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 } .sE926D4E4 { width:22.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s43A63B5 { width:18.96pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; 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 } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s9833E78A { height:12.2pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s721E78A { height:10.2pt } .sF702B0A7 { height:10.65pt } .s460A4CD6 { height:18pt } .s35B3B0A7 { height:17.65pt } .s2CC9B0A7 { height:12.35pt } .s59E3E78A { height:18.8pt } .s22FA5D7A { height:23.75pt } .s178DB0A7 { height:14.55pt } .s3D45D7A { height:20.65pt } .s3C47E78A { height:19.1pt } .sC6885D7A { height:26.45pt } .s4AA5B0A7 { height:18.15pt } .s352FB0A7 { height:17.25pt } .s6436E78A { height:15.4pt } .s7C6E78A { height:10.7pt } .sE4225D7A { height:21.95pt } .sB9D9B0A7 { height:16.75pt } .s5ABB263B { height:26.6pt } .sC8D1E78A { height:16.8pt } .s5A58263B { height:26.3pt }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF GANATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 44776/09 and 9 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 Ganatova and Others, 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 Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. 3.     The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in either Chechnya or Ingushetia. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by service personnel during special operations. The events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. Their whereabouts remain unknown. 5 .     The applicants or other persons reported the abductions to law ‑ enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The investigation were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have been ongoing for several years without any tangible results being achieved. The applicants lodged requests for information and assistance in the search for their relatives with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies. Their requests received either only formalistic responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still ongoing. 6.     Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases as presented by the applicants, but questioned the involvement of service personnel in the events. A.     Ganatova v. Russia (no. 44776/09) 7.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Isa Kukayev, who was born in 1979. 1.     Conviction of Mr Isa Kukayev 8.     On 2 April 2003 the Nazran Town Court of Ingushetia convicted Mr   Isa Kukayev of illegal possession of a grenade, sentencing him to three years’ imprisonment. 2.     Abduction of Mr Isa Kukayev 9 .     At about 6 a.m. on 29 August 2003 two UAZ minivans and a VAZ   21099 car (all the vehicles had no registration plates) arrived at the house in Grozny which belonged to Mr A.K. and Ms   L.S., who were hosting Mr Isa Kukayev at the time. 10 .     Several men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas, armed with automatic weapons, left the vehicles and burst into the house. Having checked the identity documents of Mr A.K. and Mr Isa Kukayev, they took the latter to an unknown destination. During the operation several other armed men secured the surrounding area. 3.     Subsequent events 11.     On an unspecified date the applicant’s family learned from unofficial sources that Mr Isa Kukayev had been detained on the premises of dairy farm no.15, where a military unit headed by Commander M. was stationed. 12.     The applicant’s relatives informally asked Commander M. about Mr   Isa Kukayev’s arrest, but he denied involvement of his unit in that operation. 13 .     On 8 April 2007 the applicant’s family was contacted by Mr S. He stated that on 17 August 2003 he had been arrested by service personnel and then placed in a cell in the basement of the dairy farm. Several days later Mr   Isa Kukayev had joined him. He had been arrested on suspicion of participation in bombing attacks. Two weeks later the service personnel had taken Mr   Isa Kukayev out of the cell. He had never returned. 4.     Official investigation into the abduction 14 .     On 29 August 2003 Mr A.K. informed the Zavodskoiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny (“the investigators”) of Mr Isa Kukayev’s abduction. 15 .     On 8 September 2003 the investigators opened criminal case no.   30157 under Article of 126 the Criminal Code (“the CC”) (abduction). 16.     On 16 September 2003 the investigators questioned Mr A.K. He described the details of the abduction. In particular, he mentioned that the abductors had used two white UAZ vehicles and a dark VAZ 21099 car. 17.     On 29 October 2003 the applicant was questioned by the investigators. She submitted that she had learned about her son’s abduction from relatives shortly after the incident. 18.     Between September and November 2003 the investigators sent several requests to law-enforcement authorities to check if Mr   Isa Kukayev had been arrested during a special operation. They replied that they had no information. 19.     