CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 24 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s85F89815 { width:173.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s4E054CD6 { height:19pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCCCDD88E { height:60.35pt } .s3590B0A7 { height:17.35pt } .s3614B0A7 { height:17.75pt } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s525AE8B1 { height:43.1pt } .s5B6FE78A { height:18.4pt } .s25E6E78A { height:13.2pt } .s97E2263B { height:20.3pt } .s575C5D7A { height:28.65pt } .s55601073 { height:21pt } .s15A0B0A7 { height:14.85pt } .sB21756B { height:54.55pt } .sB9D9B0A7 { height:16.75pt } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .s3AD5D7A { height:25.85pt } .sCA5DE78A { height:16.4pt }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF BAYSULTANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 12642/13 and 4 others - see list appended)                         JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG     24 September 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Baysultanova 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 Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 September 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in five 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 the various NGOs 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 and 23 September 2016 notice of the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and Article 13 was given to the Government and the remainder of application no. 33465/13 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. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in this region in 2001-2003 after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen. In each of the applications the events in question took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants received no news of their missing relatives thereafter. 6.     In each of the cases the applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies about the respective abduction, and an official investigation was instituted. The proceedings in respect of each case, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without any tangible results having been attained. As can be seen from the documents submitted, no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than their forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. Further to such requests, the authorities generally reported in respect of each case that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction in question had not been established and that no special operations had been carried out during the relevant period. The applicants also lodged with various authorities requests for information and assistance in the search for their missing relatives but received only formal responses, if any. The identities of the perpetrators have never been established by the investigating authorities. 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 to the Court and to the domestic investigating authorities by the applicants, their relatives and/or neighbours, and other witnesses. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases, as presented by the applicants, but contested the involvement of servicemen in the events in question. A.     Baysultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 12642/13) 8.     The applicants are close relatives of five abducted men: (1)     Mr Sheikh-Akhmed Magomadov (also spelled as Magomedov), who was born in 1976. The fifth applicant is his brother and the sixth applicant is his father. The seventh applicant was his mother; she died on 23 December 2016. (2)     Mr Khamzat Israilov, who was born in 1969. The ninth applicant is his brother and the tenth applicant is his wife. The eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth applicants are his children. (3)     Mr Akhmed Baysultanov, who was born in 1962. The first, second, third and sixteenth applicants are his children. The eighth applicant is his wife. (4)     Mr Khampasha Baysultanov, who was born in 1968. The fourth and seventeenth applicants are his children. The fifteenth applicant is his wife. (5)     Mr Suliman Baysultanov, who was born in 1974. The fourteenth applicant is his mother; she is also the mother of Mr Akhmed Baysultanov and Mr Khampasha Baysultanov. 1.     Special operation in Tsotsi-Yurt in December 2001 – January 2002 9 .     Between 30 December 2001 and 2 January 2002 Russian military forces in Chechnya conducted a special sweeping-up operation in the village of Tsotsi-Yurt in the Kurchaloy district. Servicemen cordoned off the area and surrounded the settlement with a large number of military vehicles in order to carry out identity checks of all residents. 10.     A special filtration point was set up on the outskirts of the village, on the premises of a former State-owned farm. Residents detained by servicemen were taken there for further checks. 2.     Abduction of Mr Sheikh-Akhmed Magomadov and Mr Khamzat Israilov 11 .     On 30 December 2001, during the special operation, servicemen from the 45th and 46th “ObrON” military units of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Interior of Russia ( отдельная бригада оперативного назначения внутренних войск МВД России – ObrON) clashed with members of illegal armed groups in the house of Mr L.I. Four servicemen were killed and eight more servicemen were wounded. All of the fighters were killed and the house was burned down. 12 .     