CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 juin 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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6C83CC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .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 } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sF5BD4437 { width:186.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s99C28F9F { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s1286F879 { padding:1.4pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85A6616D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0.6pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sD8DCB0A7 { height:11.55pt } .s60ED8677 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; 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 } .s41BA03AF { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF3616D70 { height:40.75pt } .s5111C6A3 { height:9.5pt } .s22FA5D7A { height:23.75pt } .s14C007FE { height:8.15pt } .s721E78A { height:10.2pt } .sF5B4B0A7 { height:10.85pt } .s11511481 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .sFC096575 { height:30.55pt } .s1062B4D8 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .s3286C9A6 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt 1.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sE5526996 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt 1.02pt; vertical-align:top } .s358E565 { height:6.8pt } .sC9B8E78A { height:16.3pt } .s1666B0A7 { height:13.55pt } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA22F38 { height:36pt } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3C89E78A { height:19.7pt } .s39F86575 { height:37.35pt } .s5B1E263B { height:26.5pt } .sB8F4B0A7 { height:16.25pt } .sF829B0A7 { height:15.65pt } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .sEA83263B { height:28.8pt } .sC9FAE78A { height:16.1pt } .s98EC6975 { page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s15C88DF4 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#eaeaea } .sB9F664EC { height:72.6pt } .s2520E78A { height:13.8pt } .sBD5EE884 { height:85.15pt } .sD6EFB0A7 { height:11.85pt } .sE61F0776 { height:50.7pt } .sF88AB0A7 { height:15.75pt } .sE2C7E089 { height:73.25pt } .s4AC8B0A7 { height:18.45pt } .s69934500 { height:33.4pt } .sA11BE78A { height:17.3pt } .sE3ACE089 { height:73.75pt } .s266AE78A { height:13.6pt } .sF6DFB0A7 { height:10.35pt }       THIRD SECTION                 CASE OF ABUBAKAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 867/12 and 9 others – see list appended)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   4 June 2019         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Abubakarova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Erik Wennerström, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 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”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”). 3.     The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in the Chechen Republic or Ingushetia. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. The events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. Their whereabouts remain unknown. 5 .     The applicants reported the abductions to law ‑ enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without any tangible results being achieved. The applicants lodged requests with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies for information and assistance in the search for their relatives. Their requests received either only formal responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been established by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending. 6.     Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or other witnesses to both the Court and the domestic investigative authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases, as presented by the applicants, but questioned the involvement of servicemen in the events. A.     Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12) 7.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Aslan Abubakarov, who was born in 1979. 1.     Abduction of Mr Aslan Abubakarov 8.     At the material time the applicant and her family lived in the village of Achkhoy-Martan in the vicinity of the Achkhoy-Martan district department of the interior (“the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD”) and the Achkhoy ‑ Martan district department of the Federal Security Service (“the Achkhoy-Martan FSB”). 9 .     At about 3 a.m. on 14 October 2004 a large group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and two Ural lorries without registration plates. The servicemen were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. Some of them were equipped with helmets, metal shields and portable radio devices. A group of around six servicemen broke into the house, searched the premises and checked the identity documents of the residents. Then they forced Mr   Aslan Abubakarov into one of the Ural lorries and drove him off in the direction of the Achkhoy-Martan FSB. 10.     The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. The applicant submitted written statements by three neighbours, Ms B.A., Mr   Sh.S. and Ms S.S., who had seen a group of servicemen arriving at her house in military vehicles, including APCs. 11 .     