CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s1D4E86C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .sED96C1EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2E819D4D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEE251087 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1B8EDD91 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:41.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s85F89815 { width:173.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sE188E4CB { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse; } .s2520E78A { height:13.8pt } .sE6C34D38 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s5504DC55 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5111C6A6 { height:9.2pt } .sFED3270D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#ffffff } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC6F37A61 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s1C93675A { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sD81AB0A7 { height:11.35pt } .s60926251 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sB9AE580D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s8235E78A { height:14.2pt } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s21AC5D7A { height:23.95pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 61555/13 Zulay Toguzovna UMAYEVA and Others against Russia and 15 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   September 2019 as a committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Erik Wennerström, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details, as well as the application numbers, appear in the appended tables. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. A.     The circumstances of the cases 3.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     At the material time, the applicants lived in the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being detained by State agents between 2000 and 2006. In application no.   71398/14 ( Israilovy v Russia ) the applicants’ relative, Mr   Bekkhan Israilov, was shot dead by his father’s abductors. The whereabouts of the applicants’ abducted relatives remain unknown. 5.     The applicants reported the incidents in question to the authorities, and official investigations were opened. In each of the cases, the proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and they have been ongoing for years without achieving any tangible results. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that in each of the cases the proceedings are still ongoing. 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 to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. 1.     Umayeva and Others v. Russia (no.   61555/13) 7.     The applicants are close relatives of two brothers: Mr Vesmirt Eskiyev, who was born in 1957, and Mr Visait Eskiyev, who was born in 1955 (see Appendix no. 1). (a)     Disappearance of Mr Vesmirt Eskiyev and Mr Visait Eskiyev 8.     At about 11 a.m. on 26 December 2000 the applicants’ relatives were abducted from their house by a group of twenty-five to thirty armed men in military uniforms. The abductors started to beat Mr Visait Eskiyev, and when Mr   Vesmirt Eskiyev tried to help his brother the servicemen beat him too. Both of them were then forced into the abductors’ armoured personnel carrier (APC) and taken to an unknown destination. Allegedly, the abduction was carried out under the orders of Lieutenant Colonel S. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 9.     On 16 January 2001 the first applicant applied to the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor’s office, asking it to assist in the search for her missing relatives. 10.     On 17 January 2001 the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor informed the commander of the military unit based in Khankala that, according to operational information, two abducted persons were being kept on their premises in Khankala. He asked that this information be verified. 11.     On 18 January 2001, the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 35004 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction) and questioned the first applicant. She reiterated the account of events described above. 12.     On 30 January 2001 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 13.     On 31 January 2001 the second applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She stated that her husband had never been a member of an illegal armed group. 14.     On 10 February 2001 the mother of the abducted persons was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. 15.     On 18 March 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 16.     On 19 March 2001 the head of the administration of the village of Nozhay-Yurt and the first applicant were questioned. They reiterated the account of events submitted to the Court. 17 .     Between February and March 2001 the first and the second applicants lodged several requests with the law-enforcement authorities, asking them to assist in the search for their missing relatives. 18 .     On 17 February 2004 the proceedings were resumed and then suspended on the same day. 19.     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. The responses received contained statements to the effect that no information about the applicants’ relatives was available. 20.     On 30 December 2004 the investigation was resumed and criminal case no. 35004 was joined to another criminal case (no. 35005) instituted in respect of the abduction of two other men, the Eldarov brothers, who had allegedly been taken away by the same group of armed men on the same day as the applicants’ relatives. 21.     On 12 September 2005 the first applicant wrote to the investigators, asking them to assist in the search for her missing sons. On 20 February 2006 the investigators informed her that the investigation had been suspended. 22 .     