After the clashes the servicemen broke into the house of the Magomadov family, situated in the neighbourhood. They ordered all the men present, including Mr Sheikh-Akhmed Magomadov and the fifth applicant, to go outside; then they forced Mr Sheikh-Akhmed Magomadov, the fifth applicant and their four relatives into the APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and took them to the filtration point. 13.     The next day all of the detained people were released, except for Mr   Sheikh-Akhmed Magomadov. He had been taken away by servicemen in an armoured infantry vehicle whose registration number comprised the digits “611”. His whereabouts have remained unknown ever since. 14 .     On 30 December 2001, in the course of the same military operation in Tsotsi-Yurt, servicemen took Mr Khamzat Israilov away from his sister’s house in Lomonosova Street. He was taken to the filtration point and detained there along with the fifth applicant and about eighty other residents of the village. The whereabouts of Mr Khamzat Israilov have remained unknown since 31 December 2001, when he was last seen by the fifth applicant on the premises of the filtration point. 3.     Arrest of the Baysultanov brothers 15 .     On 1 January 2002 a group of fifty to sixty armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the Baysultanov’s family house in Tsotsi-Yurt in an Ural lorry, three APCs and an UAZ minivan. Having searched the premises, they took Mr Akhmed Baysultanov, Mr   Khampasha Baysultanov and Mr Suliman Baysultanov to the filtration point at the outskirts of the village. 16.     The whereabouts of the Baysultanov brothers have remained unknown since the date of their abduction. 4.     Official investigation into the abductions 17.     Three separate sets of criminal proceedings were instituted by the Argun inter-district prosecutor’s office in respect of the abduction of the applicants’ relatives. 18.     At the beginning of January 2002 several servicemen who had participated in clashes with members of illegal armed groups were interviewed. According to their statements, all fighters who had hidden in the house of Mr L.I. had been killed; their bodies had been taken to the filtration point. (a)     Investigation into the abduction of Mr Sheikh-Akhmed Magomadov 19.     On 10 January 2002 Mr Magomadov’s sister, Ms S.M., asked the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in Chechnya for assistance in securing the release of her brother. 20.     On 12 January 2002 Mr Magomadov’s brother, Mr A.M., lodged a request with the Kurchaloy district prosecutor’s office for the release of Mr   Magomadov. The next day Mr A.M. was questioned by the investigators; he affirmed the circumstances of abduction, as described above. 21.     On 7 February 2002 the Argun inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 75015 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). 22.     On 9 February 2002 Mr A.M. was granted victim status. 23.     The investigators sent several requests for information to law ‑ enforcement and military authorities. Their replies contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Sheikh-Akhmed Magomadov was available. 24.     On 20 February 2002 Ms A.G., a witness to the abduction, was questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of events, as described above, but submitted that Mr Magomadov had been taken away in an armoured infantry vehicle whose registration number, according to her, had comprised the digits “П 611”. 25.     On 7 April 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed on several occasions and then suspended again. In particular, the investigation was resumed on 27 July 2002 and suspended on 27   August 2002, resumed again on 25   October 2002 and suspended on 25 December 2002, resumed on 22   October 2003 and suspended on 22 November 2003, resumed on 25 May 2005 and suspended on 7 July 2005, then resumed on 4 December 2006 and suspended on 4 January 2007. The applicants were not duly informed of those procedural decisions. 26 .     On 30 July and 9 August 2002 the fifth and sixth applicants, respectively, were questioned separately by a police officer from the Kurchaloy district police station. Their statements regarding the circumstances of the abduction of Mr Magomadov were similar to the account of events provided by the applicants to the Court. 27 .     On 15 June 2005 the investigators questioned four relatives of Mr   Magomadov who had been taken with him to the filtration point. They stated that during the night at the filtration point they had been questioned by servicemen, who had asked whether any residents of the village had assisted any members of illegal armed groups. The servicemen had promised to release Mr Magomadov later; his relatives did not know why he had not returned to them. 28.     On 16 June 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene. 29 .     In 2003, 2005 and 2006 the sixth applicant complained to various authorities about the abduction of his son. In reply, he was informed that operational search measures were in progress, with the aim of establishing Mr Magomadov’s whereabouts. 30.     On 29 June 2007 Mr A.M. lodged a request with the investigators that he be given access to the case file. On 4 July 2007 his request was granted. 