On 8 November 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators. The investigation was resumed on 15   February 2004. 20.     On 20 February 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 21.     On 25 February 2004 the investigators questioned Mr A.K. again. He provided a more detailed description of the events of 29 August 2003, stating that several armed men had secured the surrounding area while others had taken Mr Isa Kukayev away. 22.     On 20 February 2004 the investigators granted the applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned her. She confirmed her previous statement. 23.     On 8 March 2004 the investigators questioned Ms L.S. Her account of the events was similar to those of Mr A.K. 24 .     The investigation was suspended on 15 March 2004 and then resumed on 26 December 2005. 25.     On the same day the investigators questioned the applicant. Referring to information from Mr A.K.’s statement, she alleged that her son has been arrested by service personnel from a military unit stationed at dairy farm no.   15. 26.     On 26 January 2006 the investigation was suspended. They were subsequently resumed on 14 March 2007. 27.     On 10 April 2007 a member of Mr A.K.’s family informed the investigators about a visit by Mr S. (see paragraph 13 above). 28.     On 20 April 2007 the investigators learned that the military unit which had been stationed at the dairy farm had been disbanded in 2006. 29.     Subsequently the investigation was suspended on 27   April, 30   September and 1 December 2007 and 11 April 2008 and then resumed on 30 August and 29 October 2007, 7 March 2008, and 24 February 2011 respectively. 30.     In the meantime, on 25 May 2010 the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny declared Isa Kukayev a missing person following an application by the applicant. 5.     Court proceedings against the investigators 31.     According to the applicant, at some point she complained to the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny about the investigators’ inaction. The court dismissed her claim on an unspecified date in 2008. B.     Makhiyeva and Shoipova v. Russia (no. 5552/12) 32.     The first and the second applicants are the mothers of Mr Rasmbek Saydulayev, who was born in 1984, and Mr Lom-Ali (also spelled as Lomali) Shoipov, who was born in 1982, respectively. 1.     Abduction of Mr Rasmbek Saydulayev and Mr Lom-Ali Shoipov 33 .     On 21 August 2003 Mr Rasmbek Saydulayev and Mr Lom-Ali Shoipov were visiting the hospital in the settlement of Ordzhonikidzevskaya in Ingushetia. Whilst both men were in the building a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas with shields arrived at the hospital in several vehicles with tinted windows and number plates indicating that they were from region “95” (Chechnya). 34 .     They surrounded the hospital, entered its courtyard and started firing gunshots. Six men broke into the surgical wing and hit Mr Saydulayev over the head with a gun, rendering him unconscious. They then ordered the nurses to tie his legs together. Meanwhile, other service personnel severely beat Mr Shoipov, breaking his arm. They then took both Mr Saydulayev and Mr   Shoipov out of the hospital. Mr I.I. was in the room next to the room where Mr Saydulayev was subjected to a beating and witnessed it. 35 .     The service personnel handcuffed Mr Saydulayev, Mr Shoipov and Mr   I.I., forced them into a white GAZelle minivan with number plates including the digits A632...95 and drove away. It appears that the armed men also took away several other people, including Mr   A.S. 2.     Official investigation of the abduction 36 .     On 21 August 2003 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 23600052 under Articles 222 (illegal use of weapons) and 126 (abduction) of the CC into the abduction of Mr   I.I. and Mr A.S. 37.     On the same day the investigators examined the crime scene and found one of abductors’ armoured shields bearing the letter “Ch” ( Ч ) and no.   9207005. According to the crime-scene-examination record, they collected several pieces of cloth, cartridge cases and samples of a “brownish substance” – apparently blood – and joined them to the case file as material evidence. 38.     In late August 2003 the investigators questioned the hospital staff. Their statements were similar to the account of the events described above. 39 .     On 22 August 2003 the investigators questioned the head of a special mobile unit stationed in Ingushetia, Officer O.Ch. He submitted that at 7.30   a.m. on 21 August 2003 two GAZelle minivans and a Niva car had arrived at their headquarters and armed men of Slavic appearance in camouflage uniforms had got out. Their commander had introduced himself as Mr I.N. and had asked to provide them with the personal protective equipment needed to arrest a dangerous criminal in Ingushetia. Mr   Ch. ordered that they be given helmets and shield no. 9207005. 40 .     