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 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sC65EB21A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s352FB0A7 { height:17.25pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sA1E1E78A { height:17.5pt } .s3AD5D7A { height:25.85pt } .sB9D9B0A7 { height:16.75pt } .sB82AB0A7 { height:16.85pt } .sE4024500 { height:37.3pt } .sC8D1E78A { height:16.8pt } .s15A0B0A7 { height:14.85pt } .s8EDCE8B1 { height:45.9pt } .s4A8AB0A7 { height:18.65pt } .sE4C95D7A { height:21.05pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4A67B0A7 { height:18.35pt } .s575C5D7A { height:28.65pt } .s6457E78A { height:15.5pt } .sE6400776 { height:50.4pt } .s178DB0A7 { height:14.55pt } .s82FBE78A { height:14.4pt } .s9ECAA7DC { height:8.7pt } .s9ECAA7DD { height:8.6pt }       THIRD SECTION               CASE OF DZHAMAKHADZHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 31143/11 and 7 others – see list appended)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   27 August 2019           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Dzhamakhadzhiyev 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 eight applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). The application numbers and the dates on which they were lodged with the Court as well as the applicants’ personal details are listed in the appended table. 2.     The applicants were represented by various NGOs and lawyers indicated in the appended table. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     Between 7 January 2016 and 31 May 2016 notice of the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5, and Article 13 in conjunction with these provisions, was given to the Government and the remainder of the applications nos. 31143/11 and 40161/12 was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule   54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. 4.     The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are Russian nationals who at the material time lived in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia, a region neighbouring Chechnya. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in these regions in 2000-2005 after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in the areas under full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants had no news of their missing relatives thereafter. 6.     In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abductions to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In every case the proceedings, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. It follows from the documents submitted that no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. Further to such requests, the authorities generally reported that the involvement of servicemen in the abductions had not been established and that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time. The applicants also lodged requests for information and assistance in the search for their missing relatives to various authorities but received only formal responses, if any. The perpetrators have never been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending. 7.     Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account of events is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases as presented by the applicants, but contested the involvement of servicemen in these events. A.     Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11) 8.     The applicant was the father of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov, who was born in 1970. He died on 13 October 2014. The applicant’s son, Mr   Sayd-Khasan Dzhamakhadzhiyev, who is also the brother of the missing person Mr   Said ‑ Magomed Abdulazimov, expressed his wish to pursue the application. 1.     Abduction of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov 9 .     On 12 May 2002 (in the documents submitted, the date was also referred to as 17 May 2002) a group of armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms opened fire and wounded Mr Abdulazimov on a street in the centre of Chiri-Yurt, Chechnya. While he was unconscious, they put him in a Gazel minivan and drove off to an unknown destination. 10.     The whereabouts of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov have remained unknown ever since. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 11.     On 8 June 2002 the applicant complained about the abduction of his son to the deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of Russia (the Russian Parliament). It is unclear whether any reply was given to his complaint. 12.     On 24 July 2002 the applicant lodged an official complaint with the Shali district prosecutor requesting assistance in the search for his son. 13.     On 1 August 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59177 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 14.     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. Most responses contained statements that no information about Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov was available. 15 .     In a letter of 16 August 2002 the Shali district office of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) informed the investigators that Mr   Said ‑ Magomed Abdulazimov was the emir of Chiri-Yurt who had up to fifteen armed subordinates. Since 2001 he had been involved in planning and carrying out terrorist attacks against the Russian federal forces. Mr   Said-Magomed Abdulazimov had a wide network involving leaders of the illegal armed groups and active representatives of Wahhabism. The letter also stated that Mr Abdulazimov carried a Makarov handgun on a permanent basis and was equipped with a grenade belt and a “Kenwood” portable radio set. The Shali district office was undertaking operational search activities aimed at establishing Mr Abdulazimov’s whereabouts. 16.     On 19 September 2002 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 17.     