CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 27 août 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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; 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 } .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 } .s18A7F793 { width:21.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF82DF8A { width:78.43pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s85187FF { width:10.21pt; display:inline-block } .s5A28B86F { width:185.09pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s2957263B { height:22.6pt } .s9589A2DE { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4693DB65 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s460A4CD6 { height:18pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s35B3B0A7 { height:17.65pt } .s9005D88E { height:66.55pt } .s59E3E78A { height:18.8pt } .sB723F2D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD957FB11 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s22FA5D7A { height:23.75pt } .s178DB0A7 { height:14.55pt } .s6F0A5087 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s4ECF6575 { height:38.35pt } .sA034E78A { height:17.8pt } .sE44FE089 { height:74.35pt } .s4AA5B0A7 { height:18.15pt } .s349D86C9 { height:127pt } .s6436E78A { height:15.4pt } .sDAFCE884 { height:83.15pt } .s7C6E78A { height:10.7pt } .sC57F4500 { height:34.1pt } .sB9D9B0A7 { height:16.75pt } .s5ABB263B { height:26.6pt } .sC8D1E78A { height:16.8pt } .s5A58263B { height:26.3pt } .s9833E78A { height:12.2pt } .sE8AF066E { height:5.65pt } .s87F54B8E { height:5.6pt } .s1230263B { height:24.9pt } .sB5C0263B { height:23.8pt } .s24215D7A { height:24.75pt } .s6750E8B1 { height:49.9pt } .s3B15D7A { height:20.35pt } .s4A9D5712 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .s179D2F38 { height:37pt } .s9866263B { height:20.7pt } .sD8DCB0A7 { height:11.55pt } .sDBD37051 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:5.4pt; font-size:11pt } .sE901E78A { height:11.7pt } .s4E054CD6 { height:19pt } .sF6DBB0A7 { height:15.85pt } .s2AB8D57A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.7pt; font-size:11pt } .sF33A6D70 { height:45.95pt } .s356DB0A7 { height:17.05pt } .sF34A263B { height:25.8pt }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF OZDOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 9782/08 and 9 others – see appended list)                       JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   27 August 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ozdoyev 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 9 July 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in ten applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were informed of the applications. 3.     The Government did not comment on the assignment of the applications to a Committee. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived either in the Chechen Republic or in the Republic of Ingushetia. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by service personnel during special operations. The events in question took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged abductions. Their whereabouts remain unknown. 5.     The applicants reported the abductions to various law ‑ enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and decisions have remained pending for several years without any tangible results being achieved. The applicants lodged requests for information and assistance in the search for their relatives with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies. Their requests received either only formulaic responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending. 6.     Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases, as presented by the applicants, but questioned the involvement of service personnel in the events (see paragraph 280 below). A.     Ozdoyev and Tsechoyev v. Russia (no. 9782/08) 7 .     The first applicant was the father of Mr Rashid Ozdoyev, who was born in 1975. The first applicant died on 23 January 2018. On 2   October 2018 his widow, Ms Tamara Ozdoyeva, expressed her wish to pursue the application in his stead. 8.     The second applicant is the brother of Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev, who was born in 1962. 1.     Procedure before the Court 9 .     On 4 February 2008 a Moscow-based non-governmental organisation (NGO), Memorial Human Rights Centre, submitted on the applicants’ behalf a first letter to the Court expressing their wish to lodge an application concerning the abduction of their relatives. 10 .     On 28 February 2008 the Court invited that NGO to submit within six months a completed application form and a power of attorney. 11 .     On 22 August 2008 the NGO sent to the Court a completed application form and two powers of attorney dated, respectively, 8   May 2007 and 28 December 2007. They were signed by the applicants, but lacked the signatures of their representatives. Nevertheless, the Court accepted the documents and included them in the case file. 12 .     On 17 December 2008 the applicants’ representative provided the Court with two duly signed powers of attorneys dated, respectively, 5   September 2008 and 6 September 2008. 2.     Abduction of Mr Rashid Ozdoyev and Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev and the applicants’ attempts to locate their whereabouts 13.     