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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8235E78A { height:14.2pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sC64CE089 { height:75.55pt } .sB88BB0A7 { height:16.95pt } .s499DB0A7 { height:18.95pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s2FE76575 { height:39.05pt } .sA055E78A { height:17.9pt } .s2BFFB0A7 { height:12.95pt } .sEBEE263B { height:28.7pt } .s59E3E78A { height:18.8pt } .s9887263B { height:20.4pt } .sA82756B { height:54.65pt } .s35CEB0A7 { height:17.15pt } .sA0FAE78A { height:17.2pt } .sD654500 { height:36.5pt } .s8298E78A { height:14.1pt } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center }     THIRD SECTION             CASE OF ISRAILOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 34909/12 and 4 others - see list appended)               JUDGMENT   This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court   in a judgment of 21 July 2020     STRASBOURG     24 September 2019         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Israilovy 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 various NGOs and lawyers, indicated in the appended table. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     Between 22 September 2015 and 23 September 2016 notice of the applications was given to the Government. 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 either in the Chechen Republic or the Republic of Ingushetia, a region neighbouring Chechnya. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in these regions in 2002-04 after allegedly being unlawfully detained by service personnel. In each of the applications the events took place in the areas under 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 of the respective abductions to law-enforcement bodies 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 service personnel in the abduction in question had not been established and that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time. 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 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 service personnel in the events in question. A.     Israilovy v. Russia (no. 34909/12) 8.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov, who was born in 1973. The first applicant is his mother, the second, third, fourth, fifth applicants are his brothers and the sixth applicant is his sister. 1.     Abduction of Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov 9 .     At about 2 a.m. on 27 July 2003 the applicants’ family was at home at 19 Trudovaya Street in Martan-Chu when a group of about ten armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms broke into their house. The service personnel, who arrived in two APCs (armoured personnel carriers), were wearing helmets and spoke unaccented Russian. The faces of most of the service personnel were uncovered; these men were of Slavic appearance. Having checked the identity papers, the service personnel took Mr   Abdul ‑ Mezhid Israilov away to Martan-Chu military commander’s office where a convoy of an APC and two UAZ vehicles were waiting. They put Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov into one of the vehicles and drove off in the direction of Urus-Martan. 10 .     The applicants followed the convoy as far as a checkpoint located at the outskirts of Martan-Chu. There they learnt from service personnel manning the checkpoint that the convoy, which had passed unrestricted through, belonged to the military unit known as DON-100. The applicants continued to follow the tyre tracks left by the APC in the mud. The tracks brought them to the Urus-Martan military commander’s office. A serviceman on duty there, however, denied that an APC had entered the premises. 11.     The whereabouts of Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov have remained unknown since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 12.     Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested that an investigation be initiated. 13 .     On 27 July 2003 investigators from the Urus-Martan district police examined the crime scene but found no traces or evidence. They also interviewed the first applicant and the applicants’ neighbours, who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 14.     On 10 September 2003 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 34092 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 15.     On 11 September 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. His statements were similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court. 16.     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. The replies contained statements that no information about Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov was available. 17.     On 10 November 2003 the investigation was suspended. The second applicant was informed thereof. 18 .     On 19 May 2005 the first applicant complained to the Prosecutor of Chechnya of the abduction of her son and requested assistance in the search for him. Her complaint was forwarded to the investigators who replied that the proceedings had been suspended on 10 November 2003 and that operational search activities aimed at establishing Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov’s whereabouts were in progress. 19.     On 13 July 2005 the Urus-Martan district police informed the first applicant that they were carrying out operational search activities together with the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office. 20.     On 15 June 2007 the investigators gave instructions to the head of the Urus-Martan district police to carry out additional operational search activities aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Mr   Abdul-Mezhid Israilov and to present the results until 22 June 2007. It is unclear whether these instructions were followed. 