Shortly thereafter the applicant’s husband, together with his son and two neighbours, Mr   Sh.S., and Mr T.A., went to the checkpoint on the outskirts of Achkhoy-Martan in search of Mr Aslan Abubakarov. Servicemen manning the checkpoint told them that a convoy of military vehicles had passed through unrestricted earlier that night. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 12 .     On 14 October 2004 the father of Mr Aslan Abubakarov contacted the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor seeking to have a criminal investigation opened into the abduction of his son. 13.     Two days later the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. On the same day the investigators questioned the applicant and her husband. Their submissions were similar to the applicant’s submissions before the Court. 14.     On 1 November 2004 the prosecutor opened criminal case no. 38050 under Article 126 of the Russian Criminal Code (“the CC”) (abduction). 15.     Between November and December 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbours, who had heard about the abduction. They noted that Mr Aslan Abubakarov had not participated in illegal armed groups. 16.     In the meantime the investigators requested various law-enforcement authorities, including the FSB, and detention facilities to provide them with information about the possible arrest and detention of Mr Aslan Abubakarov. The authorities replied that they did not have any information on the matter. 17.     On 29 December 2004 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 18.     On 19 January 2005 the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour Mr   Sh.S., an eyewitness to the abduction, who said that Mr Aslan Abubakarov had been abducted by men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas who had arrived at the applicant’s house in APCs. 19.     On 1 March 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 20.     On 29 April 2005 the above decision was overruled as ill-founded and the investigation was resumed. 21.     Having questioned several hearsay witnesses, the investigators suspended the investigation on 6 June 2005. 22.     On 14 November 2006 Mr Aslan Abubakarov’s father contacted the Russian Prosecutor General, complaining of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his son’s abduction. On 22 January 2007 the complaint was forwarded to the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor, who overruled the decision of 6 June 2005 as unlawful and ordered the resumption of the investigation on 14 February 2007. 23 .     Subsequently the investigation was suspended on 14 March and 30   November 2007 and 11 July 2008 and then resumed on 31 October 2007, 11 June 2008 and 13 September 2011 respectively, before being suspended again on 14 September 2011. 24.     In the meantime, on 4 September 2008 and 14 April 2009, Mr Aslan Abubakarov’s parents contacted the Russian Ministry of the Interior and the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons respectively, asking for their assistance in the search for their son. Their requests were forwarded to the investigators. By letters of 5 December 2008 and 6 June 2009 the investigators replied that the investigation had been suspended, but that operational search activities were ongoing. 25.     There is no information about any further developments in the proceedings. B.     Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12) 26.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Said-Emin Magaziyev, who was born in 1979. The first and second applicants are his parents, the third and fourth applicants are his sisters, and the fifth applicant is his son. 1.     Circumstances preceding the abduction 27.     On 10 September 2002 Mr Said-Emin Magaziyev was taken to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD and questioned by a police investigator, M.K., and an FSB officer, V.K., on suspicion of having been involved in a truck crane theft. On the same day he was released under an obligation to appear before the FSB officer for subsequent questioning on 16 September 2002. However, he failed to do so. 2.     Abduction of Mr Said-Emin Magaziyev 28 .     At 3 a.m. on 18 September 2002 seven or eight servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas armed with automatic weapons arrived at the applicant’s house in the village of   Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya, in several APCs. They broke into the house, searched the premises, bound Mr   Said ‑ Emin Magaziyev, put him in one of the APCs and drove off towards the village of Samashki. 29 .     The abduction took place in the presence of several neighbours who had been woken up by the noise of military vehicles passing by. The applicants submitted written statements by three of them, Mr I.A., Mr   A.M. and Mr B.M. They confirmed that on the night of 18   September 2002 military vehicles, including an APC, had parked near the applicants’ house. Several minutes later they had driven off in the direction of Samashki. As soon as the vehicles had left, the first and second applicants went to see the neighbours, complaining about their son’s abduction. 30 .     Immediately thereafter the first applicant and several neighbours followed the abductors. Having reached Samashki, they spoke with villagers, who told them that several APCs had entered the premises of the Samashki military commander’s headquarters. 