At the material time Mr Rashid Ozdoyev was an assistant prosecutor at the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office in charge of the supervision of the Federal Security Service (hereinafter “the FSB”) in Ingushetia . On several occasions he officially criticised FSB officers for their alleged participation in unlawful activities, including arbitrary detentions, torture and extrajudicial executions. At the beginning of 2004, while on a business trip to Moscow, he reported the above-mentioned practices to the federal authorities. 14.     Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev was the head of a local NGO and an opposition activist. 15 .     On the evening of 11 March 2004 Mr Rashid Ozdoyev and Mr   Tamerlan Tsechoyev were driving together from the town of Nazran to the town of Malgobek, Ingushetia in Mr   Tamerlan Tsechoyev’s dark-green VAZ 21099 car. In the vicinity of the village of Verkhniye Achaluki, a white Niva car without registration plates collided with their car and blocked the road. A group of eight to ten armed men in camouflage uniforms got out of the Niva car and two more vehicles (a Gazel minivan and a silver VAZ 21099 car) that had pulled over nearby. The men opened fire, apprehended Mr Ozdoyev and Mr Tsechoyev, put them in the minivan and drove them away. Mr Rashid Ozdoyev’s car was also taken away. 16 .     The incident was seen by police officers at a nearby traffic-police checkpoint. They tried to intervene, but one of the abductors introduced himself as a FSB officer and ordered the policemen to stay away. 17.     At about 10 p.m. on the same date, the armed men who had apprehended Mr   Ozdoyev and Mr Tsechoyev allegedly abducted Mr   Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov (see Yevloyeva and Tomova , no.   14667/09; see also paragraphs 56 and 57 below). 18 .     At about 11 p.m. two FSB officers, Mr M.Kh. and Mr   I.B., who were on duty at FSB’s Ingushetia headquarters in the town of Magas (“the FSB headquarters"), saw a white Niva car and two VAZ 21099 cars (silver and dark-green, respectively) approaching the headquarters’ entrance gates. They had been instructed by the head of the FSB headquarters, General   S.K., to let the cars in, and they followed that instruction. 19.     The next day (12 March 2004) unidentified agents of a law ‑ enforcement agency told the first applicant that at about 3 a.m. on that date Mr Rashid Ozdoyev and the other three men arrested in the course of the special operation of 11 March 2004 had been transported from the premises of the FSB headquarters to the town of Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia, on the orders of General S.K. and Mr A.K. (the Minister of Internal Affairs in Ingushetia at the time). 20.     In the search for his missing relative, the second applicant spoke with residents of Verkhniye Achaluki (in the vicinity of which the abduction had allegedly taken place) who had witnessed the abduction. Those residents provided him with details of the events; their accounts were similar to those given above. 3.     Official investigation into the abductions (a)     Official investigation into the abduction of Mr Rashid Ozdoyev 21.     Immediately after the abduction the first applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested that a criminal case be opened. 22 .     On 14 March 2004 the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   04800001 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) (abduction). 23 .     The next day the investigators questioned the first applicant. He submitted that on the morning of 11 March 2004 Mr Rashid Ozdoyev had left home to go to work and had not come back. Two days later, the first applicant had received a telephone call from a man who had told him that Mr   Rashid Ozdoyev’s car had been seen parked, covered by canvas, on the premises of the FSB headquarters. Then he had subsequently learned from his son, Mr R.O. (an FSB officer at the material time), that Mr   Rashid Ozdoyev had been abducted by law-enforcement agencies acting on General S.K.’s orders. 24.     On the same date, 15 March 2004, the investigators questioned Mr   R.O., who stated that during the night of 13-14 March 2004 an unidentified man had telephoned him and described the circumstances of the abduction (the description was similar to the account submitted by the applicants to the Court). 25.     On 18 and 20 March 2004 the investigators questioned three police officers who had been on duty at the traffic-police checkpoint. The officers confirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as described by the applicants. 26.     On 16 March 2004 the investigators requested the FSB headquarters to provide them with information about the alleged arrest of Mr   Rashid Ozdoyev. Five days later a staff member replied that the FSB headquarters had no information about his arrest. 27 .     On 2 April 2004 the criminal proceedings in respect of Mr   Rashid Ozdoyev’s abduction were joined with that opened in respect of Mr   Tamerlan Tsechoyev’s abduction (see paragraph 40 below), but three days later the proceedings were disjoined. 28.     On 12 April 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. 29.     