CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 mars 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s87F54B8D { height:5.7pt } .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 } .s1628B0A7 { height:13.75pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2EBECB52 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; list-style-position:inside } .sA0D17C33 { width:1.64pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sADAB756B { height:56.55pt } .s7E985A6D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:9pt } .s2B9EB0A7 { height:12.85pt } .s95AD1C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s804A0D68 { height:140.35pt } .sB9D9B0A7 { height:16.75pt } .sF2E7089D { height:81.3pt } .s82DAE78A { height:14.7pt } .s18ADE089 { height:78.55pt } .sDD446575 { height:31.55pt } .s548986C9 { height:167pt } .s98F9E78A { height:12.4pt } .s9DB82FE0 { height:182.95pt } .s1A5E0776 { height:59.3pt } .s9ECAA7DA { height:8.9pt } .s769D4627 { height:60.6pt } .s9ECAA7DE { height:8.5pt } .s5992263B { height:26.9pt } .s808E78A { height:10.5pt } .sD3F56D70 { height:41.05pt } .s3B53EBD4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s8298E78A { height:14.1pt } .sBE7F6575 { height:36.55pt } .s79E3263B { height:21.5pt } .sEEF9CF3B { height:123.55pt } .s1479B0A7 { height:13.85pt } .sC5C65D7A { height:26.25pt } .s15A0B0A7 { height:14.85pt } .s9D11E884 { height:81.05pt } .s277D6D70 { height:49.05pt } .s56D85D7A { height:28.25pt } .s978EE78A { height:12.9pt } .s42E65D7A { height:27.75pt } .sE796E78A { height:11.8pt } .s1A086575 { height:34.85pt } .sCA1BE78A { height:16.6pt } .sE33C4500 { height:37.9pt } .s14DAB0A7 { height:13.95pt } .s3D6E089 { height:77.55pt }       THIRD SECTION                 CASE OF MAKHMUDOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 22983/10 and 9 others – see list appended)                 JUDGMENT     This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 16 June 2020     STRASBOURG     12 March 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision In the case of Makhmudova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12 February 2019, 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 given notice 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. 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 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 law ‑ enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have been ongoing 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 formalistic responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still ongoing. 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 servicemen in the events. A.     Makhmudova and Others v. Russia (no. 22983/10) 7.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ismail Makhmudov, who was born in 1976. The first applicant is his mother, the third applicant is his wife, the fourth applicant is his daughter, and the fifth and sixth applicants are his brothers. The second applicant was Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s father. He died on 12 July 2010. 1.     Abduction of Mr Ismail Makhmudov and subsequent events 8 .     At about 7 p.m. on 4 January 2003 a grey UAZ minivan ( tabletka ) allegedly belonging to the Gudermes district department of the interior (“the Gudermes ROVD”) parked near the applicants’ house in Oiyskhar settlement, Chechnya. At 8 p.m. Mr Ismail Makhmudov left his house and when he was passing the minivan ten armed men in camouflage uniforms, some of them in balaclavas, jumped out of the minivan, surrounded him, forced him into the vehicle, and drove off to an unknown destination. 9.     The applicants submitted written statements by three witnesses to the incident. Ms   L.Ya saw a UAZ minivan parking some 300 metres from her house, and a group of men in camouflage uniforms speaking unaccented Russian nearby; Ms   T.A. saw the abduction of Mr Ismail Makhmudov from her window; and Mr A.T. witnessed the UAZ minivan with the men in camouflage uniforms driving by in the direction of the highway. 10 .     On 5 January 2003 day the first applicant went to the Gudermes ROVD, where she met a police officer, Officer L.Kh., who told her that they had already taken Mr Ismail Makhmudov home. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 11 .     On 6 January 2003 the second applicant, Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s father, complained of the abduction to the Gudermes ROVD. Three days later the Gudermes ROVD refused to open a criminal case into the incident, stating that “there were no grounds to believe that [Mr Ismail Makhmudov] had been the victim of a criminal offence”. 12.     On 21 January 2003 the Gudermes district prosecutor in Chechnya overruled the above refusal and opened criminal case no. 32004 under Article 126 of the Russian Criminal Code (“the CC”) (abduction). 13.     On 20 March 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 14.     Having questioned several witnesses who did not have any information about Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s whereabouts, on 21   March 2003 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators. 15.     On 1 March 2004 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her access to the case file documents. On 18 March 2004 her request was refused. 16.     