31 .     In April 2009 the fifth applicant lodged a request with the head of the Chechen Parliamentary Committee on the Search for the Disappeared ( Комитет Парламента Чеченской Республики по поиску лиц, без вести пропавших в период проведения контртеррористической операции ) for assistance in the search for Mr Magomadov. His request was forwarded to the investigators, who replied that the investigation had been resumed. 32.     On 13 May 2009 (in the documents in the criminal case file the date was also referred to as 1 June 2009) the investigation was resumed. On 30   June 2009 it was suspended; on 10 July 2009 it was resumed again and suspended on 10 August 2009; it was resumed on 1 August 2011 and suspended on 1 September 2011. Subsequently the investigation was resumed on 26 March 2013 and suspended on 26 April 2013. 33.     On 10 March 2013 a police officer from the Kurchaloy district police station reported that no links between Mr Magomadov and members of illegal armed groups had been established. 34.     On 12 April 2013 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of DNA obtained from Ms S.M.’s blood for the purposes of a possible subsequent search in the database of unidentified bodies. 35.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. (b)     Investigation into the abduction of Mr Khamzat Israilov 36.     The Government did not submit the entire criminal case file concerning the abduction of Mr Khamzat Israilov. In particular, some records of the questioning of witnesses are incomplete. 37.     On an unspecified date Mr S.I., the father of Mr Israilov, lodged a complaint about his son’s abduction with the Kurchaloy district prosecutor’s office and the Kurchaloy district police station. 38.     On 31 December 2001 a police officer reported that he had discovered the body of a man in the courtyard of a house in Tsotsi-Yurt. A passport issued under the name of Mr Khamzat Israilov was found in his pocket. However, the body has never been formally identified. 39.     On 7 February 2002 the Argun inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 75014 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). 40.     On 8 February 2002 Mr Israilov’s brother, Mr A.I., was granted victim status in the criminal case. 41.     The investigators lodged several requests for information with law ‑ enforcement and military authorities. Their replies contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Khamzat Israilov was available. 42 .     On 27 February 2002 a police officer from the Kurchaloy district police station reported to the investigators that he had interviewed the fifth applicant. The latter stated that he had been detained with Mr   Israilov at the filtration point and had not seen him since his own release on 31 December 2001 (see paragraph 14 above). 43.     On 7 April 2002 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 27 July 2002 and suspended again on 27 August 2002, then resumed on 25   October 2002 and suspended on 25 December 2002, resumed again on 5   May 2003 and suspended on 5 June 2003, then resumed on 21 December 2003 and suspended on 21 January 2004. 44.     On 28 December 2002 and again on 5 July 2011 the tenth applicant was questioned. The full record of her questioning was not submitted by the Government to the Court. 45.     On 5 May 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene. 46.     On 11 July 2006 the investigation was resumed. It was suspended on 15 September 2006, resumed on 24 May 2011 and suspended again on 18   July 2011, resumed on 18 July 2012 and suspended on 20 August 2012, resumed on 26 March 2013 and suspended on 26 April 2013. 47.     Between 1 and 11 July 2011 the investigators questioned the ninth applicant and two other relatives of Mr Israilov. The ninth applicant stated that Mr Israilov’s father and the head of the administration of Tsotsi-Yurt had after the abduction visited a checkpoint located on the outskirts of the village. They had asked the head of the checkpoint for assistance in the search for Mr Israilov. Together with him, they had gone to the Kurchaloy district military commander’s office. The head of the checkpoint had entered the premises, had stayed there for some time and then had informed Mr Israilov’s father that his son had been detained at the district military commander’s office. Subsequently Mr   Israilov’s father had visited the commander’s office on several occasions, but the servicemen had denied that Mr Israilov had been detained on its premises. 48.     On 12 April 2013 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of DNA obtained from the blood of Mr Israilov’s father for the purpose of a subsequent search in the database of unidentified bodies. 49.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Investigation into the abduction of the Baysultanov brothers 50.     On 5 January 2002 the eighth applicant lodged a complaint with the authorities about the abduction of her husband, Mr Akhmed Baysultanov, and his brothers, Mr   Khampasha Baysultanov and Mr Suliman Baysultanov. In February 2002 her complaint was forwarded to the Prosecutor of Chechnya. 51.     On 1 April 2002 criminal case no.   75031 was opened under Article   126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 52 .     On the same date Mr E.