The next day the investigators added to the evidence in the case file a letter of confession by an FSB officer, I.O. This letter was addressed to the Ingushetia public prosecution office. The FSB officer stated that he had worked under the command of General S.K. in a unit comprising five persons. The unit’s objective had been to arrest five people every week. During special operations, which had been carried out at night, the FSB officers had used camouflage uniforms, masks, and fake documents. After apprehending a person they would take him to the premises of the FSB headquarters, where they would torture and kill him. I.O. himself had mutilated more than fifty people and had killed thirty-five people. In early 2003 his unit had apprehended people genuinely suspected of having taken part in illegal activities, but later – in order to comply with the objectives that they had been set – they had started to arrest people randomly, on the basis of their Chechen appearance. The last special operation in had participated had been undertaken to apprehend a prosecutor who had been in possession of compromising material against the above-mentioned General S.K. I.O. had broken the legs and arms of that person and his colleagues had then killed him. 30.     On 19 May 2004 the investigators questioned an FSB officer, A.O., about the above-mentioned confession letter (his first name and surname were very similar to those of the author of that letter). A.O. told the investigators that he had not written that letter. 31.     On 8 October 2004 the first applicant provided the investigators with an audiotape recording of an account of the events provided by an FSB officer, R.S. The audiotape contained a recording of a conversation between several men, including (presumably) R.S., who stated that on an unspecified date, in the evening, on the orders of General S.K., he, with a group of other FSB officers, had taken part in the apprehension and arrest of two men riding in a dark-green VAZ 21099 car in the vicinity of the village of Achaluki in Ingushetia. 32.     On 14 March 2005 the investigators suspended the proceedings and then, following criticism by a supervising prosecutor, resumed them on 1   December 2005. 33.     On 22 December 2005 the investigators questioned General S.K., who denied his involvement in the abduction of Mr Rashid Ozdoyev. 34.     On 31 December 2005 the investigators again questioned Mr R.O. (see paragraph 23 above). He submitted that after the abduction he had inspected the FSB headquarters’ garage and had found the above-mentioned Niva car. Its left-hand side had been damaged and there had been traces of dark-green paint on the damaged parts. He had immediately asked the investigators to examine the car, but his request been refused. 35.     On 6 January 2006 the proceedings were suspended again. 36.     On 4 September 2006 the first applicant complained to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his son’s abduction. 37 .     On 30 November 2006 the investigators resumed the proceedings and questioned an FSB officer who had been in charge of the vehicles fleet at the FSB headquarters. He stated that FSB vehicles had not been involved in any car accidents in 2004. On the same day the investigators again suspended the proceedings. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction of Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev 38.     On 20 March 2004 the wife of Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev (Ms P.T.) lodged an official complaint with the domestic authorities, alleging that her husband, together with Mr Rashid Ozdoyev, had been abducted on 11   March 2004. 39.     On 29 March 2004 the investigators questioned the second applicant. He submitted that according to rumours his brother had been abducted, together with Mr Rashid Ozdoyev by law-enforcement agents at the Kantyshevskiy crossroads. 40 .     On 2 April 2004 the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   04500012 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction) and joined it with that opened in respect of Mr Rashid Ozdoyev’s abduction. Three days later the proceedings were disjoined (see paragraph 27 above). 41.     In May 2004 the investigators requested various authorities, including the FSB headquarters and the Ingushetia Ministry of the Interior, to provide them with information about the alleged arrest of Mr   Tamerlan Tsechoyev. Those authorities replied that they had no information about his arrest or detention. 42 .     On 14 June 2004 the criminal case in respect of Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev’s abduction was joined with criminal case no.   04500010, which had been opened on 17 March 2004, in respect of the abduction of Mr   Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov (see paragraph   65 below). 43 .     On 12 July 2004 Ms P.T. was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned by the investigators. She alleged that her husband had been abducted, together with Mr Rashid Ozdoyev, by FSB officers. 44.     On 13 October 2004 the second applicant was granted victim status in the case. The reasoning for that decision stated that Mr   Tamerlan Tsechoyev had been abducted at about 10 p.m. on 11 March 2004 at the traffic-police checkpoint located at the Kantyshevskiy crossroads by a group of ten armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas. The wording of the decision in question furthermore stated that Mr   Tamerlan Tsechoyev had been abducted, along with Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr   Ibragim Izmaylov. 45.     