CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 janvier 2019

.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 } .s1A5EC20 { width:0.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s2650D24D { width:191.6pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s1286F879 { padding:1.4pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6E1303DB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.15pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s9CCA4500 { height:38.8pt } .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 } .s132A6D70 { height:44.45pt } .sA2B60D87 { height:101.35pt } .s2520E78A { height:13.8pt } .sE9FDF07F { height:92.75pt } .s2CECB0A7 { height:12.65pt } .sB5916D70 { height:46.15pt } .sDBC6C967 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:5.7pt; font-size:10pt } .s19980776 { height:59.9pt } .s2BE0510C { height:148.6pt } .s4D3D443E { height:3.45pt } .sFA02A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s328DE8B1 { height:40.9pt } .sE5F0E984 { margin:0pt 16.15pt 0pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s82FBE78A { height:14.4pt } .sC9B8E78A { height:16.3pt } .sBFD42F38 { height:38pt } .sA9D756B { height:54.15pt } .sEB92D88E { height:63.35pt } .s2924756B { height:57.35pt } .s30486575 { height:39.15pt } .s449699DF { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt }       THIRD SECTION                   CASE OF KUKURKHOYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 50556/08 and 9 others – see list appended)                 JUDGMENT           STRASBOURG   22 January 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kukurkhoyeva 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 Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 December 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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were informed of the applications. 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, lived in the Chechen Republic or in the Republic of Ingushetia. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by service personnel during special operations. The events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. Their whereabouts remain unknown. 5.     The applicants reported the abductions to various law ‑ enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and decisions have remained pending for several years without any tangible results being achieved. 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 only formulaic responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending. 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 involvement of service personnel in the events. A.     Kukurkhoyeva v. Russia (no.   50556/08)   7.     The applicant is the wife of Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev, who was born in 1967. 1.     Abduction of Mr   Girikhan Tsechoyev and the subsequent events 8 .     On 11 July 2004 Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev was visiting his relative in the village of Muzhichi, Ingushetia, when a group of service personnel from the Bamut military command under Major General Starkov arrested him at the outskirts of the village on suspicion of having committed a murder. They handed him over to officers from the Federal Security Service ( Федеральная служба безопасности Российской Федерации – hereinafter “the FSB”), who took him away to an unknown destination. 9 .     On the evening of the same date police officers from the Sunzhenskiy district department of the interior (“the Sunzhenskiy ROVD”) arrived at the applicant’s house in the village of Ordzhonikidzevskaya, Ingushetia. Having informed the applicant that earlier that day FSB officers had arrested Mr   Girikhan Tsechoyev on suspicion of murder, they searched the premises and left. 10 .     On 12 July 2004 Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev’s brother, Mr U.Ts., went to the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor in search of the abducted relative. His acquaintance, Mr G.M., who worked in the prosecutor’s office, told him that Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev had been detained by the FSB. 11 .     The next day the prosecutor summoned Mr U.Ts. for questioning. In the course of the questioning a representative of the prosecutor’s office, Mr   Kh., and the head of the criminal investigation department of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD confirmed that Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev had been detained by the FSB and was being held on the latter’s premises in Ingushetia. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 12 .     On 13 July 2004 the applicant asked the authorities to investigate the abduction of her husband. 13 .     On 27 August 2004 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 04600057 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) (abduction). 14 .     The Government did not provide the Court with a copy of the criminal case file. From the documents submitted by the applicant it appears that the investigation proceeded as follows. 15 .     On 10 September 2004 the investigators granted the applicant victim status in the case. 16 .     On 27 October 2004 they suspended the investigation for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 11 January 2005, 27 October 2006, 4 May 2007, and an unspecified date in 2008. It was suspended on 28 February 2005, 27 November 2006 and 4   June 2007 respectively. 