-A.B., the elder brother of the abducted men, was granted victim status and questioned. His statements about the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court. He additionally stated that his brothers had been taken away in an APC that had had a registration number comprising the digits “A-611”. 53.     The investigators lodged several requests for information with various law-enforcement authorities. Their replies contained statements to the effect that no information about the Baysultanov brothers was available. 54.     On 29 April 2002 the eighth applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the account of events submitted by the applicants to the Court and stated additionally that the Baysultanov brothers had been taken away by servicemen from military unit no. 33 (which had been stationed in Tsotsi-Yurt) and police officers from the Kurchaloy district police station. 55.     On 1 June 2002 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 28 July 2002, suspended on 29 August 2002, resumed again on 28 October 2002 and suspended on 28 November 2002, then resumed on 19 October 2003 and suspended on 19 November 2003, resumed again on 25 May 2005 and suspended on 7 July 2005. The applicants were not duly informed of those procedural decisions. 56.     On 9 August 2002 a police officer from the Kurchaloy district police station interviewed the fourteenth applicant. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction of her sons, as described above. 57.     On 21 October 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene. 58.     On 5 January 2004 the General Command of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Interior of Russia ( Главное командование внутренних войск Министерства внутренних дел РФ ) informed the investigators that on 20 December 2001 “ObrON” military unit no. 46 had been stationed in the Chechen Republic. 59 .     In 2007 the fourteenth applicant complained to the Parliament of Chechnya about the abduction of her sons. Her complaint was forwarded to the investigators, who replied that the investigation had been suspended and that the police were carrying out a search for the Baysultanov brothers. 60 .     On 12 August 2010 the eighth applicant asked the investigators to resume the proceedings and to grant her victim status. In reply, the investigators informed her that she had already been granted victim status and provided her with copies of the relevant documents. 61 .     On 15 November 2010 the eighth applicant lodged a complaint with the Chechen Parliamentary Committee on the Search for the Disappeared about the abduction of her husband and his brothers. Her complaint was forwarded to the investigators, who replied on 2 February 2011 that the investigation had been suspended but that operational search measures had been initiated with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of the Baysultanov brothers. 62 .     On 1 April 2011 the eighth applicant asked the investigators to resume the criminal proceedings and grant her access to the case file. On 14   May 2011 the investigators informed her that there were no grounds for resuming the investigation because all necessary investigative steps had been taken. 63 .     On 9 January 2013 the eighth applicant’s lawyer asked the investigators to inform him of progress in the proceedings and to grant him access to the criminal case file. In reply, the investigators informed him that the investigation had been suspended in 2005 but that operational search measures had been initiated with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of the Baysultanov brothers. 64 .     On 1 April 2013 the fifteenth applicant asked the investigators to question two more witnesses to the abduction of the Baysultanov brothers. In reply, she was informed that the investigation had been suspended, but that it could be resumed if witnesses indicated by her could provide the investigation with official statements on the circumstances of the abduction. 65 .     On 6 January 2014 Materi Chechni, an NGO acting on behalf of the fifteenth applicant, asked the leader of the Communist Party of Russia to provide assistance in the search for the Baysultanov brothers. Their application was forwarded to the investigators.   On 1 June 2014 the investigation was resumed, but on 10 June 2014 it was suspended again. 66.     On 30 September 2014 the supervising prosecutor pointed out several defects in the investigation. In particular, he stated that the witnesses to the abduction indicated by the fifteenth applicant had not been questioned. 67.     On 30 October 2014 the investigation was resumed, and on 10   November 2014 it was suspended again. 68.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. B.     Adamovy v. Russia (no. 33465/13) 69.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ruslan Adamov, who was born in 1983, and Mr Supyan Adamov, who was born in 1980. The first applicant is their mother, the second applicant is their sister and the third applicant is their brother. 1.     Abduction of the Adamov brothers and subsequent events 70.     At about 11.30 p.m. on 16 June 2001 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 16 July 2001) a group of twenty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in Selmentauzen and took Mr Ruslan Adamov and Mr   Supyan   Adamov away to an unknown destination. The servicemen were equipped with portable radio sets which they used to give and receive commands. They opened fire when the first applicant ran after them, asking them to leave her sons at home. 71.     