On 30 November 2004 the investigators questioned Mr   I.B., one of the FSB officer, who had been on duty at the FSB headquarters at the time of the abduction. He stated that on 11 March 2004 at about 11 p.m. a Niva car and a VAZ 21099 car of a dark colour had entered the FSB premises. The latter vehicle had had a dent on its front left-hand door. 46.     On 17 December 2004 the investigation in respect of the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The investigation was resumed on 1 April 2005, then suspended on 1 May 2005, then again resumed on 1 December 2006 and suspended on 31 December 2006. 47.     In the meantime, on 5 December 2005 the Ingushetia Ministry of the Interior issued a report stating, in particular, that Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev was on a wanted list on suspicion of the illegal possession of firearms. 48 .     On 25 April, 14 August and 11 September 2006 and on 28   March 2007 the second applicant lodged requests with the investigators, asking that they inform him of any progress made in the investigation. He also asked them to take certain investigative steps. In reply to the first request the investigators informed him that the investigation had been suspended. His second request was refused. 4.     Proceedings before domestic courts 49.     On 9 August 2006 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Nazran District Court in Ingushetia challenging his lack of access to the criminal case file and the investigators’ failure to conduct the investigation with due diligence. 50.     On 4 October 2006 the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. On 21 November 2006 the Ingushetia Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal. 51.     On 1 November 2006 and 16 May 2007 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the same court challenging the decisions of 1 May 2005 and 31 December 2006 to suspend the investigation and the investigators’ inaction in the criminal case. 52.     On 4 December 2006 and 13 June 2007 the court dismissed the second applicant’s complaint On 4 August 2007 the Ingushetia Supreme Court upheld that ruling on appeal. 53.     On 2 April 2008 the Malgobek Town Court in Ingushetia declared Mr Rashid Ozdoyev dead at the request of the first applicant and members of his family. B.     Yevloyeva and Tomova v. Russia (no. 14667/09) 54.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev, who was born in 1976. The second applicant is the sister of Mr Ibragim Izmaylov, who was born in 1976. 1.     Procedure before the Court 55 .     The applicants lodged an application with the Court on 2   March 2009. Subsequently they provided the Court with powers of attorney from the first applicant (dated 17 February 2002) and the second applicant (dated 18 February 2009). Both documents indicated 3 March 2009 as the date of the introduction of the application. According to the applicants, there was a clerical mistake in the date of the first power of attorney, which had actually been issued on 17 February 2009. 2.     Abduction of Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov 56 .     At about 10 p.m. on 11 March 2004 Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr   Ibragim Izmaylov were driving in their white VAZ 2107 car along the road from the town of Malgobek, Ingushetia. As soon as they had passed through the Kantyshevskiy crossroads and reached a traffic-police checkpoint nearby, a dark ‑ grey metallic VAZ 21099 car without registration plates overtook them at high speed and blocked the road. At the same time a white Niva car without registration plates approached them from behind and bumped into their car’s rear end. Ten armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas jumped out of the two cars, surrounded Mr   Yevloyev and Mr   Izmaylov and opened fire; the armed men then handcuffed them forced them into their VAZ 21099 and Niva cars, and drove off in the direction of the town of Nazran. 57 .     A police officer on duty at the traffic checkpoint, Mr   A.A., attempted to intervene; however, one of the men ordered him to stay away, waving a service identification card. Speaking unaccented Russian, the man told him that he was from the FSB headquarters in the town of Magas (“the FSB headquarters"). 58.     On the same date (11 March 2004) Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr   Ibragim Izmaylov were taken to the FSB headquarters. The brother of Mr   Rasukhan Yevloyev, Mr Kh.Y., went there straight away and saw a Niva car parked on the headquarters’ premises. The car had damage to its body that indicated that it had been in a collision with a white-coloured vehicle. 3.     Official investigation into the abduction 59.     On 15 and 16 March 2004 the first and the second applicants, respectively, informed the authorities of the abduction. 60.     On 16 March 2004 investigators from the Nazran district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia examined a white VAZ 2107 car that had been left at the traffic-police checkpoint near the Kantyshevskiy crossroads. They noted that the car was damaged, its tyres were flat, its front and rear windows were broken, and the vehicle’s body had several round holes (apparently caused by gunshots). The investigators found two bullets in the car and seized them as evidence. 61 .     On 17 March 2004 the Nazran district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 04500010 under Article 126 of the СС (abduction) in respect of the abduction. 