CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .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 } .s2AC44244 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8B7697D0 { width:20.77pt; display:inline-block } .sF45992E5 { width:141.07pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC134C { width:39.46pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 3752/13 Tamara DZHABRAILOVA and Others against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   May   2019 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Erik Wennerström, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details appear in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     At the material time the applicants lived in the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by service personnel during special operations. The events concerned took place between 2000 and 2003 in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have never seen their missing relatives alive since the alleged arrests and their whereabouts remain unknown. 4.     The applicants reported the abductions to the authorities and official investigations were opened. In each of the cases, the proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for years without achieving any tangible results. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the investigators. 5.     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. 6.     In each of the cases at hand, the applicants lodged their applications with the Court twelve or more years after the abduction and the initiation of the investigation into the incident. 1.     Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (no. 3752/13) 7.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Bislan (also spelled “Beslan”) Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1979. The other five applicants are his brothers and sisters. (a)     Abduction of Mr Bislan Dzhabrailov 8.     Between 4 and 10 February 2000 the village of Katyr-Yurt, Chechnya, was subjected to bombardment and air attacks by federal forces. Federal troops patrolled the streets of the village. 9.     On 6 February 2000 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 5   February 2000 and 8 November 2000) Mr Bislan Dzhabrailov was detained next to his house by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms in an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”). 10.     Subsequently Mr Bislan Dzhabrailov was allegedly seen in detention at the Urus-Martan commander’s headquarters. 11 .     On an unspecified day in August 2000 the second applicant saw Mr   Bislan Dzhabrailov on television among alleged members of illegal armed groups who had been arrested in the course of a special operation. The applicants recorded the broadcast and submitted the videotape to the investigators (see paragraph 19 below). (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 12.     On 15 August 2000 the applicants’ abduction complaint was registered with the temporary office in Achkhoy-Martan district of the Department of the Interior ( Временный отдел внутренних дел Ачхой ‑ Мартановского района (ВОВД) ) (“the VOVD”). 13.     On 20 August 2000 the police questioned the second applicant. Her statement was similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. 14.     On 17 October 2000 the VOVD refused to open a criminal case into the disappearance of Mr Bislan Dzhabrailov. 15.     On 8 November 2000 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor overruled the above decision and opened criminal case no. 26053 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) (murder). 16.     On 11 December 2000 Mr R.D. (the father of Mr Bislan Dzhabrailov) was questioned. His statement was similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. 17 .     On 8 January 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 18 .     On 21   February   2005 the supervising prosecutor overruled the above decision as unlawful and the proceedings were resumed on the same date. 19 .     On 22 February 2005 the applicants provided the investigators with the videotape of the broadcast recorded by the second applicant in August   2000 (see paragraph 11 above). It appears that on the same day the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. 20.     On 21   April 2005 the proceedings were suspended again. 21.     On 8 August 2008 the investigators resumed the proceedings; on 12   September 2008 they suspended them again, and on 25   December 2009 resumed them again. 22 .     On 20 January 2010 the videotape was examined in the presence of the first applicant. It showed Mr   Bislan Dzhabrailov in a group of men who had been detained by federal forces in February 2000 as members of illegal armed groups. 23.     On 25 January 2010 the investigation was suspended again. 24.     On 10 May 2011 the NGO Materi Chechni (“the NGO”) requested information on the progress of the investigation on behalf of the applicants. 25.     On 22 June 2011 the investigators replied that the proceedings had been suspended on 25 January 2010. 26.     On 10 June 2012 the investigation was resumed, and on the next day the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour, Mr R.Kh, whose statement was similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. 27 .     On the same date, 11 June 2012 the investigators again suspended the proceedings. 