CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s8369F1CD { width:188.26pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s8235E78A { height:14.2pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s84266CC2 { height:54pt } .s8298E78A { height:14.1pt } .s2CA6B0A7 { height:12.05pt } .sA5914500 { height:35.8pt } .sA5CE4CD6 { height:14pt } .sCC32756B { height:51.75pt } .s2B9EB0A7 { height:12.85pt } .s62AAE78A { height:15.8pt } .sF1B26D70 { height:40.85pt } .s95D84CD6 { height:16pt } .s9896E78A { height:12.1pt } .s965B0DA6 { height:152.35pt } .sB82AB0A7 { height:16.85pt } .sA1C0E78A { height:17.4pt } .sEA73756B { height:50.35pt } .s1479B0A7 { height:13.85pt } .s31EF6D70 { height:47.45pt } .s795F263B { height:21.1pt } .s673E0DA6 { height:182.35pt } .sF903E089 { height:79.05pt } .s86B6E089 { height:76.05pt } .s2CECB0A7 { height:12.65pt } .sC6885D7A { height:26.45pt } .sBA17B0A7 { height:16.55pt }       THIRD SECTION                 CASE OF ISAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 53075/08 and 9 others – see appended list)                 JUDGMENT                 STRASBOURG   28 May 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Isayeva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Erik Wennerström, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in ten applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). The application numbers and the dates on which they were lodged with the Court as well as the applicants’ personal details are listed in the appended table. 2.     The applicants were represented by various NGOs and lawyers indicated in the appended table. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially 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. 3.     Between 15 April 2015 and 10 February 2016 notice of the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and Article 13 in conjunction with these provisions was given to the Government and the remainder of the applications nos. 53075/08 and 62160/11 was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule   54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. 4.     The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are Russian nationals who at the material time lived in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia, a region neighbouring Chechnya. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in these regions in 2000-05 after allegedly having been unlawfully detained by service personnel. In each of the applications the events took place in the areas under full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants had no news of their missing relatives thereafter. 6.     In each of the cases the applicants complained in respect of the abduction to law-enforcement bodies and official investigations were instituted. In every case the proceedings, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. It follows from the documents submitted that no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. Following such requests, the authorities generally reported that service personnel’s involvement in the abduction had not been established and that no special operations had been ongoing at the relevant time. The applicants also lodged requests for information and assistance in the search of their missing relatives to various authorities but received only formulaic responses, if any. The perpetrators have never been established by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending. 7.     Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account of events is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases as presented by the applicants, but contested the involvement of service personnel in these events. A.     Isayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 53075/08) 8.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Suliman (also spelled as Suleyman) Isayev, who was born in 1966, Mr Rumid Isayev, who was born in 1969, and Mr Ramzan Isayev, who was born in 1973. The second applicant is the wife of Mr Suliman Isayev and the third applicant is the wife of Mr Ramzan Isayev. 1.     Disappearance of Mr Rumid Isayev and subsequent events 9.     On 7 April 2001 Mr Rumid Isayev went to the village of Lermontovo in Chechnya to visit his relatives. At about 8 p.m. he was detained by Russian service personnel at the checkpoint on the road between the villages of Kulary and Lermontovo. 10.     The whereabouts of Mr Rumid Isayev remain unknown ever since. 11.     Immediately after the disappearance the first applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested assistance in the search for Mr Rumid Isayev. 12.     On 10 June 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 19079 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). 13.     On 10 August 2001 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 14.     On 7 April 2008 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. 15.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 16 .     During her questioning as a victim in the proceedings concerning the abduction of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev, the first applicant also described the circumstances of the disappearance of Mr Rumid Isayev (see paragraphs 26, 40 and 42 below). 2.     Abduction of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev and subsequent events 17.     