal case had been resumed. 44 .     On 18 January 2006 the first applicant asked the investigators to inform him about the progress of the proceedings. A week later the investigators replied that the investigation had been suspended. 45.     On 21 April 2006 and again on 27 September 2006 the first applicant enquired about the progress of the proceedings again. Apparently no reply was given to these two enquiries. 46.     On numerous occasions between 2002 and 2007 the applicants complained to various State authorities and law-enforcement agencies about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that their requests had been forwarded to yet another State agency or that the law-enforcement authorities had no information concerning their relative’s whereabouts. 47 .     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 48.     On 27 February 2006 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Sunzhenskiy District Court in Ingushetia challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. On 13 March 2006 the court allowed the complaint and ordered that the investigation be resumed and a number of procedural steps taken. C.     Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) 49.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Usman Magomadov, who was born in 1957. The first and the third applicants are his brothers, the fourth applicant is his wife, and the fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are his children. 50 .     The second applicant was Mr Usman Magomadov’s brother. He died on 2   December 2010. His widow, Ms Zakhra Magomadova, subsequently expressed her wish to pursue the application. 1.     Abduction of Mr Usman Magomadov 51.     On 28 March 2002 Mr Usman Magomadov left his home in the village of Mesker-Yurt and was driving to work in the town of Argun in his white   Zhiguli car when a group of about four armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas stopped him at checkpoint no. 136 on outskirts of Argun. They pulled Mr Usman Magomadov out of his car, forced him into one of the two APCs waiting nearby and drove off in the direction of the town. 52 .     The abduction was witnessed by several bystanders, including the fourth applicant and her relative, Ms E.D. 53.     Ms E.D. asked one of the servicemen at the checkpoint where Mr   Usman Magomadov was being taken. The serviceman replied that he was being taken to the Argun military commander’s office. She immediately took a taxi and followed the APCs until they reached the premises of the military commander’s office. Then the military vehicles turned in the direction of Khankala, where the main base of the Russian forces in Chechnya was located. Somewhere on the road the vehicles stopped. Ms E.D. got out of the taxi and was approaching them on foot when a   Niva car pulled over. A serviceman, who appeared to be a military colonel, got out of the car and asked her what was happening. She explained the situation and he promised to help. Then he approached the APCs and spoke to the servicemen. After finishing the conversation, the colonel and the servicemen drove off to Khankala. 54 .     Several days later the driver of the   Niva   car informed Ms E.D. that Mr Usman Magomadov was detained in the Grozny department of the FSB. 55.     The whereabouts of Mr Usman Magomadov remain unknown. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 56.     Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and asked that a criminal case be opened. 57.     On 30 April 2002 the Argun inter-district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 78051 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 58.     The Government did not submit copies of the documents from the relevant criminal case file. Instead they submitted copies of documents from an unrelated case file. 59 .     According to the documents submitted by the applicants, the investigation proceeded as follows. 60.     On 5 May 2002 the fourth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 61.     On 14 June 2002 Mr V.S., a police officer who had been manning the checkpoint on the day of the abduction, was questioned. He stated, in particular, that during the morning on that date thirty-five to forty military servicemen had arrived at the checkpoint in four APCs. From their conversation with each other he had understood that they had been looking for certain men in a white Zhiguli vehicle who had allegedly committed an armed attack on federal forces the day before. 62.     On 20 June 2002 the crime scene was examined. The investigators did not find or collect any evidence. 63.     On the same day they questioned Mr V.B., another police officer who had been manning the checkpoint on the day of the abduction. He had not witnessed the moment of the abduction; however, he confirmed the presence of armed military servicemen and four APCs at the checkpoint at the time of the events in question. 64.     