On 16 February 2009 the investigation was resumed. On 4 March 2009 the second applicant was questioned. She reiterated her earlier statements. On 23 March 2009 the proceedings were suspended, then resumed on 25 May 2012 and suspended again on 5 June 2012. The second applicant was informed of this. 23.     On 25 June 2013 the investigation was resumed and the first applicant’s representative was granted access to the case file. Subsequently, the proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions without any tangible results being achieved. The proceedings were last resumed in November 2014. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 24.     On 2 February 2012 the first and the second applicants appealed to the Nozhay-Yurt District Court against the decision of 23 March 2009 to suspend the investigation. Their appeal was left unexamined, owing to procedural shortcomings. 25.     On 23 May 2012 the first and the second applicants lodged another appeal against the decision to suspend the investigation and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. 26.     On 31 May 2012 the Gudermes Town Court allowed their appeal in part, having found, inter alia , that the investigation had already been resumed on 25 May 2012. 27.     On 11 June 2013 the first and the second applicants lodged another appeal against the investigator’s decision of 5 June 2012 to suspend the proceedings. 28.     On 31 May 2012 the Gudermes Town Court rejected the appeal, as the investigation had already been resumed on 18 June 2013. That decision was upheld on 17 July 2013 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic. 2.     Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no.   32771/14) 29.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Isa Kalayev, who was born in 1975 (see Appendix no. 2). (a)     Disappearance of Mr Isa Kalayev 30.     At about midnight on 5 April 2003 Mr Isa Kalayev, along with two other persons, was abducted from the house of his friend, Mr H.A., in Michurino, in the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic, and taken to an unknown destination. Allegedly, the abductors were a group of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 31.     According to the applicants, after the abduction they contacted various authorities, trying to find Mr Isa Kalayev, but to no avail. 32 .     On 8 April 2003 a relative of one of the abducted persons applied to the head of the Urus-Martan Department of the Interior, asking for assistance in the search for his missing relative. 33.     On 24 April 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 34048) in respect of one of the two other abducted men under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 34.     On 31 May 2003 the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. Between 30 April and 24 June 2003 the investigators questioned a number of Mr Isa Kalayev’s relatives and examined the crime scene. 35 .     On 24 June 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 36 .     It appears that between 24 June 2003 and 13 July 2012 the investigation was suspended and there was no official communication between the applicants and the authorities. 37.     On 13 July 2012 the investigation was resumed, following the investigators’ superiors giving orders to this effect. 38.     Between 20 July and 7 August 2012 three relatives of the two other abducted men were questioned. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended on several occasions. 39.     On 5 October 2012 the fourth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 6 October 2012 the investigators suspended the proceedings again. It appears that the proceedings are still ongoing. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 40.     On 17 December 2013 the second applicant appealed against the investigator’s decision of 6 October 2012 to suspend the criminal proceedings. 41.     On 24 December 2013 the Urus-Martan Town Court dismissed her appeal. On 5 February 2014 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld that decision on appeal. 3.     Saydayeva and Others v. Russia (no.   46403/14) 42.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Beslan Saydayev, who was born in 1978 (see Appendix no.   3). (a)     Disappearance of Mr Beslan Saydayev 43.     On 14 July 2001 a group of military servicemen broke into the applicants’ house in Serzhen-Yurt. Mr Beslan Saydayev was forced onto the floor and his T-shirt was pulled over his head. The applicants were forced out of their house and locked in their neighbour’s bathroom. When they managed to get free, Mr Beslan Saydayev had already been taken away. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 44.     On 16 July 2001 the first applicant applied to the head of the Human Rights Defender’s Committee of Grozny, asking it to assist in the search for her missing son. 45.     On 12 August 2001 the Shali district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 23175) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 46.     On 12 October 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 47 .     On 20 May 2002 the first applicant asked the military commander of the United Group Alignment to assist her in the search for her missing son. Then, on an unspecified date in 2008 she sent the same request to the investigators’ superiors, who on 2 April 2008 forwarded it to the investigators. 48.     On 5 May 2008 the Military Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended on 6 December 2006 for failure to identify the perpetrators. 49 .     On 15 February 2013 the investigators joined the investigation in case no.   23178 with one in case no. 23175 concerning another abduction in Serzhen-Yurt. 50.     On 22 March 2013 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events described above. 51.     On 7 September 2013 the investigation was suspended again. 52.     On 8 October 2013 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her access to the case file and allow her to make copies of some documents. On 29   November 2013 the investigators granted her request in part, but refused to allow her to copy the documents. 