17 .     In the meantime, on 17 April 2006 and then on 16 January 2008 the applicant enquired about developments in the proceedings. In reply, the investigators informed her that the proceedings had been suspended. 18 .     On 10 June 2006 and on 9 October 2008 the applicant asked the investigators to resume the proceedings and to allow her access to the case file. Both of her requests were dismissed. There is no information about further developments. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 19.     On 13 July 2006 and on an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant lodged a claim with the Sunzhenskiy District Court in Ingushetia alleging the investigators’ failure to investigate the abduction effectively. On 13   October 2006 and 27 April 2007 the court allowed the complaints and ordered that the investigation be resumed. 20.     On 18 February 2008 the applicant complained to the court of the investigators’ inaction and their decision to suspend the investigation on 4   June 2007. On 24 March 2008 the court dismissed her complaint referring to the fact that the decision to suspend the investigation had already been overruled by a higher investigating authority. 21.     On 6 April 2009 the applicant complained to the court about the lack of access to the investigation file. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown. B.     Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva v. Russia (no.   51029/08) 22.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Shamkhan Shavkhayev, who was born in 1980 (in certain documents the year of birth also indicated as 1981), and the wife of Mr Sharip Shavkhayev, who was born in 1941. The second applicant is the wife of Mr Umar Bekayev, who was born in 1941. 1.     Abduction of Mr   Sharip Shavkhayev and Mr   Shamkhan Shavkhayev 23 .     At the material time, the first applicant, Mr Sharip Shavkhayev and their children, Mr Shamkhan Shavkhayev, Ms S.Me. and Ms S.Ma., lived in the village of Avtury, Chechnya. 24 .     At about 2 a.m. on 9 June 2001 the family was at home when a group of fifteen to twenty armed men in military camouflage uniforms broke into their house. Some of the men were in balaclavas. Those who did not have them were of Slavic appearance. All of the intruders spoke unaccented Russian. 25 .     Having threatened the family members with firearms, the men forced the father and the son out of the house and took them away to an unknown destination. Meanwhile, some of the men searched the premises, seized the identity documents of Mr Shamkhan Shavkhayev and Mr Sharip Shavkhayev and left the house. The abduction was witnessed by several people. 26.     The same night, three residents of Avtury, Mr   Umar Bekayev, Mr   I.Kh. and his brother Mr M.Kh., were abducted by presumably the same group of men under similar circumstances. Eight days later the abductors released Mr I.Kh. and Mr   M.Kh. from detention. 2.     Abduction of Mr   Umar Bekayev 27 .     At about 2 a.m. on 9 June 2001, a group of fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage military uniforms broke into the second applicant’s house in Avtury, where she was living with her daughter and husband, Mr   Umar Bekayev. Speaking unaccented Russian, the men threatened those present with firearms, tied Mr Umar Bekayev’s hands behind his back, put a bag on his head and took him away on foot to an unknown destination. 3.     The applicants’ search for their relatives and the subsequent events 28 .     In the morning of 9 June 2001 the applicants went to the Shali district command in search of their relatives. The commanding officer told them that their relatives had been detained by military service personnel. 4.     Official investigation into the abductions 29 .     On 9 June 2001 the applicants asked the investigating authorities to open a criminal case into the abductions of their relatives. 30.     Three days later the Shali district prosecutor in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 23170 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 31.     On 19 August 2001 the investigators questioned Mr I.Kh. and Mr   M.Kh. They submitted that at about 2 a.m. on 9 June 2001 they had been abducted by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms. The abductors had taken them to an unknown destination and placed them in a pit. They had been kept there for about one week, and had been regularly beaten up by the perpetrators. A week later the abductors had blindfolded them, put them in an armored personal carrier (“APC”), transported them into the fields in the Shali district and thrown them out of the vehicle. They had been found by Chechens, who had taken them home. 32.     In September 2001 the investigators questioned the relatives of the abducted persons, those who had been eyewitnesses to the abductions, and their neighbours, who gave hearsay evidence. They confirmed the account of the events as described by the applicants in their submissions to the Court. 33.     On 12 October 2001 the proceedings were suspended for failure to establish the identity of perpetrators. 34.     On 23 January 2002 the investigators opened criminal case no.   59039 into the abduction of Mr   I.Kh. and Mr   M.Kh. 35.     On 12 July 2002 the investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives was resumed, joined to the investigation into the abduction of Mr   I.Kh. and Mr   M.Kh. and then suspended. 