On 25 August 2003 the investigators questioned the first deputy head of the special mobile unit, Mr K.Z. He stated that on 21 August 2003 his superior (Mr O.Ch.) had told him about a call which he had received from Khankala (Chechnya) from a person who had called had asked him to organise a briefing for officers from the regional operative headquarters of the Temporary United Group Alignment ( Региональный Оперативный штаб Временной Объединенной Группировки Сил ), based in Khankala, on account of a special operation which they had had to carry out in Ingushetia. Mr O.Ch. had asked Mr K.Z. to brief the officers. As soon as they had arrived Mr K.Z. had explained to them the situation in the region and recommended that they obtain personal protective equipment. 41 .     On 28 August 2003 the International Committee of the Red Cross requested the Chechnya Public Prosecutor’s Office’s assistance in establishing whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives and other persons presumed arrested on 21 August 2003. Following that letter the investigators included the applicants’ relatives Mr Rasmbek Saydulayev and Mr   Lom-Ali Shoipov on the list of abducted persons and started an investigation in respect of them. 42.     On 29 August 2003 the investigators requested that the headquarters of the Temporary United Group Alignment inform them of the special operation of 21 August 2003 and its results. The reply dated 19   January 2004 stated that no special operation had been carried out in respect of the missing persons, including the applicants’ relatives. 43.     On 30 September 2003 two police officers from a road checkpoint submitted that on 21 August 2003 they had seen two GAZelle minivans and a Niva car with armed men of Slavic appearance pass. 44.     In October 2003 the investigators questioned several eyewitnesses to the events in the hospital, who submitted an account similar to that the applicants made before the Court. 45.     On 8 February 2003 the investigators established that Mr   Rasmbek Saydulayev was suspected of the attempted murder of a police officer and that Mr Lom-Ali Shoipov was suspected of terrorist attacks. 46.     On 21 February 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators. 47.     It appears that on an unspecified date in February 2004 the investigation was resumed. 48.     In late February 2004 the investigators questioned the relatives of Mr   Rasmbek Saydulayev and Mr Lom-Ali Shoipov, who explained how they had learned about the events of 21 August 2003. 49.     On 15 March 2004 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 50.     On 17 March 2004 the investigators granted victim status to the father of Mr   Rasmbek Saydulayev, the first applicant’s husband. 51.     On an unspecified date the investigation was suspended. The investigators resumed them again on 20 May 2004 and then on 20 June 2004 suspended them again. 52.     On 4 July 2005 the second applicant together with relatives of the other abducted men contacted the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office seeking that the investigation be resumed and certain investigative steps be taken. They also asked the investigators to provide them with detailed information about the progress in the case. 53.     On 6 July 2005 the above request was dismissed by the investigators 54.     On 13 December 2005 one of the relatives of the abducted persons, Mr   M.P., informed the investigators of an article in a local newspaper under the headings “Armed raid in a hospital in Ingushetia”. The article was accompanied by a photo depicting two men with their hands on the back of their heads being arrested by armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas. Mr   M.P. recognised his relatives among those arrestees. 55.     On 15 December 2005 the investigators resumed the investigation. 56.     On 21 December 2005 they admitted the newspaper in evidence and joined it to the case file. 57 .     On 14 January 2006 the investigation was suspended. They were subsequently resumed on 22 June 2006, 27 August 2010, 7 December 2011, and 11 April 2014; and then suspended on 23 July 2006, 26 September 2010, 7 January 2012, and 11 May 2014 respectively. 58.     In the meantime, on 26 June 2006 Mr M.P. informed the investigators that the author of the article had obtained the photograph for it from an unknown email address. 59.     On an unspecified date in February 2007 the relatives of the abducted people, including those of Mr Lom-Ali Shoipov, asked the investigators for an update on new developments in the case. In reply they were informed that the whereabouts of the victims had not been established and that the investigation had been suspended. 60.     On 10 March 2011 the second applicant asked the investigators to grant her full access to the criminal case file. On 16 March 2011 her request was granted in part and she was allowed access to the decisions concerning the suspension of the investigation. 61.     On 20 July 2015 the second applicant asked the investigators to resume the investigation and to allow her access to the case-file documents. 62.     On 11 August 2015 the applicant was given access to the documents. The remainder of her request was dismissed by the investigators. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 63.     On 23 June 2010 the relatives of the abducted persons, including those of Mr Lom-Ali Shoipov lodged a court claim with the Sunzhenskiy District Court in Ingushetia, seeking the annulment of the decision to suspend the investigation of 23 July 2006 and asking for the investigation to be resumed. Their claim was allowed on 29 June 2010. 64.     On 21 March 2011 the second applicant complained to the same District Court against the investigators’ decision of 16 March 2011 to give her only partial access to the case file. On 26 April 2011 the court dismissed her complaint. On 19 June 2011 the Supreme Court of Ingushetia upheld that decision on appeal. C.     Astamirova and Others v. Russia (no. 9616/12) 65.     The first applicant is the mother of Mr Adam Novruzov, who was born in 1973. The second and third applicants are his sisters. 1.     Abduction of Mr Adam Novruzov 66 .     At about 4 a.m. on 14 July 2003 the applicants and other members of their family were at home in Grozny when a group of about ten armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into their house. The men threatened all those present with firearms, searched the premises and forced Mr Adam Novruzov outside. The second applicant tried to stop the men who were taking her brother away, but they started shooting in the air preventing her from any further actions. 67 .     The service personnel took Mr Adam Novruzov on foot to the nearby Mazayeva Street, where two grey military UAZ   minivans were waiting. They loaded him into one of the vehicles and drove off. According to the applicants, during the search the abductors took away several pieces of jewellery belonging to the family (two golden chains and one gold ring with diamonds). 68.     According to the applicants’ submissions, several other residents of Grozny were abducted on the same night under similar circumstances. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 69 .     On 14 July 2003 the applicants informed the authorities of the events and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. They also reported the disappearance of the jewellery items (see paragraph 67 above). 70.     On the same date a police officer of the Department of the Interior office in Zavodskoy district in Grozny (“the Zavodskoy ROVD”) examined the crime scene. A machine-gun cartridge case was collected as evidence. 71.     Later on during the day the investigators from the Zavodskoy district prosecutors’ office of Grozny (the investigators) examined the crime scene. Another machine-gun casing, a bullet and fingerprints from window frames were discovered and collected as evidence. 72 .     On 21 July 2003 the Zavodskoy ROVD informed the investigators that a special operation had been conducted by a federal special forces in the area of the abduction. 73.     On 23 July 2003 the investigators opened criminal case no.   30119 under Article 126 of the СС (abduction). 74 .     On 24 July 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction and the property seizure described above. 75 .     On 6 and 11 August 2003 the second and third applicants were questioned. They also confirmed the circumstances of the events as described above and added that the stolen jewellery belonged to the second applicant. 76 .     On 23 September 2003 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on several occasions following supervisors’ orders and criticism and then again suspended. Thus, the investigations were resumed on 9 February 2005, 26   January 2007, 24 November 2008, 11 July 2011 and suspended on 9   March 2005, 26 February 2007, 27 December 2008 and 21 July 2011 respectively. 77.     On unspecified dates in January 2005, and on 3 February 2007 and on 28   November 2008 the investigators asked a number of law ‑ enforcement agencies to inform them whether the latter had arrested or detained Mr   Adam Novzurov or whether they were in possession of any information about his whereabouts. No replies with information were received. 78.     On 20 and 23 February 2005 the third and second applicants were questioned again. They reiterated their previously given statements. 79 .     On 30 April 2005 the Department of the Interior office in Oktyabrskiy district in Grozny (“the Oktyabrskiy ROVD”) informed the investigators that according to information collected during operational search activities, Mr Adam Novruzov had been serving a sentence in one of the correctional facilities in Saratov Region. 80.     On the same date the Oktyabrskiy ROVD asked the head of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences in Saratov Region to provide information on whether Mr Adam Novruzov had been or was detained in that region. It is unclear whether any response was given to this request. 81.     On 26 January 2007 the first applicant was questioned. She reiterated her previously given statement concerning the abduction and additionally stated that a certain Mr M.Ch. and Mr A.U., law-enforcement officers in 2003, had allegedly been involved in the abduction. 82.     