53.     On 31 January 2014 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 17 February 2014. 54.     On 20 February 2014 the first applicant appealed against the investigators’ refusal to allow her to make copies of the case documents. It appears that during the proceedings before the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny the applicant received copies of all the documents. 55.     On 11 March 2014 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 56.     On 18 March 2014 the first applicant asked the investigators to allow her to make copies of some documents, including the decision of 11   March 2014 to suspend the investigation. On 19 March 2014 the investigators granted her request in part as regards the decision to suspend the investigation, and refused the rest. 57.     On 28 March 2014 the investigation was resumed. It appears that the proceedings are still ongoing. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 58.     On 21 March 2014 the first applicant challenged the suspension decision of 11   March 2014 before the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny. 59.     On 1 April 2014 the Leninskiy District Court terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the decision of 11 March 2014 had been quashed by the investigators’ superiors on 28 March 2014. 60.     On 7 May 2014 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the decision on appeal. 4.     Magomadova and Others v. Russia (no.   67207/14) 61.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Aslan Magomadov, who was born in 1977 (see Appendix no.   4). (a)     Disappearance of Mr Aslan Magomadov 62.     On 21 March 2000 Mr Aslan Magomadov went to Grozny on an errand and did not return. At the time military clashes between illegal armed groups and federal military forces were taking place in the area. Mr   Aslan Magomadov was later seen in Goy-Chu, and he appeared in television footage as one of the members of the illegal armed groups who had been arrested. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 63.     On 26 July 2000 the first applicant applied to the President of Russia’s Special Envoy for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, asking for assistance in the search for her missing brother. 64.     On 25 December 2000 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 24101) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 65.     Between 18 February 2001 and 20 July 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. No tangible investigative measures were taken after the resumption of the proceedings. 66 .     On 20 August 2001 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 5 July 2007. During that period Mr Aslan Magomadov’s mother contacted the authorities on four occasions (on 21 September 2001, 29   September 2002, 17 September 2003 and 17 June 2007), either seeking information on the progress of the investigation or asking them to assist in the search for her missing son. 67.     On 9 July 2007 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. On the same day Mr M.I., the brother of the abducted person, was questioned. Their statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. 68.     On 26 July 2007 Mr Kh.A. – who had allegedly been in the area where military clashes had been taking place and had subsequently been detained by the federal military forces – was questioned and gave an account of events similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court. 69.     In July and August 2007 the investigators sent several requests to the law ‑ enforcement authorities, asking them to inform them about which units of the federal military forces had taken part in the counter-terrorist operation which had taken place in the Chechen Republic in March 2000. In reply, they were informed that no information on those units was available. 70.     On 5 August 2007 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 15 August 2007. 71.     In August 2007 the investigators requested information on Mr Aslan Magomadov from local law ‑ enforcement authorities. The replies received stated that those authorities had no information about him. 72.     On 17 August 2007 the investigators examined a compact disc containing video footage of the members of the illegal armed groups who had been arrested, and included that in the case material. 73.     On 15 September 2007 the investigators suspended the proceedings again. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. It was last resumed on 14 December 2007. 74.     On 25 December 2007 Mr Aslan Magomedov’s mother was questioned. 75.     On 28 December 2007 Mr T.M. was questioned; his statement was similar to the account of events described above. 76.     On 14 January 2008 the investigators obtained video footage from 24 March 2000 from a federal television channel. The footage depicted members of the illegal armed groups who had been arrested. On the same day the investigation was suspended. 77 .     On 20 February 2008 the investigators questioned three reporters from the federal television channel, all of whom stated that the footage from 24 March 2000 had not been filmed by them, but by the special military services, and then transferred to their channel to be used in a news broadcast. 78.     On 6 April 2009 the first applicant wrote to the Parliament of the Chechen Republic, asking for assistance in the search for her missing brother. Her request was forwarded to the investigating authorities. 79.     On 16 August 2011 the supervising prosecutor quashed the suspension decision of 14 January 2008 and resumed the investigation. 80.     On 25 and 29 August and 8 September 2011 Mr Aslan Magomadov’s mother, his brother and the first applicant were questioned again; they reiterated their previous statements. 81 .     On 22 September 2011 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 2 June 2014. Meanwhile, on 28 March 2013 the first applicant had asked the investigators to grant her access to the investigation file and allow her to make copies of documents. On 12 April 2013 her request was granted. 