31.     In the morning the first applicant went to the headquarters. The personnel manning the headquarters told him that Mr   Said-Emin Magaziyev had been detained and brought to the headquarters at 4   a.m. on 18   September 2002. A few hours later a UAZ minivan had taken him away to an unknown destination. 3.     Official investigation into the abduction 32 .     On an unspecified date the applicants informed the authorities of Mr   Said-Emin Magaziyev’s abduction. 33 .     On 28 September 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 63072 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 34 .     The Government did not provide the Court with a copy of the investigation file. From the applicants’ submissions it appears that the investigation proceeded as follows. 35.     On 27 December 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 36 .     On an unspecified date in 2002 or 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators. 37 .     On 8 August 2003 they resumed the investigation, and at some point later they suspended it again. 38.     On 3 December 2004 the applicants contacted the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, seeking its assistance in the search for Mr Said-Emin Magaziyev. The outcome of the request is unknown. 39.     In early 2007 the first applicant complained to the Russian Prosecutor General of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his son’s abduction. 40 .     On 9 March 2007 the investigators resumed the investigation. 41.     On 16 March 2007 the applicant’s complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation was forwarded to the investigators. By a letter of 3 April 2007 they replied that the investigation had already been resumed. Four days later, on 7 April 2007, the investigation was suspended. 42.     On an unspecified date in 2008 the investigation was resumed. Subsequently it was suspended on 10 June 2008 and 16 February 2009 and then resumed on 16 January and 23 March 2009 respectively, before being suspended again on 23 April 2009. 43.     In the meantime, on 20 January 2009 the fourth applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 44.     On 14 May 2009 the third applicant requested that the investigators grant her permission to review the criminal case file. The outcome of the request is unknown. 45.     On 21 June 2011 the fourth applicant complained to the investigators of the lack of information about the course of the proceedings. The next day she was informed that the proceedings had been suspended on 23 April 2009, but that extensive operational search activities were ongoing. 46.     There is no information about any further developments in the case. C.     Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12) 47.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, who was born in 1962. The second, third and fourth applicants are his children. 48.     The fifth applicant is the wife of Mr Shamkhan Zibikov, who was born in 1964. The sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants are his children. 49.     The tenth applicant is the wife of Mr Sayd-Ali (also spelled as Said ‑ Ali) Sharshuyev, who was born in 1954. 1.     Abduction of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Mr Shamkhan Zibikov and Mr   Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev (a)     Abduction of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev 50 .     At 7 a.m. on 20 July 2003 three armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the first applicant’s house in the village of Avtury, Chechnya, and ordered the first applicant and her family members to show their identity documents. They checked Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev’s passport and left. 51 .     About ten minutes later the first applicant heard several gunshots outside. Then two armed servicemen of Chechen and Slavic appearance entered the house. The Chechen serviceman ordered Mr   Ruslanbek Boltiyev to follow them. They put him in a grey UAZ vehicle without registration plates and drove away. 52 .     Immediately after that, the first applicant went to see Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev’s brother, who lived nearby, and followed the UAZ in a car with him. They caught up with the UAZ in the village centre. The first applicant was allowed to pass socks and medication on to her husband. Then three other UAZ vehicles arrived and the convoy drove off in the direction of the village of Shali. The first applicant attempted to follow the convoy, but was not allowed to cross the checkpoint between Shali and Avtury. (b)     Abduction of Mr Shamkhan Zibikov 53 .     At about 7 a.m. on 20 July 2003 two armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the fifth applicants’ house in Avtury, Chechnya, and checked the identity documents of the family members. At the time Mr   Shamkhan Zibikov was in the courtyard and the fifth applicant did not see what was happening to him. When she went outside, she saw about fifteen military UAZ and VAZ vehicles. The servicemen ordered her to go back inside the house. A few minutes later all the vehicles, except for three, left. She did not see in which vehicle her husband was put. (c)     Abduction of Mr Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev 54 .     