On 1 October 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof. The investigators’ letter stated that the operational search activities aimed at establishing his son’s whereabouts were being undertaken despite the suspension of the investigation. 18 .     On 8 January 2004 the applicant asked the Shali district prosecutor’s office for information about any progress in the investigation. 19.     On 30 January 2004 the investigation was resumed. 20.     On 20 February 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene. 21.     On 25 February 2004 the applicant was questioned again. He stated that Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov had participated in the first Chechen war against the Russian federal forces. 22.     On 3 March 2004 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was informed thereof. 23.     The investigation case file contained the death certificate of Mr   Said ‑ Magomed Abdulazimov stating that he had died on 27 May 2002. 24 .     On 25 November 2009 the applicant requested the Shali inter-district investigation department to grant him full access to the criminal case file and to resume the proceedings. On 26 November 2009 the investigators allowed him to study the case file but refused to resume the investigation. 25 .     On 8 November 2010 the deputy head of the Shali inter-district investigation department annulled the decision of 3 March 2004 as unlawful and ordered the resumption of the proceedings. It was stated that on 12 May 2002 Mr Abdulazimov was arrested by unidentified armed men on the street in Chiri-Yurt after an identity check. He offered armed resistance to his arrest and wounded one of the men. They returned fire and wounded Mr   Abdulazimov; then they put him in a Gazel minivan and drove off in the direction of Stariye Atagi. 26.     Between 10 and 24 November 2010 the investigators questioned several neighbours and relatives of the applicant. 27.     On 25 November 2010 the investigators ordered a forensic DNA examination. 28.     On 8 December 2010 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 18 April 2011 and suspended again on 23 April 2011. 29 .     On 26 November 2012 the applicant asked the Shali district inter ‑ district investigation department for information about any progress in the investigation. On 4 December 2012 the investigators allowed him to study the criminal case file and make copies of the documents. 30.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 31.     On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the investigators’ decision of 3 March 2004 to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court. On 19 April 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that a day earlier the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. B.     Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11) 32.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Isa (also spelled as Issa) Tovdayev, who was born in 1984. The second applicant is his brother. 1.     Disappearance of Mr Isa Tovdayev 33 .     On 29 April 2000 Mr Isa Tovdayev and his friend Mr I.T., who were teenagers at the time, left their homes in Petropavlovskaya village of Grozny District and went to a rubbish dump located on the outskirts of the village. Between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. they were seen near the road leading to the military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala. At that time a convoy of military vehicles, including an APC (armoured personnel carrier), an URAL lorry and an UAZ van, was driving in the same direction. Mr   Tovdayev and Mr I.T. never returned home. 34.     The applicants later learned from unidentified servicemen that Mr   Tovdayev had been detained at the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala. 35 .     According to the statements of Mr A.T., the father of Mr. I.T., the disappeared teenagers had been transferred from the military base to the detention centre in Chernokozovo, Chechnya. In June 2000 they had been seen in “Beliy Lebed” prison near Pyatigorsk. 36.     The whereabouts of Mr Isa Tovdayev have remained unknown ever since. 2.     Official investigation into the disappearance 37 .     Immediately after the disappearance the applicants informed the authorities and requested that an investigation be opened. 38 .     On 3 May 2000 the head of the administration of Petropavlovskaya asked the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in Chechnya to provide assistance in the search for Mr Isa Tovdayev and Mr   I.T. He indicated, in particular, the presence of military equipment and personnel on the day of the disappearance. 39.     On 13 June 2000 police officers from the Grozny department of the interior examined the crime scene. 40.     On 16 June 2000 the Grozny department of the interior (police station) refused to institute a criminal investigation into the disappearance. On 12 February 2001 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office overruled that decision and opened criminal case no. 19016 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 41 .     On 12 March 2001 the grandfather of Mr Isa Tovdayev, Mr D.M., was granted victim status and questioned. He stated that after the disappearance of his grandson he had visited the military base in Khankala where General P. had informed him that both missing teenagers had been taken to Chernokozovo. Mr D.M. had then visited Chernokozovo, but neither his grandson nor Mr I.T. had been detained there. 42 .     On 10 April 2001 Mr A.T. was granted victim status and questioned. He stated that on the next day after the disappearance he had visited the police station in Grozny. Police officers had informed him that when they had passed the outskirts of the village on 29 April 2000, they had seen servicemen driving an APC, URAL lorry and UAZ vehicle. Later Mr A.T. learnt from an acquaintance that his son and Isa Tovdayev had been taken to Khankala on that day and had stayed there for about two hours, and then they had been taken to an unknown place. 43.     