28 .     On 6 December 2012, twelve years and ten months after the abduction, the applicants lodged their application with the Court. 2.     Chatuyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 3765/13) 29.     The first and second applicants are respectively the mother and the wife of Mr Aslanbek Chatuyev, who was born in 1963. The third, fourth and fifth applicants are his sons. The sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants are his brothers. (a)     Abduction of Mr Aslanbek Chatuyev 30.     At about 11 a.m. on 11 December 2000 a group of men in camouflage uniforms detained Mr Aslanbek Chatuyev in the village of Zakan ‑ Yurt, Chechnya. They forced him into a Kamaz lorry without number plates and drove off in the direction of Achkhoy ‑ Martan, taking his Volga car.     The first and second applicants and their neighbour Mr S.Ch., immediately followed the abductors to the premises of the military unit in the village of Tangi-Chu, in the Urus-Martan district, where a military unit of the Russian federal forces was stationed. 31.     The following day the second applicant arrived at the military unit in Tangi-Chu and spoke to one of its service personnel, Mr S.G. He told her that her husband was being treated well but was not up for immediate release. 32.     Several days later Mr S.G. told the second applicant that Mr   Aslanbek Chatuyev had been taken somewhere in a helicopter. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 33 .     Referring to the confidentiality of the contents of the criminal case file, the Government refused to submit copies of any documents from it. The applicants provided the Court with copies of some documents they had managed to obtain from the file. According to those documents, the investigation can be described as follows. 34 .     On 23 February 2001 the Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 27007 under Article 127 of the CC (unlawful deprivation of liberty). 35.     On 22 March 2001 the criminal case was transferred to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 for further investigation. The case was assigned number 34/33/0210-01Д   (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 34/33/0210-01, 14/33/0210-01Д, 14/90/0063-11 and 34/33/0210-03Д). 36 .     On 23 May 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Between May 2001 and March 2006 the investigation was suspended. Subsequently, between March 2006 and November 2015 the investigation was suspended and resumed on at least five occasions. 37 .     In the meantime, on 10 July 2009 the first and second applicants were granted victim status. 38.     On 3 August 2009 the investigators obtained a blood sample from the first applicant for comparative DNA testing and establishing whether Mr   Aslanbek Chatuyev’s body was among unidentified remains found in the region. The expert conclusions given on 27 May 2010 were in the negative. 39.     On 16 December 2010 the applicants’ lawyer requested that the investigators inform him of the progress of the proceedings, and provide him with a copy of the expert examination report of 27   May 2010. The request was granted five days later. 40.     On 13 December 2012, more than twelve years after the abduction, the applicants lodged their application with the Court. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 41.     On 19 April 2010 and then on 7 December 2011 the first applicant challenged the decisions of 6 August 2009 and 11 May 2010 respectively to suspend the investigation before the Grozny Garrison Military Court. 42.     On 30 April 2010 and then 12 December 2011 respectively the court dismissed the complaints, having found that the decisions under examination had already been overruled and the investigation had already been resumed on 28 April 2010 and 11 May 2011 respectively. 43.     On 17 May 2012 the Military Court of the North Caucasus Command upheld the decision of 12   December 2011 on appeal. 3.     Garayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 51529/13) 44.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Bekkhan Dzhanaliyev, who was born in 1975. The first and second applicants are his wife and mother, the third and fourth applicants are his sisters. (a)     Abduction of Mr Bekkhan Dzhanaliyev 45.     At about 3 p.m. on 22 October 2000 Mr Bekkhan Dzhanaliyev drove with his cousin, Mr M.D. to the town of Argun in his car, a VAZ-2199 with the number plates A186XA 05 RUS. In the vicinity of the village of Mesker-Yurt, Chechnya, armed men in camouflage uniforms stopped their car and took Bekkhan Dzhanaliyev and Mr M.D. away to an unknown destination. 46.     The applicants did not disclose the identity of the witnesses who had seen the abduction. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 47.     On 30 October 2000 the second applicant complained in respect of the abduction to the Shali district prosecutor. 48 .     On 22 November 2000 the Shali district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 22069 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 49.     On 22 January 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators. 50.     On an unspecified date in January or February 2001 the second applicant asked for the investigators’ assistance in establishing her son’s whereabouts. 51.     On 28 October 2003 the second applicant asked the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 to assist in the search for her son. 52.     