At the material time, Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev lived with their families in the village of Kulary, Chechnya. The two families occupied neighbouring houses at nos. 66 and 68 Pervomayskaya Street. 18 .     On 5 October 2003 the presidential elections were due to take place in the Chechen Republic. Enhanced security measures were taken on account of this event; the village of Kulary was patrolled by armed service personnel. 19 .     At about 6 a.m. on 4 October 2003 a group of around twenty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a UAZ-469 vehicle ( таблетка ) and three VAZ vehicles without registration numbers. The service personnel, who spoke unaccented Russian, broke into the applicants’ houses and searched the premises. At some point they fired a gun. Then they forced Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev into one of the vehicles and drove away with them in the direction of the Baku to Rostov-on-Don highway. The vehicles passed the roadblock unhindered. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants’ neighbours. 20.     Immediately after the abduction the applicants complained to the head of the Federal Migration Service’s Office in Kulary, Mr I., about the abduction of their relatives. Mr I. informed them that Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev were detained in the building of the Urus-Martan District police station. 21.     The whereabouts of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev remain unknown ever since. 3.     Official investigation into the abduction of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev 22.     On 4 October 2003 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal investigation be opened into the incident. 23.     On 4 October 2003 the investigators from the Grozny district prosecutor’s office examined the crime scene and found a bullet casing. 24.     On 3 November 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 42190 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 25.     On the same date the second and the third applicants were granted victim status and questioned. They gave a detailed account of the circumstances of the abduction of their husbands, similar to that before the Court. 26.     On 28 November 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction of her three sons as described above. 27.     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements that no information about Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev was available. 28.     On 1 December 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant’s eldest son, Mr Kh.I. He stated that on 10 October 2003 he had gone together with Mr I. to the police station. Only Mr I. had been allowed to enter it. Mr. I. had informed him that his brothers had been detained there and that they would be transferred to the village of Tolstoy-Yurt the next day. Mr Kh.I. also told the investigators that the ex-wife of his disappeared brother Mr Rumid Isayev, Ms. G., had complained to the law-enforcement authorities of the alleged involvement of his brothers in the abduction of people. According to him, she had sought revenge against his family because they had asked her to leave after the disappearance of Mr Rumid Isayev. 29.     On 3 December 2003 the investigators questioned Mr I. He confirmed that he had learnt about the detention of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev in the police station from a police officer. When he had visited it on 10 October 2003 together with Mr Kh.I., he had been informed that Isayev brothers had not been detained there. Then Mr. I. and Mr. Kh.I. had visited the premises of the 6th division of the Anti-Organised Crime Department ( Региональное управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью – hereinafter “the RUBOP”) in Urus-Martan but the Isayev brothers had not been detained there either. Mr I. denied that he had had any information about where the Isayev brothers had been detained. 30.     On 20 December 2003 the investigators ordered a ballistic expert examination of the bullet casing found at the crime scene. 31.     The ballistic expert examination established that the casing had been part of the cartridge of a bullet for a Kalashnikov machine gun of 5.45 mm calibre. 32.     On 18 January 2004, during a confrontation with Mr Kh.I., Mr. I. repeated his previous statements. 33.     On 3 February 2004 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 34.     On 6 April 2006 the first applicant lodged a request with the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic asking for the search of her sons to be intensified. In reply the Grozny district prosecutor’s office informed her that the operational search activities aimed at establishing her sons’ whereabouts were in progress. 35.     On numerous occasions between 2004 and 2006 the first applicant complained to high-ranking officials of the Chechen Republic in respect of the disappearance of her sons and requested assistance in the search for them. 36.     On 8 May 2007 the NGO Memorial, acting on the first applicant’s behalf, asked the Grozny district prosecutor’s office for information about any progress in the investigation. 37.     On 17 May 2007 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant and the NGO Memorial that the investigation had been suspended and that the operational search activities were in progress in order to establish the whereabouts of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev. 38.     