On 10 April 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about that decision on 26   March 2002. 44.     On 14 May 2001 the investigation was resumed, and on 14 June 2001 suspended again. 45.     On 29 July 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened another criminal case no. 44074 into the disappearance of Mr Isa Tovdayev and Mr I.T. under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). 46.     On 29 September 2005 the deputy head of the Grozny district prosecutor’s office annulled the decision of 14 June 2001 and ordered the resumption of the proceedings. 47.     On 2 October 2005 criminal cases nos. 19016 and 44074 were joined under the joint number 19016. 48.     On 20 October 2005 the second applicant was questioned. He informed the investigators that Mr D.M. had died in February 2004 and confirmed the account of events submitted to the Court. 49.     On 25 October 2005 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 50.     Between 20 and 26 October 2006 the investigators questioned several witnesses who knew about the abduction mostly from hearsay. 51.     The investigation was resumed and then suspended on a number of occasions. The suspensions took place on 29 October 2005 and 9 October 2009, with the case being resumed on 2 September 2009 and 11 February 2011 accordingly. On 13 March 2011 the investigation was suspended again. 52.     On 13 April 2009 the first applicant asked the head of the Committee for the search for persons who disappeared during the counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic for assistance in the search for Mr Isa Tovdayev. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who on 4 May 2009 replied that operational search activities were being carried out to establish his whereabouts. 53.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 54.     On 31 January 2011 the second applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Grozny District Court. On 11 February 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that the investigators had already resumed the proceedings earlier on the same date. On   16   March   2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. C.     Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11) 55.     The applicants are close relatives of brothers Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov (both also spelled as Tigirov), who were born in 1974 and 1968 respectively. The first applicant was their mother; she died in 2011. The second and the third applicants are their sisters. 1.     Abduction of Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov 56.     At the material time the applicants and their relatives lived in the settlement of Yandare in Ingushetia as temporarily displaced persons. 57.     On 4 June 2002 Mr Tapa Tagirov left his house on Shosseynaya Street in Yandare village and disappeared. A few hours later Mr Apti Tagirov left in his GAZ-3210 car (registration number К111ХТ 95Rus) to search for his brother and also disappeared. 58 .     On 7 June 2002 around fifteen armed men arrived together with Mr   Tapa Tagirov in two white Gazel minibuses without registration numbers at the house where he had lived. Some of them were in civilian clothes; others were wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas. The men were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. They did not identify themselves and provided no documents authorising the search. Having searched the premises, the men left together with Mr Tapa Tagirov. 59.     The applicants have not seen their relatives since their disappearance. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 60.     On an unspecified date in June 2002, as submitted by the applicants, the first applicant complained of the abduction of her sons to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office. 61 .     On 17 and then on 24 August 2004 the wives of Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov complained to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office alleging that their husbands had been abducted by State agents. Both of them pointed out that the first applicant had informed the authorities in June 2002 about the abduction but no investigative steps had been taken. 62.     On 3 October 2004 the Nazran district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 045000023 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 63 .     On 26 October 2004 the investigators questioned Mr D. and Ms D. who had rented Mr Tapa Tagirov a room in their house from the end of November 2001 until June 2002. He had lived there with his wife and children. Mr D. and Ms D. had learnt about his disappearance from his wife. A few days after the disappearance a group of servicemen had visited them together with Mr Tapa Tagirov. They had arrived in a white Gazel minivan; some of them had been wearing balaclavas and military uniforms. The servicemen had been of Slavic appearance and spoken unaccented Russian. One of the servicemen had told Mr and Ms D. to stay in their room. Through the window Ms D. had seen that the servicemen had searched Mr   Tapa Tagirov’s room and had seized some of his belongings. Then they had left together with Mr Tapa Tagirov, having said that he would be released in two weeks. 64.     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. Most responses contained statements that no information about Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov was available. 65 .     On 30 November 2004 Mr Apti Tagirov’s wife was granted victim status and questioned. She stated, in particular, that a few days after the disappearance of her husband and his brother, the first applicant had complained thereof to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office. 66 .     On 1 December 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed, in particular, that she had lodged an application with the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office about the disappearance of her sons. 67.     