At about 7.30 a.m. on 20 July 2003 several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms, some of whom were in balaclavas, arrived in VAZ ‑ 21099 and UAZ vehicles at the tenth applicant’s house in Avtury, Chechnya, searched the premises and took Mr Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev away. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 55 .     On 20 July 2003 the head of the Avtury municipal administration informed the Shali district department of the interior (“the Shali ROVD”) about the abduction of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Mr Shamkhan Zibikov and Mr   Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev. On the same day investigators from the Shali ROVD examined the applicants’ houses. No evidence was collected. 56.     On 24 July 2003 the case was transferred to the Shali district prosecutor. 57.     On 30 July 2003 he opened criminal case no. 22111 under Article   126 of the CC (abduction). 58.     On 31 July 2003 the investigators questioned the tenth applicant, who described the circumstances of her husband’s abduction, and her neighbour, Mr A.A. The latter stated that he had seen the abduction of Mr   Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev by servicemen in camouflage uniforms, who had arrived in VAZ and UAZ vehicles without registration plates. 59.     In early August 2003 the investigators questioned relatives of Mr   Ruslanbek Boltiyev and Mr Shamkhan Zibikov, eyewitnesses to their abductions. Their description was consistent with the applicants’ account of the events. 60.     On 13 September 2003 the investigators contacted various military and law-enforcement authorities to check whether the abducted persons had been arrested and taken into custody. The respondent authorities replied that they had no information about their arrests or detention. 61.     On 18 and 19 August 2003 the first, fifth and tenth applicants were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 62.     On 18 August 2003 the brother of Mr Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev informed the investigators that he had identified one of the persons who had arrested Mr Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev. It was Mr A., from the village of Tsotsin-Yurt, who worked in the Chechen President’s security service. Mr A. had told him that the security service had detained Mr   Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev for two days and then had transferred him to the FSB. 63 .     On an unspecified date (apparently in August 2003) one of the investigators spoke with the head of the Chechen President’s security service, Mr S. He stated that on 20 July 2003 the security service had conducted a special operation in Avtury. As a result of that operation four persons had been arrested. One of them had been released afterwards, whereas three others had been taken to the town of Gudermes to take part in “operational activities”. Mr S. refused to give a formal statement. 64.     On 30 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was then resumed on 3 July 2004 and suspended on 9 August 2004. 65.     On 22 September 2004 the investigators resumed the investigation. 66.     On 12 October 2004 the investigators questioned Mr S., who denied the involvement of the security service in the abduction. 67 .     On 22 October 2004 the investigation was suspended. It was then resumed on 6 September 2005, 12 April 2006, 12 January 2010 and 9   August 2011, and then suspended on 14 November 2005, 14 May 2006, 12 February 2010 and 19 August 2011 respectively. 68.     In the meantime, on 8 June 2006 and 22 May 2007 the first and tenth applicants respectively contacted the Chechen Parliament seeking assistance in the search for their missing husbands. It appears that their letters were forwarded to the investigators. It is not clear whether any replies followed. 69.     On an unspecified date in 2009 the tenth applicant asked the Chechen Parliament’s relevant committee to help her to find her husband. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who replied on 23   April 2009 that the investigation had been suspended, but that operational search activities in the case were ongoing. 70 .     On 22 January 2010 the investigators questioned Mr A. According to his statements, on 20 July 2003 he had been working in the Kurchaloiy district department of the interior and had participated in a “mopping-up” operation carried out by FSB officers from the “SSG-1” unit in Avtury. The operation had been headed by an officer with the call sign “Terek”. Four or five people had been arrested during that operation on suspicion of having participated in an illegal armed group. 71.     On 6 February 2010 the investigators requested the FSB in Chechnya to provide them with a list of persons who had participated in the “mopping-up operation”. By a letter of 5 March 2010 the FSB replied that the relevant archive documents had been destroyed, and that in any event the information requested was classified. 72.     There is no information about any further developments in the case. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 73.     On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court, challenging the effectiveness of the investigation and seeking to have the criminal proceedings resumed. 74.     