On 6 December 2004 the investigators resumed the investigation and on 21 December 2004 they examined the crime scene. Then on 6   January 2005 the investigation was suspended again. 53 .     On 18 March 2005 the investigation was resumed, and on 12   May   2005 suspended again. 54.     On 26 January 2009 the second applicant requested information on the progress in the investigation and asked to grant her access to the case file. On 22 February 2009 she was informed that the proceedings had been suspended on 6 January 2005. 55.     On 1 November 2011 the NGO Materi Chechni on behalf of the applicant requested help in the search for Mr Bekkhan Dzhanaliyev. 56 .     On 16 January 2012 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her victim status and allow her to access the case file. 57 .     On 6 June 2012 the investigation was resumed and the first applicant’s request was granted. 58.     Subsequently, the proceedings were suspended on 7 June and 1   August 2012; and resumed on 1 July and 5 December 2012 respectively. 59.     On 23 May 2013, more than twelve years and half years after the abduction, the applicants lodged their application with the Court. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 60.     In June and November 2012 the first applicant lodged complaints with the Shali Town Court, respectively challenging the decisions of 7 June and 1 August 2012 to suspend the proceedings. She alleged that the investigators had failed to take important steps and that the criminal case should have been investigated by the military investigators. 61.     On 27 July and then 10 December 2012 respectively the court dismissed her complaint, having found that on 1 July and 5 December 2012 the proceedings had already been resumed. 62.     The first applicant unsuccessfully challenged the second decision on appeal. The Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that ruling on 13   February 2012. (d)     Proceedings for compensation 63.     On an unspecified date between 2012 and 2013 the first applicant lodged a claim with the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged abduction and killing of her husband. 64.     On 7 January 2014 the court dismissed her claim as ill ‑ founded and unsubstantiated by evidence. 4.     Sadulayevy v. Russia (no. 42976/15) 65.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Zayndi Sadulayev, who was born in 1960. The second applicant is his son. (a)     Abduction of Mr Zayndi Sadulayev 66.     At the material time Mr Zayndi Sadulayev worked at the Russian military base in Khankala, Chechnya. 67.     At about 4 p.m. on 24 January 2003 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 23 and 21 January 2003), when exiting the military base, Mr Zayndi Sadulayev was detained at checkpoint no.   2 in the presence of his colleagues Mr   Sh.I., Mr S.M. and Mr   R.M. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 68.     On 9 February 2003 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal case be opened. 69.     On 19 August 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102 refused to open a criminal case, referring to the absence of a crime. 70.     On 20 August 2004 the first applicant was questioned. She stated that Mr Zayndi Sadulayev had disappeared after his detention by military service personnel at the checkpoint in Khankala. 71.     On 14 September 2004 the first applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy district office of the Department of the Interior in Grozny in respect of the abduction. 72.     On 13 October 2004 the prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy district in Grozny, Mr   D.K., in a letter to the military prosecutor of military unit no.   20102, pointed to a number of flaws in the preliminary enquiries into Mr   Zayndi Sadulayev’s abduction. 73.     On 12 August 2005 the first applicant was questioned again. She reiterated her previous statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction. 74.     On the same date, 12 August 2005, a witness, Ms L.I., was questioned. Her statements regarding the circumstances of the abduction were similar to those of the applicants. 75 .     On 20 August 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 44350 under Article 105 of the CC (murder). 76.     On 29 August and 9 September 2005 investigators questioned the three colleagues who had witnessed Zayndi Sadulayev’s arrest in January 2003 by military service personnel. Mr   Sh.I., Mr   S.M. and Mr   R.M. provided detailed information about the soldiers who had carried out the arrest. Mr   Sh.I. also stated that the following day he had learned from a colleague, Mr   Kh.D., that Mr   Sadulayev had allegedly been released and had left the checkpoint. However, nobody had seen him since. 77.     On 8 September 2005 the investigators questioned Mr Z.S. and Mr   S.Sh., who gave statements similar to those of the applicants. 78 .     On 6 October 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. 79.     On 20 November 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 80.     On an unspecified date in March 2008 the NGO enquired on behalf of a relative of the applicant about the progress in the investigation. On 24   April 2008 the investigators replied that the investigation had been suspended. 81.     