On 19 June 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed several times – each time on the orders of (and following criticism by) the supervisors, and then suspended again. Specifically, the investigation was resumed on 25   December 2003, on unspecified dates in April and September 2004, and on 6 February and 5 June 2007. It was suspended on 5 February, 9 May and 9   October 2004 and 6   March and 10 July 2007. 65 .     In the meantime, on 19 May 2004, the fourth applicant requested the Chechen Governmental Committee for the Protection of the Constitutional Rights of Russian Citizens Living in the Chechen Republic ( Комитет Правительства Чеченской Республике по обеспечению конституционных прав граждан Российской Федерации проживающих на территории Чеченской Республики) to assist in the search for Mr Usman Magomadov. His request was forwarded to the investigators. 66 .     On 10 April 2006 the first applicant asked the Argun prosecutor to expedite the investigation into Usman Magomadov’s abduction. It appears that the requests were forwarded to the investigators and that the proceedings are still ongoing. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 67.     On 1 December 2006 and 7 May and 22 November 2007 the fourth applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali District Court regarding her lack of access to the case file and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. 68.     On 8 February 2007 and 8 June and 14 December 2007 respectively the court allowed the complaint in part, ordering that access to the case file be granted. D.     Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09) 69.     The applicant is the wife of Mr Alash Mugadiyev, who was born in 1956. 1.     Abduction of Mr Alash Mugadiyev 70.     On 1 February 2003 the Vostok special battalion conducted a special military operation in the village of Ersenoy, Chechnya. The servicemen cordoned off the settlement and ran identity checks in respect of all of its residents. 71 .     At about 8 a.m. on that date the applicant, Mr Alash Mugadiyev, their daughter, and their son-in-law were in their house in Ersenoy when a group of ten armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms entered their household. The servicemen were unmasked, were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. They checked the identity papers of all the family members and informed them that they were going to detain Mr Alash Mugadiyev for three hours. The servicemen then took him to the outskirts of the village, where a convoy of military vehicles was waiting. 72.     The applicant and her relative, Ms S.M, followed the servicemen and saw Mr Alash Mugadiyev being put into an UAZ ( tabletka ) minivan. The vehicle’s registration plate contained the figures 386 кх. On the same day two other residents of the village, Mr S.A. and Mr A.B., were detained by servicemen. Mr   S.A. was put into the same vehicle as Mr Alash Mugadiyev. 73.     At about midnight the special operation was completed and the servicemen left Ersenoy and drove to the settlement of Vedeno; they travelled in a large group of military vehicles, including several APCs, Ural military lorries and the UAZ minivan containing Mr Alash Mugadiyev and Mr S.A. 74.     The applicant followed the servicemen to the settlement, where she met the commander of the Vostok special battalion, Mr Y.D., who confirmed that her husband and several other residents of Ersenoy had been detained by his battalion’s servicemen. 75.     Mr S.A. and Mr A.B. were released later. Mr S.A. stated that following their detention on 1 February 2003, he and Mr Alash Mugadiyev had been taken to the Vedeno district military commander’s headquarters and had there been separated. 76.     The whereabouts of Mr Alash Mugadiyev remain unknown. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 77.     Immediately after the above-described events the applicant asked the authorities to open a criminal investigation into the abduction of her husband. 78.     On 3 March 2003 the Vedeno district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 24018 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). The applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. 79.     On 3 July 2003 the investigation in respect of the case was suspended, and then, on 18 November 2003, resumed again. 80.     A week later the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 81 .     On 2 December 2003 the investigators asked the head of the Khankala military base whether a special operation had been carried out in the region between 29 January and 3 February 2003. It appears that no reply was given. 82 .     On 29 December 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 83 .     On 19 February 2007 the applicant asked the head of the Chechen Parliament to assist in the search for her husband and to expedite the investigation. On 1 March 2007 the request was forwarded to the investigators, who resumed the proceedings on 31 March 2007. 84.     On 10 April 2007 the investigators reported that one of the witnesses, Mr Y.D., had died in March 2003, and that he therefore could not be questioned. 85 .     