On unspecified dates between April and June 2004 the first applicant contacted the Chechen Ministry of the Interior, the Chechen President and other authorities, seeking their assistance in the search for her son. She was informed in reply that the criminal proceedings were ongoing. 17.     In early 2005 the first applicant sent similar requests to the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) in Chechnya, the Chechnya prosecutor and the Chechen Ministry of the Interior. Her enquiries were forwarded to the investigators in charge of the case. 18.     On 28 April 2005 the deputy Gudermes district prosecutor overruled the decision of 21 March 2003 and resumed the proceedings to question Mr   Ismail Makhmudov’s neighbours and check if he had been apprehended during a special operation. 19.     It appears that in May 2005 the investigators questioned Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s neighbours. The copies of their interview records submitted by the Government were illegible. 20 .     On 28 May 2005 the proceedings were suspended. The applicants were not informed about that. 21 .     On 16 November 2005 the first applicant asked the Gudermes district prosecutor to inform her about the progress of the case and to investigate the abduction more thoroughly, alleging that it had been perpetrated by State agents. No response followed. 22 .     On 15 February 2006 the NGO Russian Justice Initiative contacted the investigators on behalf of the first applicant, seeking an update on the progress of the investigation. Again, no response followed. 23 .     On   7 April 2008 the proceedings were resumed. Several days later the investigators contacted various law-enforcement bodies and detention facilities to establish whether Mr Ismail Makhmudov had been placed in custody. The respondent authorities had no information about his arrest or detention. 24.     On 15 May 2008 the first applicant was questioned. She provided the investigators with the names of several fellow villagers who had seen a grey UAZ minivan parked near her son’s house at the time of the abduction. 25.     On 19 May 2008 the investigation was suspended again. Later, it was resumed on 15 December 2008, 30 January 2009 and 21 August 2012, and then suspended on 19 January and 12   March 2009 and 21 September 2012 respectively. 26.     On 15 January 2009 the investigators granted victim status to the second applicant and questioned him. He made statements similar to those of his wife, the second applicant. He also mentioned that the former head of the local police, Mr U., had told him that at about 8 p.m. on 4   January 2003 he had seen a UAZ minivan and several persons in military uniforms and balaclavas near the applicants’ house. The men had stated that they had problems with electricity, but had refused to accept his help. 27.     On 10 March 2009 the investigators questioned Mr Sh.B., who submitted that he had seen a grey UAZ minivan in the vicinity of Mr   Ismail Makhmudov’s house. 28.     On 4 February 2015 the first applicant enquired about the course of the proceedings. On 13 February 2015 she was informed that they were still ongoing. There is no information about further developments in the case. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 29.     On 20 March 2010 the first applicant lodged a court claim with the Gudermes Town Court in Chechnya, seeking that the proceedings suspended on 19 May 2008 be resumed. She also alleged that the investigation had not been thorough. 30.     On 8 June 2010 the court dismissed her claim on the grounds that the proceedings had already been resumed on 2 June 2010. B.     Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia (no. 52064/11) 31.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ismail Dashtayev, who was born in 1975. The second applicant is his sister. 1.     Abduction of Mr Ismail Dashtayev 32 .     On 30 January 2002 Mr Ismail Dashtayev and his fellow villager Mr   L. ‑ A.Ch. were going by taxi from the town of Nazran, Ingushetiya, to the village of Novyye Atagi, Chechnya. Just before the entrance to Novyye Atagi, they were stopped by servicemen who had blocked the road with two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”). The servicemen were in camouflage uniforms without identifying insignia, except for one, who had the shoulder straps of a colonel. Speaking unaccented Russian, they asked Mr   Ismail Dashtayev and Mr   L. ‑ A.Ch. for their identity documents. A few minutes later, two grey UAZ minivans without registration plates arrived. Suddenly, one of the servicemen pointed his gun at Mr Ismail Dashtayev’s head, while another searched his pockets. They then put Mr   Ismail Dashtayev in one of the UAZ minivans and drove off towards the town of Shali. When Mr   L. ‑ A.Ch. asked the servicemen where Mr Ismail Dashtayev had been taken, the servicemen shouted at him, asking whether he wanted to join him. Thereafter, the servicemen searched Mr   L.-A.Ch., put a black plastic bag over his head, forced him into the other UAZ minivan, drove him to Shali, and then released him in front of the central district hospital. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 33 .     On 7 February 2002 the first applicant complained of the abduction of her son to the Shali district prosecutor in Chechnya. 34.     On 31 May 2002 the district prosecutor opened criminal case no.   59116 under Article   126 of the CC (abduction). 