36.     On 21 December 2004 the proceedings were resumed again. 37.     In January 2005 the investigators sent requests to various military authorities and detention facilitates to investigate the applicant’s version of the abduction by State agents. The bodies that responded, stating that they did not have information about the alleged arrest of the applicant’s relatives on 9 June 2001 and their subsequent detention. 38 .     On 21 January 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On the same day the proceedings were suspended. 39 .     On 29 January and 9 February 2007 the first and second applicants respectively asked the investigators to allow them access to the criminal case file. Their requests were dismissed on 1 and 18   February   2007 respectively. 40 .     Subsequently the investigation was resumed on 27 December 2007, suspended on 28 December 2007, and then resumed on 12 August 2008 again. In the meantime, in December 2007 the first applicant was given access to the criminal case file. There is no information about further developments. 5.     Proceedings against the investigators 41.     On unspecified dates the applicants complained to the Shali Town Court of the investigators refusals to allow them access to the criminal case file of 1 and 18 February 2007. 42.     On 10 October and 22 November 2007, respectively, the court allowed the first and the second applicants’ complaints and ordered the investigators to provide them with partial access to the case file. 43.     The applicants appealed against the above decisions seeking full access to the case file.   On 20 February 2008 the Chechnya Supreme Court allowed their appeals. C.     Zakriyeva and Muradova v. Russia (no.   22667/09) 44.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr   Murad Zakriyev, who was born in 1973. The second applicant is the mother of Mr   Rustam Muradov, who was born in 1977. 1.     Abduction of Mr   Murad Zakriyev and Mr   Rustam Muradov 45.     At the material time the applicants and their sons were temporarily residing in Ingushetia as refugees. Mr Murad Zakriyev and Mr Rustam Muradov were working at a private construction site located on the premises of Mr B.G.’s house in the town of Nazran. 46 .     At about 12.30 a.m. on 14 July 2003 Mr Rustam Muradov, his colleague Mr V.S. and Mr B.G.’s family members, including his son Mr   R.G., were at the site, when a group of ten to fifteen armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a GAZelle minivan and a VAZ vehicle. Speaking unaccented Russian, the service personnel broke into Mr   B.G.’s home, handcuffed and blindfolded Mr   Rustam Muradov, Mr   V.S. and Mr R.G., forced them into the minivan and drove off. 47.     Several minutes later, allegedly the same group of service personnel arrested Mr Murad Zakriyev on a street on his way to the construction site. They forced him into the minivan and drove off in the direction of the town of Mozdok, passing unrestricted through military checkpoints on their way. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. 48.     Later on the same day Mr V.S. and Mr R.G. were released and returned home. 49.     About a month after the abduction, a man visited the second applicant and told her that Mr Murad Zakriyev was detained at the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala, Chechnya. 50 .     At some point later the first applicant learnt from Mr D.M., a police officer from the Ministry of the Interior in Ingushetia, that Mr Rustam Muradov was allegedly detained at a detention facility in Krasnoarmeysk in the Volgograd Region of Russia. 51.     The applicants’ attempts to find their sons were to no avail. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 52 .     On 14 July 2003 Mr B.G. contacted the Nazran town prosecutor, complaining of the abductions of Mr   Murad Zakriyev and Mr   Rustam Muradov. He stated that the culprits’ GAZelle minivan’s number plate had been   C293CE95RUS and the VAZ vehicle had had a number plate containing 441 95RUS. 53.     Ten days later the prosecutor opened criminal case no. 03560058 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 54.     On 25 July 2003 the investigators questioned Mr V.S. and Mr R.G. Their statements were consistent with the applicants’ account of the events before the Court. Among other details Mr   V.S. noted that during the two ‑ hour trip in the GAZelle minivan after the abduction, the perpetrators had used portable radio sets. From the content of their conversations, he had understood that they had been State agents. He also submitted that their car had passed through security checkpoints without any obstacles. 55.     In the meantime, the investigators asked various authorities, including the FSB in Ingushetia and the Ministry of the Interior to provide them with information about the special operation in Nazran, the alleged detention of Mr Murad Zakriyev and Mr Rustam Muradov on the premises of local law-enforcement agencies and about the owners of the vehicles with the registration plates noted by Mr B.G. The authorities that responded replied that they had no relevant information. 56.     In August 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned about the incident on 15 August 2003. 57.     On 17 September 2003 the investigators questioned Mr M.T., a witness to Mr Murad Zakriyev’s abduction. His statement was similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. 