On 7 February 2007 Mr A.U., a police officer at the time of the abduction, was questioned. He denied any involvement in the incident. 83.     On 7 March 2007 the investigators were informed that Mr   M.Ch. was serving a sentence in a correctional facility in Penza Region after his conviction by a court for a number of criminal offences. 84.     On 9 December 2008 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ neighbours who had witnessed the abduction. All of them confirmed its circumstances as described above. 85.     On 16 December 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the case file. The outcome of this request is unknown. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 86.     On 27 June 2011 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny. 87.     On 12 July 2011 the court rejected her complaint, having found that the day earlier, on 11 July 2011, the investigators had already resumed the investigation. D.     Daniyeva v. Russia (no. 25514/13) 88.     The applicant is the wife of Mr Umar Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1953. 1.     Abduction of Mr Umar Dzhabrailov 89 .     At about 3 a.m. on 12 December 2003 six armed men in balaclavas arrived at the applicant’s house in the village of Shaami-Yurt in a UAZ vehicle and an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) and took Mr Umar Dzhabrailov away to an unknown location. 2.     Official investigation of the abduction 90 .     On 12 December 2003 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Department of the Interior office in Achkhoy-Martan district. 91.     On the same day the investigators examined the crime scene, questioned the applicant, her neighbour and personnel who had been stationed with military units located nearby. In the applicant’s house they collected two cartridge cases as evidence. 92 .     On 15 December 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44091 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). The investigators put forward several versions of the events, including the arrest of Mr Umar Dzhabrailov by State agents. 93.     On 15 December 2003 the applicant was questioned again. Her statement was similar to the account of the events given by the applicant in the submissions to the Court. She also mentioned that the abductors had spoken Russian. 94.     On the next day, 16 December 2003, the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. Having been questioned once again, she confirmed her previously given statement. 95.     On 20 December 2003 the investigators questioned one of the applicant’s neighbours, who had seen through his window several persons in camouflage uniforms leaving the applicant’s house at about 3 a.m. on 12   December 2003. 96.     In December 2003 the investigators also sent several requests to law-enforcement and military authorities to check if Mr Umar Dzhabrailov had been arrested during a special operation. They replied that they had no information. 97.     On 5 January 2004 the investigators ordered an examination of the cartridge cases from the applicant’s house by ballistic experts. The outcome of the examination is unknown. 98 .     On 15 February 2004 the investigators suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the applicant was not informed of that decision. 99 .     On 11 June 2008, following criticism from a supervising prosecutor, the decision of 15 February 2004 to suspend the investigation was annulled and the investigation was resumed. 100.     Subsequently the investigation was suspended on 16 July 2008, 6   September 2009, 6 December 2011 and 3 February 2013, and then resumed on 5 August 2008, 1 December 2011 and 24 January 2013 respectively. 101.     In the meantime, on 30 April 2010 one of Mr Umar Dzhabrailov’s relatives enquired about the developments in the investigation. On 7 May 2010 the investigators informed him that the investigation was ongoing. 102.     On 16 June 2011 the applicant asked the investigators to resume the investigation and to allow her to make copies from the case-file documents. On 23 June 2011 her request was granted in part and she obtained a copy of the contents of the criminal case file. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 103.     On 16 November 2011 and 17 January 2013 the applicant complained to the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court and to the Achkhoy ‑ Martan District Court respectively about the investigators’ decisions of 6 September 2009 and 6 December 2011 to suspend the criminal investigation. 104.     On 2 December 2011 and 25 January 2013 the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court and the Achkhoy ‑ Martan District Court respectively rejected her complaints on the grounds that the investigators had already resumed the investigation. 105.     On 5 December 2011 the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the decision of 2 December 2011. The Supreme Court of Chechnya dismissed her appeal on 28 December 2011. E.     Tumsoyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 25531/13)   106.     