On 26 December 2007 the investigation was resumed. The applicants were informed thereof. 39.     In January 2008 the investigators questioned several witnesses who knew about the circumstances of the abduction of the Isayev brothers from others. 40.     On 27 January 2008 the first applicant was questioned again. She confirmed that she suspected Ms. G. of organising the abduction of her sons. 41.     On 27 January 2008 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 42.     On 20 March 2008 the investigation was resumed. The investigators questioned the first applicant with the participation of the interpreter. She additionally stated that four days after the abduction together with Mr. Kh.I. she had visited the 6th division of the RUBOP in Urus-Martan where they had learnt that her sons had been detained in that division. The first applicant had also reiterated the circumstances of the abduction of her son Mr Rumid Isayev. 43.     On 24 March and 18 April 2008 the investigators questioned Ms G., who denied that she had complained to the law-enforcement authorities about the alleged involvement of the Isayev brothers into the abduction of people. 44.     On 31 March 2008 the Grozy District Court ordered the phone tapping of two mobile numbers belonging to Ms G. 45.     On 8 April 2008 the Zavodskoy District police station in Grozny informed the investigators that no complaints concerning the alleged involvement of the Isayev brothers into the abduction of people lodged by Ms. G. were registered in the station’s logbooks. 46.     On 20 April 2008 the investigation was suspended. The first applicant was informed thereof. 47.     On 14 March 2013 the second applicant asked the investigators’ permission to make copies of the criminal case file. In reply the investigators informed her that copying of the case-file material was impossible owing to the need to keep the investigation secret. The second applicant was allowed however to familiarise herself with the case file. 48.     On 27 March 2013 the second and the third applicants asked the investigators give them copies of the case-file documents that they were entitled to have. 49.     On 22 April 2013 the second and the third applicants familiarised themselves with the criminal case file. The next day they asked to resume the proceedings and take additional steps to establish their husbands’ whereabouts. 50.     On 6 May 2013 the investigation was resumed; it was suspended on 11 May 2013. 51.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 4.     Proceedings against the investigators 52.     On 30 January 2008 the first applicant complained of the inaction on the part of the investigators’ to the Grozny District Court. On 22 February 2008 the court rejected her complaint as unsubstantiated having found that all the necessary steps had been taken by the authorities. On 19 March 2008 the applicant appealed against that decision. The outcome of the appeal is unknown. B.     Vasilkova v. Russia (no. 16319/10) 53.     The applicant is the wife of Mr Sergey Vasilkov, who was born in 1953. 1.     Abduction of Mr Sergey Vasilkov 54 .     In January 2000 the Russian federal forces conducted an extensive military operation against members of illegal armed groups ( незаконные вооруженные формирования ) in Grozny. The town was subjected to shellings and sweep operations. By the end of January 2000 the central parts of the city were under the Russian forces’ control (see Umayeva v.   Russia , no. 1200/03, § 79, 4 December 2008, and Khashiyev and Akayeva v.   Russia , nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 16 and 41, 24 February 2005). 55 .     At about 11 a.m. on 17 January 2000 a group of armed service personnel, wearing camouflage uniforms and equipped with portable radio sets, arrived in a Ural lorry at the applicant’s house at number 16 1 st   Poltavskaya Street in Grozny. They were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. The service personnel detained Mr Sergey Vasilkov for the purposes of an identity check, put him in the lorry and drove off to an unknown destination. Three other people, the applicant’s relative Mr. G., as well as Mr S.Ch. and Mr A.D. were also detained and taken away together with the applicant’s husband. The abductions took place in the course of the sweep operation in the Karpinskiy Kurgan settlement of Grozny. 56.     The whereabouts of Mr Sergey Vasilkov remain unknown. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 57.   On 21 March 2001 the applicant informed the authorities of the abduction of her husband. On the same day she was interviewed by a police officer. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above and stated that five days later she had seen in the street one of the service personnel who had participated in her husband’s abduction. In her opinion, the abductors were from a special division of a military unit. 58.     On 25 March 2001 the same police officer interviewed the applicant’s niece, Ms S. who confirmed the applicant’s statements. 59.     On 15 April 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 13064 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code into the abduction of Mr Sergey Vasilkov and Mr G. 60.     On 15 June 2001 the investigation was suspended. 61.     