58.     On 24 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 59 .     The Government did not submit any documents concerning the further progress of the investigation. 60.     According to the applicants, they were not regularly informed of the developments in the proceedings. Several times they asked the investigators about the progress of the investigation, but each time the latter replied in general terms that all possible measures to establish the whereabouts of the abducted persons were being taken. 61.     On 17 July 2008 the second applicant applied for access to the investigation file. Her request was granted on 13 November 2008. There is no information about further developments. D.     Akhmetkhanova and Others v. Russia (no.   43706/09) 62.     The first applicant was the mother of Mr Akhdan (also known as Chingiz) Akhmetkhanov, who was born in 1977. She passed away on 16   August 2014, after the Russian Government had been informed of the case. 63.     The second applicant is the wife of Mr Akhdan Akhmetkhanov. The third and fourth applicants are his children. 1.     Abduction of Mr   Akhdan Akhmetkhanov 64.     In 2002 the applicants’ family lived in the village of Gekhi, Chechnya. They owned three separate houses with a common garden. The second, third and fourth applicants and Mr Akhdan Akhmetkhanov lived in the first house, the first applicant resided in the second house and Mr   B.A., Akhdan Akhmetkhanov’s nephew, lived in the third house. 65 .     Late at night on 3 July 2002 a group of fifteen to twenty men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas, armed with automatic weapons and speaking unaccented Russian, broke into the houses. 66.     Four intruders entered the first house. They forced Mr Akhdan Akhmetkhanov to the ground and took his documents and his shirt. Then they took him into the garden. 67.     At the same time the first applicant was awakened by two men who walked into her room. They asked her how many sons she had. She replied that she had four sons and confirmed that Akhdan was the youngest. Then she heard the second applicant screaming that Chingiz (Mr Akhdan Akhmetkhanov) was being taken away. The first applicant attempted to run into the garden, but the men ordered her to stay in the house. 68.     At some point the four applicants were able to walk out of their houses into the garden. They saw the service personnel taking Mr Akhdan Akhmetkhanov away. Two service personnel remained at the entrance gate. The first applicant attempted to follow the soldiers, but one of the men shot at the ground under her feet, and she had to return to the yard. Then the two remaining serivcemen left the gate and joined the group. 69 .     From the yard the applicants saw the service personnel walking away with Mr Akhdan Akhmetkhanov towards the road to the town of Urus ‑ Martan. Twenty minutes later the applicants heard the noise of a vehicle which they believed to be an APC. On their way the abductors drove freely through the military   checkpoint which blocked the road from Gekhi to Urus-Martan. 70.     The applicants submitted a statement by their neighbours Mr   M.T and Mr   V.I., who confirmed the account of the events as described above. 71.     It appears that on the same night another village resident, Mr   M.I., was abducted under similar circumstances. 2.     The applicants’ search for Mr   Akhdan Akhmetkhanov 72.     On 4 July 2002 the applicants learned that the night before a group of armed soldiers had rushed into the house of the Malsagov family, their neighbours. The service personnel had asked one of the family members, Ramzan Malsagov, if his name had been Chingiz. He had answered in the negative and stated that Chingiz had lived nearby. Then the military had left. Malsagov’s had dog started barking, and a serviceman had shot it. Ramzan Malsagov collected a cartridge case left by the service personnel after the shooting and gave it to the first applicant. 3.     Official investigation into the abduction 73 .     On 4 July 2002 the applicants applied to various domestic authorities, including the Urus-Martan District Department of the Ministry of the Interior in the Chechen Republic (“the Urus ‑ Martan ROVD”) asking for assistance in the search for Mr Akhdan Akhmetkhanov. The applicants’ requests remained unanswered for about one week. 74.     A week after Mr Akhdan Akhmetkhanov’s abduction, local police officers questioned the first and the second applicants. The first applicant showed the cartridge case to them, but they did not take it. Owing to her illiteracy she was unable to write an application to accept the cartridge case as evidence. At some point later she lost it. 75.     On 22 July 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 61103 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction) and granted the first applicant victim status in the proceedings. 76.     On the same day the investigators questioned her. She described the circumstances of the abductions as she did in her submission to the Court. 77.     On 24 July 2002 the three applicants’ neighbours, who had witnessed the abduction, were questioned by the investigators. Their statements were consistent with those of the applicants. 78.     On 14 August 2002 the investigation into Mr   Akhdan Akhmetkhanov’s abduction was joined with the investigation into the abduction of Mr   M.I. 79.     