35.     On 1 July 2002 the investigators questioned the first applicant. She described her attempts to find her missing son. Firstly, she had contacted Mr   L.-A.Ch.’s mother, who had told her that Mr   Ismail Dashtayev had been apprehended together with Mr L.-A.Ch. Then she had spoken with the head of Novyye Atagi’s local authorities, who had stated that Mr   Ismail Dashtayev had been detained on the premises of the Shali district department of the interior (“the Shali ROVD”). 36.     The next day the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 37.     On 31   July   2002, having sent requests concerning Mr   Ismail Dashtayev’s whereabouts to various authorities, including the Shali ROVD, the investigators suspended the criminal proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators. 38.     At some point later the authorities replied that they did not have any information about Mr Ismail Dashtayev’s whereabouts. 39 .     On 21 January 2003 the proceedings were resumed and then on 28   February 2003 suspended again. 40 .     On 5 March 2004 and 22 February 2008 the first applicant asked the head of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences and the Chechnya Ombudsman to assist her in her search for her son. 41 .     On 14 March 2008 the investigators resumed the proceedings. 42.     On 28 March 2008 the investigators questioned Mr   L.-A.Ch for the first time. His statement was similar to those submitted to the Court by the applicants. 43.     On 19 April 2008 the investigation was suspended again. The applicants were not informed of that. 44.     On 10 February 2010 the applicants’ representative contacted a number of domestic authorities, asking for their assistance in establishing the whereabouts of the applicants’ missing relative. In reply, he was informed that the criminal investigation into Mr   Ismail Dashtayev’s abduction was ongoing. 45.     On 20 January 2011 the investigation was resumed. Several days later the investigators questioned various officials who had assisted the investigation in establishing the circumstances of the abduction. All of them explained that they had failed to find out which authority had blocked the road and apprehended Mr Ismail Dashtayev. 46.     On 14 February the investigators ordered a DNA test to be performed, to compare the DNA of the first applicant to that stored in a database of DNA from unidentified bodies. No matches were found. 47.     On 21 February the investigation was suspended again. There is no information about further developments in the proceedings. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 48.     On 27 December 2010 the applicants complained to the Shali Town Court of the decision of 19 April 2008 to suspend the proceedings and of the investigators’ failure to take all necessary investigative steps. 49.     On 24 January 2011 the court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the investigation had already been resumed on 20   January 2011. 50.     On 28 January 2011 the applicants appealed. They complained that the investigators’ failure to act in a timely manner had not been examined by the district court, and that the court hearing had been held in their absence. 51.     On 6 April 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 24 January 2011 for technical reasons and then terminated the examination of the appeal. C.     Nauzova and Others v. Russia (no. 52173/11) 52.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Vakha Nauzov, who was born in 1974. The first applicant is his mother, the second applicant is his wife, and the third, fourth and fifth applicants are his children. 1.     Background events and the abduction of Mr Vakha Nauzov 53.     On 6 June 2003 the Russian Parliament announced amnesty for illegal combatants involved in the armed conflict in Chechnya who voluntarily stopped their activities and surrendered their weapons. 54.     At the beginning of June 2003 Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr   U.M. surrendered their weapons to the Gudermes department of the FSB and were pardoned. A few days later both men were hired by the security service of the Head of Administration of the Chechen President. They worked in the village of Novoe Gordali, Chechnya. 55 .     On 20 June 2003 Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr U.M. drove to work in a silver-blue VAZ-2106 car with registration plate no. 173-05. At 11   a.m. they were stopped at checkpoint no. 75 on a highway near the village of Druzhba. Fellow villagers who were passing the checkpoint in a minibus at the time, including Ms A.E. and Ms D.Kh., saw that several servicemen had surrounded Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr U.M., while others were searching their car. Some of the witnesses, whose identities the applicants did not disclose before the Court, heard Mr   Vakha Nauzov shouting that his boss should be informed that they were being taken away. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 56 .     On 22 June and then again on 6 August 2003 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Gudermes prosecutor and the Gudermes ROVD in Chechnya. In the complaint to the prosecutor, the applicants alleged that Mr Vakha Nauzov had been apprehended at a checkpoint in the eastern part of Gudermes. 57.     