On 27 June 2001 the applicant complained to the Zavodskoy District police station about the abduction of her husband and requested assistance in the search for him. 62.     On 11 July 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened a new criminal case no. 13103 into the abduction of Mr Sergey Vasilkov. 63.     On 17 July 2001 Ms S. was questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction of Mr S.Ch. and Mr A.D. which she had eyewitnessed. Referring to the service personnel, she stated that Mr   S.Ch. and Mr A.D. had been taken for an identity check to the checkpoint at Karpinskiy Kurgan and that they would have been released in one day. 64.     On an unspecified date the applicant was questioned. 65.     On 11 September 2001 the investigation in the case no. 13103 was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the applicant was not informed of this decision. 66.     On 6 November 2003 the investigation was resumed and cases nos.   13064, 13103 and 12284 (opened into the abduction of Mr S.Ch. and Mr   A.D.) were joined under the joint number 12284. 67.     On 3 December 2003 the applicant was granted victim status. 68.     On 9 December 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene. 69.     On 6 January 2004 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was informed thereof. 70.     On 26 January 2005 the investigation was resumed. 71.     On 10 February 2005 the investigators questioned Mr U. who stated that Mr S.Ch. had allegedly been found half a year after his abduction in a prison in Volgograd. However, he had never returned home. 72.     The investigation was subsequently suspended on 27 February 2005, then resumed on 1 December 2009, suspended again on 31 December 2009 and resumed on 8 July 2011, then suspended on 13 July 2011 and resumed on 25 December 2012. 73.     On 25 January 2013 the applicant was questioned again. 74.     On 4 February 2013 the investigators questioned Ms N.S. who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction of the four men as described above. 75.     On 5 February 2013 the investigation was suspended. 76.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 77.     On 25 November 2009 the applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 27 February 2005 before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny. On 2 December 2009 the court terminated the proceedings having found that the investigation had been resumed the day before. 4.     Civil proceedings 78.     On 27 July 2009 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage caused by the abduction of her husband by State service personnel because their involvement in this incident had not been proven. C.     Khatayeva v. Russia (no. 12377/11) 79.     The applicant is the wife of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev, who was born in 1979. 1.     Abduction and murder of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev 80 .     At 6 a.m. on 2 April 2005 a group of seven or eight armed men in camouflage uniforms and black bulletproof vests broke into the applicant’s house at 26 Gvardeyskaya Street in Gekhi. They were of Slavic and Chechen appearance and spoke Russian and Chechen. The men were equipped with portable radio sets. One of them grabbed the applicant by the throat and threatened to kill her if she moved. The others forced Mr Vakha Dadakhayev outside, saying that they were taking him for interrogation to the Urus-Martan District police station. After the intruders left, the applicant went outside and saw several cars without registration numbers parked near the house: one khaki UAZ minivan and three VAZ-2115 and VAZ-2107 vehicles. The applicant opened the door of one of VAZ-2107 cars and saw her husband on the back seat with three men. When she asked where they were taking him, the men replied that they were going to the police station. Then they drove off towards the checkpoint in Gekhi, which was situated on the road to Urus ‑ Martan. 81.     One of the applicant’s neighbours, Mr A.-Kh. B., followed the convoy and saw that there were two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) parked in Gagarin Street, where the convoy with Mr Vakha Dadakhayev passed through. 82.     On 6 April 2005 the body of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev, with numerous bruises and thermal injuries, was found on the outskirts of Gekhi near the Baku – Rostov-on-Don highway. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 83.     On 2 April 2005 the applicant complained to the police about the abduction of her husband and requested assistance in the search for him. The investigators interviewed her and examined the crime scene. 84.     On 7 April 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44024 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder), after the discovery of the body of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev. 85.     On 10 April 2005 the investigators ordered a forensic medical examination of the corpse. 86.     The forensic medical examination established that death of Mr   Vakha Dadakhayev could have been caused by multiple rib fractures accompanied by injury of internal organs. 87.     On unidentified dates in April-May 2005 the investigators questioned the applicant and her relatives who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 88.     On 1 June 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 89.     