In the meantime, the investigators unsuccessfully contacted various law-enforcement authorities to establish Mr   Akhdan Akhmetkhanov’s whereabouts. 80 .     On 4 September 2002 the proceedings were suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 81 .     On 19 December 2002 the first applicant asked a deputy of the Chechen Parliament to assist in the search for her son. On 4 January 2003 her request was forwarded to the investigators. It is not clear if any reply followed. 82 .     On 2 February and 5 July 2004 the first applicant contacted the Chechen Ministry of the Interior and the President of Chechnya seeking their assistance in the investigation. Her requests were also forwarded to the investigators. By a letter of 20 August 2004 the Ministry and the President informed the first applicant in general terms that despite the suspension of the proceedings in 2002, they were continuing the search for her son. 83 .     On 10 January 2007 the investigation was resumed. 84.     In late January 2007 the investigators questioned the second applicant and her neighbours. All of them stated that Mr   Akhdan Akhmetkhanov had not been a member of an illegal armed group. 85.     Owing to the lack of any tangible results the investigators suspended the proceedings on 10 February 2007. 86.     On 21 April 2008 the above decision was overruled as ill-founded and the proceedings were resumed. Having questioned some of the applicants and their relatives about the events of 3 July 2002, the investigators suspended the proceedings once again on 22 May 2008. 87.     On 10 March 2010 the proceedings were resumed. Four days later the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 88.     On 10 April 2010 the proceedings were suspended again. There is no information about further developments. E.     Mestoyevy v. Russia (no.   66394/10) 89.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Magomed Mestoyev, who was born in 1964. The second and third applicants are his sons. 1.     Events of August 2002 90.     At about 2 p.m. on 6 August 2002 a white   GAZelle   minivan without registration plates pulled over at the applicants’ house in the village of Khambi-Irzi, Chechnya. Four armed service personnel waited near the vehicle while the other three entered into the house. Speaking unaccented Russian they asked Mr Magomed Mestoyev to show his identity documents. He could not produce the documents, as his passport had been submitted for renewal. Then the service personnel took him away for an identity check. 91.     On 13 August 2002 Mr Magomed Mestoyev was taken by the same service personnel to the outskirts of the village of Khamby-Irzi and then released. 92.     Having returned home, Mr Magomed Mestoyev told the applicants that he had been held in an unacknowledged detention facility on suspicion of illegal activities. He had been detained alone and handcuffed in a damp cage in a dark basement, given only bread and water and had had to sleep on the floor. He had been repeatedly taken to another room for questioning. 2.     Abduction of Mr Magomed Mestoyev 93 .     On 29 September 2003 a group of forty to fifty service personnel in camouflage uniforms with semi-automatic weapons arrived at the applicants’ house in five or six UAZ vehicles with registration plates covered with dirt. Some of the service personnel were in helmets without balaclavas and of Slavic appearance. The service personnel surrounded the house; several of them broke inside and searched the premises. They checked the residents’ identity documents and then took Mr Magomed Mestoyev away on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed group. The abductors told the head of the local council, Ms N.A., whose office was located across from the applicants’ house, that they were from the Urus ‑ Martan Department for the Fight against Organised Crime ( Управление по Борьбе с Организованной Преступностью – “the RUBOP”). 3.     Subsequent events 94.     Immediately after the abduction, Mr Magomed Mestoyev’s brother, sister and a neighbour followed the abductors’ vehicles to the premises of the Urus-Martan ROVD. However, the ROVD police officers denied any involvement in Mr   Magomed Mestoyev’s arrest. 95 .     On the way back home Mr Magomed Mestoyev’s relatives spoke with traffic police officers manning a checkpoint on the motorway to Grozny. Some of them admitted that the UAZ vehicles had gone through their checkpoint on the way to Grozny. 96.     Later Mr Magomed Mestoyev’s relatives went to the FSB office in Grozny and enquired about Mr   Magomed Mestoyev’s detention, but to no avail. 97 .     Shortly after the incident the applicants and their fellow villagers organised a protest, blocking the Rostov-Baku motorway for three days to protest against Mr Magomed Mestoyev’s abduction. The protest was stopped after the authorities promised that Mr Magomed Mestoyev would be released. 4.     Official investigation of the abduction 98.     On 12 August 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor opened criminal case no.   63058 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction) into the events of August 2002. On 30 September 2002 it was closed for lack of evidence of a crime. 99 .     On 13 October 2003 the applicants complained to the prosecutor in respect of Mr Magomed Mestoyev’s abduction on 29 September 2003. 100.     On 29 October 2003 the decision to close the criminal case was annulled and the proceedings were resumed. 101 .     