21 .     On 10 August 2009 the first applicant requested that the investigators inform her of the progress in the investigation and grant her victim status in the case. On 20 August 2009 she was informed that the investigation had been suspended and that the second applicant had been granted victim status in the criminal case. 22.     On 1 February 2010 Materi Chechni, an NGO acting on the applicants’ behalf, asked 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   Abdul-Mezhid Israilov. That request was forwarded to the investigators, who replied that the investigation had been suspended and that operational search activities were underway. 23 .     On 1 March 2010 the first applicant asked the investigators to resume the proceedings, grant her victim status in the case and allow her access to the investigation file. On 16 March 2010 the investigators informed her that the case had been transferred to another department. 24.     On 23 June 2011 the second applicant was granted access to the case file upon his request. 25.     On 12 March 2012 the first applicant again asked the investigators to grant her victim status in the case. 26.     On 20 April 2012 the investigation was resumed. On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status. 27.     On 21 April 2012 the investigation was suspended again. 28.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. B.     Shabazovy v. Russia (no. 36883/12) 29.     The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Aslan Shabazov, who was born in 1968. The third applicant is his sister. 1.     Abduction of Mr Aslan Shabazov 30 .     At about 10 p.m. on 21 May 2004 Mr Aslan Shabazov was visiting his acquaintance, Mr A.T., in the latter’s house at 115 Dyakova Street in the Nesterovskaya settlement, Ingushetia, when a group of about twenty armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a GAZelle minivan, two UAZ vehicles, and a VAZ-21099 vehicle. The service personnel, who spoke unaccented Russian, broke into the house and ordered Mr A.T. at gun point to stand still. Then they forced Mr Aslan Shabazov outside and put him into one of the vehicles. One of the service personnel reported the arrest using a portable radio set. Afterwards they drove off to the banks of the River Assa, which was about 300 m away, where a helicopter was waiting. Then the service personnel took Mr Aslan Shabazov away in a helicopter to an unknown destination. The abduction took place in the presence of Mr A.T. 31.     The whereabouts of Mr Aslan Shabazov have remained unknown since. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 32.     On 29 May 2004 the first applicant informed the authorities in Ingushetia of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. 33 .     On 15 June 2004 the deputy prosecutor of the Sunzhenskiy district in Ingushetia informed the first applicant that Mr Aslan Shabazov had been put on the authorities’ wanted list and thereby detained on 21 May 2004 by agents of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) based in Chechnya. 34.     On the same day the first applicant complained of the abduction to the Minister of the Interior of Chechnya. On 10 July 2004 he received a reply from the Zavodskoy district police station in Grozny that Mr   Shabazov had not been detained by the police. 35.     Between July and November 2004 the first applicant complained to various authorities of the abduction and asked to have the whereabouts of his son established. 36.     On 9 November 2004 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 04600072 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 37 .     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. The replies confirmed that Mr Shabazov had been wanted by federal authorities on suspicion of having committed a number of serious crimes in Chechnya. Some replies also contained statements that Mr   Shabazov had been arrested by FSB agents and taken to Khankala, where the headquarters of the federal forces was situated. 38.     On 10 November 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant and Mr A.T. The latter affirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 39 .     On 20 November 2004 the investigators questioned the second applicant. She stated that shortly before the abduction, on 21 May 2004 an investigator from the Zavodskoy district police had visited them looking for her son. According to the investigator, Mr Aslan Shabazov had been on the wanted list on suspicion of attempted murder of a high-ranking official in Chechnya. The investigator had said that if Mr Shabazov did not show up the next day, he would be arrested in the course of a special operation. 40.     On 26 November 2004 the investigators questioned Mr Shabazov’s brother Mr A.Sh., who stated that the latter had participated in illegal armed groups during the first Chechen war. 41.     On 11 December 2004 the investigators questioned Ms R.T., the wife of Mr A.T. who had witnessed Mr Shabazov’s abduction. She confirmed the statements of her husband. 42 .     On 29 December 2004 the investigators questioned Mr M.Ye., the head of the criminal search unit ( отдел уголовного розыска ) of the Sunzhenskiy district police. According to him, Mr Shabazov had been arrested by FSB agents and taken to Khankala. 43 .     On 12 January 2005 the investigators received a reply from the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia. It stated that Mr Shabazov was on the wanted list on suspicion of his involvement in the terrorist attack at the Dynamo stadium in Grozny on 9 May 2004. The same information was contained in the reply of the FSB. 44.     