On 14 April 2007 the applicant was questioned again. Her statements were similar to those submitted to the Court. 86.     On 22 and 23 April 2007 the investigators questioned two relatives of Mr A.B. They submitted that he had been detained separately from Mr   Alash Mugadiyev and had not met him. 87.     On 30 April 2007 the investigation was suspended. 88.     On 5 May 2007 the investigators questioned Mr V.T., who had been the military commander of the Vedeno District at the time of the abduction. He stated that owing to the amount of time that had elapsed he could not recall the events of early 2003. 89.     On the same day the investigators established that the Vedeno district department of the interior had not had a vehicle with a registration plate containing the figures 386 кх. 90.     On 25 February 2009 the applicant requested the investigators to transfer the criminal case for further investigation to a military investigations department. The request was refused on 20 March 2009. 91 .     It appears that the criminal proceedings are currently pending. E.     Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11) 92.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Rasul Tutayev, who was born in 1981. 1.     Abduction of Mr Rasul Tutayev 93 .     At about 8.40 p.m. on 22 October 2004 the applicant, Mr Rasul Tutayev, his wife (Ms R.A.), and three other family members were at home when two Gazel minivans arrived at their block of flats in Grozny. A group of about fifteen armed men in military uniforms broke into the applicant’s flat. All of the men, except two, were in balaclavas. The two men not wearing balaclavas were of Asian appearance. All of the men spoke unaccented Russian and had special military equipment, such as aiming lasers, blast shields and helmets. 94.     After threatening the applicant and her family members with firearms, the men forced Mr Rasul Tatuyev outside, put him into one of the two minivans with the registration number 798ax95rus, and drove off. 95 .     The applicant, Ms R.A. and two of their neighbours, Ms Z.Ts. and Ms R.M., witnessed the men forcing Mr Rasul Tatuyev into the minivan and driving away. Ms R.A. ran after them and saw the vehicles enter the premises of one of the State authorities’ buildings in Grozny. 96.     Mr Rasul Tutayev has not been seen since. 2.     The applicant’s search for her son and the investigation into the abduction 97.     On 23 October 2004 the applicant went to the Leninskiy district commander’s office in Grozny. The military commander, D., confirmed that Mr Rasul Tutayev was detained on those premises. 98.     Immediately after the abduction the applicant complained to the authorities about her son’s detention and requested assistance in the search for her son. 99.     Shortly thereafter the Leninskiy district prosecutor in Grozny asked the FSB and the police task force unit (OMON) about Mr Rasul Tutayev’s arrest. In late October 2004 the FSB and OMON replied that they had not detained him. 100.     On 19 November 2004 the Leninskiy district prosecutor in Grozny opened criminal case no. 30136 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 101.     Three days later the applicant was granted victim status in the case. 102.     On 19 February 2005 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators. 103.     On 30 March 2005 the investigation was resumed and joined with criminal case no. 40025, which had been opened in respect of the abduction on 26 January 2005 of Mr A.A. and which had allegedly been perpetrated by the same persons. A month later the investigators suspended the proceedings. 104.     On 18 August 2006 the supervising prosecutor ordered that that the investigation be resumed. 105.     On an unspecified date in September 2006, the investigators questioned Mr Rasul Tutayev’s wife. Her statements were similar to those submitted by the applicant to the Court. 106.     On 7 September 2006 Mr Rasul Tutayev’s brother was granted victim status in the criminal case. 107 .     On 18 September 2006 the investigators suspended the proceedings. 108 .     On 11 July 2009 the applicant wrote to the Chechen President, asking him to ensure that there would be an effective investigation into the abduction of her son. 109.     On various dates in 2010 the applicant contacted the Investigative Committee of Russia and the FSB, seeking their assistance in the search for her son. On 9 July 2010 the Russia Investigative Committee forwarded her complaint to the Chechnya Investigative Committee. On 2 September 2010 the FSB informed her that the whereabouts of Mr   Rasul Tutayev were unknown to it. 110 .     On 3 December 2012 the applicant wrote to the Leninskiy district prosecutor in Grozny enquiring about the recent developments in the investigation. 111 .     