Several days later (the exact date is illegible), in November 2003, the investigators questioned the head of the local council, Ms N.A., who had witnessed the abduction from her office. She stated that as soon as she had seen the arrest of Mr   Magomed Mestoyev, she had left the office and approached the abductors. Having introduced herself she had asked the perpetrators to explain what had been happening. The perpetrators had told her that they – FSB officers – had just arrested a leader of an illegal armed group. Ms   N.A. had assured them that Mr   Magomed Mestoyev had not been a member of an illegal armed group, but they had not believed her. Later she had learned that the abductors had been RUBOP officers and that their commander’s surname had been of a Chechen origin and had started with “A”. 102.     In November 2003 the investigators questioned several neighbours, who confirmed the applicants’ account of the events. The investigators also contacted various law-enforcement bodies to establish Mr   Magomed Mestoyev’s whereabouts, but to no avail. 103 .     On 10 January 2004 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 104 .     Following a request by the first applicant, on 19 October 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court of Chechnya declared Mr Magomed Mestoyev a missing person. 105 .     On 17 June 2008 the criminal proceedings were resumed and on 18   July 2008 suspended again. 106.     On 11 August 2009 the applicants complained of an ineffective investigation to the Chechen President and a number of local authorities. On 20 August 2009 the first applicant was informed that the investigation had been suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 107.     On 7 September 2009 the first applicant applied for victim status in the criminal proceedings. Three days later the proceedings were resumed and her application was granted. 108.     Subsequently, the proceedings were suspended on 12 September 2009, 25 January 2010, 12 July 2012, 17 June 2013 and 25 April 2014, and then resumed on 25 December 2009, 29 June 2012, 17 May 2013 and 10   April 2014 respectively. No tangible results had been achieved in the meantime. There is no information about further developments. F.     Umarov and Others v. Russia (no.   5691/11) 109 .     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed Umarov, who was born in 1984. The first applicant, his father, passed away on 13   December 2015. The fourth applicant, his stepmother, wished to withdraw her application on 24   January 2016. The second and third applicants are Mr Magomed Umarov’s siblings. They maintain their applications. 1.     Abduction of Mr Magomed Umarov 110 .     At about 4 a.m. on 25 May 2005 the first applicant noticed several armed men in camouflage uniforms, helmets and balaclavas climbing over the fence into the courtyard of his house in the village of Duba-Yurt, Chechnya. When he went out the armed men ordered him to put his hands up and searched him. Then the armed men broke into the house, took Mr   Magomed Umarov outside and drove him to an unknown destination in a grey UAZ vehicle. 111.     As the first applicant later found out, the abductors had driven from Duba ‑ Yurt through the Uzhniy checkpoint, which had been manned by the Special Police Force, and had arrived at the Russian military base located in the northern outskirts of the village Stariye Atagi. 112 .     About one year later, in 2006, the head of a correctional colony in the Kemerovo Region told the applicants that Mr Magomed Umarov had allegedly been detained in his detention facility, but then transported to Chechnya. The applicants have not had any news about their relative since. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 113.     On an unspecified date the first applicant contacted the NGO Memorial in Chechnya asking for assistance in the search for her son. 114 .     On 17 June 2005 Memorial asked the Chechnya prosecutor to open a criminal case into the events of 25 May 2005. The request was forwarded to the Shali district prosecutor. On 4 August 2005 the latter opened criminal case no.   46092 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 115.     In July 2005, within the framework of pre-investigation inquiry, the investigators questioned Mr Magomed Umarov’s relatives, who had been in the house during the abduction. Their statements were similar to those submitted by the applicants to the Court. They also mentioned that the abductors had taken from their house two mobile phones and a video camera. 116.     On 9 August and 6 September 2005 the first and second applicants respectively were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 117.     In the meantime the investigators contacted military authorities, law-enforcement bodies and detention facilitates to check whether Mr   Magomed Umarov had been arrested during a special operation in Duba-Yurt and taken into custody. No positive replies followed. 118.     On 4 October 2005 the proceedings were suspended and then on 15   January 2007 they were resumed. 119.     On 26 February 2007 the Shali District prosecutor opened a separate criminal case under Article 161 of the CC (robbery) into the theft of the applicants’ belongings by the abductors. On the same day it was joined with case no. 46092 and then suspended. 120.     