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Yusup Khamzatov, who was born in 1948. The second and third applicants are his sons. 1.     Abduction of Mr Yusup Khamzatov 107 .     In the morning of 23 May 2002 about thirty armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in the village of Zakan-Yurt in two VAZ cars (VAZ-21099 and VAZ-2107), a UAZ minivan and an APC and took Mr Yusup Khamzatov away to an unknown destination. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 108 .     On 23 May 2002 the second applicant complained of the abduction of his father to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office. 109 .     On 25 May 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 63036 under Article 127 of the CC (unlawful detention) and granted victim status to the first applicant. 110.     On the same day the investigators questioned the first applicant. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as described above. 111 .     On 27-29 May 2002 the investigators questioned three of the applicants’ neighbours, Ms K.Y., Ms S.A. and Mr M.M. They submitted that at about 2.30 a.m. on 23 May 2002 they had seen several men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas dragging Mr Yusup Khamzatov from his house to a UAZ minivan, which had been parked together with an APC in front of the applicants’ house. 112.     On 10 June 2002 the second applicant was informed of the institution of the criminal proceedings into the circumstances of his father’s abduction. 113.     On 7 July 2002 the Chechnya Public Prosecutor’s Office stated in reply to the second applicant’s request for information that the abduction complaint had been forwarded to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office. 114 .     On 25 July 2002 the investigators suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that he applicants were not informed of that decision. 115.     On 24 November 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court, following an application by the first applicant, declared Mr Yusup Khamzatov a missing person. 116 .     On an unspecified date in 2005 the investigation was reopened and on 22 September 2005 one of Mr Yusup Khamzatov’s relatives, Ms   T.S. was granted victim status. At some point later the investigation was suspended again. 117.     On 17 June 2008 the investigators resumed the investigation. 118.     On 21 June 2008 the investigators questioned five village residents, who gave hearsay evidence about the abduction of Mr Yusup Khamzatov by armed men in camouflage uniforms. 119.     On 17 July 2008 the investigators suspended the investigation. 120.     On 4 March 2009 the second applicant requested that the investigators provide him with copies of certain documents from the criminal case file. On an unspecified date the request was granted. 121.     On 20 July 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators allow her to access the criminal case file. On the next day, the applicant’s request was granted. 122.     On 7 September 2011 the investigators resumed the criminal investigation. Then they suspended them on 17 September 2011, and resumed them again 24 January 2013. 123.     On 28 February 2012, following an application by the first applicant, the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr Yusup Khamzatov a deceased person. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators 124.     On 24 August 2011 and 24 December 2012 the first applicant lodged complaints with the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court and the Achkhoy ‑ Martan District Court respectively. She alleged that the investigators had failed to effectively investigate her husband’s abduction. 125.     On 8 September 2011 and 25 January 2013 the courts rejected her complaints on the grounds that the investigation had already been resumed. 126.     The first applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the decision of 8   September 2011, which was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Chechnya on 12   October 2011. 4.     Application for a special one-off social grant 127.     On 4 April 2012 the first applicant applied to the Ministry of Labour, Employment and the Social Development of the Chechen Republic for a special one-off social grant ( единовременная денежная помощь ) in the amount of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB – approximately 487 euros (EUR)) to be paid on account of her husband’s death. 128.     On an unspecified date her application was dismissed and the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny seeking allocation of the special grant. 129 .     On 26 June 2012 the court granted the claim, and awarded her the special grant (social aid) in the amount of   RUB 20,000 (approximately EUR   487 euros). The judgment became final on 27   July 2012. F.     Aliyevy v. Russia (no. 26859/13) 130.     The applicants are the parents of Mr Rustam Aliyev, who was born in 1982. 1.     Abduction of Mr Rustam Aliyev and subsequent events (a)     Abduction of Mr Rustam Aliyev 131 .     