On 7 August 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was not informed of this decision. 90.     According to the applicant, between 2005 and 2010 she applied to various law-enforcement authorities in person and requested information on the progress in the investigation. In reply she was told that the investigation was pending. 91.     On 29 March 2010 the applicant applied to the Grozny district investigative committee for access to the criminal case file. 92.     On 23 August 2010 her request was granted by the investigators and the applicant copied the entire case file. 93.     On 3 February 2011 the investigation was resumed. The applicant was informed thereof. 94.     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements that no information about Mr Vakha Dadakhayev was available and that no security operations in his respect had been carried out. 95.     On 10 February 2011 the applicant was allowed to read the forensic medical examination report. On the same date she was questioned again. 96.     On 14 February 2011 the investigators questioned Ms S.D, a relative of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev, who lived in the same street as the applicant at the time. She stated that after the abduction she had seen traces left by military footwear in her courtyard. 97.     On 17 February 2011 the investigators questioned Ms A., the applicant’s neighbour, who confirmed having heard the cars leaving the applicant’s house after the abduction. Then she had entered the house and had noticed the traces left by military footwear on the floor. 98.     On 3 March 2011 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 21 June 2011. The applicant was informed thereof. 99.     On 24 June 2011 the investigation was suspended; it was resumed again on 19 December 2011 and then suspended on the next day. 100.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 101.     On 26 January 2011 the applicant complained to the Grozny District Court in Chechnya of the investigators’ inaction and pointed out numerous defects of the investigation.   On 4 February 2011 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as the investigators had already resumed the investigation a day before. On 22 February 2011 the applicant appealed against this decision. 102.     On an unspecified date the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 4 February 2011 and remitted the case for fresh examination to the same court. On 25 April 2011 the Groznenskiy District Court granted the applicant’s complaint and found that the decision of 3   March 2011 suspending the investigation was premature. The court obliged the investigators to resume the proceedings and to take investigative steps aimed at identifying the perpetrators. D.     Satovkhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 29844/11) 103.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev, who was born in 1954. The second and the third applicants are his children. 1.     Abduction of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev and subsequent events 104.     At the material time Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev and his family lived at Tridtsatiy Uchastok Street in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny. A special anti-terrorist unit of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior was located nearby. 105 .     On 15 November 2004 Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev’s brother was abducted by service personnel. During the night after his abduction a group of armed service personnel in masks broke into the applicants’ home and searched the premises. Having found that Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev was not at home, they left. 106.     At about 7 p.m. on 15 March 2005 Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev left home to visit his neighbour, who lived in a nearby building, when a group of armed men in black camouflage uniforms seized him on the street, forced him into a “Zhiguli” car without registration numbers and drove off in the direction of Grozny city centre, passing without restriction through checkpoints on the way. 107.     According to the applicants, Mr Kh.M., who was allegedly an agent of a law-enforcement agency, participated in the abduction. The applicants provided this information to the investigators. 108.     On 23 July 2005 a relative of the applicants, Ms T.N., received a telephone call from an unidentified person who offered information about Mr Bamatgiriyev’s whereabouts in exchange for 5,000 United States dollars (USD). According to the applicants, the caller’s telephone number belonged to the office of the Shali District police station in Chechnya. The applicants also gave that information to the investigators. 109 .     In October 2006 two men arrived at the first applicant’s house and told her that Mr Bamatgiriyev had been abducted by law-enforcement agents. The men suggested that she pay them USD 10,000 for information concerning his whereabouts. They visited the first applicant at least three times afterwards and promised to give information in exchange for money. One of the men also told the applicant that Mr Kh.M. had known about the abduction of her husband beforehand. The first applicant subsequently informed the investigators about these developments. 110.     The whereabouts of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev have remained unknown ever since. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 111.     After the abduction of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev, Ms Z.I. informed the authorities thereof and requested assistance in the search for him. On 30   May 2005 the first applicant complained about the authorities’ inaction to the President of Chechen Republic. 112.     On 9 August 2005 the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 42095 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). 113.     On 19 August 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 114 .     The investigators also questioned several witnesses who stated that on the day of the abduction a VAZ-21099 vehicle with people in camouflage uniforms inside had been parked all day near Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev’s house. 115.     On 9 November 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 18 December 2005 it was resumed, then suspended again on 18 January 2006 and resumed on 30 April 2007. 116.     On several occasions the prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny ordered the investigators to identify and question the eyewitnesses of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev’s abduction. It appears that the investigators failed to follow this order. 117.     On 7 June 2007 the investigators questioned Mr Kh.M. who stated that he had been in the Kostroma Region when Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev had been abducted. He also stated that he had heard about the membership of Mr   Musa Bamatgiriyev in illegal armed groups. 118.     On 30 June 2007 the investigation was suspended. It was subsequently resumed on 23 August 2007, suspended on 23 September 2007, then resumed on 30 October 2007 and suspended on 1 December 2007, resumed again on 11 March 2008 and suspended on 11 April 2008, resumed on 18 June 2008 and then suspended on 18 July 2008. 119.     On 22 September 2008 the deputy prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny pointed out several defects of the investigation and ordered that the investigators took remedial measures. Subsequently, on 30   September 2008 the investigation was resumed, then suspended again on 6   November 2008 and resumed on 15 December 2010, then suspended on 30   December 2010. 120.     On 5 March 2012 the investigation was resumed following the supervisor’s criticism. Subsequently it was suspended on 10 April 2012, resumed on 1 July 2013 and suspended on 8 July 2013, then resumed on 31   July 2014 and suspended on 24 August 2014, resumed again on 28   September 2014 and suspended on 2 November 2014. 121.     On numerous occasions between 2005 and 2013 the first applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her husband. She consistently insisted on the involvement of Mr Kh.M. in the abduction. In reply she received letters stating that operational search activities were in progress to establish Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev’s whereabouts. 122.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 123.     On 12 June 2008 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny. On 19   June 2008 the court dismissed her complaint having found that the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 4 February 2009 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal. 124.     On 14 September 2010 the first applicant lodged another complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court challenging the investigators’ inaction. On 11 October 2010 the court allowed her complaint and ordered that the investigation be resumed. E.     Tembulatovy v. Russia (no. 38134/11) 125.     The applicants are the relatives of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn (also spelled Said Khuseyn) Tembulatov, who was born in 1972. The first applicant is his mother, the second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his sister. 1.     Abduction of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov 126.     According to the applicants, on 2 April 2001 the Russian military forces in Chechnya conducted a special sweep operation in Argun and cordoned off certain town districts with military vehicles. 127.     At around 7.30 p.m. that day a group of about twenty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in two APCs with identification numbers “A 631” and “813” at the first applicant’s house at 12 Solnechnaya Street in Argun. The men, who spoke unaccented Russian, broke into the house and searched the premises. Having seized Mr   Sayd ‑ Khuseyn Tembulatov’s passport, the servicemen forced him into one of the APCs and drove off to the outskirts of Argun where they joined a larger group of servicemen and then left in the direction of Khankala. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the first applicant and the neighbours. 128.     On the same day a resident of the neighbouring house at 8   Solnechnaya Street in Argun, Mr T.A., was abducted under similar circumstances. 129 .     After the abduction the applicants complained to the Argun military commander’s office, where they were informed that Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov had been detained by “a special group from Khankala” which had not coordinated its operation with the local commander. 130.     