On 3 December 2004 the investigation was suspended. On 25   January 2005 the deputy prosecutor of Ingushetia annulled this decision and ordered the resumption of the proceedings. 68.     On 27 January 2005 the investigation was resumed. 69 .     On 14 February 2005 the investigators received a reply to the information request from the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime of the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia. According to that reply, Mr   Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov had been arrested by law enforcement officers from the Chechen Republic. 70.     On 27 February 2005 the investigation was suspended. 71.     On 10 July 2009 the first applicant requested that the criminal proceedings be resumed and that she be allowed to study the case file. 72.     On 12 August 2009 the applicant’s request to access the case file was granted but the request to resume the proceedings was rejected. 73.     On 17 January 2011 the investigation was resumed and on 1 March 2011 suspended again. 74.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 75.     On 7 February 2011 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision of 27 February 2005 to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Nazran District Court. On 18   February 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On   29   March   2011 the Ingushetia Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. D.     Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) 76 .     The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Musa Tashayev, who was born in 1975. The third applicant is his daughter. According to the applicants, between 2000 and 2002, three other sons of theirs have either been killed or have disappeared. 1.     Abduction of Mr Musa Tashayev 77.     According to the applicants, on 20 November 2000 a sweeping operation was carried out in Urus-Martan. 78 .     At about 4 a.m. on 20 November 2000 a group of armed servicemen arrived at Mr Tashayev’s house at 100 Titova Street in Urus-Martan in an APC and an URAL lorry. The servicemen wore camouflage uniforms and spoke unaccented Russian. They forced Mr Tashayev into one of the vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination. 79.     On the next morning after the abduction, an officer from the Urus ‑ Martan commander’s office told the first applicant that Mr Tashayev had been detained on their premises. 80.     The whereabouts of Mr Tashayev have remained unknown ever since. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 81.     On 9 March 2001 the wife of Mr Musa Tashayev, Ms D., informed the authorities that her husband had been arrested during the special operation. 82.     On 17 May 2001 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 25052 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 83.     On 19 May 2001 the investigators examined the crime scene. 84.     On 19 May 2001 Ms D. was granted victim status and questioned. A copy of her statement submitted to the Court was illegible. 85.     On 17 July 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 86.     On 12 April 2004 the first applicant requested the head of the Urus ‑ Martan department of the interior (the police) for assistance in the search for her son. It is unclear whether any reply was given. 87 .     On 21 January 2008 the first applicant informed the authorities that Ms D. had married again and had been living independently from their family. The first applicant was appointed as a guardian of her children, including the third applicant, by a judgment of 23 May 2007. 88.     On 31 January 2008 the investigation was resumed. It was subsequently suspended on 29 February 2008, then resumed on 18 March 2008, suspended again on 16 April 2008 and resumed on 29 April 2008, then suspended on 28 May 2008 and resumed on 9 December 2010. 89.     On 13 February 2008 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 90 .     On 1 May 2008 the investigators questioned Mr A., who was a neighbour of Mr Tashayev and his family at the relevant time. He had learnt about the incident on the day after the abduction from neighbours, who had confirmed its circumstances as submitted by the applicants. 91 .     On 21 July 2010 the first applicant submitted a request to the investigators to be granted access to the criminal case file and for the proceedings to be resumed. Her request was rejected. 92 .     On 25 November 2010 the first applicant asked the investigators about progress in the proceedings. 93.     On 9 January 2011 the investigation was suspended again. 94 .     On 30 May 2011 the first applicant again requested access to the case file and asked the investigators to resume the criminal proceedings. On 17 June 2011 the investigators granted her access to the file but refused to resume the proceedings. 95.     On 13 July 2011 the proceedings were resumed. 96.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 97.     On 6 December 2010 the first applicant complained to the Achkhoy ‑ Martan District Court about the lack of access to the criminal case file and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. On 17 December 2010 the court ordered the investigators to grant her full access to the criminal case file. The remainder of her complaint was rejected. 98.     On 27 May 2011 the first applicant lodged another complaint challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court. On 15 July 2011 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that the investigation had been resumed on 13   July 2011. On 10 August 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the above decision on appeal. E.     Metsoyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 40161/12) 99.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Sayd-Eli (also spelled as Said ‑ Eli) Garbulatov, who was born in 1960. The second and the third applicants are his children. 1.     Abduction of Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov and subsequent events 100.     