About fifteen days after the abduction the applicants received a note from Mr   Ruslan Adamov and Mr   Supyan Adamov stating in Chechen that they were being detained on the premises of the DON ‑ 2 special military unit ( подразделение Дон-2 ). 72 .     Three months later the first applicant went to the Shali district police department, where a police officer named Musa recognised the Adamov brothers when he was shown their photographs. He told the first applicant that he had seen them several times on the premises of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) carrying out the rubbish under escort. The applicant then spoke to a high ‑ ranking police officer named Lechi and a driver of her acquaintance, Mr A., who both said that they had seen her sons on the FSB premises. 73 .     Sometime later the first applicant became acquainted with Mr A.A., who arranged a meeting between the first applicant and the FSB officer who was guarding her sons. The officer, who did not introduce himself, identified Mr Ruslan Adamov and Mr Supyan Adamov when shown their photographs and said that they were being detained on the FSB premises. He also told the first applicant that he could not help her to secure their release and added that they would soon be transferred either to Nalchik or Mozdok. 74.     The whereabouts of Mr Ruslan Adamov and Mr Supyan   Adamov remain unknown. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction (a)     Destruction of the investigation file 75.     On 17 December 2002 the building of the Vedenskiy district prosecutor’s office was shelled by an illegal armed group. As a result of the ensuing fire the archives and all criminal case files contained in it were destroyed (see Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 3026/03, 11   December 2007). 76.     On 21 June 2007, the first applicant’s request (see below), the acting Vedenskiy district prosecutor ordered the restoration of case file no. 37062, which concerned the abduction of the Adamov brothers. 77.     The following account of events is based on copies of the original case file and other documents submitted by the applicants, as well as the documents from the restored case file submitted by the Government. (b)     Official investigation 78 .     On an unspecified date in 2001 the first applicant complained about the abduction to a number of law-enforcement authorities. 79.     On 12 November 2001 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the Vedenskiy district prosecutor’s office. 80.     On 25 November 2001 the Vedenskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 37062 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). The applicants were informed thereof on 31 January 2002. 81 .     On 28 June 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s request for assistance in the search for her sons to the Vedenskiy district prosecutor’s office. 82.     On 1 July 2005 a complaint lodged with the President of Chechnya by the first applicant regarding the abduction of her sons was forwarded to a military prosecutor. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. 83 .     On 15 July 2005 the Vedenskiy district police department informed the first applicant that a search file had been opened into the abduction of the Adamov brothers and that servicemen were suspected of the commission of that crime. The letter also stated that operational search activities aimed at establishing the whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives and the perpetrators were ongoing. 84 .     On 21 June 2007 the first applicant lodged requests with the investigators for her to be granted victim status, the resumption of the proceedings, and for her to be allowed access to the investigation file. On the same date the first two requests were granted; the third request could not be granted owing to the fact that the case file had been destroyed. 85 .     On 28 June 2007 the first applicant was questioned. She gave statements that were similar to her submissions to the Court. 86.     The investigators lodged several requests for information with various law-enforcement and military authorities. Their replies contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Ruslan Adamov and Mr   Supyan   Adamov was available. 87.     On 13 July 2007 the investigators questioned the third applicant and the applicants’ relative, Ms P.T. They affirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as described above. 88.     On 21 July 2007 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 89 .     In February 2011 the NGO Materi Chechni requested the General Prosecutor of Russia to provide assistance in the search for the applicants’ relatives. Following this request, on 5 April 2011 the investigators’ superior ordered the proceedings to be resumed. 90.     On 30 April 2011 the investigators again questioned the third applicant, who reiterated his earlier statements and added that when giving and receiving commands through the portable radio set, the servicemen had used the call numbers thirteen, seven and eleven. 91.     On 4 May 2011 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative, Ms M.A., who had witnessed the abduction; she affirmed its circumstances, as described above. 