On 31 May 2001 the local radio station Chechnya Svobodnaya broadcast an interview with an officer of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) named “Vadim”. He stated that Mr Sayd Khuseyn Tembulatov and Mr T.A. had been detained among other members of illegal armed groups by the FSB. 131.     The whereabouts of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov have remained unknown since. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 132.     On 3 April 2001 the first applicant together with the mother of Mr   T.A. complained to the head of Argun Administration about the abduction of their sons and requested assistance in the search for them. 133.     On 4 April 2001 Mr Kh.T., the father of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov, complained to the Argun inter-district prosecutors’ office in respect of the abduction of his son and asked that a criminal case be opened into the incident. 134.     On 11 April 2001 the first applicant was interviewed by a police officer. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 135.     On 13 April 2001 the Argun inter-district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 45038 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 136.     On 23 April 2001 Mr Kh.T. was granted victim status and questioned. 137.     On 1 June 2001 the first applicant informed the investigators about the interview with an officer of the FSB which had been broadcast over the radio the day before (see paragraph 130 above), and asked for the search for her son to be intensified. 138.     The investigators sent several requests for information to various authorities and law-enforcement bodies. On 1 May 2001 the Argun military commander’s office informed them that no special operations had been carried out by his troops on 2 April 2001. 139.     On 13 June 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the culprits. 140.     In 2001-02 the first applicant and her husband Mr Kh.T. complained to various authorities of the abduction of their son and requested assistance in the search for him. 141.     On 2 October 2002 the investigation was resumed. The investigators sent several requests for information to various military units about any special operations in Argun on 2 April 2001 and the two APCs involved in the abduction. The replies contained statements that no special operations had been carried out on these dates, and that an APC with the registration number “A 631” was listed as belonging to military unit no.   3179 deployed in Reutovo-3 in Moscow Region. 142.     On 2 November 2002 the investigation was suspended and resumed again on 7 August 2003. Mr Kh.T. was informed of both decisions. 143.     On 8 September 2003 the investigation was suspended. Mr Kh.T. was informed thereof. 144.     On 25 March 2005 the Argun deputy prosecutor gave written instructions to the head of the Argun Town police station in which he indicated further investigative steps to be taken in the investigation into the abduction of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov. 145.     On numerous occasions between 2004 and 2010 the first applicant complained to the main Military prosecutor’s office and various authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her son. In reply she received letters stating that the authorities were taking measures to establish Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov’s whereabouts. The military prosecutor’s office replied that no State service personnel had been involved in the abduction. 146.     On 4 March 2010 the investigators dismissed the first applicant’s request to allow her to read the case file and make copies of the documents. 147.     On 30 July 2010 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her victim status in the criminal case because her husband, Mr Kh.T., had died in September 2009. 148.     On 5 August 2010 the investigation was resumed and the first applicant was granted victim status. On the same day she was questioned. 149.     On August 2010 the investigation was suspended. The first applicant was informed thereof. 150.     On 16 February 2011 the investigation was resumed. The investigators questioned several neighbours of the first applicant whose statements about the abduction of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov were similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court. 151.     On 14 March 2011 the investigators ordered a forensic DNA   examination. 152.     On 16 March 2001 the investigation was suspended. It was subsequently resumed on 2 August 2011 and suspended again on 12 August 2011. 153.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 154.     On 18 October 2010 and on an unspecified date in 2011 the first applicant challenged the decision to suspend the investigation of 8   September 2003 and the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court. On 29 October 2010 and 17 February 2011 respectively the court rejected her complaints having found that the investigators had earlier quashed the decision to suspend the investigation and resumed the proceedings. F.     Shavanova and Others v. Russia (no. 44296/11) 155.