On 14 January 2005 the investigators received a copy of the indictment in respect of Mr Shabazov. He was charged with attempted murder of Mr Kh.I. for personal gain. 45.     On 25 January 2005 the investigators questioned Mr A.G., a police officer from the Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya. He confirmed that he had visited the applicants on 21 May 2004 looking for Mr Aslan Shabazov but denied having any knowledge of his arrest. 46.     On 9 February 2005 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on several occasions following the supervising prosecutors’ orders and criticism and then suspended. In particular, the proceedings were resumed on 16 January 2007 and suspended on 23 February 2007, resumed again on 22 July 2008 and suspended on 23 August 2008, then resumed on 10 February 2012 and suspended on 10 March 2012. 47.     On 9 August 2005 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant him access to the investigation file. His request was dismissed. 48 .     On numerous occasions between 2004 and 2009 the first applicant contacted various law-enforcement agencies, requesting information about his son’s whereabouts and asking for assistance in the search for him. Some of his applications were forwarded to the investigators. In reply he received letters stating that no information about Mr Aslan Shabazov was available and that operational search activities were in progress. 49 .     On 4 August 2011 the third applicant requested that the investigators inform her about the progress of the proceedings and to grant access to the case file. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. 50.     On 10 September 2011 the third applicant challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the Sunzhenskiy District Court of Ingushetia. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown. 51.     On 11 November 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant him victim status in the criminal case. On 12 February 2012 his request was granted. 52.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. C.     Asukhanovy v. Russia (no. 38383/12) 53.     The first applicant is the sister of Mr Gilani (also spelled as Gelani) Asukhanov, who was born in 1970 (in the documents submitted the year of birth was also referred to as 1972). The second applicant is his son. 1.     Abduction of Mr Gilani Asukhanov 54 .     On 12 February 2002 Mr Gilani Asukhanov was arrested and placed in the temporary detention centre at the Urus-Martan temporary district police station in connection with criminal proceedings instituted against him. On 1 March 2002 he was released and went home in Alkhan ‑ Yurt accompanied by his legal counsel, relatives and acquaintances. At about 7   p.m. on that day their car was passing through checkpoint no. 207 located at the exit from Urus-Martan, when it was stopped by a group of armed military service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas. The service personnel were in an APC, a UAZ-469 and a VAZ-2106. The latter’s registration number looked like “Г 742 95 RUS”. The man in charge of the group introduced himself as a major of the Main Intelligence Directorate ( майор ГРУ Вооруженных Сил РФ ). Having checked the identity documents, the service personnel put Mr Gilani Asukhanov into the VAZ ‑ 2106 vehicle and drove off in the direction of the Urus-Martan military commander’s office. The head of the checkpoint told Mr   Asukhanov’s relatives that those service personnel were from the commander’s office. 55.     The whereabouts of Mr Gilani Asukhanov have remained unknown ever since. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 56.     On 2 March 2002 Mr Gilani Asukhanov’s father, Mr A.A., informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for his son. 57 .     On the same day several witnesses to the abduction were questioned. Their statements were similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court. 58.     On 4 March 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 61054 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 59 .     On 6 March 2002 the investigators questioned one of the service personnel who had been manning the checkpoint on the day of the abduction. He confirmed the circumstances of the events as described by the applicants but denied that his colleagues had been involved in this special operation. 60.     On 4 May 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 19 June 2003 following the supervisor’s orders and criticism and then suspended again on 19 July 2003. 61 .     On 17 July 2003 the investigators questioned Mr Asukhanov’s cousin, Mr E.A., who affirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 62.     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement and military authorities. The replies contained statements that no information about Mr Asukhanov was available. 63 .     On 2 June 2005 the wife of Mr Asukhanov and the second applicant’s mother, Ms R.S., complained to the Prosecutor of Chechnya of the abduction and asked for assistance in the search for her husband. Her complaint was forwarded to the investigators, who replied that operational search activities aimed at establishing her husband’s whereabouts were underway. 64.     On 6 March 2006 the investigation was resumed. Mr Gilani Asukhanov’s mother, Ms L.A., was granted victim status upon her request. 65.     On 6 April 2006 the investigation was suspended. 66 .     On 20 and 21 June 2007 a police officer from the Urus-Martan district police interviewed Mr Asukhanov’s relatives, who confirmed the main circumstances of his abduction. 67.     