On an unspecified date police officers from the Gudermes ROVD questioned the servicemen who had been manning checkpoint no. 75. They denied arresting Mr Vakha Nauzov. 58.     On 6 August 2003 the Gudermes ROVD refused to institute an investigation into the abduction, for lack of   evidence of a criminal offence. 59.     On 19 July 2004 the Gudermes prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that the Gudermes ROVD had opened search case no. 063043 to establish their relative’s whereabouts. 60.     On 15 July 2005 the Gudermes prosecutor’s office overruled the refusal to open a criminal case of 6 August 2003 and ordered the Gudermes ROVD to carry out further examination of the abduction complaint. 61.     On 4 August 2005 the Gudermes ROVD again refused to open a criminal case .   On 31 October the Gudermes prosecutor overruled the refusal and ordered the ROVD to examine the complaint once again. 62.     On 31 November 2005 the Gudermes prosecutor opened criminal case no. 45129 under Article 105 of the CC (murder) in respect of the abduction of Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr U.M. 63.     On 31 December 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 64.     On 18 September 2007 the first applicant asked the investigators to provide her with a copy of their decision to grant her victim status. It appears that no response followed. 65.     On 24 October 2007 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings and grant her victim status. 66 .     On 19 November 2007 the proceedings were resumed and on 13   December 2007 the first applicant was granted victim status. Six days later the proceedings were suspended again. 67 .     On 2 July 2008 and 13 April 2009 the applicants contacted the Chechen President and the head of the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons respectively, asking for their assistance in the search for their missing relative. Their requests were forwarded to the investigating authorities, which informed the applicants that the criminal proceedings were still ongoing. 68.     On 21 April 2010 the second applicant requested that the investigators grant her victim status. The next day her request was granted. It appears that the investigation was not formally resumed at that time. 69.     On 12 January 2011 the first applicant asked the Chechen prosecutor to establish her son’s whereabouts and find the culprits. On 31 January 2011 she was informed that her request had been forwarded to the Gudermes prosecutor. 70.     On 14 February 2011 the first applicant asked to be updated on the progress of the investigation and to be allowed to access the criminal case file. Four days later she was given access to a few documents from the file. 71 .     On 11 June 2011 the first applicant again requested access to the case file. On 30 June 2011 the investigators dismissed the request on the grounds that the same request had already been granted. 72.     Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed on 31 October 2011 and on 6 July 2012, and then suspended on 30 November 2011 and 6   August 2012 respectively. No tangible results have been achieved in the meantime. There is no information about further developments in the case. D.     Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11) 73.     The first applicant was the mother of Mr Supyan (also spelled as Supiyan) Mukayev, who was born in 1982. She died on 30 November 2013. The second applicant is the father of Mr Supyan Mukayev. The third applicant is the latter’s brother. 1.     Abduction of Mr Supyan Mukayev and subsequent events 74 .     At about 3 p.m. on 15 March 2005 Mr Supyan Mukayev and his acquaintance Mr M.Kh. were standing on Groznenskaya Street, across from the Bass petrol station in the village of Shali, when a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms approached them and ordered them to put their hands up. They then forced Mr Supyan Mukayevwas and Mr M.Kh into two separate vehicles, a VAZ-2199 car and a UAZ minivan, parked nearby and drove them off in the direction of Grozny, passing freely through military checkpoints on their way. The abduction was witnessed by several persons. 75.     Shortly thereafter the street was cordoned off by the Vostok-2 battalion of the Russian Defence Ministry. Military vehicles such as APCs and UAZs patrolled the town, while servicemen searched the premises of the local telecommunication agency. 76 .     The first applicant, together with other town residents, approached the Shali military commander and asked him for an explanation as to what had happened to Mr Supyan Mukayev and Mr M.Kh. In reply, the officer told her that her son was an informant for illegal armed groups operating in Chechnya. 77.     On the next day, 16 March 2005, the servicemen took Mr M.Kh. to the town of Gudermes and released him there. 78 .     At some point after the abduction, the first applicant went to the Shali local administration and spoke to its deputy head, who told her that her son had been arrested by servicemen from the Vostok-2 battalion and had then been detained in Gudermes. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 79 .     Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities of what had happened and requested that a criminal case be opened. 80.     On 7 July 2005 the Shali district prosecutor in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 46073 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 81.     