On 29 April 2008 the investigators resumed the proceedings. 82.     On 12 May 2008 they questioned the first applicant, who confirmed her previous statements. 83 .     On 30 May 2008 the proceedings were suspended again. 84.     On 27 May 2014 the first applicant enquired about the progress of the criminal case and requested access to the case file. It is not clear whether the request was granted. 85.     On 7 January 2015 the NGO asked the investigators for assistance in the search for Mr Zayndi Sadulayev. 86 .     On an unspecified date in March 2015 the proceedings suspended in May 2008 were resumed again. 87.     On 11 August 2015, more than twelve and half years after the abduction, the applicants lodged their application with the Court. (c)     Proceedings in the domestic courts 88.     On 15 January 2015 the first applicant lodged a civil claim, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged abduction of her husband by State agents. 89.     On 26 February 2015 the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny dismissed the claim as unfounded. 90.     On 11 March 2015, before the same court the first applicant challenged the decision of 30 May 2008 to suspend the criminal proceedings, as well as the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps. 91.     On 30 March 2015 the court rejected the complaint, having found that earlier in March 2015 the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 29 April 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 5.     Burayeva v. Russia (no. 46992/15) 92.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Rizvan (also spelled as Rezvan) Burayev, who was born in 1976. (a)     Abduction of Mr Burayev 93.     At about noon on 1 May 2002 Mr Rizvan Burayev and his acquaintance Mr   I.L. (in the documents submitted he was also referred to as Mr   B.E.) were at the Novaya bus stop in the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny when a group of eleven armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in an UAZ minivan. Having opened fire, the servicemen arrested Mr Rizvan Burayev and Mr I.L., forced them into the vehicle, and drove off in the direction of the centre of Grozny, their passage through military checkpoints on the way unhindered. The abduction took place in the presence of numerous witnesses – mainly passers-by, staff and customers at nearby cafés. 94.     Several minutes later the police arrived at the site and conducted enquiries into the incident. 95.     On 3 May 2002 Mr I.L. was found on a rubbish dump in Katayama next to Grozny. He had been severely beaten, but was alive. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 96.     On 3 May 2002 the father of Mr Rizvan Burayev, Mr K.B., informed the authorities of the abduction. 97.     On 29 May 2002 and on an unspecified date in June 2002 (the date is illegible) the police questioned the applicant and Mr K.B., who gave statements similar to the applicant’s submission before the Court. 98 .     On 18 June 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 54035 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 54036) under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 99.     On 21 June 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant again. She reiterated her previous statements concerning the circumstances of her son’s abduction. 100.     On 25 June 2002 the investigators questioned Ms   K.A. as a witness. She stated that she had spoken to Mr I.L. after the incident and that he had told her of his detention in a basement, where he had been detained in a cell close to that of Mr   Rizvan Burayev and that both of them had been tortured and pressurised to confess to a terrorist attack. One day Mr   Rizvan Burayev had been taken away from the cell and had not been seen after that. 101 .     On 18 September 2002 the investigation in the case was suspended. The applicant was informed of that decision on the same date. 102 .     On 20 April 2011 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 25 April 2011. Subsequently, between 2011 and 2013 it was resumed and suspended three times. 103 .     In the meantime, on 23 April 2011 the applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She was questioned again on 5   May 2013. She reiterated her previously given statements. 104.     On 28 November 2013 the applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings and question Mr I.L. The outcome of that request is unknown. 105.     On 4 June 2015 the applicant requested access to the criminal case file. The outcome of that request is also unknown. 106.     On 12 August 2015, more than thirteen and half years after the abduction, the applicant lodged her application with the Court. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 107.     On 4 May 2011 the applicant challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny. The outcome of those proceedings is unknown. 108.     On 31 May 2013 and then 26 June 2015 the applicant challenged the decisions of 24 June 2011 and 10 June 2013 respectively to suspend the criminal proceedings. 109.     On 21 June 2013 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny rejected the first complaint on procedural grounds. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 110.     The outcome of the proceedings concerning the complaint of 26   June 2015 is unknown. 6.     Sambiyeva and Eskiyev v. Russia (no. 49097/15) and Aliyevy v.   