92 .     On 4 and 5 May 2011 the investigators questioned Mr Lechi Kh. and Mr Musa I., who, according to the first applicant, had informed her that her sons had been seen on the FSB premises (see paragraph 72 above). Both witnesses denied that they could have seen the Adamov brothers because they had never visited the premises of the FSB; moreover, the protective fences surrounding them had been too high for them to have seen any detainees. 93.     On 7   May 2011   the investigation was suspended again. On 13 July 2011 it was resumed after the investigators’ superior had voiced criticism and ordered its resumption. 94.     On 20 July 2011 the investigators examined the crime scene. 95.     On 21 July 2011 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of DNA obtained from the first applicant’s blood. 96.     On 1 and 2 August 2011 the investigators organised confrontations between the first applicant and Mr Lechi Kh. and between the first applicant and Mr   Musa I. All of them maintained their earlier statements (see paragraphs 72, 85 and 92 above). 97.     On 13 August 2011 the proceedings were suspended again, then resumed on 7 February 2012 and suspended on 20 February 2012, resumed again on 18 December 2012 and suspended on an unidentified date. It appears that the applicants were not duly informed of those procedural decisions. 98 .     On 24 December 2014, as a result of a complaint lodged by the first applicant with the President of Russia, the investigation was resumed. On 31 December 2014 it was suspended again. The investigators asked the police to intensify the search for the abductors. 99.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 100.     On 13 November 2012 the first applicant brought proceedings in the Vedenskiy District Court of Chechnya, challenging the investigators’ decision of 20 February 2012 to suspend the criminal investigation and their failure to take basic steps. On 19 December 2012 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that the investigation had been resumed. On 30   January 2013 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision following an appeal by the first applicant. C.     Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13) 101.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Takhir Dangiriyev, who was born in 1956. The second applicant is his son. 1.     Abduction of Mr Takhir Dangiriyev and subsequent events 102.     On the night of 27-28 July 2002 Mr Takhir Dangiriyev and his family were at home at 22 Nuradilova Street in Geldagan, Chechnya. Between midnight and 1 a.m. a group of about ten armed servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into their house. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian; one of them was not wearing a balaclava and was of Slavic appearance. The servicemen searched the premises, then forced Mr Dangiriyev outside and took him away to an unknown destination. 103.     In June 2005 a Chechen man contacted the applicants’ relative, Mr   S.D., and gave him a list of seven persons who had allegedly been abducted by the Russian federal forces and were being held in detention in Grozny. Mr Dangiriyev’s name was on the list. The applicants submitted this information to the investigators (see below). 104.     The whereabouts of Mr Dangiriyev remain unknown. His abduction took place in the presence of his family members. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 105.     On 29 July 2002 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal case be opened. She was interviewed straight away. Her statement was similar to the account of events submitted by the applicants to the Court. In addition she told the investigators that after the abduction she had learned from some neighbours that the perpetrators had arrived in the village in three APCs and that before breaking into her house they had left the military vehicles somewhere nearby. 106.     On the same date, 29 July 2002, the Kurchaloy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 75073 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 107.     On 2 August 2002 the cousin of Mr Dangiriyev, Mr S.D., complained about the abduction to the Chechnya prosecutor. In his letter he stated, in particular, that the perpetrators had arrived in two APCs, which they had left 100 metres away from the Dangiriyevs’ house. 108.     On the same date the investigators questioned Mr S.D. His statement about the circumstances of the abduction was similar to the applicants’ account of the events. 109.     On 19 September 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statement to the investigators was similar to that provided to the Court. 110.     The investigators lodged several requests for information with the law ‑ enforcement authorities. Their responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Dangiriyev was available. 111.     On 29 September 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. That decision was quashed on 5 July 2005 by the investigators’ supervisors after the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Kurchaloy district prosecutor’s office, and the investigation was resumed. 112.     