62.     On the same day the investigators asked the FSB headquarters and the Ingushetia branch of the Russian Ministry of the Interior to provide them with information about the alleged arrest of Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov. In late March 2003 those bodies replied that they had not arrested the said persons and did not have any information about their whereabouts. 63.     On 18 and 20 March 2004 the investigators questioned three police officers who had been on duty at the traffic checkpoint and had witnessed the abduction. Their submission regarding the circumstances of the abduction was similar to that submitted by the applicants to the Court. 64.     On 24 March 2004 the investigators ordered an expert examination of the bullets seized in the car. The experts concluded that they had been shot from one weapon – a Makarov pistol or a Stechkin automatic pistol. 65 .     On 14 June 2004 the criminal case was joined with that which had been opened in respect of Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev’s abduction (see   paragraph 42 above). 66.     On 17 November and 10 December 2004 the first and the second applicants, respectively, were granted victim status in the case. 67.     The subsequent developments in the proceedings are described above (see paragraphs 43-48 above). 68.     Throughout the proceedings the applicants and other relatives of the abducted persons complained to various State officials and law-enforcement agencies about the incident. 69.     On 16 February 2005 the first applicant asked the head of the FSB headquarters to assist in the search for her son. On an unspecified date her letter was forwarded to the investigators. It is not clear if it received any reply. 70.     On 9 March 2005 Mr Ibragim Izmaylov’s father complained of his son’s arrest to the FSB headquarters. Citing witness testimony given by an unspecified FSB officer, he submitted that between 11 and 12   March 2004 his son had been detained on the headquarters premises. 71.     The above-mentioned request was forwarded to the investigators. On an unspecified date in April 2005 they replied that they had examined the allegation that Mr   Ibragim Izmaylov had been arrested by FSB officers. 72.     On 8 February 2006 the first applicant lodged a request with the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office for assistance in the search for her son. Apparently, no reply was forthcoming. 73.     On 12 July 2006 the first applicant repeated her request to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office and was informed in reply that the relevant proceedings had been suspended. 74.     On 15 November 2006 the second applicant asked the investigators to take additional investigative steps in the case. On 1   December 2006 the investigators replied that the investigation had been resumed. 75 .     On 25 January 2008 the second applicant lodged a request with the Chechen President for assistance in the search for her son. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who replied on 25 July 2008 that the investigators had failed to identify the perpetrators and had therefore on 31   December 2006 once again suspended the proceedings. C.     Maltsagovy v. Russia (no. 52431/10) 76.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov, who was born in 1952. The first applicant is his wife and the other applicants are his children. 1.     Abduction of Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov 77 .     At about 4 a.m. on 3 May 2000 a large group of armed men of Slavic appearance in camouflage uniforms and equipped with helmets and portable radios arrived at the applicant’s house in the village of Avtury, Chechnya, in two UAZ minivans without registration plates, four armoured personal carriers (“APCs”) and an Ural lorry. The men broke into the courtyard and shot the applicant’s barking dog. Ten of the men were in the courtyard when Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov came outside to investigate the noise. Speaking unaccented Russian they asked him his name, then tied his hands together and took him out of the courtyard to the street, where about fifty other armed men were waiting for them. They then put Mr Maltsagov in the UAZ minivan and took him to the premises of the local former poultry farm, where a Russian military base was located. 78.     All of the applicants were present at the scene and witnessed the incident. They also submitted to the Court written statements given by their neighbours, Mr   C.A. and Mr Y.S., who had seen the incident from their houses. Their statements are consistent with the applicants’ account of the events. 2.     Official investigation of the abduction 79 .     On 3 May 2000 the applicants went to the Shali military commander’s headquarters. The military commander told them that his subordinates had not arrested Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov and that he had no information concerning any special operation carried out by military forces on that date. 80 .     Between July and August 2000 the applicants lodged abduction complaints with various authorities, including the Chechen Prosecutor and the Special Representative of the Russian President on Human Rights and Freedoms in Chechnya. 81 .     