On 2 November 2011 (in another decision the date was also referred to as 10 November 2011) the investigation was resumed. 68.     On 10 November 2011 the first applicant asked the investigators to allow her access to the case file and to grant her victim status as Ms L.A. was in a poor state of health. On the same day her request was granted. 69.     On 11 November 2011 the investigation was suspended again. 70.     It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 71.     On an unspecified date in October 2011 Ms L.A. challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings of 6 April 2006 and their failure to take basic steps before the Urus-Martan District Court. On 3   November 2011 the court terminated the proceedings having found that a day earlier the investigation had been resumed. D.     Asabayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 40162/12) 72.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ibragim Asabayev, who was born in 1977, and Mr Alkhazur Asabayev, who was born in 1981. The first applicant is their mother and the second applicant is their father. The third and fourth applicant are the son and wife of Mr Ibragim Asabayev respectively. 1.     Abduction of the Asabayev brothers 73 .     At about 4.30 a.m. on 31 March 2002 a group of five armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms arrived in two UAZ-452 vehicles, a GAZelle minivan and an URAL lorry at the applicants’ flat in Chiri-Yurt. One of the UAZ vehicles had a registration number containing the symbols “385   95   RUS”. The applicants, Mr Ibragim Asabayev and Mr Alkhazur Asabayev were at home when the service personnel broke in and searched the premises. They forced the Asabayev brothers into one of the UAZ vehicles and drove off in the direction of Noviye Atagi. The service personnel who did not wear balaclavas were of Slavic appearance; they had a German shepherd dog with them. 74 .     Sometime later the Shali district military commander General Nakhayev, in the presence of the head of the Shali district administration, informed the applicants that their relatives were detained at the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala. 75.     The whereabouts of the Asabayev brothers have remained unknown since. Their abduction took place in the presence of numerous witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. 2.     Official investigation of the abduction 76.     Immediately after the abduction the first applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. Between April and June 2002 she repeatedly complained to various law ‑ enforcement agencies and asked for assistance in the search for her sons. 77.     On 15 July 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59153 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 78 .     On 25 July 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction and stated that she had seen the alleged abductors before near the building known as “white house” situated at the outskirts of Shali. According to some sources, the FSB and other law-enforcement agencies were based in that building. 79.     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities and medical institutions. The replies contained statements that no information about Mr Ibragim Asabayev and Mr   Alkhazur Asabayev was available. 80.     On 15 September 2002 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 27 May 2003 following the supervising prosecutor’s orders and criticism. 81.     On 6 June 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene. 82 .     On 7 June 2003 the investigators questioned the fourth applicant. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 83 .     On the same day the investigators questioned Ms D.Z., the applicants’ neighbour. She stated that she had seen a GAZelle minivan on the street on 31 March 2002 and had learnt about the abduction from other neighbours. 84.     On 26 June 2003 the investigation was suspended. 85 .     Between 2002 and 2008 the first applicant complained to various authorities, including the supervising prosecutors, of the abduction and asked for assistance in the search for her sons. Her complaints were forwarded to the investigators who replied that operational search activities aimed at establishing her sons’ whereabouts were underway. 86.     On 30 January 2007 the Human Rights Centre Memorial requested on behalf of the applicants that the investigators provide information about the progress in the proceedings. In reply they were informed that the investigation had been suspended and that operational search activities were underway. 87.     On 25 December 2009 the first applicant asked the investigators to inform her of the progress in the proceedings and to grant her access to the investigation file. No reply was given to this request. 88 .     On 21 March 2011 the first applicant again requested information about the progress in the investigation. On 14 April 2011 the investigators replied that the proceedings had been suspended and that the operational search activities were in progress. 89.     On 29 April 2011 the investigators’ decision of 26 June 2003 was annulled by the supervising prosecutor. In May 2011 the investigation was resumed. 90.     On 12 May 2011 the first applicant was questioned again. She gave statements identical to the applicants’ submissions before the Court. 91.     On 20 May 2011 the investigators ordered a forensic DNA expert examination. 92 .     Between 30 May and 9 June 2011 the investigators questioned the second applicant, Ms E.A., the sister of Mr Ibragim Asabayev and Mr   Alkhazur Asabayev, and several neighbours of the applicants. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 93.     On 10 June 2011 the investigation was suspended. 94.     