At about 1 p.m. on 10 August 2005 Mr Garbulatov, a former member of illegal armed groups in Chechnya, was leaving the office of the Grozny Technical Inventory Bureau ( БТИ г. Грозного ) at 2 Pobedy Avenue in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny, when about twenty armed servicemen in black military uniform surrounded him, forced him into an UAZ vehicle with no registration numbers and drove off to an unknown destination. 101 .     On 18 August 2005 the applicants’ relative, Mr V.G., went to the Katayama department of the interior (police station) in Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny. In one of the corridors of the police station he saw Mr   Garbulatov sitting on a chair under armed guard. Mr V.G. managed to approach Mr Garbulatov and to have a brief conversation with him. Mr   Garbulatov told him that since his arrest on 10 August 2005 he had been detained in the basement of the police station. At that moment a serviceman in a black military uniform approached them, shouted at Mr V.G. for talking to Mr Garbulatov and walked the latter away. Mr V.G. asked police officers for the name of this serviceman; they replied that it was Mr D.E. 102.     The whereabouts of Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov have remained unknown ever since. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 103.     On 19 January 2006 the first applicant lodged an official complaint with the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny about the abduction of her husband and asked for assistance in the search for him. 104.     On 30 January 2006 the first applicant was interviewed by the investigators. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. 105.     On 3 February 2006 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the abduction on the grounds of the absence of any criminal act. 106.     On 8 May 2006 the supervising prosecutor overruled the above decision and opened criminal case no. 51072 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). The first applicant was granted victim status. 107.     On the same date the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 108.     The investigators sent numerous requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. Most responses contained statements that no information about Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov was available. 109 .     On 9 May 2006 the Zavodskoy district department of the interior (the police station) replied to the investigators that “in August 2005 Mr   Garbulatov was in Katayama police station”. 110 .     On 23 May 2006 the investigators questioned Mr V.G. He confirmed his earlier statements (see paragraph 101 above). 111.     In June and July 2006 the investigators questioned several police officers from the Staropromyslovskiy district department of the interior. All of them denied that Mr Garbulatov had ever been arrested or detained by them. 112.     On 8 July 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed on numerous occasions following the supervisors’ orders and then suspended again. Thus, the investigation was resumed on 18 July 2006, 3 May, 26 July and 15   November 2007, and 20 May 2008 and suspended on 18 August 2006, 7   June, 3 September and 15 December 2007, and 29 June 2008. 113 .     On 13 April 2007 the first applicant asked the investigators to resume the proceedings and to grant her access to the criminal case file. Her request for access to the case file was refused. 114 .     On an unspecified date in 2007 the first applicant complained to the Head of the Government of the Chechen Republic, asking him to provide assistance in the search for her husband. According to her statements, Mr   Garbulatov had spent one month in the basement of the police station and had been questioned by the head of the Staropromyslovskiy district department of the interior on several occasions. Two and a half months after the disappearance of her husband the head of the police station had asked Mr Garbulatov’s brother-in-law, Mr S.G., to bring his clothes. When the latter had arrived at the police station, a police officer had approached him and had provoked him to a quarrel. Then Mr S.G. had been taken to the premises of the separate reconnaissance battalion 2-ORB ( 2-ОРБ ) where he had spent two days. He had been told to stop searching for Mr Garbulatov. 115.     On 28 April 2007 the first applicant’s complaint was forwarded to the deputy prosecutor of the Zavodskoy district of Grozny. 116.     On 2 June 2008 the investigators sent a request for information about certain police officers to the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. It was stated in the request that according to the case file materials, Mr Garbulatov had been detained for one month in the Katayama division of the Staropromyslovskiy district department of the interior. 117.     On 26 June 2008 the first applicant was questioned again. She confirmed her statements provided to the Head of the Government of the Chechen Republic (see paragraph 114 above). 118 .     On 19 May 2011 the first applicant again requested the investigators to resume the proceedings and to inform her about their progress. In reply she received a letter stating that operational search activities were being undertaken in order to establish her husband’s whereabouts. 119.     On 28 October 2011 the investigation was resumed. 120 .     On 14 November 2011 the investigators questioned Mr S.G. He confirmed the first applicant’s statements submitted to the Head of the Government of the Chechen Republic (see paragraph 114 above). 121.     On 7 December 2011 the investigation was suspended. 122.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 123.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny regarding her lack of access to the investigation file. On 9 November 2007 the court allowed her complaint. 124.     On 18 February 2012 the first applicant lodged another complaint regarding the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 27 February 2012 the court dismissed her complaint. F.     Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) 125.     The applicants are the parents of Mr Magomed (also spelled as Magomet) Azizov, who was born in 1981. 1.     Abduction of Mr Magomed Azizov 126 .     At about 3 a.m. on 5 February 2003 a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicants’ family house at 13 Naberezhnaya Street in Shali in a UAZ minivan ( “таблетка” ) and a Gazel minivan without registration plates. The servicemen were equipped with protective shields and helmets; they spoke unaccented Russian. Having forced their way into the house, they searched the premises, checked passports, and then forced Mr Azizov outside. The first applicant asked the servicemen where they were from. One of them replied that they were from the military commander’s office. The servicemen put Mr Azizov in one of their vehicles and drove off in the direction of Shali city centre. 127.     The whereabouts of Mr Magomed Azizov have remained unknown ever since. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their family members. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 128 .     Immediately after the abduction the first applicant complained about it to the authorities and asked for the necessary steps to be taken. 129.     On 8 February 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22026 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 130 .     On 9 February 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the submissions before the Court. 131 .     On 10 February 2003 the investigators questioned Mr R.A., whose statement was similar to that of the first applicant. 132.     The investigators sent numerous requests for information to the medical institutions, law ‑ enforcement and other authorities, including the Shali military commander’s office. In reply the commander’s office informed the investigators that Mr Azizov had not been arrested or detained by its officers. Other responses contained statements that no information about Mr Magomed Azizov was available. 133.     On 8 April 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 134 .     On a number of occasions between 2003 and 2009 the applicants complained to various authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their son. Their complaints were forwarded to the investigators and the Shali district prosecutor’s office. In reply, on each occasion, the applicants received letters from those authorities stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their son’s whereabouts. 135.     On 30 April 2011 the decision of 8 April 2003 to suspend the investigation was overruled following the supervisors’ criticism, and on 10   May 2011 the proceedings were resumed. They were subsequently suspended on 10 June 2011 and resumed again on 25 April 2012. 136.     On 18 May 2011 the first applicant was questioned again. She reiterated her earlier statements. 137.     On 19 May 2011 the investigators ordered a forensic DNA examination. 138 .     Between 20 and 26 May 2011 the investigators questioned Mr   R.A., the second applicant and the applicants’ neighbours. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the events as described above. 139.     On 26 May 2011 the investigators examined the crime scene. 140 .     On 7 July 2011 the first applicant submitted a request to be granted access to the investigation file. It is unclear whether she received any reply to this request. 141.     On 30 April 2012 the proceedings were suspended. The investigators instructed the Shali district department of the interior (police station) to intensify the search for Mr Magomed Azizov and to take all necessary operational search measures. 142 .     On 24 April 2014 the first applicant lodged an application with the head of the police station asking to question two of their neighbours again in order to confirm that the abductors had been State agents. On 2 May 2014 her application was rejected. 143.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 144.     On 9 April 2012 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision of 10 June 2011 to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps before the Shali Town Court. On 26 April 2012 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that the investigation had been resumed the day before. On 6 June 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. G.     Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13) 145.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Khamzat Larsanov (also spelled as Lorsanov), who was born in 1983. 1.     Abduction of Mr Khamzat Larsanov 146 .     At about 4 a.m. on 11 September 2002 Mr Larsanov, his father, Mr   R.L., and his mother − the applicant − were at home at 97 Obukhova Street in Grozny when a group of about fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in three UAZ vehicles and three APCs. One of the APCs had a registration number containing the digits “002”. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian; some of them were equipped with portable radio sets which they used at some point to receive a command. Having forced their way into the applicant’s house, they fired some shots and then searched the premises, asking the family members whether any members of illegal armed groups were hiding in the house. One of the servicemen took off his balaclava. He was of Slavic appearance. After the search, the servicemen forced Mr Larsanov into one of their vehicles and took him away to an unknown destination. 147.     The whereabouts of Mr Khamzat Larsanov have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicant, her relatives and neighbours. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 148.     The criminal case file concerning the abduction of the applicant’s son was lost in unknown circumstances. Following the supervisor’s order to restore it, in 2016 the investigators resumed the proceedings and took several investigative steps. In particular, they questioned the witnesses and examined the crime scene. The following account of events is based on the copies of the original case file and other documents submitted by the applicant as well as the documents from the restored case file submitted by the Government. 