On 20 August 2000 the Shali district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that it had opened a criminal case into the abduction. However, as can be seen from other case-file documents submitted by the Government, a criminal case was opened on 25   December 2000 under the number 22087. 82 .     The Government did not provide the Court with a copy of the criminal file. From the applicants’ submissions it appears that the investigation proceeded as follows. 83 .     On 5 February 2001 the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the proceedings, but did not inform her of that decision. 84.     On an unspecified date the investigators requested military unit no.   20116, which was stationed in the town of Shali, to tell them whether Mr   Mukhadi Maltsagov had been arrested by its personnel. On 5   July 2001 that military unit replied in the negative. 85.     On 1 October 2001 the Shali district prosecutor’s office replied to a request lodged by the first applicant for information, stating that the investigators were taking measures to establish the whereabouts of Mr   Mukhadi Maltsagov and that they would inform the applicants of any further developments. 86 .     On an unspecified date the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the applicants were not informed of that decision. 87.     On 7 December 2004 the investigators notified the first applicant of the resumption of the proceedings. 88 .     On 12 May 2005, without informing the applicants, the investigators suspended the proceedings. 89.     On 6 April 2006 the first applicant contacted an NGO, Edinstvo, seeking its assistance in the search for her husband. It is unclear whether the NGO lodged any complaints on the applicant’s behalf. 90.     On 8 February 2010 the first applicant complained to the investigators of the lack of any information about the progress of the case. She applied for victim status and asked the investigators for permission to review the case-file material. 91.     On 12 February 2010 the investigators informed the applicant that on 5   February 2001 she had been granted victim status in the criminal case and that the proceedings had been suspended on 12 May 2005 for failure to identify the perpetrators. 92.     On an unspecified date in 2010 the first applicant lodged a request with the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons for assistance in the search for her husband. On an unspecified date her request was forwarded to the Chechen Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation and then, on 2 June 2010, to the investigators. It is unclear if any reply followed. D.     Zanziyevy v. Russia (no. 14182/11) 93.     The first and the second applicants are the parents of Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev, who was born in 1980. The third applicant is his sister. 1.     Abduction of Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev and subsequent events 94.     According to the applicants, on the night of 4-5   October   2000 Russian military forces conducted a special operation in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny. The entire district was blocked off by military vehicles. 95 .     At around 5 a.m. on 5 October 2000 an APC, two Ural lorries and two UAZ minivans arrived at the applicants’ block of flats in Grozny. Mr   Abdullakh Zanziyev and the first and the third applicants were at home when a group of eight to ten armed masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into their flat. Having threatened the applicants with firearms, the men searched the premises. Following the search, they forced Mr   Abdallakh Zanziyev to the floor, tied his hands behind his back and took him out of the flat. As they were leaving the flat, the men ordered the applicants and their neighbours to stay inside, threatening to shoot anyone who failed to obey. Shortly afterwards, the Ural lorry and the UAZ minivan drove off to an unknown destination. 96.     The abduction of Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. The applicants submitted to the Court written statements given by their neighbours, Mr L.K., Ms   R.A. and Mr S.L., who witnessed the incident. Their statements were consistent with the above description. 97.     On an unspecified day in 2002 a man who introduced himself as “Timur” contacted the applicants and told them that between 2001 and 2002 he had allegedly been detained in a remand prison in Krasnodar, Russia, in the same cell as Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev and fifteen other detainees, all of whom were of Chechen ethnic origin and had been abducted under various circumstances by military personnel. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 98.     On 5 October 2000 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Grozny town prosecutor’s office about the abduction of her son. 99.     Shortly thereafter a police officer informally interviewed the applicants’ neighbours. They stated that on 5 October 2000 a group of armed men in military uniforms had arrived at their block of flats in an APC, two Ural lorries, and two UAZ minivans. They had entered the block of flats, apprehended Mr   Abdallakh Zanziyev, put him in one of the two Ural lorries and driven away. 100 .     On 31 October 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 12203 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 101 .     