On the same day the prosecutor contacted various law-enforcement authorities in order to check if Mr Supyan Mukayev had been arrested and placed in custody. The respondent authorities stated that they had no information in that regard. 82.     The next day, 8 July 2005, the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. Subsequently, the second applicant was granted victim status on 27   April   2011. 83 .     On an unspecified date in September 2005 the investigators obtained a copy of a report of 16 March 2005 prepared by the Shali district military commander and addressed to the Chechnya military commander. According to that document, there had been activity aimed at cordoning off the local telecommunication agency in Shali on 15   March 2005. During that operation two village residents, Mr Supyan Mukayev and Mr M.Kh had been arrested. Mr   Supyan Mukayev had been arrested on suspicion of having been a messenger for Mr P.Ch. After that, servicemen of the Vostok battalion had taken him in the direction of Mesker-Yurt village. Another village resident, Mr M.Kh., had been released following an inquiry. 84.     On 13 September 2005 the investigators questioned Mr M.Kh. He explained that he had been apprehended in Shali and released a day later in Gudermes. He had been blindfolded and therefore unable to see the abductors or the place where he had been detained. During subsequent questioning, on   2   February 2007 he stated that the perpetrators had been State agents. 85 .     On 7 October 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 15   March and 17   July 2006, 16 January and 14 March 2007, 25 April 2011, and 9   July 2012, and then suspended on 15 April and 27 August 2006, 27   February and 15   April 2007, and 9 August 2012 respectively. 86.     In the meantime, on 10 April 2006 the investigators had questioned the deputy head of the Shali local administration. He confirmed that he had spoken with the first applicant about Mr Supyan Mukayev’s abduction, but denied making any references to the Vostok-2 battalion. According to him, at that time he had had only some unverified information that Mr Supyan Mukayev had been apprehended by servicemen. 87.     In February 2007 the investigators questioned several persons who worked at the Bass petrol station and had witnessed the abduction. Their statements were similar to the applicants’ account of the events. 88 .     On 14 January 2009 the first applicant asked the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons to assist in the search for her son. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who replied on 1 June 2009 that the proceedings had been suspended, but the search was still under way. 89.     In May or June 2011 the investigators obtained a DNA sample from the second applicant and then compared it to those stored in the database of DNA from unidentified bodies. No matches were found. 90.     There is no information about further developments in the proceedings. E.     Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11) 91.     The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Rustam Gaysumov, who was born in 1980. The third applicant is his wife and the fourth and fifth applicants are his children. The sixth and seventh applicants are the parents of Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov, who was born in 1980. 1.     Abduction of Mr Rustam Gaysumov and Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov 92.     On 8 November 2006 the police conducted a special operation in Druzhby Narodov Square in Grozny. The area was intensively patrolled by a large number of armed servicemen in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms. 93 .     On the same date, in the morning, Mr Rustam Gaysumov and Mr   Khuseyn Elderkhanov, both of whom were former members of illegal armed groups in Chechnya, went to Grozny on business. At about 1 p.m. the police stopped their car for an identity check in Druzhby Narodov Square, then arrested them and took them away to an unknown destination. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. 94.     The applicants submitted written statements from Ms M.E., who worked at a kiosk located in Druzhby Narodov Square, and Ms Sh.N. Both were eyewitnesses to the abduction. Ms M.E. submitted that on 8 November 2006 she had seen servicemen in uniforms and balaclavas armed with automatic weapons. They had conducted a special operation. At around 2   p.m. they had stopped a car with two persons, allegedly Mr   Rustam Gaysumov and Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov. Shortly thereafter, one of them had gone to Ms   M.E.’s kiosk to buy a blank authorisation form for driving a car and had told her that he was from the Achkhoy-Martan District. Then he had returned to his car. Immediately after that the servicemen had forced Mr   Gaysumov and Mr Elderkhanov into a Niva car and driven off. Ms   Sh.N. gave a similar statement. She added that there had been forty to fifty servicemen in the square and the Niva car had been followed by two to three UAZ vehicles. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 95 .     On 10 November 2006 some of the applicants informed the Leninskiy district prosecutor in Grozny of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relatives. Between November and January 2007 the applicants forwarded similar requests to a number of other law-enforcement agencies. 