82.     On 3 and 4 June 2014 the first applicant and her mother were questioned again. They reiterated their earlier statements. 83.     On 3 June 2014 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of DNA obtained from Mr Aslan Magomadov’s mother. 84.     On 9 July 2014 the investigation was suspended. It appears that it is still ongoing. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 85.     The first applicant challenged the suspension decision of 22   September 2011 before the Urus-Martan Town Court in the Chechen Republic. 86.     On 3 June 2014 the court terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the investigation had been resumed on 2 June 2014. That decision was upheld on 1 July 2017 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic. 5.     Israilovy v. Russia (no.   71398/14) 87.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Nurdi Israilov, who was born in 1953, and Mr Bekkhan Israilov, who was born in 1978 (see Appendix no.   5). (a)     Disappearance of Mr Nurdi Israilov and the killing of Mr Bekkhan Israilov 88.     At about 3 a.m.   on 10 November 2002 Mr Nurdi (also spelt Nuri) Israilov was abducted from his home in Noviy Tsentaroy in the Grozny District. His son, Mr Bekkhan (also spelt Bekhan) Israilov, was shot dead by the perpetrators during the abduction. The group of armed men who abducted Mr Nurdi Israilov were in military uniforms and balaclavas. They spoke unaccented Russian and arrived at the applicants’ house in a UAZ military-type van. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 89.     On 10 November 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 24101) under Articles 105 (murder) and 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code. On the same day the investigators examined the crime scene and the dead body of Mr Bekkhan Israilov, and questioned two brothers of the abducted person. Their statements were similar to the account of events described above. 90.     On 11 November 2002 a sergeant from the OMON police (a special task force unit) was questioned. He stated that he had heard a machine gun being shot 700-800 metres away from the place where he had been on patrol duty (the town of Argun), near to Noviy Tsentaroy. 91.     On 12 November 2002 Mr Nurdi Israilov’s brother was questioned, as were his neighbours, Ms G. M. and Ms T. A. All of them affirmed that the circumstances of the events were as described above. 92.     On 23 October 2003 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the body of Mr Bekkhan Israilov. On 31 October 2003 the experts replied that they could not answer the investigators’ questions, as the documents which the investigators had submitted were insufficient. 93.     On 5 December 2002 the investigators ordered a ballistic examination of a bullet cartridge found at the crime scene. 94.     On 10 January 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 95.     On 22 December 2003 and 23 February 2004 the tenth applicant complained to a number of Chechen authorities about the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. Her complaints were forwarded to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office and she was informed of this. 96.     On 12 March and 15 October 2012 the tenth applicant requested information on the progress in the criminal proceedings and permission to study the case file. 97.     On 26 December 2012 the supervising prosecutor quashed the suspension decision of 10 January 2003. 98.     On 29 December 2012 the tenth applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. 99.     On 30 December 2012 the investigation was suspended, then resumed on 27   June 2013 and suspended again on 7 July 2013. The applicants were informed of this. 100.     On 4 June 2014 the investigators resumed the proceedings. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 101.     The first applicant challenged the suspension decision of 7 July 2013 before the Grozny District Court. 102.     On 5 June 2014 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 4   June 2014. That decision was upheld on 25 June 2014 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic. 6.     Gereykhanova v. Russia (no.   13653/15) 103.     The applicant is the wife of Mr Nogi Inderbayev, who was born in 1965 (see Appendix no.   6). (a)     Disappearance of Mr Nogi Inderbayev 104 .     On 3 July 2003 Mr Nogi Inderbayev, who was a cowherd, disappeared from the pasture where his herd of cattle was grazing, approximately one kilometre away from the village of Koshkeldy, in the Gudermes District. According to locals, a military UAZ vehicle was driving around in the vicinity on the date of the abduction. (b)     Official investigation into the disappearance 105.     On 7 July 2003 the father of Nogi Inderbayev complained of the disappearance to the head of the Gudermes district police, and asked them to assist in the search for his missing son. 106.     On 9 July 2003, following a complaint by the applicant, the Gudermes district police opened search file no. 063032. On the same day the investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds of absence of corpus delicti . Mr Nogi Inderbayev’s father was informed of this. 107.     On 28 October 2004 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that it had refused to open a criminal case because of the absence of corpus delicti . 108.     Between September 2004 and February 2005 the applicant wrote to various authorities, asking them to assist in the search for her abducted husband. 109.     On 5 October 2005 the supervising prosecutor quashed the refusal of 9 July 2003 to open a criminal case. 110 .     On 15 October 2005 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 45117) under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). 111.     On 24 October 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements concerning the circumstances of the disappearance were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. 