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov, who was born in 1966, and Mr Lema (also spelled as Lema) Shavanov, who was born in 1986 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 1981). The first applicant was their mother; she died on 27 July 2018. The second applicant was their father; he died on 22 April 2016. The third applicant is the wife of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov and the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are his children. The eighth applicant is the wife of Mr Lema Shavanov. The ninth and tenth applicants are his children. 1.     Abduction of the Shavanov brothers 156.     At about 7 a.m. on 18 February 2001 Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov, Mr   Lema Shavanov and their acquaintance Mr Sh.U. drove two UAZ-469 vehicles from Staryye Atagi to Grozny to buy fuel. They were stopped by a large group of armed military service personnel in camouflage uniforms at a roadblock next to the Prigorodnoye village, on the tenth kilometre of the Grozny-Shatoy motorway. The service personnel spoke unaccented Russian; they were in three armoured infantry vehicles (боевая машина пехоты) with the registration numbers 318, 341 and 356. Having checked the identity documents, the service personnel pulled bags over the Shavanov brothers’ heads, forced them into one of the armoured infantry vehicles and drove off in the direction of Grozny. 157.     Mr Sh.U. asked one of the service personnel where the brothers were being taken to. The serviceman replied that they were taken to Khankala. 158.     The whereabouts of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov and Mr Lema Shavanov have remained unknown ever since. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 159.     On 18 February 2001 some of the applicants went in person to the Grozny District police station and the Grozny district prosecutors’ office and reported the incident, requesting that the authorities open a criminal case into the abduction. 160.     On 20 February 2001 the brother of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov and Mr   Lema Shavanov, Mr L.Sh. complained to the Grozny prosecutor of their abduction. 161.     On 1 April 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 19044 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). The decision to open the criminal case stated that the Shavanov brothers had been detained by federal military service personnel. 162 .     On 2 April 2001 the investigators interviewed Mr Sh.U., who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 163.     On 10 April 2001 Mr S.Sh., the cousin of the Shavanov brothers, was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. He stated that on 26 February 2001 he had met a Chechen man called “Khamzat”. He offered to pick up Mr   S.Sh.’s brothers who had been detained by the reconnaissance unit of motorised rifle battalion no. 71 ( разведывательный батальон 71 мотострелкового полка ) in exchange for money. They had agreed to meet, but Khamzat had not come to the meeting. 164.     On 19 April 2001 the first and the second applicants were granted victim status and questioned. 165.     On 11 May 2001 the second applicant was questioned again. He stated additionally that he had visited the roadblock at the entrance to Khankala. There an officer had told him that on 18 February 2001 he had seen the armoured infantry vehicles with the registration numbers 318, 341   and 356 entering Khankala; they had been followed by two UAZ-469 vehicles. 166.     On 14 May 2001 Mr Sh.U. was questioned again. He had found out that three armoured infantry vehicles with the registration numbers 318, 341 and 356 had been stationed in Prigorodnoye village in the morning of 18   February 2001. 167.     On 26 May 2001 the investigators questioned Mr S.U. who had seen in the morning on 18 February 2001 at the roadblock in Prigorodnoye village two UAZ vehicles which had belonged to Shavanov brothers. A group of military service personnel with their commander had been standing next to the vehicles. 168.     On 1 June 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It is unclear whether the applicants were informed of this decision. 169.     On 15 August 2001 the investigation was resumed. On 15   September 2001 the investigation was suspended again. It was subsequently resumed on 29 August 2002, then suspended on 15 September 2002, resumed on 20 November 2002, suspended on 20 December 2002 and resumed again on 16 May 2003. 170.     On 18 June 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the investigators that the armoured infantry vehicles with the registration numbers 318, 341 and 356 were listed as belonging to the military unit no. 23132 deployed in Shali. 171.     On 20 June 2003 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 18 December 2003, then suspended on 22 January 2004, resumed on 14   March 2004 and suspended again on 30 May 2004. 172.     On 21 October 2006 the investigation was resumed. 173.     On 10 November 2006 the investigators questioned the first and the second applicants and Mr S.U. All of them reiterated their earlier statements. The first applicant additionally stated that in May 2002 she had met a woman at the central market in Grozny whose son had been detained in Khankala together with the Shavanov brothers. 174.     On 17 November 2006 the investigators questioned Ms Z.D., whose son had been detained together with the Shavanov brothers, held in a pit, in Khankala. 175.     On 23 and 29 November 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene. 176.     On 21 November 2006 the investigation was suspended again. It was resumed on 15 April 2008 and then s