On 22 May 2013, following the applicant’s repeated requests, the proceedings were resumed. Having sent several requests to various State bodies for information, the investigators suspended the proceedings on 24   June 2013. On 13 November 2013 that decision was declared unlawful by a higher investigating authority and ill-founded on account of the investigators’ failure to establish the identity of the owner of the vehicle with the registration number 798ax95rus. Six days later the investigation was resumed. It was again suspended on 19   December 2013, then resumed on 19 August 2014, and again suspended on 19 September 2014. 112 .     It appears that the proceedings are still pending. F.     Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11) 113.     The first applicant is the sister of Mr Askhab Konchiyev, who was born in 1973. The third applicant is his brother. 114.     The second applicant was also a brother of Mr Askhab Konchiyev. He died on 16 January 2016, after lodging the application with the Court. 1.     Abduction of Mr Askhab Konchiyev 115 .     On 18 July 2002 Russian military forces in Chechnya conducted a special sweeping-up operation in the village of Serzhen-Yurt. The servicemen cordoned off the settlement and ran identity checks on all the residents. 116 .     At around 12 a.m. on that day (in the documents submitted the time was also given as 9 a.m.) a group of armed servicemen in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in Serzhen-Yurt in four APCs and one UAZ vehicle with no registration numbers. The servicemen broke into the house and searched the premises. They then forced Mr Askhab Konchiyev into one of the APCs and took him to an unknown destination. 117.     The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 118 .     On various dates between July 2002 and February 2003 the first applicant lodged a complaint regarding the abduction with the South Federal Circuit prosecutor. On 6 February 2003 her complaint was forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, and then to the Shali district prosecutor. On 27 February 2003 the latter opened criminal case no. 22042 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction) and granted the first applicant victim status in that case. 119 .     On 27 April 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It is not clear whether the applicants were informed of the suspension. 120.     On 15 June 2006 the first applicant asked the deputy head of the Chechen Parliament to assist in the search for her brother. 121.     On 26 July 2006 the investigators resumed the proceedings and sent a number of requests to various authorities, including the federal military forces, for it to be established whether Mr Askhab Konchiyev had been arrested and placed in custody. The replies were all in the negative, none of the authorities had any information about his detention. 122.     On 10 August 2006 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who confirmed the account of the events described above, and who also stated that an acquaintance of hers had seen footage of Mr Askhab Konchiyev’s arrest broadcast on a federal television channel in November 2005. 123.     On 26 August 2006 the investigators suspended the proceedings. 124.     On 5 May 2010 the first applicant requested the investigators to provide her with access to the investigation file. Her request was refused on 14   May 2010. 125 .     On 9 June 2010 the first applicant requested the investigators to resume the proceedings and to ensure that there would be a thorough investigation into the abduction. Her request was refused on 21 June 2010; nevertheless, on 2   September 2010 the proceedings were resumed. 126.     On 29 September 2010 the investigators questioned a person from the village, who stated that in summer 2003 the federal forces had conducted a special sweeping-up operation in Serzhen-Yurt. The servicemen had not had any distinctive features on their uniforms, and some of them had been in balaclavas. He had not seen the arrest of Mr Askhab Konchiyev, but had heard about it from other residents of the village. 127.     On 2 October 2010 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 128.     On 18 July 2011 the first applicant enquired about the progress of the investigation. In September 2011 she was informed that the proceedings had been suspended. 129.     On 28 September 2011 the investigators resumed the proceedings. In October 2011 they questioned Mr Askhab Konchiyev’s nephew, who had witnessed the abduction and who gave statements similar to those given by the applicants. 130.     On 28 October 2011 the investigators ordered that a DNA test be performed in order to verify whether Mr Askhab Konchiyev’s body was among unidentified remains found in the region. The outcome of the expert examination is unknown. 131 .     It appears that the proceedings in the case are still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 132.     On 20 August 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps. 133.     On 7 September 2010 the court rejected her complaint, having found that on 2 September 2010 the investigation had been resumed. On 22   December 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the decision on appeal. G.     Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) 134.