On 10 August 2011 the Shali Town Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the investigation had already been resumed a day before, on 9 August 2011. D.     Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12) 75.     The applicant is the sister of Mr Khamit Dzhambulatov, who was born in 1957. 1.     Circumstances preceding the abduction 76.     At 8 p.m. on 28 August 2002 a group of fifteen to twenty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the courtyard of the applicant’s house in Grozny. Some of them remained in the courtyard, while the others entered the house. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian. They searched the premises and left. 2.     Abduction of Mr Khamit Dzhambulatov 77 .     At 8 p.m. on 7 September 2002 several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicant’s house in an APC. They broke into the house and searched the premises. Thereafter the servicemen took Mr   Khamit Dzhambulatov outside. A couple of minutes later the applicant went outside. She did not find her brother, but saw the APC driving away. Her neighbours told her that Mr   Khamit Dzhambulatov had been forced into the vehicle by the servicemen. 3.     Official investigation into the abduction 78 .     On 9 and 12 September 2002 the applicant contacted the head of the Staropromyslovskiy district municipal administration in Grozny and the Grozny town prosecutor, complaining about her brother’s abduction. 79.     A month later, on 12 October 2002 the prosecutor opened criminal case no. 54087 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 80 .     The Government did not provide the Court with a copy of the investigation file. From the applicant’s submissions it appears that the investigation proceeded as follows. 81.     On 12 December 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators, and on 12 October 2004 it was resumed again. 82.     On 2 December 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 83 .     Ten days later, on 12 December 2004, the investigation was suspended. 84.     According to the applicant, she and her mother contacted the local authorities, the investigative committee and the Red Cross, seeking their assistance in the search for their missing relative, but to no avail. 85.     On 17 June 2009 the applicant asked the investigators to grant her victim status in the criminal proceedings. 86.     On 11 June 2010 she requested the investigators to resume the investigation and to allow her to review the case file. 87.     It appears that no responses were forthcoming in reply to those two requests. 88 .     On 26 September 2011 the investigators resumed the investigation. 89.     On the next day they granted the applicant victim status and questioned her. Her statements were similar to the account of the events described above. 90.     Subsequently, the investigation was suspended on 26 October 2011, 27 January and 23 March 2012 and 18 December 2013, and then resumed on 27 December 2011, 13 March 2012, and on an unspecified date in 2013 respectively. 91.     In the meantime, on 3 and 27 February 2012 the applicant requested the investigators to allow her to review the case file. Several months later her lawyer obtained access to the documents in the case file. 92.     There is no information about the further progress of the investigation. E.     Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12) 93.     The applicant is Ms Ayzan Golbatsova, who was born in 1953. She is the mother of Mr Alikhan Golbatsov, who was born in 1979. 94.     The applicant died on 17 August 2013. Her daughter, Ms Elina Golbatsova, the sister of Mr Golbatsov, expressed her wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in her mother’s stead. 1.     Abduction of Mr Alikhan Golbatsov 95 .     At about 9 p.m. on 25 November 2004 Mr Alikhan Golbatsov and his acquaintance Mr S.K. were driving a Zaporozhets car in the village of Avtury in the direction of its centre, when a group of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms stopped them. The servicemen were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. They were in two UAZ minivans and three Ural lorries. Having forced Mr Golbatsov and Mr   S.K. into one of the minivans, the servicemen drove off to an unknown destination. 96.     The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. The applicant submitted written statements by several of them. Her neighbour, Ms D.A., had seen Mr   Alikhan Golbatsov’s car being stopped by armed servicemen in a white UAZ minivan. The servicemen had surrounded the car and argued in unaccented Russian. Other witnesses, Mr L.Z. and Ms   E.A., made similar statements. The aforementioned three witnesses were not questioned by the investigators. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 97 .     Immediately after the abduction the applicant informed the authorities and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. 98.     On 23 December 2004 investigators from the Shali district department of the interior examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. On the same day they questioned Mr Alikhan Golbatsov’s relatives. They submitted that on 25 November 2004 he had not returned home. 99.     On 24 December 2004 the case was transferred to the Shali district prosecutor. 100.     On 10 January 2005 he opened criminal case no. 46002 under Article 105 of the CC (murder). 101.     