96 .     The Zavodskoy district prosecutor in Grozny carried out a preliminary inquiry into the incident. In particular, he obtained “operative information” that Mr Gaysumov and Mr Elderkhanov had been apprehended by “unidentified staff members of the Chechen law ‑ enforcement agencies” and had been released later. Apparently, keeping this in mind, on 28 December 2006 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case. 97.     It appears that at some point later that decision was overruled and on 27 January 2007 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor opened criminal case no.   11006 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 98.     On 31 January and 3 March 2007 the first and seventh applicants respectively were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 99.     On 13 March 2007 the investigators questioned Ms M.E., the lady who worked at the kiosk in Druzhby Narodov Square. She stated that on 8   November 2006 when servicemen had been conducting a special operation in the square, one of them had come to her kiosk to buy a blank authorisation form for driving a car. She had had a limited view from the kiosk’s window, and therefore could not see what had happened thereafter. According to the applicants, Ms M.E. was afraid to tell the investigators about the abduction she had witnessed. 100.     On 27 March 2007 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 101 .     On 26 June 2007 the proceedings were resumed and on 17   August 2007 suspended again. 102 .     In 2008 the applicants contacted various authorities, including the Chechen Government and the Chechen President, seeking their assistance in the search for their missing relatives. Their enquiries were forwarded to the investigators, who informed them that the proceedings had been suspended. 103 .     On 22 November 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings and questioned relatives of Mr Gaysumov and Mr Elderkhanov. 104.     On 2 December 2010 the first applicant asked the investigators about progress and applied for victim status in the proceedings. Ten days later he was informed that on 12 December 2010 the proceedings had been suspended. 105.     On 3 March 2011 the seventh applicant also requested information about the investigation’s progress and access to the case file. The outcome of that request is unknown. 106.     Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed on 17 May and 16   November 2011 and 28 February 2014, and were then suspended on 6   June and 21 December 2011 and 19 March 2014 respectively. There is no information about further developments in the proceedings. F.     Satuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 7214/12) 107.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Alikhan Satuyev, who was born in 1975. The first, third and fourth applicants are his siblings and the second applicant is his mother. 1.     Abduction of Mr Alikhan Satuyev and subsequent events 108 .     At 4 a.m. on 14 June 2003 twelve to fifteen armed servicemen in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms arrived in a white Niva car and armoured UAZ vehicles without registration plates at Mr Alikhan Satuyev’s flat in Grozny. Some of them surrounded the block of flats, while others broke into the flat, handcuffed Mr Satuyev and took him away to an unknown location. 109 .     Mr S. Kham., the uncle of Mr Alikhan Satuyev, who was working as a judge at the time, found out that Alikhan Satuyev had been taken to the Oktyabrskiy temporary district department of the interior (“the Oktyabrskiy VOVD”) by the head of its criminal search department. In a private conversation with the latter, he was told that Alikhan Stauyev had been released on the same day, shortly after his arrest. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 110 .     On 14 June 2003 the wife of Mr Alikhan Satuyev, Ms L.U., complained of the abduction to the Zavodskoy district department of the interior in Grozny (“the ROVD”). On the same day the investigators questioned Mr A.D., Mr Satuyev’s neighbour. His submission was similar to those made by the applicants before the Court. Two days later, Ms L.U.’s abduction complaint was forwarded to the Zavodskoy district prosecutor. On 24 June 2003 the latter opened criminal case no.   30097 under Article   126 of the CC (abduction). 111.     On 2 July 2003 the investigators questioned Mr M.B., who stated that on the night of 12-13 June 2003 police officers from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD had apprehended him and taken him to the police station, where they had asked him about Mr   Alikhan Satuyev. The police officers had then taken him to the centre of Grozny, where he had shown them where Mr   Satuyev’s flat was located. 112 .     Later in July 2003 the investigators questioned several officials from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. The copies of their statements as submitted by the Government were illegible. As far as could be seen from one of them, Mr   A.T., the head of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD, spoke with Mr Satuyev’s uncle, Judge S. Kham., and then with Officer N.S. following the judge’s enquiry into the fate of his nephew. The officer informed him that Mr   Satuyev had been arrested and apparently released afterwards. 