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Yusup Mezhiyev, who was born in 1973. The second applicant is his son and the third applicant is his brother. 1.     Abduction of Mr Yusup Mezhiyev and subsequent events 135 .     On the morning of 23 June 2002 Mr Yusup Mezhiyev and his acquaintances, Mr K.A., Mr B.A., Ms B.A. and Ms A.A., left their homes in the village of Staryye Atagi and went to work in Grozny. At about 8.30 a.m. a group of military servicemen stopped their car at checkpoint no. 33 in the Oktyabrskiy district in Grozny. Having checked their identity documents, the servicemen handcuffed and blindfolded Mr Yusup Mezhiyev. Then they forced him into an UAZ minivan parked nearby and drove off in the direction of the Oktyabrskiy district temporary police department in Grozny ( ВОВД Октябрьского района г. Грозный ). The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. 136.     The whereabouts of Mr Yusup Mezhiyev remain unknown. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 137.     Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be initiated. 138.     On the same day investigators from the Grozny town prosecutor’s office arrived at checkpoint no. 33. There they met FSB officers, who declined to provide any information concerning Mr Yusup Mezhiyev’s detention. The FSB officers noted that they were involved in a special operation, and that they were not subordinates of the prosecutor’s office. 139.     On 5 July 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor opened criminal case no. 52075 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 140.     On 20 July, and again on 7 and 9 August 2002 the investigators questioned several police officers who had been manning checkpoint no.   33 at the time of the events in question. They stated that on 22 June 2002 the FSB officers had arrived at the checkpoint in order to undertake a special operation. On the morning of 23 June 2002 they searched cars passing through the checkpoint. None of the officers questioned had information about the abduction. The checkpoint had also been manned by OMON officers. Several of them were also questioned by the investigators, but none of them had witnessed the arrest of Mr Yusup Mezhiyev. 141.     On 24 July 2002 the third applicant was granted victim status. 142.     On 20 August 2002 the investigators questioned Ms A.A. Her account of the events was similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. 143.     On 5 September 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Following criticism by the supervisors it was subsequently resumed on 22 May 2003. 144.     On 14 August 2003 Mr B.A was questioned. His statement was similar to those of the applicants and Ms A.A. He also stated that immediately after Mr Yusup Mezhiyev’s detention he had asked a police officer at the checkpoint about the people who had carried out the arrest. He had been told that Mr Yusup Mezhiyev had been arrested by the FSB officers. 145.     On 25 August 2003 the FSB replied to an enquiry lodged by the investigators, stating that Mr   Yusup Mezhiyev had never been detained by its agents. 146 .     Subsequently, the proceedings were suspended on 30 August and 28 November 2003, 21 November 2004, 7 August 2005, and 7 February and 28 May 2011, and resumed on 28 October 2003, 21 October 2004, 7   July 2005, and 26 January and 18 May 2011 respectively. 147.     In the meantime, in November 2003 the investigators questioned the officers who had visited the checkpoint on the date of the abduction. They stated that the FSB officers at the checkpoint had refused to answer any questions. All of them, except one, had been in balaclavas. They had arrived at the checkpoint in an UAZ minivan. 148.     A year later, in November 2004, several other police officers from the checkpoint were questioned. All of them confirmed the presence of the FSB officers at the crime scene, but none of them could say whether Mr   Yusup Mezhiyev had been detained. Their duty station had been located too far from the FSB officers for them to be able to make out the details of what had happened. 149 .     On various dates between 2006 and 2010 the applicants lodged several requests for information with the investigators, asking them to expedite the proceedings. On 20 April 2010 the first applicant requested that she be granted victim status in the criminal case in order for her to be able to access the case file. 150.     On 25 May 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned by the investigators. It is not clear whether she obtained permission to access the case file. 151.     On 11 July 2005 the investigators asked the head of the OMON forces to provide them with a list of the officers who had been manning checkpoint no.   33 at the time of the incident, but to no avail – the OMON head refused the request on 27 July 2005, citing the confidentiality of the information sought. 152 .     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 153.     On 28 December 2010 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Grozny challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. 