On 28 November 2000 the investigators questioned the first applicant. Her statement concerning the abduction was similar to the applicants’ submission to the Court. She also noted that the abductors had been equipped with portable radios and had spoken Russian using the call names “Baiykal” and “Omon”. 102 .     On 31 December 2000 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was not informed of that decision. 103 .     On an unspecified date in late 2003 or early 2004 the second applicant asked the Chechen prosecutor’s office to assist in the search for her son. His letter was forwarded to the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny. On 13 February 2004 the latter replied that the proceedings would be resumed after the case file had been examined by a supervising authority. 104 .     On 12 February 2005 the criminal proceedings were resumed. 105.     On 14 February 2005 the investigators requested various law ‑ enforcement authorities, including the FSB headquaters in Chechnya, to provide information about the alleged arrest of Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev. The authorities replied that they had no such information. 106.     On 10 March 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 107.     On 12 March 2005 the investigation was suspended. 108.     On 22 February 2005 the first applicant wrote to Edinstvo, the above-mentioned NGO, to complain about the abduction of her son. She alleged that in November 2000 he had been detained in a remand prison in Krasnodar. The NGO forwarded the letter to the investigators. On 19 April 2006 the investigators replied to the first applicant, stating that operational search activities were underway. 109.     On 3 June 2005 the investigators resumed the proceedings; on 30   June 2006 they questioned the first applicant, who affirmed her previous statements and added that her son had been abducted together with his neigbours (the Amishev brothers). 110.     On 1 July 2006 the investigators questioned the mother of the Amishev brothers; she confirmed that the abduction of her sons had taken place on 5 October 2000. 111.     The next day, 2 July 2006, the proceedings were suspended. 112.     On the same day the first applicant lodged a request with the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office for the proceedings to be resumed. Two days later he received a reply that on 4 July 2007 the decision to suspend the investigation had been overruled. 113.     Subsequently the proceedings were suspended again on 4 August 2007. After the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny (see paragraph 121 below), that decision was overruled by the supervising authority on 19 November 2007. 114.     On 3 June 2008 the first applicant lodged a request with the investigators for her to be allowed to review the case file. On the same day her request was refused. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged that decision in court (see paragraph 122 below). 115.     Subsequently the proceedings were resumed and suspended on many occasions. Specifically, they were resumed on 6 November and 19   December 2008, 12 October 2010, 3   September 2011, 19 and 25   April and 21 May 2012, and 19 April 2013; they were suspended on 6   December 2008, 22 January 2009, 12 November 2010, 3 October 2011, 25   February and 25 May 2012, and 14 January 2013. 116.     In the meantime, on an unspecified date in 2009 the first applicant lodged a request with the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing people to help her in the search for her son. On 8 May 2009 her request was forwarded to the investigators in charge of the case. No reply was forthcoming. 117.     In October 2009 and in October 2011 the first applicant again requested the investigators to allow her to review the case file and to grant her the status of civil claimant. The requests were granted on 5 October 2009 and 3 October 2011, respectively. 118.     On 23 December 2011 the first applicant asked the investigators to intensify the search. In reply she was informed that although the proceedings had been suspended, operational search activities were underway and that she would be informed of any further developments in the case. 119.     In the meantime, there was no realisation of any tangible results that could have led to the crime being solved. The investigators examined the crime scene (apparently for the first time) on 20   April 2012. No evidence was collected during that examination. Three days later, on 23   April 2012, they obtained a sample of the first applicant’s DNA in order to compare it with samples stored in a database of DNA taken from unidentified corpses. It is unclear whether such a comparison was indeed ever carried out. 120.     On 25 May 2012 the investigators joined the proceedings in respect of the abduction of Amishev brothers (which had been instituted on 31   October 2000) with the proceedings in respect of the abduction of Mr   Abdallakh Zanziyev. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 121 .     On 1 November 2007 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny challenging the decision of 4   August 2007 to suspend the investigation. The court dismissed the complaint on 28   November 2007 as the investigators had already resumed the proceedings on 19 November 2007. 122 .     On 7 August 2008 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny regarding the investigators’ refusal of 3   June 2008 to grant her full access to the case file. Her complaint was dismissed as unfounded on 7   November 2008. 