113.     In the period August-September 2003 the investigators attempted to question Officer N.S., but failed to locate him. 114.     On 24 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 115.     On 22 January 2004 the proceedings were resumed. By 20   February 2004 the investigators had obtained the names or nicknames of five officers from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD who had allegedly been involved in the events of 14 June 2003. They asked the Oktyabrskiy VOVD to inform them about the officers’ whereabouts. 116.     On 28 February 2004 the investigators initiated the search for Officer N.S. and suspended the criminal proceedings into the abduction. 117.     On 26 March 2004 the proceedings were resumed. 118.     On 28 April 2004 the Oktyabrskiy VOVD informed the investigators that certain persons from the list of alleged perpetrators had left the police owing to the expiration of their employment contracts. The Oktyabrskiy VOVD did not have information about the identity of the officers whose nicknames had been specified by the investigators in their request. 119.     On 14 April 2004 the investigators questioned Officer M.A., who confirmed that on 14 June 2003 he had participated in a special operation under Officer N.S.’s command. In particular, he had cordoned off the area near a block of flats where the arrested person had lived. Officer M.A. did not know that person’s name. 120.     On 26 May 2004 the investigators suspended the proceedings. 121.     On 26 January 2005 the above decision was overruled by the Chechnya deputy prosecutor, who ordered that the proceedings be resumed. 122.     On 16 February 2005 Ms L.U. was granted victim status in the proceedings. 123 .     On 8 March 2005 the proceedings were suspended. They were subsequently resumed on 10 January 2006, 20 April 2007, 20 September 2011, and then suspended on 14 January and 23 May 2007 and 20 October 2011 respectively. In the meantime, the applicants contacted various authorities, seeking their assistance in the search for their missing relative. 124 .     On 15 May 2009 the second applicant enquired about the progress of the investigation. On 15 May 2009 the investigators replied to her, stating that the proceedings had been suspended, but operative search measures were ongoing. 125.     On 5 October 2011 the second applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. There is no information about further progress in the case. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 126.     On 12 August 2011 the second applicant complained to the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny about the investigators’ decision to suspend the criminal proceedings. On 20 September 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, as the investigation had already been resumed. 4.     Civil proceedings 127.     On 8 January 2013 the second applicant lodged a civil claim with the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny, seeking compensation in the amount of 3,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB – approximately 75,100 euros (EUR)) for non-pecuniary damage caused by the abduction of her son. 128.     On 21 March 2013 the Leninskiy District Court granted the claim in part, awarding the second applicant RUB 500,000 (approximately EUR   12,500). 129.     On 2 July 2003 the Chechen Supreme Court quashed the above judgment on appeal and dismissed the second applicant’s claim in full, on the grounds of lack of evidence of State agents’ involvement in the abduction. G.     Abubakarova and Others v. Russia (no. 46621/12) 130.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Vakhab Abubakarov, who was born in 1957. The second and third applicants are his children. 1.     Abduction of Mr Vakhab Abubakarov 131 .     At about 4 a.m. on 26 November 2002 several servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicants’ house in Argun, Chechnya. Speaking unaccented Russian, they asked the members of the applicants’ family to show their identity documents. They then searched the house, took Mr Vakhab Abubakarov outside, and locked the applicants in the house. The applicants’ neighbours heard an APC moving around in the vicinity of their house. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 132 .     On 26 November 2002 the first applicant complained to the local police of Vakhab Abubakarov’s abduction. 133.     On 28 November 2002 the Argun prosecutor opened criminal case no. 78101 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 134.     In November 2002 the investigators contacted various civilian and military authorities to check if Mr Vakhab Abubakarov had been apprehended in the course of a special operation and placed in custody. The respondent authorities had no information about his arrest or detention. 135.     On 4 December 2002 the investigators questioned the members of Mr Abubakarov’s family who had been in the house at the time of his abduction. Their statements were similar to those which they made before the Court. On the same date the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 136.     On 28 January 2003 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators. 137.     On 4 September 2004 the proceedings were resumed. Two days later the investigators examined the crime scene. 138 .     