In January 2005, apparently following allegations made by relatives of Mr Alikhan Golbatsov or Mr S.K. that the two men had been abducted by State agents, the investigators contacted various authorities, including the Shali district FSB and remand prisons, to check whether Mr   Alikhan Golbatsov had been arrested and taken into custody. The authorities replied that they had no information on the matter. 102.     On 11 January 2005 the head of the Avtury municipal authority informed the investigators that the remains of Mr Alikhan Golbatsov’s car bearing signs of an explosion had been found near a road between the villages of Avtury and Niki-Khita in the Kurchaloiy district, Chehcnya. 103.     On 1 February 2005 the applicant, the mother of Mr Alikhan Golbatsov, was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 104.     On 23 February 2005 the investigators asked the Kurchaloiy district military commander whether a special operation had been conducted on 25   November 2004. The military commander replied in the negative. 105.     On 17 March 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was then resumed on 17 June 2005, and suspended again on 17 July 2005. 106.     On 22 January 2007, apparently after the investigation had been resumed one more time, the wife of Mr S.K. was granted victim status. 107.     On 2 October 2007 the applicant contacted the Chechen Ombudsman, seeking his assistance in the search for her son. She submitted that on 25 November 2004 Mr Alikhan Golbatsov had been arrested in the centre of Avtury by a group of servicemen in camouflage uniforms. On 8   October 2007 the Ombudsman requested the investigators to inform him about the progress of the case. 108.     On 12 November 2007 the investigators resumed the investigation and asked the applicant to tell them the names of the village residents who had seen the abduction of her son. Owing to the time that had elapsed, she could not recall the names. 109 .     On 11 December 2007 the investigation was suspended. 110.     On unspecified dates in early 2008 and 2009 the applicant asked the Chechen President and the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons to assist in the search for her son. Her requests were forwarded to the investigators. By a letter dated 18 June 2009 they informed her that the investigation had been suspended, but that operational search measures were ongoing. 111.     On 28 March 2011 the applicant requested that the investigators inform her about the progress of the investigation and allow her to review the criminal case file. Her request was granted. 112.     On 14 June 2012 the investigation was transferred to the Kurchaloiy district prosecutor. There is no information about any further developments in the case. F.     Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12) 113.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Ruslan Pareulidze (also spelled as Paraulidze), who was born in 1982. 1.     Abduction of Mr Ruslan Pareulidze 114.     At the material time Mr Ruslan Pareulidze was visiting his aunt, Ms   M.M., in the Nesterovskaya settlement, Ingushetia. 115 .     At about 5 p.m. on 7 October 2003 Mr Pareulidze was in the courtyard of his aunt’s house when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in a military UAZ car, a Niva car and a Gazel minivan with the registration plates O 182 MM 06. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian and were of Slavic appearance. They forced Mr   Ruslan Pareulidze into the minivan and drove off to an unknown destination. 116.     About five days later a group of about 200 servicemen arrived at Ms M.M.’s house in APCs, Ural lorries and UAZ minivans. They brought a man, presumably Mr Ruslan Pareulidze, whose upper body and head were covered with a sack. The servicemen searched the house and then drove off again with the man. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 117 .     On 8 October 2003 Ms M.M. informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. 118.     Two days later the investigators questioned Ms M.M., her son, and two neighbours who had witnessed the abduction. Their submissions were similar to the account of the events set out above. 119.     On 20 October 2003 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 23600067 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 036600067) under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 120.     On 25 October 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On the same day the investigators questioned her and several neighbours. They repeated the statements given before, adding that several days after the abduction Ms M.M.’s house had been searched by persons in uniforms, accompanied by a neighbourhood police officer. Some of the witnesses said that according to rumours, Mr Ruslan Pareulidze had been in the custody of the FSB. 121.     On 16 October 2003 the road traffic police, further to a request from the investigators, informed them that the registration number O   182   MM   06 belonged to a Niva car owned by the FSB in Ingushetia. 122.     