112.     On 24 and 25 October 2005 the investigators sent several information requests to law ‑ enforcement agencies. The replies received stated that those agencies had no information. 113.     On 25 October 2005 the investigators questioned the father and the mother of Mr Nogi Inderbayev, whose account of events was similar to the applicant’s submissions before the Court. 114.     On 11 November 2005 the applicant’s neighbour, Mr B.R., was questioned. His statement was similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. 115 .     On 15 December 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was notified of this. 116 .     On 7 July 2008 the Investigative Committee of the Chechen Republic provided the applicant with a statement on the progress in the criminal case, at her request. 117.     On 19 August 2008 Mr Nogi Indrbayev’s death certificate was issued following a request by the applicant in this regard. 118.     On 14 July 2009 the applicant complained of her husband’s disappearance to the head of the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons, and asked for help in the search for him. 119 .     From 2009 to 2015 there was no official communication between the applicant and the authorities. 120.     On 24 February 2015 the applicant wrote to the investigators, seeking information on the progress of the case. 121.     On 27 February 2015 the investigators resumed the proceedings. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing. 7.     Midayevy and Others v. Russia (no.   26220/15) 122.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Idris Midayev, who was born in 1976 (see Appendix no.   7). (a)     Disappearance of Mr Idris Midayev 123.     At 5 p.m. on 26 July 2002 two UAZ cars, two armoured personnel carriers (APC) and about fifteen to twenty armed military men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas cordoned off Mr Idris Midayev’s house in Gudermes and stormed inside. They blindfolded Mr Idris Midayev, bound his hands and then took him away. Mr Midayev’s whereabouts have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 124.     On 29 July 2002 the first applicant complained of the abduction to the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office. 125.     On 2, 3 and 4 of August 2002 the first applicant, a neighbour, and the sister-in-law of the abducted person were interviewed by the police and subsequently also questioned by the investigators in the criminal case. Their statements were similar to the account of events described above. 126.     On 6 August 2002 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office instituted proceedings (case no. 57061) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On the same date the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 127.     In August 2002 the investigators sent several requests for information on Mr Idris Midayev’s whereabouts to law ‑ enforcement authorities. The replies received stated that those authorities had no information about his whereabouts. 128 .     On 6 October 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 129 .     On 5 October 2010 the wife of Mr Idris Midayev requested that the investigators grant her victim status and inform her about the progress in the case. 130.     On 7 October 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings. On the same day Mr Idris Midayev’s wife was granted victim status and was questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. 131.     On 8 October 2010 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 11   November 2010. The first applicant and Mr Idris Midayev’s wife were informed of this. 132.     On 11 November 2010 Mr Idris Midayev’s wife was granted civil-claimant status. Subsequently, on 12   November 2010 the proceedings were suspended again. The first applicant was informed of this. 133.     On 10 February 2011 the Gudermes Town Court declared Mr Idris Midayev dead, at the request of his wife. On 17 June 2011 his death certificate was issued. 134.     On 3 March 2011 Mr Idris Midayev’s wife requested information on the progress in the criminal case. She was provided with summary information on 9 March 2011. 135.     On 22 July 2011 the second applicant and two other persons were questioned, and they reiterated their earlier statements. 136 .     On 11 November 2013 the second applicant requested permission to access the case documents and make copies of those documents. On 21   November 2013 the investigators refused her request. 137.     On 19 December 2013 and 7 April 2014 the second applicant asked to be granted victim status. Both requests were refused on 20   December 2013 and 17 April 2014 respectively. 138.     On 8 April 2014 the second applicant wrote to the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, asking for assistance in the search for her missing son. Then on 12 April 2014 she lodged yet another request for access to the criminal case file. It is unclear whether any reply was given. 139.     Between March 2014 and November 2014 the investigation was resumed and suspended on several occasions. It was last suspended on 29   November 2014. The first applicant was informed about the suspensions. 140.     It appears that the investigation is still ongoing. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 141.     The first applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 5   August 2014 before the Gudermes Town Court. 142.     On 12 November 2014 the Gudermes Town Court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 11 November 2014. That decision was upheld on 17 December 2014 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic. 8.     Kanayeva and Others v. Russia (no.   37575/15) 143.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Daud Dashayev, who was born in 1956 (see Appendix no.   8). (a)     Disappearance of Mr Daud Dashayev 144.     