154.     On an unspecified day in late January 2011 (the date is illegible) the court rejected the complaint on the grounds that on 26 January 2011 the criminal investigation had been resumed. H.     Akhilgovy v. Russia (no. 52051/11) 155.     The applicants are the parents of Mr Lom-Ali Akhilgov, who was born in 1986. 1.     Abduction of Mr Lom-Ali Akhilgov 156.     At the material time the “Zapad” unit of the United Military Alignment (“the UGA”) was stationed in the town of Urus-Martan, about one kilometre from the applicants’ house, situated in the vicinity of a bridge. The area was under curfew; checkpoints had been erected on all roads leading to and from the town. 157 .     On 8 January 2003 the applicants and their sons, Lom-Ali and Magomed, were at home. At about 3 a.m. a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in the neighbourhood in several vehicles, including an APC, an Ural lorry and an UAZ minivan. Some of them were in balaclavas. The soldiers, who spoke unaccented Russian, broke into the applicants’ house, pointed their guns at the first applicant and took Mr   Lom ‑ Ali outside. They told the second applicant that she would find her son on the following day at the Zavodskoy district department of the interior in Grozny (“the Zavodskoy ROVD”). Then they walked out onto the street with the applicant’s son and headed in the direction of the UGA headquarters; they dragged him over the bridge and then put him in the UAZ minivan. According to the applicants’ neighbours, another group of soldiers, numbering about twenty, was waiting for the first group at a point about 300 metres from the applicants’ house. 158.     The whereabouts of Mr Lom-Ali Akhilgov remain unknown. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 159.     On the morning of 8 January 2003 the applicants went to the Zavodskoy ROVD, looking for their son. The police denied that he had been arrested or detained on their premises. On 10 January 2003 the applicants complained about the abduction to the Urus ‑ Martan district prosecutor. 160.     On 13 January 2012 investigators from the prosecutor’s office questioned Mr Lom-Ali Akhilgov’s brother, an eyewitness to the abduction, who confirmed the account of the events given by the applicants. 161.     On 30 January 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 34009 (in the documents submitted also referred as no.   63044) under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 162 .     On 30 March 2003 the investigation in respect of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the applicants were not informed thereof. Between 2005 and 2006 they requested information about the progress of the proceedings, but to no avail. 163 .     On 12 June 2007 the investigators questioned the applicants. They gave statements similar to those that they had submitted to the Court. 164.     On 9 July 2009 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor, alleging that the investigation of his son’s abduction by federal servicemen had been ineffective and requesting that the authorities grant him victim status in the criminal case and inform him about progress in the proceedings. On 20 July 2009 the investigators replied that the investigation had been resumed for failure to take basic steps, such as questioning the witnesses to the abduction and undertaking an examination of the crime scene. 165.     On 28 July 2009 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 166.     On 7 August 2009 the investigators questioned Mr S.A., the applicants’ neighbour. He had seen the abduction from his house. According to him, the abduction had followed the scenario typically followed by the federal forces, who usually left their military vehicles at some distance, detained a person and then returned to their vehicles. 167.     Several days later the investigators sent requests to various authorities for them to establish Mr Lom-Ali Akhilgov’s whereabouts. It appears that no positive answers were received. 168.     On 20 August 2009 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 169.     On 3 September 2009 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the head of the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district investigations department, stating that the investigation had been ineffective and asking to be allowed to review the case file. 170.     On 15 September 2009 the investigators replied to the applicant, stating that he had the right to access only those documents which related to the investigative steps taken with his participation. 171.     Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on 19 May and 29   June 2011, and then suspended on 29 May and 29 July 2011 respectively. 172 .     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 173.     On 18 November 2009 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Achkhoy-Martan District Court alleging that the investigation had been ineffective and requesting the court to order the investigators to resume the proceedings and allow