On 14 March 2007 the investigators resumed the proceedings. Having questioned the applicants’ neighbours, who gave hearsay evidence about the abduction, they suspended the proceedings on 15 April 2007. 121 .     Five days later, in April 2007, the proceedings were resumed again. On 20 May 2007 the investigation was suspended. 122.     On 17 March 2008 the investigators informed the applicants that criminal case no. 46092 had been transferred to the Chechnya investigations committee for further investigation. 123.     On 8 February 2010 the applicants asked the investigating authority to resume the criminal proceedings and grant them access to the investigation file. 124.     On 13 February 2010 the applicants were allowed access to the documents concerning their participation in the proceedings. The request to resume the investigation was dismissed. 125 .     On 24 June 2010 the proceedings were resumed. Several weeks later the investigators obtained a DNA sample from the first applicant. They compared it with a database of DNA from unidentified corpses, but no matches were found. 126.     On 23 July 2010 the first applicant was granted civil-claimant status in the criminal proceedings. The next day the investigation was suspended.   There is no information about further developments. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 127.     On 8 June 2010 the applicants challenged the investigators’ refusal of 13 February 2010 to resume criminal proceedings before the Shali District Court in Chechnya. 128.     On 25 June 2010 the court left the complaint without consideration because the investigation had been resumed. 129 .     On 5 July 2010 the applicants appealed against the decision of 25   June 2010 to the Chechnya Supreme Court, which upheld it on appeal on 1 September 2010. G.     Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia (no.   59117/11) 130.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Umar Ozdamirov, who was born in 1962. The second applicant is his sister. 1.     Abduction of Mr Umar Ozdamirov and subsequent events 131.     On 30 July 2002 Russian federal forces in Chechnya conducted a special sweep operation in Grozny. Certain city districts were cordoned off with military vehicles. 132 .     At about 2 p.m. on that day (in the documents submitted the date was also stated as 29 July 2002) Mr Umar Ozdamirov was at a bus stop at a crossroads in the centre of Grozny when a group of armed military service personnel in two GAZelle minivans without registration plates forced him into one of the minivans and took him to the premises of a State agency in Grozny. The service personnel were in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms; they spoke unaccented Russian. The abduction was witnessed by several passers ‑ by. 133.     On the same day around eleven people were abducted under similar circumstances in Grozny. 134 .     On 12 August 2002 military commanders showed journalists passports of several Chechens who were thought to have been members of illegally armed groups and who had recently been killed. One of those passports belonged to Mr Ozdamirov. 135 .     The second applicant denied the possibility of her brother being killed in August 2002 as a member of an illegal armed group (see paragraph 144 below). 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 136 .     On 1 August 2002 the applicants complained to the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal case be opened. 137.     On 8 August 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor opened criminal case no. 50116 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 138.     On 3 October 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 139.     On 8 October 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 140.     On 1 September 2004 the proceedings were resumed. The investigators contacted a number of law-enforcement authorities to establish the whereabouts of Mr Umar Ozdamirov, but to no avail. 141.     On 29 September 2004 the investigators questioned Mr B.V., an eyewitness to the abduction. He said that the abductors had been armed with automatic firearms and had been wearing camouflage uniforms. They had arrived in one white GAZelle minivan, one beige VAZ 2106 car and three camouflaged UAZ vehicles. They had seized Mr Umar Ozdamirov and his acquaintances who had been standing nearby. 142 .     On 1 October 2004 the investigation was suspended. Three days later the Second Operative-Search Bureau of the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior in the South Region (ORB-2) ( Второе оперативно-розыскное бюро при Главном управлении Министерства внутренних дел Российской Федерации по Южному федеральному округу ) informed the investigators that on 11 August 2002 at the outskirts of Malye Varandy village the federal military forces had discovered an illegal armed group consisting of five persons. In a skirmish that followed three members of that group, including Mr Umar Ozdamirov had been killed. It appears that the investigators did not make any assessment of that information. 143 .     On 30 August 2007 the investigators resumed the proceedings, and a month later suspended them again. 144 .     On 27 May 2011 the investigators resumed the proceedings and four days later questioned the second applicant. She stated that before the events of 30 July 2002 her brother had submitted his passport to the Ministry of the Interior for renewal and had not received it back. Accordingly, he could not have been the person with the passport shot by military service personnel in August 2002. 