149.     Immediately after the abduction, the applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. 150.     On the same day the investigators examined the criminal scene. 151.     On 26 September 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 48162 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code. 152.     On 16 October 2002 the case no. 48162 was joined with the case no. 48172 concerning the abduction of Mr I.Yu. under the joint number   48162. 153.     On 26 October 2002 the applicant was granted victim status. 154 .     On an unspecified date between October and November 2002 the investigators interviewed the applicant, her husband, their relatives and neighbours. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 155.     On 26 November 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 156 .     Between 2004 and 2007 the applicant complained to various authorities and NGOs about the abduction of her son and requested assistance in the search for him. Her complaints were forwarded to the investigators, who replied that the investigation had been suspended and that operational search activities were in progress. 157.     On 15 March 2007 the investigators informed the applicant that the proceedings in the criminal case had been suspended on 26 November 2002 and that operational search activities were in progress to establish her son’s whereabouts. 158.     On 26 June 2007 a police officer from the Leninskiy district police department interviewed the applicant. 159.     On 27 October 2012 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision of 26 November 2002 to suspend the investigation and ordered its resumption. On 12 December 2012 the proceedings were suspended again. 160.     On 28 June 2016 the Chechnya Investigations Department ordered the head of the investigative committee in Grozny to restore the criminal case-file no. 48162 which had been lost. 161.     On 30 June 2016 the investigators resumed the proceedings. 162.     On 4 July 2016 the investigators questioned the applicant who reiterated her previous statements. 163 .     Between 5 and 7 July 2016 the investigators questioned Ms M.E., Ms M.M., Ms Z.D. and the applicant’s husband who had witnessed the abduction of Mr Khamzat Larsanov. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 164.     On 13 July 2016 the investigators examined the crime scene. 165.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. H.     Gaydakova v. Russia (no. 6983/13) 166.     The applicant is the wife of Mr Isa Gaydakov, who was born in 1959. 1.     Abduction of Ms Isa Gaydakov 167.     Mr Isa Gaydakov was a cousin of Mr Shamil Basayev, the underground leader of the Chechen rebel separatist movement, who masterminded and led a number of guerrilla attacks on Russian security forces and civilians, including the hostage-taking in a school in Beslan in September 2004 (see Tagayeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 26562/07 and 6   others, 13 April 2017). 168.     On 23 April 2004 Mr Gaydakov was at the Zhanetta petrol station on Mayakovskogo Street in Grozny, when a group of about seven men in camouflage uniforms forced him out of his Volga car and took him to an unknown destination. 169.     The whereabouts of Mr Isa Gaydakov have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 170.     According to the applicant, she informed the authorities of the abduction shortly afterwards and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. Despite her requests, the authorities refused to officially register her complaints, thereby impeding the investigation. 171.     On 22 May 2005 a police officer from the Leninskiy district department of the interior (the police station) in Grozny interviewed Mr   T.M. and Mr L.D. who had worked at the petrol station at the time of the events in question. Both of them denied that they had any information about the abduction of Mr Gaydakov. 172.     On 7 June 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny refused to open a criminal case into the abduction. 173.     On 1 August 2005 the supervising prosecutor overruled that decision and opened criminal case no. 40157 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 44064) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 174.     On 23 August 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 175.     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities about Mr Gaydakov. Most responses contained statements that no information had been available. 176 .     On an unspecified date in September 2005 the head of the police station informed the investigators that according to their information Mr   Gaydakov had been arrested by the officers of the Security Service of the President of Chechnya ( Служба безопасности при Президенте Чеченской Республики ) on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of illegal armed groups. 177.     On 1 October 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. That decision was overruled by the supervising prosecutor on 15 November 2005 and the investigation was resumed. It was again suspended on 15 February 2006. The applicant was informed thereof. 178.     On 10 November 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene. 179 .     On 15 November 2005 Mr V.M., the deputy head of the provisional task force of the criminal police department of the Ministry of the Interior in Khankala ( КМ ВОГО и П МВД России ) informed the investigators that Mr   Gaydakov was listed as a participant in illegal armed groups. Their statement contained the description of the circumstances of the abduction of Mr Gaydakov. 180.     On 14 December 2005 the investigators questioned Ms Kh.Kh., who was Mr Gaydakov’s second wife. She stated that he had never been involved in the activities of ill