On 20 February 2004 the investigators questioned the neighbourhood police officer who had participated in the search which followed the abduction. He submitted that on 7 October 2004 he had accompanied a group of the FSB officers who intended to check the registration documents of two families, including that of Ms M.M. When they had arrived at the latter’s address he had remained outside. The FSB officers had entered the house and left it shortly thereafter. Then they had moved to another address and found a large secret store of weapons. According to rumours, the location of that store had been disclosed by Mr   Ruslan Pareulidze, who had been in the custody of the FSB. 123.     In the meantime, on various dates in 2003 and 2004 the investigators requested a number of law-enforcement authorities, including the FSB, to provide them with any information about Mr Ruslan Pareulidze’s arrest or detention. The authorities replied that they had no information on the matter. 124 .     On 20 March 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 125.     On 16 December 2004 the applicant contacted the FSB in Ingushetia, seeking its assistance in the search for her son. The FSB forwarded her letter to the investigators, who replied that the investigation had been suspended, but that operational search activities were still ongoing. 126.     On 28 March 2005 the applicant requested the update on the course of the proceedings. Three days later the investigators informed her that there had been no new developments in the case. 127.     On 12 March 2008 the applicant requested the investigators to provide her with copies of some documents from the investigation file. Her request was granted on 15 March 2008. 128 .     On 24 November 2010 the investigators resumed the investigation and on 30 December 2010 they suspended it again. 129.     On 27 August 2011 and 26 June 2012 the applicant contacted the investigators, requesting information about new developments in the case. On 9 July 2012 the investigators replied that the proceedings had been suspended, but that recently they had ordered that operational search measures in the case be intensified. 130.     There is no information about the further progress of the investigation. G.     Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13) 131.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Lema (also spelled as Lemma) Khamzatov, who was born in 1964. The second, third and fourth applicants are his children. The application form was also lodged on behalf of Mr   Lema Khamzatov’s father, Mr Saydamagomed Khamzatov. However, on 8 July 2016 the applicants informed the Court that he had died in 2011, that is to say before the application was submitted. Therefore he cannot be treated as one of the applicants. 1.     Abduction of Mr Lema Khamzatov 132 .     At about 3 a.m. on 4 May 2003 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 5 May 2003) Mr Lema Khamzatov was at home in the Noviye Aldy settlement, Chechnya (in the documents submitted the address was also referred to as Grozny) when a group of about thirty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at his house in APCs and UAZ minivans. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian. Having broken into the house, they checked the identity documents of the residents, including the applicants, and then forced Mr Khamzatov outside, handcuffed him, put him into one of the APCs and drove off to an unknown destination. 133.     The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. The applicants submitted written statements by four neighbours, Ms R.S., Mr R.D., Ms M.A. and Mr   L.Kh, who had seen the abduction from their houses. They confirmed the account of the events as described above. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 134 .     Immediately after the abduction the applicants attempted to search for Mr Khamzatov on their own, but in vain. On 6 May 2003 Mr Lema Khamzatov’s father lodged an official complaint asking the authorities to assist in the search for his son. 135.     On 15 May 2003 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor in Grozny opened criminal case no. 30069 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 136.     On an unspecified date the investigators examined the crime scene and collected cartridge cases and bullets, allegedly left by the perpetrators near a neighbouring house. 137.     On 29 May 2003 the investigators ordered an expert ballistics examination of the evidence collected, as well as a fingerprint analysis. The experts concluded that the cartridge cases and bullets belonged to a special sniper rifle ( Винтовка Снайперская Специальная ), a “Val” special automatic rifle ( Автомат Специальный “Вал” ), and an Army Sniper Complex-94 rifle ( Войсковой Снайперский Комплекс-94 ). No fingerprints were found. 138.     On 6 June 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. A copy of the records of questioning submitted by the Government is illegible. 139.     On 11 June 2003 the investigators questioned the father of Mr   Lema Khamzatov. His description of the events was similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court. 140.     On 15 July 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 141.     On 25 August and 1 and 11 September 2003 Mr Lema Khamzatov’s father contacted the Russian Prosecutor General, the head of the Russian Parliament and the head of the Chechen Parliament respectively, seeking their assistance in the investigation. The requests were forwarded to the investigators, who did not reply. 142.     