Russia (no. 49112/15) 111.     In the case of Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) the first applicant is the wife of Mr Adam Eskiyev, who was born in 1971. The second applicant is his son. 112.     In the case of Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) the first, second and third applicants are respectively the sister and daughters of Mr Zayndi (in the documents submitted also spelled as Zendi) Aliyev, who was born in 1971. The fourth applicant is his nephew. (a)     Abduction of Mr Adam Eskiyev and Mr Zayndi Aliyev 113.     On the morning of 30 July 2002 (in the documents submitted the time of the event was also indicated as noon) Mr Adam Eskiyev was arrested by a group of armed men in military camouflage uniforms and balaclavas at the intersection of Revolutsii Avenue and Chernyshevskogo Street. 114.     On the same day at about 2 p.m. Mr Zayndi Aliyev was arrested by a group of armed service personnel who shot him in the leg, at the bus stop located at the same intersection of Revolutsii Avenue and Chernyshevskogo Street. 115.     The abductors of Mr Adam Eskiyev and Mr Zayndi Aliyev were in a GAZelle minivan, a Barguzin vehicle and a Zhiguli car with number plates C 671, XH 971, and X 194 XH respectively. Mr Adam Eskiyev and Mr Zayndi Aliyev were put in the vehicles and driven off to an unknown destination. The abductions took place in the presence of numerous witnesses. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 116 .     On 19 August 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor opened criminal case no. 50130 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 117 .     On 19 December 2002 the investigation into the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 22   September 2003 and then suspended on 22 October 2003. According to an entry in the criminal case file, the first applicant in Aliyevy (no.   49112/15) was informed of that decision. 118 .     On 5 May 2014   the investigation was resumed. Subsequently, between 2014 and 2015 it was suspended and resumed at least three times. 119 .     On 9 August 2012 the applicants in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no.   49097/15) requested to be granted victim status in the criminal case. On the same day the first applicant was granted the status. On 10   August 2012 she asked for permission to access the criminal case file. The outcome of that request is unknown. 120.     Between and July 2014 the NGO asked the investigators for assistance in the search for Mr Adam Eskiyev and Mr   Zayndi Aliyev. 121 .     On 26 May 2014 the first applicant in Aliyevy (no.   49112/15) was granted victim status in the case and questioned. Her statements to the investigators were similar to her account submitted to the Court. On 7   July 2014 she asked the investigators to grant her access to the criminal case file. The outcome of that request is unknown. 122.     Between 5 and 8 August 2015 the investigators questioned eyewitnesses to the abductions, Ms Kh.Y., Mr A.T., Ms T.T., and Mr A.T. Their statements were similar to the applicants’ account before the Court. 123.     On 15 September 2015, more than thirteen years after the abduction, the applicants lodged their respective applications with the Court. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 124.     On 22 January 2015 the first applicant in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no.   49097/15) and the first applicant in Aliyevy (no.   49112/15) jointly challenged before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny the investigators’ decision of 5 June 2014 to suspend the proceedings. 125.     On 24 February 2015 the court rejected the complaint, having found that on 4 February 2015 the investigators had already resumed the investigation. On 1 April 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court   dismissed the applicants’ complaint on appeal. 7.     Salmaniyevy v. Russia (no. 51863/15) 126.     The first and second applicants are the mother and brother of Mr   Magomed Salmaniyev, who was born in 1985. The third applicant is his father. (a)     Abduction of Mr Magomed Salmaniyev 127 .     At about 2 a.m. on 1 August 2002, in the applicants’ presence, Mr   Magomed Salmaniyev was taken from home by a group of about thirty armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms to the outskirts of the Bachi-Yurt village, where he spent the night in detention with two other villagers, Mr   R.S. and Mr A.D. At about 5 a.m. on the same date the three men were taken in VAZ ‑ 2107 minivans without number plates in the direction of the village of Kurchaloy. Somewhere on the way Mr R.S. and Mr A.D. were released, and they returned home. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 128 .     On 26 July 2006 the first applicant complained to the Kurchaloy district prosecutor in respect of the abduction of her son. On the same day she was questioned by an investigator. 129 .     The next day, 27 July 2006, the Kurchaloy district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 64038 under Article 105 §   2 of the CC (aggravated murder), granted the first applicant victim status in the case, and questioned her. 130.     On 27 July 2006 the investigators questioned one of Mr Magomed Salmaniyev’s relatives, who confirmed the account of the events as described by the applicants. 