145.     On 6 June 2011 the investigators suspended the proceedings once again. There is no information about further developments. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 146.     On 6 May 2011 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny regarding the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings on 30 September 2007 and their failure to take basic investigative steps. 147.     On 27 May 2011 the court dismissed the claim, having found that the investigation had already been resumed. 148 .     On 29 June 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. H.     Kosumova v. Russia (no.   65052/11) 149.     The applicant is the wife of Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov, who was born in 1970. 1.     Abduction of Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov 150 .     At about 5.30 p.m. on 2 October 2004 Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov and an acquaintance of his, Mr Kh.G., were driving on the motorway between the village of Novyye Atagi and the town of Shali, Chechnya, when a group of armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas stopped their car. Speaking unaccented Russian, the service personnel forced Mr   Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov and Mr   Kh.G into a UAZ minivan parked nearby and drove off in the direction of Novyye Atagi, where a Russian military base was stationed. Later that day Mr   Kh.G. was released and returned home. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 151 .     It appears that immediately after the abduction of Mr   Mayr ‑ Khadzhi Gerikhanov his relatives contacted the commanding officer of the Shali district in Chechnya and asked for his assistance in the search for their missing relative. In late October 2004 they brought a formal complaint of abduction. 152.     In early December 2004 the investigators of the Shali ROVD questioned Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov’s relatives and Mr Kh.G. The latter stated that on 2 October 2004 he had offered Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov a lift home. They had followed a motorway which had been blocked by a UAZ minivan. As soon as they had stopped, a group of five to six armed individuals in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas approached. Speaking unaccented Russian, they had forced Mr   Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov into their car and driven off in the direction of Novyye Atagi. 153.     The above witness statement was forwarded to the Shali district prosecutor, which on 24 December 2004 opened criminal case no.   36149 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 154.     On 26 December 2004 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 155 .     On 11 January 2005 the investigators questioned Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov’s sister, who stated that the commanding officer of the Shali district had established that Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov’s abductors’ car had had the registration plate A452AX and that it had been seen entering the premises of military regiment no. 70. 156.     Between 22 January and 1 February 2004 the investigators sent a number of requests to various law-enforcement authorities and detention facilities to obtain information about Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov’s alleged arrest and detention. The respondent authorities replied that they did not have any relevant information. 157 .     Subsequently the proceedings were suspended on 24 March and 2   July 2005, 15 March 2006, and 17 November 2008; and then resumed on 26   May 2005, 15 February 2006 and 16 October 2008 respectively. 158.     In the meantime, the investigators repeatedly questioned the applicant and Mr   Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov’s other relatives and submitted new requests to various civil and military authorities, but no tangible results were achieved. 159.     On 14 April 2009 the applicant asked the Chechen President to assist in the search for her husband. Her request was forwarded to the investigators. There is no information about further developments. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 160.     On 14 October 2008 the applicant lodged a claim with the Shali Town Court, seeking to have the decision to suspend the investigation on 15   March 2006 quashed, and an order for the investigation’s resumption. She alleged that the investigating authorities had not conducted the proceeding with the required promptness. 161 .     On 17 October 2008 the court dismissed her claim, finding that on 16 October 2008 the investigators had already resumed the criminal proceedings. I.     Isayevy v. Russia (no.   70640/11) 162.     The first applicant is the sister of Mr Rizvan Isayev, who was born in 1981, and the aunt of Mr Anzor Isayev, who was born in 1983. The second and third applicants are the brothers of Mr Rizvan Isayev and the uncles of Mr Anzor Isayev. 1.     Abduction of Mr Rizvan Isayev and Mr Anzor Isayev 163 .     On 16 March 2003 Mr Rizvan Isayev and Mr Anzor Isayev were taking a bus from Ingushetia to the village of Samashki, Chechnya. At about 2.20   p.m. the bus was stopped at the Kavkaz checkpoint at the border between Ingushetia and Chechnya to check the passengers’ identity. A group of armed servic