On 5 April 2004 the applicant asked the investigators to resume the investigation. On the next day, 6 April 2004 the investigation was resumed. It was then suspended on 9 May 2004. 143.     On 21 August 2004 the aforementioned decision was overruled by the deputy prosecutor of Chechnya. He noted the investigators’ failure to identify all of the eyewitnesses to the abduction, to question the police officers who had manned the road checkpoints at the material time, and to take other basic investigative steps. The investigation was resumed and then suspended on 25 September 2004. It does not appear that the persons mentioned by the deputy prosecutor were questioned, in spite of his direct orders to that end. 144 .     Subsequently the investigation was resumed on 25 April 2006 and 1 March 2010, and then suspended on 25 May 2006 and 2 March 2010 respectively. In the meantime, on 4 February 2010 the father of Mr   Lema Khamzatov requested the investigators to provide him with information about new developments in the case and to grant him victim status. On 1   March 2010 his request was granted. 145 .     The Government did not submit a copy of the investigation file concerning further developments in the case. From the documents presented by the applicants it appears that on 8 July 2010 the NGO SRJI/ASTREYA, on behalf of Mr   Lema Khamzatov’s father, requested an update about the progress of the case and access to the documents in the case file. No reply was forthcoming. 146.     On 14 December 2012 the applicant’s relatives father repeated the request, but to no avail. H.     Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) 147.     The applicants are the parents of Mr Islam Reshidov and Mr Usam (also spelled as Usama) Reshidov, who were born in 1986 and 1989 respectively. 1.     Abduction of the Reshidov brothers 148 .     At about 2.30 p.m. on 7 December 2004 Mr Usam Reshidov was at the crossroads of Zavodskaya and A. Sheripova Streets in the town of Argun, Chechnya, when a group of armed servicemen in military camouflage uniforms arrived in an APC, a UAZ vehicle and a Niva car. The servicemen apprehended Mr Usam Reshidov and took him away to an unknown destination. 149 .     At about 7 p.m. on the same date, presumably the same group of servicemen in military vehicles (among which were APCs, a UAZ car and a Niva car) surrounded a block of flats on Sakhzavodskaya Street in Argun, broke into a flat, where Mr Islam Reshidov was with his friends Mr A.Kh. and Ms I.D., apprehended them and then took them to the Argun military commander’s headquarters. Subsequently Ms I.D. was released from detention. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 150 .     Immediately after the abductions the applicants complained to the police, asking for assistance in the search for their sons. 151.     On 21 December 2004 the first applicant lodged an abduction complaint with the Chechnya prosecutor. She stated that Mr   Usam Reshidov had left home on 7 December 2004 and had not come back, and that Mr   Islam Reshidov had been abducted on the same date from his friend’s flat in Argun by military servicemen in APCs. 152.     On 30 December 2004 she contacted the Argun district department of the interior (“Argun ROVD”). She submitted that on 7   December 2004 her sons had left home and had not returned. On 6 January 2005 the Argun ROVD refused to open a criminal investigation into the incidents. 153.     On 27 January 2005, at the request of Mr A.Kh.’s father, the Argun prosecutor opened criminal case no.   58003 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 154.     On 7 February 2005 the Argun deputy prosecutor overruled the refusal to open a criminal case dated 6 January 2005. The investigation into the abduction of the Reshidov brothers was joined to the investigation in criminal case no. 58003. 155 .     Two days later, on 9 February 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. She told the investigators that after the abduction she and Ms I.D.’s mother had gone to the Argun military commander’s headquarters in search of their relatives. At the headquarters she had met officer R. From her conversation with him she had understood that both of her sons had been detained on the headquarters’ premises. 156.     Between February and April 2005 the investigators requested a number of law-enforcement agencies to inform them whether they had conducted any special operations on 7 December 2004 in Argun and whether they had arrested or detained the Reshidov brothers. No reply in the affirmative was received. 157.     Between February and August 2005, and again in February 2006, the investigators questioned residents of the block of flats from which Mr   Islam Reshidov had been abducted. Some of them had heard gunshots and sounds produced by heavy military vehicles outside their flats on the evening of 7 December 2004; others had directly witnessed the special operation conducted by the law-enforcement agencies. 158.     On 17 February 2005 the investigators questioned officer A.Kh. from the Argun ROVD. According to him, on 8 December 2004 he had heard from Argun ROVD officers and officers from the temporary operative group of the Ministry of the Interior ( Временная оперативная группировка органов и подразделений Министерства Внутренних Дел ) (“the VOGOP”) that a special operation aimed at arresting Mr A.Kh. had taken place on 7   December 2004, but that the arrest had failed. 159. &#