131 .     On 28 July 2006 the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 132.     On 27 September 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 133.     Meanwhile, on 24 July 2008 the investigators questioned Mr A.M., a neighbour of Mr Magomed Salmaniyev who had witnessed the events of 1   August 2002. He gave a statement similar to that of the first applicant. 134.     On 29 July 2008 the investigators questioned Mr A.D., who confirmed that he had been detained with Mr   Magomed Salmaniyev after the abduction and that after his release a couple of hours later, the perpetrators had taken Mr   Salmaniyev in the direction of Kurchaloy. 135 .     On 21 August 2008 the investigation was suspended and then resumed 5 December 2014. 136.     Between 2014 and 2015 the NGO asked the investigators for assistance in the search for Mr Salmaniyev. 137.     On 7 October 2015, more than thirteen years after the abduction, the applicants lodged their application with the Court. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 138.     On 4 May 2015 the second applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps before the Gudermes Town Court. 139.     On 18 May 2015 the court rejected the complaint, having found that on 30 April 2015 the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 16 June 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. 8.     Shakhgiriyevy v. Russia (no. 61161/15) 140.     The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev, who was born in 1981. The third and fourth applicants are his sisters. (a)     Abduction of Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev 141.     On the morning on 10 April 2003 Mr Ramzan Shakhgiriyev was arrested by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas, who opened gunfire, forced him into their car, and drove off to an unknown location. The abductors drove in a white VAZ-2106 car with number plates containing the digits 640 95, and a sticker reading “Soni” on its rear window. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 142.     On 10 April 2003 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal investigation be opened. 143 .     On 11 April 2003 the Argun town prosecutor opened criminal case no.   26022-03 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 144 .     On the same date, 11 April 2003, the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. He and his wife, the second applicant, were questioned. Their statements were similar to their account submitted to the Court. 145.     Between 11 and 13 April 2003 the investigators questioned two policemen who had been manning checkpoints nos. 131 and 111 in the vicinity of Argun on the day of the abduction. They stated that on that day they had seen a white VAZ-2106 car with a number plate containing the digits 640 95 and the sticker “Soni” on its rear window on several occasions. The car had belonged to a Chechen policeman, who had showed his service identity card to pass through the checkpoints. 146.     Between 11 April and 7 May 2003 four eyewitnesses to the abduction stated to the investigators that on the morning of 10   April 2003 they had been at school no. 2 in Argun and seen several men in uniforms forcing a young man into a white car. 147.     Within the same period the investigators questioned several owners of white VAZ-2106 cars with a number plate containing the digits 640. All of them denied any involvement in the abduction. 148.     On 6 June 2003 the investigators questioned a minor, Mr A.A., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to those of the applicants. 149 .     On 11 June 2003 the investigation in the case was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 150.     On 7 May 2004 the second applicant asked the investigators to resume the proceedings. On 18 May 2004 the investigators replied that the investigation had been suspended. 151.     On unspecified dates between April and May 2005 the second applicant contacted various authorities, including the Chechnya prosecutor, seeking that the investigation be resumed. Her requests were forwarded to the investigators, who replied that the proceedings had been suspended. 152 .     On 7 May 2013 the investigators resumed the proceedings and then on 16 May 2013 suspended them again. Subsequently, between 2013 and 2015, it was suspended and resumed several times. In particular, it was resumed on 26 September 2013 and then suspended on 26   October 2013. 153.     In the meantime on 7 May 2013 the second applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. 154.     On 24 July 2013 she requested that the investigators resume the proceedings, but her request was rejected. 155.     On 26 November 2014 the second applicant asked the investigators to grant her access to the case file. The request was granted on 23   January 2015. 156.     On 21 July 2015 the NGO asked the investigators for assistance in the search for Mr Shakhgiriyev. 157.     On 19 November 2015, more than twelve and half years after the abduction, the applicants lodged their application with the Court. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 158.     On 13 September 2013 and 28 March 2015 the second applicant challenged the decisions of 16 May 2013 and 26 October 2013 respectively to suspend the investigation before the Shali Town Court. 159.     