On 4 October 2004 they suspended the proceedings again. 139.     On 22 November 2004 the Shali Town Court declared Mr   Vakhab Abubakarov a missing person. 140 .     On 4 May 2006 the NGO Memorial enquired about progress in the proceedings on the first applicant’s behalf. By a letter dated 2 June 2006, they were informed that the proceedings had been suspended, but operative search measures were being implemented. 141.     On an unspecified date in early 2009 the first applicant asked the investigators to allow her to access the case file. On 6 March 2009 the request was granted. 142.     On 25 May 2009 the first applicant contacted the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons, seeking its assistance in the search for her husband. Her request was then forwarded to the investigators, who informed her on 21 June 2009 that the criminal proceedings into the events of 26 November 2002 had been suspended. 143 .     On 5 March 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be granted access to the investigation file. On an unspecified date the investigators replied that the case file had been sent to the Investigative Committee for examination. 144 .     On 28 June 2010 the investigation was resumed. It was subsequently suspended on 28 July 2010, then resumed again on 18   August 2010, and suspended one more time on 18 September 2010. 145.     On various dates in July 2010 the investigators questioned several neighbours of the applicants who had heard about the abduction, but had not witnessed it. On 23 July 2010 the investigators obtained a DNA sample from the first applicant. They compared it to the ones in the database of DNA from unidentified bodies, but did not find any matches. 146.     In late 2010 the NGO Materi Chechni asked a member of the Russian Parliament to assist in search for Mr Abubakarov. The first applicant’s inquiry was forwarded to the investigators, who replied on 3   November 2010 that the proceedings had been suspended on 18   September 2010. 147.     There is no information about further progress in the investigation. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 148.     On 10 June 2010 the applicants complained to the Shali District Court of the investigators’ failure to investigate the case thoroughly and about their decision to suspend the proceedings on 4 October 2004. 149.     On 29 June 2010 the applicants’ complaint was dismissed on account of the investigation being resumed on 28 June 2010. 150.     The applicants appealed, but to no avail. The Chechen Supreme Court dismissed their appeal on 15 September 2010. H.     Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) 151.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Lema (also known as Lom-Ali and also spelled as Lyoma in the documents submitted) Magomadov, who was born in 1981. 1.     Abduction of Mr Lema Magomadov 152 .     On the night of 13-14 November 2002 the applicant and her son, Mr Magomadov, were at home in Grozny when about a hundred armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the entrance of their house. They had automatic weapons, helmets and portable radio sets. Shortly thereafter a group of the intruders forced the door and broke into the house. Having searched its premises, they beat Mr Magomadov and then dragged him away, barefoot and undressed. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the neighbours. 153 .     On the morning of 14 November 2002 the applicant’s neighbours examined the area. Along with numerous shoeprints left on the ground, they found prints left by bare feet, presumably those of Mr Magomadov, who had been taken away on foot. Having followed the trail, the neighbours arrived at a checkpoint, where they discovered tyre tracks left by an APC. The neighbours learnt from officers who had been manning the checkpoint on the night of the abduction that an APC had indeed parked at the checkpoint during the night, and at some point a group of military servicemen had arrived with a young man, barefoot and undressed, had put him into the APC and had driven off. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 154 .     On 14 November 2002 the applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested their assistance in the search for her son. 155.     The next day the Grozny town prosecutor opened criminal case no.   48212 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 156.     On the same day, 15 November 2002, the investigators examined the crime scene at the applicant’s house. No evidence was collected. 157.     On 7 January 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. Her statement was similar to the account of the events submitted to the Court. 158.     On 15 January 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was then resumed on 26 May 2004 to question the applicant’s neighbours and “intensify operative search measures”. 159.     In early June 2004 the investigators questioned several neighbours who had not seen the abduction, but had heard about it from the applicant and other village residents. 160 .     On 25 June 2004 the investigation was suspended. 161 .     On 16 and 25 June 2005, 15 September 2008 and 20 April 2009 the applicant contacted the Grozny town prosecutor, the Chechen Parliament, the Russian Investigative Committee and the head of the Chechen Parliament, seeking their assistance in the searc