On 5 July 2005 the investigators again questioned Mr S.D. He confirmed his previous statements and informed the investigators of a meeting that he had had in June 2005 with a Chechen man who had informed him that Mr   Dangiriyev was alive and was being detained by a federal law ‑ enforcement agency in Grozny (see above). 113.     On 16 July 2005 the first applicant was questioned again. She reiterated her previous statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction. 114.     On 17 July 2015 the investigators examined the crime scene. 115.     On 5 August 2005 the investigation was suspended again. 116 .     On 20 July 2010 the second applicant requested that the investigators inform him of any progress in the proceedings. In reply, he received a letter stating that the investigation had been suspended but that operational search activities were being carried out with the aim of establishing the identity of the perpetrators. 117 .     On 15 October 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be granted access to the criminal case file. The investigators declined to resume the proceedings but allowed her access to the criminal case file. 118.     On 10 May 2011 the NGO Materi Chechni, acting on behalf of the applicants, asked the head of the Chechen Parliamentary Committee on the Search for the Disappeared for assistance in the search for Mr Dangiriyev. On 27 June 2011 the investigators replied that operational search activities were being undertaken in order to establish his whereabouts. 119.     On 1 August 2011 the investigation was resumed. The next day the supervising prosecutor pointed out several defects in the investigation and ordered that they be remedied. 120.     On 18 August 2011, at her request, the first applicant was allowed access to the criminal case file. 121.     On 23 August 2011 the investigators questioned the second applicant; his statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to those given by the first applicant. 122.     On 24 August 2011 the investigators ordered that blood samples be obtained from the second applicant and that a forensic examination of DNA obtained from the blood be undertaken. 123.     On 29 August 2011 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours, Mr R.Sh. and Ms L.M., who stated that on the night of the abduction they had been at home and had not heard the sound of military vehicles or any other sounds indicating the presence of military personnel in the area. Ms L.M. additionally stated that some of the village residents living on the nearby street had heard the sound of an APC on the night of the abduction. 124.     On 1 September 2011 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 13 September 2011. 125.     Between 27 September and 4 October 2011 the investigators questioned eyewitnesses to the abduction, Mr M.D., Mr A.D. and Mr   R.D. Their statements to the investigators were similar to the accounts submitted by the applicants to the Court. 126.     On 29 September 2011 and on 16 February 2012 respectively the first applicant and the second applicant were questioned again. They reiterated their previous statements. 127.     On 13 October 2011 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 23 January 2012, then suspended on 24 February 2012, resumed again on 20 March 2014 and suspended on 31 March 2014, then resumed on 2 February 2015 and suspended on 12 February 2015. It is unclear whether the applicants were duly informed of those procedural decisions. 128.     On 15 August 2014 the Shali Town Court of the Chechen Republic, at the second applicant’s request, declared Mr Takhir Dangiriyev dead. 129.     On 27 January 2015 the first applicant lodged a request with the investigators, asking them to question two neighbours, Ms S.S. and Ms   Z.M. On 29 January 2015 her request was granted. 130.     On 3 February 2015 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Ms Z.M. She stated that on 28 July 2002 she had learned from another neighbour that servicemen had arrived during the night in military vehicles and had taken Mr Dangiriyev away in an APC. 131.     On 4 February 2015 the investigators questioned another neighbour, Ms S.S. She stated that at around 11 p.m. on 27 July 2002 she had seen a group of servicemen arrive in two APCs and an Ural lorry. They had left their vehicles not far from the applicants’ house; then they had put Mr Dangiriyev into one of the APCs and had driven off to an unknown destination. Later Ms S.S. had heard that he had been taken to the military commander’s office in Kurchatoy. 132.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 133.     On 17 October 2011 and 11 June 2013 respectively the applicants lodged a complaint with the Gudermes Town Court challenging the investigators’ decisions of 1   September 2011 and 24 February 2012 to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 23   November 2011 and 16 July 2013 the court terminated the respective sets of proceedings, having found that the investigators had earlier quashed the decisions in question and resumed the proceedings. On 13 August 2013 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the decision of 16 July 2013 on appeal. 4.     Civil proceedings for compensation of non-pecuniary damage 134 .     On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a civil claim with the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny seeking compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage caused by the abduction and murder of Mr   Dangiriyev, together with the ineffective investigation thereof, in the amount of 3,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB). 