On 22 June 2011 the applicants were granted full access to the investigation file. 95.     It appears that the proceedings are still pending. E.     Gelayevy v. Russia (no. 26893/13) 96.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Islam Gelayev, who was born in 1983. The first applicant is his mother, and the second and third applicants are his sisters. 1.     Abduction of Mr Islam Gelayev and subsequent events 97 .     At the material time a checkpoint manned by Russian federal forces was situated in the street in Grozny where the applicants and Mr Islam Gelayev lived. 98 .     At about 10 p.m. on 21 May 2002 Mr Gelayev was walking home from his neighbour’s house in Grozny when a group of armed service personnel, most of who were in balaclavas, hit him with a rifle butt in the head and took him away in an UAZ car. The applicants’ neighbours, Mr   Kh.Kh. and Ms   B.Sh., witnessed the incident. 99.     Around 10.30 p.m. on the same day the service personnel broke into the applicants’ house, put the applicants against a wall, threatening them with arms, and searched the premises looking for “Islam”. The service personnel, who were not wearing balaclavas, were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. Then they left the applicants’ house and drove away. 100 .     On 22 May 2002, while searching for Mr   Gelayev, the applicants went to the checkpoint in their street. The service personnel manning it told them that the special operation on 21 May 2002 had been conducted by an FSB unit with the code name “Shchuka” (Щука ) and that the FSB service personnel had passed through the checkpoint with one detainee who had looked like Mr Islam Gelayev. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 101.     Immediately after the abduction the first applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be instituted. 102.     On 26 July 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 48117 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 103.     On 23 August 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed that the service personnel had broken into her house on the day of the abduction, as described above. 104.     The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement and military authorities. In reply they received letters stating that no information about Mr Gelayev was available. 105.     On 26 September 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on several occasions following the supervising prosecutors’ orders and criticism and then suspended. In particular, the proceedings were resumed on 2 July 2003, then suspended on 2 August 2003, resumed again on 29   May 2004 and suspended on 29 June 2004.   On 28 November 2005 the investigation was resumed. 106 .     In December 2005 the investigators received information from the Leninskiy district police station in Grozny. According to it, Mr Gelayev had been friends with Mr M.Yu., the leader of an illegal armed group called Dzhamaat. He had been running errands for Mr M.Yu. and other members of the illegal armed groups operating in the Leninskiy district in Grozny. Mr   M.Yu. had been killed in October 2002. 107.     On 14 December 2005 the investigators questioned Mr Kh.Kh., a neighbour of the applicants. He stated that Mr Gelayev had visited him on the day of the abduction and then confirmed having seen a group of armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms in the street after Mr Gelayev had left. The men had ordered Mr Kh.Kh. to stay at home. Later that day he had visited the applicants, who had told him about the disappearance of Mr   Gelayev. 108.     On 2 January 2006 the investigation was suspended. 109 .     Between 2002 and 2011 on numerous occasions the first applicant complained of the abduction to various law-enforcement and other State authorities and requested assistance in the search for her son. Her complaints were forwarded to the investigators, who replied that operational search activities aimed at establishing Mr Gelayev’s whereabouts were in progress. 110.     On 24 May 2011 the investigation was resumed and on 27 June 2011 it was suspended again. 111.     On 15 February 2013 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the investigation file. On 7   March   2013 the request was granted. 112.     It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 113.     On 13 February 2008 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny and requested that they be obliged to resume the proceedings. On 7   April 2008 the court dismissed her complaint as unsubstantiated. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS 114.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice and for international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012). THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 115.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH RULE A.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The Government 116.     The Government submitted that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court several years after the abduction of their relatives and more than six months after the date on which they ought to have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the pending investigations. They argued that the applicants had remained passive and had not been interested in finding their missing relatives. The applicants had therefore failed to show due diligence and comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging their respective complaints with the Court. 2.     The applicants 117.     