On 4 October 2013 and 13 April 2015 the court rejected the complaints, having found that on 26 September 2013 and 13   April 2015 respectively the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 19   May 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the decision of 13   April 2015 on appeal. 9.     Saydal-Aliyevy v. Russia (no. 62168/15) 160.     The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Aslanbek Saydal ‑ Aliyev, who was born in 1978. The other five applicants are his brothers. (a)     Abduction of Mr Aslanbek Saydal-Aliyev 161 .     At about 3 a.m. on 4 September 2002, in the presence of the applicants, Mr Aslanbek Aslanbek Saydal-Aliyev was detained at home by a group of about ten armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas, who forced all those present to the ground, tied their hands behind their back, and searched the premises. They seized the applicants’ passports, the title deeds to their house, and then took Mr Aslanbek Aslanbek Saydal ‑ Aliyev away. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 162 .     On 8 May 2003 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal investigation be opened. 163.     On 18 June 2003 the first and sixth applicants were questioned by the police. 164.     On the same date the crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected. 165 .     On 25 June 2003 the Gudermes district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 32060 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 166 .     On 11 July 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. He and his sons, the third and sixth applicants, were questioned. Their statements were similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. 167 .     On 25 August 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended. 168 .     In April 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings. The request was granted on 20 May 2011. 169.     Having questioned several applicants in late May 2011, the investigators again suspend the proceedings on 20 June 2011. 170.     On 1 November 2012 the first applicant asked the investigators to inform him about the progress in the investigation and to grant him access to the investigation file. On 3 December 2012 the applicant was informed that the proceedings had been suspended and was invited to review the contents of the case file. 171.     On 13 August 2014 the NGO asked the investigators for assistance in the search for Mr Aslanbek Saydal-Aliyev. 172.     On 5 April 2015 the investigation was resumed, and on 20   April 2015 suspended again. 173.     On 25 November 2015, more than thirteen years after the abduction, the applicants lodged their application with the Court. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 174.     On 12 March 2015 the first applicant challenged the decision of 20   June 2011 to suspend the investigation before the Gudermes District Court. 175.     On 20 April 2015 the court rejected the complaint, having found that on 5 April 2015 the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 27 May 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law and international materials 176.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law and international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia, see Aslakhanova and Others v.   Russia (nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012). COMPLAINTS 177.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relatives had allegedly been abducted by State agents and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter effectively. 178.     Under Article 3 of the Convention, they complained that they had endured mental suffering as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the authority’s reaction thereto. 179.     Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention by State agents. 180.     They further argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. 181.     The applicants in Dzhabrailovy ( no. 3752/13) and Chatuyeva and Others (no. 3765/13) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 182.     In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background. II.     PRELIMINARY ISSUE 183.     The applicants in Chatuyeva and Others (no. 3765/13) drew the Court’s attention to the Government’s failure to provide it with a copy of the entire criminal case file despite the Court’s request to this end (see paragraph 33 above). Regard being had to the materials provided by the applicants, the Court considers that it is not precluded from the examination of the issues raised in the application. III.     ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATIONS A.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The Government 184.     In their observations, the Government argued that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court more than twelve years after the abductions of their relatives and more than six months after the date on which they should have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation. They pointed out that the applicants had remained passive and had not maintained contact with the investigating authorities for significant amounts of time, and that the applicants’ representative in Dzhabrailovy (no.   3752/13) had unduly delayed lodging the applications with the Court. Therefore, according to the Government, the applications should be declared inadmissible as lodged “out of time”. 