135 .     On 13 May 2015 the District Court, having examined the criminal case-file documents, including witness statements, found that Mr   Dangiriyev had been abducted and killed by State agents. It allowed the claim in part and awarded the first applicant RUB 1,000,000 (about 17,510   euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment became final on 15 June 2015. D.     Ibragimovy v. Russia (no. 78616/13) 136.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Movlid (also spelled Mavlid) Ibragimov, who was born in 1954. The second, third and fourth applicants are his daughters. 1.     Abduction of Mr Movlid Ibragimov 137 .     At about 3 a.m. on 21 March 2002 a group of ten to fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicants’ house at 18 Sportivniy Lane in Achkhoy-Martan in an UAZ vehicle and an UAZ minivan ( tabletka ). Having broken into the house, the servicemen checked Mr Ibragimov’s passport, then forced him outside, put him into the UAZ minivan and drove off in the direction of Katyr-Yurt. The men spoke unaccented Russian and Chechen. 138.     The whereabouts of Mr Ibragimov remain unknown. His abduction took place in the presence of the applicants and their neighbours. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 139.     Immediately after the abduction Mr Ibragimov’s brother, Mr M.I., informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. 140.     On 31 March 2002 the investigators examined the crime scene and seized two bullet shells. 141.     On 1 April 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 63024 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). 142.     On the same date the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted by the applicants to the Court. 143.     The investigators lodged several requests for information with the law ‑ enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Ibragimov was available. 144.     On 5 April 2002 the investigators ordered an expert ballistics examination of the bullet shells found at the crime scene. 145.     The expert ballistics examination established that the bullet shells had formed part of a cartridge designed for a Kalashnikov machine gun of 5.45 mm calibre. 146.     On 1 June 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 27 February 2003 and suspended again on 27 March 2003. 147.     On 1 March 2003 the investigators questioned Mr M.I. He stated that he had seen Mr Ibragimov being taken away by a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms. Mr M.I. had tried to stop them, but the servicemen had fired at his feet. Then he had followed the servicemen’s vehicles, but had been unable to keep up with them. 148.     On the same date the investigators questioned Mr Ibragimov’s mother, who had witnessed the abduction. She affirmed the account of events submitted by the applicants to the Court. 149 .     Between 3 and 25 March 2003 the investigators questioned several neighbours of the applicants and other residents of Achkhoy-Martan. Some of them had witnessed the abduction; they affirmed the circumstances of events, as described above. Others had learned from neighbours that during the early morning on 21 March 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also indicated as 20 March 2002) armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms had broken into the Ibragimov’s family house and had taken Mr   Ibragimov away to an unknown destination in an UAZ vehicle. 150 .     On 25 January 2007 the first applicant requested the investigators to resume the proceedings and inform her of any progress in the investigation. On the same date the investigators granted her request. 151.     On 29 January 2007 the investigation was resumed. 152.     On 5 and 6 March 2007 the investigators questioned a number of the applicants’ neighbours. All of them had learned from various sources that Mr Ibragimov had been taken away by a group of armed servicemen on the night of 21 March 2002. 153.     On 28 February 2007 the investigation was suspended. It was subsequently resumed on 18 October 2007 and suspended on 23 November 2007, then resumed on 10 June 2008 and suspended on 11 July 2008. The applicants were not duly informed of those procedural decisions. 154.     On 20 January 2012 the investigators resumed the proceedings following the first applicant’s request to grant her “civil claimant” status in the criminal case. Her request was granted, and on 21 January 2012 the proceedings were suspended again. 155.     On 20 April 2012 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court of the Chechen Republic, at the first applicant’s request, declared Mr Movlid Ibragimov dead. 156.     On numerous occasions in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2011 the first applicant asked various State officials and law-enforcement agencies for assistance in the search for her husband. Her applications were forwarded to the investigators. In reply, she received letters informing her that operational search activities were in progress with the aim of establishing her husband’s whereabouts. 157.     It appears that the proceedings were resumed on 2 July 2013 and that they are still pending. 3.     Proceedings