On 4 December 2003 Mr Daud Dashayev picked up two passengers as a taxi driver. Later all three of them disappeared from a taxi rank near the central market in Grozny. They were allegedly abducted by military men driving two UAZ cars with the registration plates 469 and 452 and one VAZ-21099 car, who forced them into one of their cars and then transferred them into an APC. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 145.     On 10 December 2003 the applicants’ relatives complained of Mr   Daud Dashayev’s abduction to the Government of the Chechen Republic, asking them to assist in the search for him. In December 2003 and January 2004 that request was forwarded to various law-enforcement authorities. 146.     On 28 March 2004 Mr Daud Dashayev’s brother, Mr I.A., complained to the police. On the same day he was interviewed. His statement did not provide new information on the account of events described above. 147.     On 24 April 2004 three persons who worked and lived near the central market in Grozny were interviewed. To their knowledge, there had been no abduction in the vicinity in December 2003. 148.     On 11 May 2004 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office instituted proceedings (case no. 31043) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 149.     On 14 May 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the accounts of events mentioned above. 150.     On 18, 27 and 28 May 2004 the brother and two neighbours of Mr   Daud Dashayev were questioned. According to their statements, Mr   Dashayev was not affiliated with any illegal armed groups, nor had he been involved in any financial disputes. 151.     On 18 and 20 May 2004 the investigators sent several requests for information on Mr   Daud Dashayev’s possible whereabouts to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. The replies received stated that those authorities had no information about his whereabouts. 152.     On 11 July 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant was informed of this. 153.     Upon the orders of the supervising prosecutor, the investigation was resumed on 22 July 2005 and suspended again on 22 August 2005. 154.     On 16 February 2006 the first applicant requested the assistance of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic in the search for her missing husband. 155.     On 22 April 2006 the first applicant was questioned again. 156.     On 10 May 2006 the proceedings were resumed. Subsequently, they were suspended again on 10 June 2006. On 26 July 2006 the first applicant requested a copy of the decision to suspend the proceedings, but to no avail. 157.     On 19 September 2006 the investigation was resumed. Subsequently, the first applicant was questioned again on 25 September 2006. This time her statements differed. In particular, she stated that her husband had not been abducted from the taxi rank at the market in Grozny. He had been driving towards the village of Michurina when his car had been stopped at the federal forces checkpoint in Khankalskiy Street, and he and his two passengers had been abducted from there. 158.     On 27 September 2006 two brothers of Mr   Daud Dashayev were questioned. Their statements were similar to that of the first applicant of 25   September 2006. In addition, they both indicated that relatives of Mr   Daud Dashayev’s previous wife could have carried out the abduction. 159.     On 19 October 2006 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 2 May 2007. 160.     On 17 May 2007 the first applicant was questioned. On the same day, at her request, she was granted civil-claimant status in the criminal proceedings. 161 .     On 5 June 2007 the investigation was suspended and the first applicant was informed of this. On 20 October 2011 the proceedings were resumed again and Mr   Daud Dashayev’s son was granted victim status and questioned. 162 .     On 25 October 2011 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 25 November 2014. After a witness was questioned, the proceedings were suspended again on 28 November 2014 and then resumed yet again on 6 March 2015. 163.     On 7 March 2015 the investigators ordered a search of the applicants’ relative’s car, and on 16 March 2015 they suspended the proceedings. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 164.     The first applicant challenged the investigator’s decision of 28   November 2014 to suspend the investigation before the Zavodskoy District Court. 165.     On 10 March 2015 the Zavodskoy District Court allowed the challenge and quashed the above-mentioned decision. 166.     On 15 April 2015 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic terminated the proceedings, as by the time the judgment of 10 March 2015 had been delivered, the investigation had already been resumed on 3 March 2015. (d)     Civil proceedings concerning non-pecuniary damage 167.     On 4 February 2015 the Leninskiy District Court granted the first applicant’s claim and awarded her 1,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB – approximately 13,017 euros (EUR)) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the disappearance of her husband. 9.     Magomadov and Others v. Russia (no.   53158/15) 168.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Lechi Magomadov, who was born in 1964 (see Appendix no.   9). (a)     Disappearance of Mr Lechi Magomadov 169.     On 2 April 2004 Mr Lechi Magomadov went to visit a friend in another neighbourhood known as Poselok Michurina in the vicinity of Grozny. He never returned home. That evening people in the neighbourhood saw a small UAZ vehicle driving around in the vicinity. Mr Lechi Magomadov was allegedly abducted and then detained on the premises of the Ministry of the Interior’s Unit for Combating Organised Crime no.   6 (RUBOP). (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 170.     On 5 July 2005 the second applicant complained of his son’s abduction to the President of the Chechen Republic and asked for assistance in the search for him. That request was forwarded to a police department on 16 July 2005. 171.     