123.     On 24 June 2010 the first applicant again lodged a complaint with the Staropromyslovskiy District Court regarding the investigators’ decision to suspend the criminal proceedings. The court dismissed the complaint on 12   October 2010 as the proceedings had already been resumed. The Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal on 17   November 2010. E.     Tutkhanovy v. Russia (no. 56569/11) 124.     The first and the second applicants are, respectively, the wife and the son of Mr Alaudi Tutkhanov, born in 1951. 1.     Abduction of Mr Alaudi Tutkhanov 125 .     Mr Alaudi Tutkhanov worked as a night watchman at the local road maintenance department, located on the outskirts of the town of Achkhoy ‑ Martan. In October 2002 he complained to his colleague, Mr   G.Kh, of having recently received two visits from FSB officers and said that he was afraid of being arrested. 126 .     At 6 p.m. on 2 November 2002 two UAZ vehicles arrived at the road maintenance department. Armed men speaking unaccented Russian jumped out of the vehicles, apprehended Mr Alaudi Tutkhanov and drove him away. The abduction was witnessed by his colleague, Mr   R.M. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 127.     On 3 November 2002 the first applicant requested the Achkhoy ‑ Martan district department of the interior to find her husband, who had not returned home from work. 128 .     On 29 November 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 63095 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 129 .     The Government did not provide the Court with a copy of the criminal file. From the applicants’ submissions, it appears that the investigation proceeded as follows. 130.     On 16 January 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 131.     The next day (17 January 2003) the investigators questioned Mr   G.Kh. He stated that Mr Alaudi Tutkhanov had been visited by FSB officers on two occasions in October 2002 and that he had been afraid of being arrested. 132.     On 17 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for the failure to identify the perpetrators of the abduction. 133.     On 1 December 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr Alaudi Tutkhanov a missing person. 134.     On 31 January 2008 the investigators informed the first applicant that the criminal investigation had been resumed. 135.     On 29 February 2008 the investigators suspended the proceedings; on 17 March 2008 they resumed them, and on 15 April 2008 suspended them again. 136.     On 17 March 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators to provide her with copies of the case-file documents. 137.     On 29 March 2011 the applicants requested that the investigators question Mr R.M., an eyewitness to the abduction. 138.     On 19 April 2011 the investigators resumed the proceedings, and two days later, on 21 April 2011, they questioned Mr R.M., who confirmed the account of the events given in the applicant’s submissions to the Court. 139.     On 29 April 2011 the investigators suspended the proceedings. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 140.     On 25 March 2011 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Achkhoy-Martan District Court, challenging the decision of 15   April 2008 to suspend the criminal proceedings. The applicant’s complaint was transferred to the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court, which had jurisdiction in respect of the matter. 141.     On 20 April 2011 the Urus-Martan Town Court dismissed the complaint because a day earlier the investigators had resumed the investigation. On 18 May 2011 the Chechen Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. F.     Makayeva v. Russia (no. 56577/11) 142.     The applicant is the sister of Mr Mokhadi Makayev, who was born in 1970. 1.     Abduction of Mr Mokhadi Makayev 143.     At the material time Mr Makayev, whose house had been destroyed as a result of military operations in Chechnya, was living on a temporary basis in the house of an acquaintance, Mr Isa Dzhabrailov, in the village of Goy-Chu, Chechnya. 144 .     At about 3 a.m. on 25 January 2003 a group of armed men in camouflage military uniforms and balaclavas arrived at Mr   Isa Dzhabrailov’s house in a grey UAZ minivan. The men broke into the house and took Mr   Makayev and Mr Dzhabrailov   to an unknown destination (see Dzhabrailov, no.   4363/12; see also paragraphs 188-189 below). 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 145 .     On 20 March 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 34031 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 146.     On 18 April 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned by the investigators. Her submissions were similar to those that she made to the Court. 147.     On 20 May 2003 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators. 148 .     On 5 July 2003 and 12 April 2004 the applicant contacted the head of the Chechen Government’s department for cooperation with law ‑ enforcement agencies and the Urus-Martan military commander’s office, respectively, seeking their assistance in the search for her brother. 149 .     It appears that one of the applicant’s requests was forwarded to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office. The latter informed the applicant on 27   April 2004 that the criminal proceedings