185.     The Government also argued that the applicants in Dzhabrailovy (no.   3752/13) had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as they had not challenged the investigators’ actions or decisions before the domestic courts. 2.     The applicants 186.     The applicants submitted that they had complied with the six ‑ month rule. They had taken all possible steps within a reasonable time ‑ limit to initiate the search for their missing relatives and assist the authorities in the proceedings. They submitted that there had been no excessive delays in lodging their applications with the Court, which had been brought as soon as they had considered the domestic investigations to be ineffective. According to them, the armed conflict which had been taking place in Chechnya   at the material time had led them to believe that delays in the investigation had been inevitable. It had also caused the applicants to fear for their lives, and caused them to feel confusion and uncertainty. Owing to their lack of legal knowledge and financial means to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of any domestic provisions for free legal assistance to victims of enforced disappearances, they had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the investigations. It had been only with the passage of time and a lack of information from the investigating authorities that they had begun to doubt the effectiveness of the investigation and had started looking for free legal assistance to assess the effectiveness of the proceedings and then, subsequently, had lodged their applications with the Court without undue delay. Lastly, they pointed out that throughout the criminal proceedings they had maintained regular contact with the investigators. B.     The Court’s assessment 187.     The Court considers that it is not required to decide whether the applicants can be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies or whether there existed special circumstances which would exempt them from the obligation to pursue such remedies. Even supposing that the applicants had had no effective remedies, they would not have been re lieved of the obligation to comply with the six-month rule (see Utsmiyeva and Others v.   Russia (dec.), no. 31179/11, and Yildiz and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no.   34542/03). 188.     The Court observes that in each application the applicants lodged their complaints twelve or more years after the disappearance of their relatives. Accordingly, to comply with the six-month rule they should provide convincing justification for the delay in initiating the proceedings before the Court (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.   16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR 2009). 189.     The Court notes that in each of the applications, the domestic investigations were pending for years without any tangible results achieved. The investigators suspended and resumed the proceedings on numerous occasions, following criticism from supervising authorities, but the resumptions of the proceedings did not lead to any real advancement on either the identification or eventual prosecution of the perpetrators. The investigators’ activity, particularly in the later periods, amounted to no more than a mere formality, and did not provide realistic possibilities for the progress in the investigations (compare to Doshuyeva and Yusupov v.   Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, §   47, 31 May 2016; Utsmiyeva, §   38 cited above; Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and, mutatis mutandis , Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no.   3025/06, 31   May 2011). 190.     During the counter-terrorist operation in the region and after its completion the applicants had direct access to the authorities and could have freely communicated with the investigators regarding the   abduction of their family members (see, amongst many other authorities, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia , nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, 18 December 2012; Kaykharova and Others v. Russia , nos. 11554/07 and 3 others, 1   August 2013; Gakayeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 51534/08 and 9 others, 10   October 2013; Dovletukayev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   7821/07 and 3   others, 24 October 2013; Tovbulatova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   26960/06 and 3 others, 31 October 2013; and Akhmatov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   38828/10 and 6 others, 16 January 2014). 191.     The Court observes that the applicants in the cases at hand contacted the authorities sporadically. Their stance in the respective proceedings cannot be described as active, given that in the majority of the cases at hand the applicants either delayed their requests for victim status in the criminal case or have not requested it at all (see, for example, paragraphs 37, 56, 103, 119, and 121 above) – in contrast with the applicants in many other disappearance cases from the region (see the cases referred to above) – or informed the authorities of the abduction or submitted crucial evidence to the investigation with unjustified delays (see paragraphs 19, 128 and 162 above). 192.     The documents submitted also show that each set of criminal proceedings was pla