On 19 July 2005 the police refused to open a criminal case for absence of corpus delicti . 172.     On 10 August 2005 the deputy public prosecutor of the Chechen Republic overruled the refusal of 19 July 2006 and instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 42102) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 173.     On 17 August 2005 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 174.     On 24, 26 and 27 August 2005 the second, the third and the fifth applicants were questioned. Their statements were similar to the account of events described above. 175.     On 30 October 2005 two of the applicant’s neighbours were questioned. 176.     On 10, 12 and 14 November 2005 three officers from the Operational Search Department of the Ministry of the Interior were questioned about the measures taken in relation to the search for Mr Lechi Magomadov. 177.     On 15 November 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 178.     On 20, 21 and 22 November 2005 three other officers from the Operational Search Department of the Ministry of the Interior were questioned. No new information was obtained. 179.     On 10 December 2005 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 6 January 2006 in accordance with the supervising prosecutor’s order. On the same day the applicants’ neighbour was questioned. 180.     On 8, 9 and 10 January 2006 the third and the fourth applicant and their neighbour were questioned. They gave an account of events similar to the one described above. 181.     On 6 February 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The investigation was then resumed on 13 March 2006. 182.     On 13 April 2006 the fifth applicant was questioned. On the same day the investigation was suspended again. 183 .     Between April 2006 and September 2007 the proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions. 184 .     On 30 October 2014 the first applicant asked to be granted victim status and access to the case file. She also asked to be informed about the progress in the criminal case. 185.     On 23 December 2014 the investigation was resumed and the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 186.     On 28 December 2014 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 12 March 2015. It appears that it is still ongoing. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 187.     The first applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 28   December 2014 before the Oktyabrskiy District Court. 188.     On 26 March 2015 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 12 March 2015. That decision was upheld on 28 April 2015 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic. 10.     Bugayeva and Others v. Russia (no.   3779/16) 189.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev, who was born in 1971 (see Appendix no.   10). (a)     Disappearance of Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev 190.     At around 3 a.m. on 23 February 2003 Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev was abducted from his house with his nephew by a group of about ten armed military servicemen. The abductors drove off in two UAZ cars in the direction of Gudermes. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction 191 .     On 7 March 2005 the first applicant complained of the abduction to the Gudermes police. On the same day the brother and the brother-in-law of Mr   Shakhmurzayev and his nephew were interviewed and the relevant crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected. 192.     On 17 March 2005 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 45007) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 193.     On 23 March 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 24   March 2005 she, her neighbour and the mother of the applicants’ relative’s nephew were questioned. Their statements were similar to the applicants’ account of events submitted to the Court. In addition, they informed the investigators that for a short period of time in the past Mr   Salambek Shakhmurzayev had been affiliated with illegal armed groups. 194.     On 25 March 2005 another of the applicants’ neighbours was questioned. 195.     Between May and July 2005 the proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions. 196.     On 12 July 2005 Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev’s brother was questioned, as were the applicants’ nephew and one of their neighbours. Their statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. 197.     On 12 June 2006 Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev’s sister was questioned. 198 .     Between July 2006 and May 2008 the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. There was no official communication between the applicants and the authorities. 199.     On 28 August 2008 the Gudermes prosecutor’s office forwarded to the investigators a request by the first applicant for the proceedings to be resumed. No reply was given. 200.     On 12 February 2009, at the first applicant’s request, the investigators provided her with copies of some of the documents from the case file. 201 .     On 20 May 2009 the investigators informed the applicants about the progress in the criminal case. 202 .     On 10 September 2013 the investigation was resumed and then it was suspended again on 20 September 2013. 203.     On 10 July 2014 the first applicant requested a copy of the last decision to suspend the proceedings. 204.     On 16 February 2015 the proceedings were resumed. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators 205.     On 10 February 2015 the first applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 20 September 2013 before the Gudermes Town Court. 206.     On 27 February 2015 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 16 February 2015. That decision was upheld on 29 July 2015 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic. 11.     Yandarbiyeva v. Russia (no.   28770/16) 207.     The applicant is the sister of Mr Magomed Muzayev, who was born in 1986 (see