The applicants in all the applications submitted that they had complied with the six-month rule. They had taken all possible steps within a reasonable time to initiate a search for their missing relatives and to assist the authorities in the proceedings. They alleged that there had been no excessive or unexplained delays in lodging their applications with the Court, which had been lodged as soon as they had considered the respective domestic investigation to have proved to be ineffective. 118.     The applicants furthermore submitted that they had complained to the authorities shortly after all of the incidents in question and had hoped that the criminal investigation initiated following that would produce results. In respect of each case, throughout the proceedings they had maintained regular contact with the authorities and had actively cooperated with the respective investigation. The applicants furthermore maintained that the armed conflict in Chechnya had led them to believe that investigative delays had been inevitable and that it had only been with the passage of time and the lack of information from the domestic authorities that they had begun to doubt the effectiveness of the respective investigations. They had lodged their applications with the Court after realising that the domestic investigations had proved to be ineffective. Some applicants also referred to their “legal illiteracy” and lack of financial means with which to retain a lawyer ( Israilovy (no. 34909/12) and Asukhanovy (no.   38383/12)). B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     General principles 119.     A summary of the principles concerning compliance with the six ‑ month rule in cases involving violations of Article 2 of the Convention allegedly perpetrated by military service personnel may be found in Sultygov and Others v. Russia , nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 369-74, 9   October 2014, and Dudayeva v. Russia , no.   67437/09, § 71, 8 December 2015. 2.     Application of the principles to the present case 120.     Turning to the circumstances of the applications at hand, the Court notes that in each case the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court within a period ranging from eight years to up to eleven years after the respective incidents, and that in each case the authorities became aware of the abductions without there being any undue delays. In respect of each of the cases, investigations were formally pending when the applications were lodged with the Court. The criminal proceedings in respect of all the cases were suspended and resumed on several occasions throughout the periods concerned. The applicants maintained reasonable contact with the authorities, cooperated with each investigation, and, where appropriate, took steps to inform themselves of the progress of the proceedings and to speed them up, in the hope of securing a more effective outcome (see paragraphs   18, 21-23, 48, 49, 63, 85-88 and 109 above). Given the time that passed between each of the abductions and the initiation of the relevant criminal proceedings – as well as the active stance taken by the applicants in respect of those proceedings – the Court is satisfied that the applicants lodged their applications within a reasonable amount of time (see Varnava and Others v.   Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR   2009). 121.     Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit. III.     COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXHAUSTION RULE A.     The parties’ submissions 122.     In respect of all applications except for Gelayevy (no. 26893/13) the Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies. In their view, it had been open to the applicants to appeal against the investigators’ decisions before the domestic courts or to challenge the alleged inactivity of the investigating authorities, but they had failed to do so. 123.     The applicants, referring to the Court’s case-law, submitted that lodging complaints against the investigators would not have remedied the shortcomings of the investigations. They furthermore argued that the criminal investigations had proved to be ineffective. B.     The Court’s assessment 124 .     The Court has previously concluded that the ineffective investigation of disappearances that occurred in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006 constituted a systemic problem and that criminal investigations were not an effective remedy in this connection (see Aslakhanova and Others , cited above, § 217). In such circumstances, and noting the absence over the years of any tangible progress in the criminal investigations into the abductions of the applicants’ relatives, the Court concludes that this objection must be dismissed since the remedy indicated by the Government has been ineffective in the circumstances (see, for similar reasoning, Khachukayevy v. Russia , no. 34576/08, § 60, 9 February 2016). IV.     THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The Government 125.     The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application, but submitted that there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions of the applicants’ relatives. 2.     The applicants 126.     The applicants submitted that it had been established “beyond reasonable doubt” that the men who had taken their relatives had been State agents. In support of that assertion, they cited evidence contained in their submissions and documents from the criminal-investigation files submitted by the Government. They also stated that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by military service personnel, and that the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government. Given (i) the fact that they had not had any news of their relatives for a long time and (ii) the life-threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in Chechnya at the relevant time, they asked the Court to consider their relatives dead. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     General principles 127.     A summary of the principles concerning the assessment of evidence and the establishment of facts in disappearance cases and the life ‑ threatening nature of such incidents can be found in Sultygov and   Others (cited above, §§ 393-96). 2.     Application of the above principles to the present case 128.     Turning to the circumstances of the applications before it, and taking account of all the material (including the documents from the criminal-investigation files provided by the Government), the Court finds that the applicants have made prima facie cases that their relatives were abducted by State agents in the circumstances described above. 129.     In the application Israilovy (no. 34909/12), the Court observes that Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov was arrested after an identity check by service personnel from the DON-100 military unit and taken to a military facility. It further notes that the convoy of military vehicles including that transporting Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov passed the checkpoint in Martan-Chu unrestrictedly (see paragraphs 9, 10 and 13 above). 130.     As for the application Shabazovy (no. 36883/12), the Court notes that the authorities had suspected Mr Aslan Shabazov of having committed serious crimes in Chechnya and put him on the wanted list (see paragraphs 33, 37 and 43 above). It also notes statements from various sources that Mr   Shabazov was arrested by FSB agents and taken to Khankala, as well the involvement of a helicopter in the abduction (see paragraphs 30, 37-39 and 42 above). 131.     Turning to the application Asukhanovy (no. 38383/12), the Court observes that the applicants’ relative was taken away from the checkpoint in Urus-Martan by a group of military service personnel from the commander’s office, as confirmed by a number of witness statements (see paragraphs 54, 57, 59, 61 and 66 above). The Court also notes the involvement of an APC in the abduction and the fact that the man in charge of the group introduced himself as a major of the Main Intelligence Directorate. 132.     In Asabayeva and Others (no. 40162/12) the Government did not contest that Mr Ibragim Asabayev and Mr Alkhazur Asabayev had been arrested by service personnel and then detained at the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala (see paragraph 74 above). The Court also notes that the abductors were of Slavic appearance and that they had previously been seen near the building where law-enforcement agencies had been based (see paragraphs 73, 78, 82, 83 and 92 above). 133.     As for the application Gelayevy (no. 26893/13), the Court notes that Mr Islam Gelayev was abducted from the street where a checkpoint manned by the Russian federal forces was situated. Moreover, according to the statements of the service personnel who had manned the checkpoint, a special operation had been carried out on 21 May 2002 by the FSB unit. The latter then had passed through the checkpoint with a detainee who had looked like Mr Gelayev (see paragraphs 97, 98 and 100 above). The Court also notes that the authorities were aware of Mr Gelayev’s links with members of illegal armed groups (see paragraph 106 above). 134.     Having regard to the numerous previous cases concerning disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia that have come before it, the Court has found that in the particular context of that conflict, when a person is detained by unidentified State agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of that detention, this may be regarded as life ‑ threatening (see, among many other authorities, Aslakhanova and Others , cited above, §   101). 135.     Lastly, the Court observes that the Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof (see, among many other authorities, Avşar v. Turkey , no. 25657/94, § 392, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII (extracts)). 136 .     In summary, the facts of all the applications contain sufficient evidence to enable the Court to find that the applicants’ relatives were taken into custody by State agents during security operations and remained under the State’s exclusive control. Given the lack of any reliable news about them since their detention and the life-threatening nature of that detention, the Court finds that Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov, Mr Aslan Shabazov, Mr   Gilani Asukhanov, Mr Ibragim Asabayev, Mr Alkhazur Asabayev and Mr Islam Gelayev may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention. V.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 137.     The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives had disappeared after having been detained by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out effective investigations into the matter. Article 2 reads as follows: “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” A.     The parties’ submissions 138.     The Government submitted that no evidence had been obtained in the course of domestic investigations to suggest that the applicants’ relatives had been held under State control or that they had been killed. They furthermore stated that the mere fact that the investigations had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that they had been ineffective. 139.     The applicants maintained their complaints, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and deprived of their lives in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. They furthermore argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set out in the Conventio