At about 6 a.m. on 7 July 2003 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms, most of whom were in balaclavas, arrived in a Ural lorry and two UAZ minivans at the applicant’s house in the settlement of Belgatoy. Two of the men, who were not wearing balaclavas, were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. 132 .     One of the men was of Asian appearance and of Buryat ethnicity. The first applicant recognised him, because previously he (the first applicant) had repaired his car and sports equipment. That man served in the special‑purpose militia units ( Отдел милиции особого назначения (ОМОН) – “the OMON”) and manned a checkpoint in   Belgatoy. 133 .     The armed men broke in the applicants’ house and took the first applicant and Mr Rustam Aliyev into the yard. Then they checked their identity documents, pulled Mr Rustam Aliyev’s T-shirt over his head and took him away in one of their vehicles. 134.     The abduction took place in the presence of Mr Rustam Aliyev’s wife (Ms Kh.B.), and the applicants’ neighbour Mr U.Kh. (b)     Subsequent events 135 .     On 9 or 10 July 2003 a man approached the applicants and promised his assistance with the release of Mr Rustam Aliyev in return for payment. A few days later the man told the applicants that Mr Rustam Aliyev had been detained on the premises of the Federal Security Service ( Федеральная Служба Безопасности (ФСБ) – “the FSB”) in the town of Shali and that it had been impossible to secure his release. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction 136 .     On 7 July 2003 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Department of the Interior office in Shali district. 137.     On 8 July 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 138 .     On 2 August 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22120 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 139.     On 10 August 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings 140.     On 10 and 15 August 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant and Mr Rustam Aliyev’s wife. Their statements were similar to the account of the events submitted by the applicants to the Court. 141.     In August-October 2003 the investigators sent several requests to law-enforcement and military authorities to check if Mr Rustam Aliyev had been arrested during a special operation. They replied that they had no information. 142.     On 2 October 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators. 143.     On 16 January 2004 the Shali district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that it had been taking investigative steps to establish her son’s whereabouts. 144.     On an unspecified date in 2004 the second applicant asked the Presidential Commission on Human Rights to assist in the search for her son. On 9 August 2004 the Commission asked the Shali district prosecutor’s office to update the second applicant on the progress of the investigation. On 16 January 2004 the latter was informed that the investigation was ongoing. 145 .     On 21 February 2005 the investigators found a cache with firearms and the identity documents of Mr Rustam Aliyev and Mr   Muslim   Abzailov (see Magomadova and Timirsultanov v. Russia, no. 26874/13, paragraph 168 below). On 16 June 2005 the related documents were joined to the criminal case file. 146.     On 5 April 2007 following a request by the second applicant regarding the progress of the investigation, she was informed that the investigators had been taking measures to establish Mr Rustam Aliyev’s whereabouts. 147.     On 17 April 2007 the investigators resumed the investigation. 148.     On 20 April 2007 they questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Mr   U.Kh, who had witnessed the abduction and confirmed the applicants’ account of the events. 149 .     On 18 May 2007 the investigators suspended the investigation. 150.     On 15 June 2009 the second applicant contacted the Chechen President and the chairperson of the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons respectively, asking for their assistance in the search for her missing relative. The requests were forwarded to the investigating authorities, which informed the applicant on 21 July 2009 that the criminal investigation was still ongoing. 151 .     On 23 April 2012 the investigators resumed the investigation, on 25   April 2012 they granted the second applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings and then on 27 April 2012 suspended them again. 152.     On 29 June 2012 the second applicant asked the investigators to resume the criminal investigation. Two days later her request was dismissed. 153.     On 1 February 2013 the second applicant repeated her previous request. She also asked the investigators to allow her to review the criminal case file. On 4 February 2013 she was granted access to the case-file documents. G.     Magomadova and Timirsultanova v. Russia (no. 26874/13) 154 .     The first applicant is the wife of Mr Khizir Magomadov, who was born in 1965. The second applicant is the wife of Mr Muslim Abzailov, who was born in 1974. 1.     Abduction of Mr Khizir Magomadov and Mr Muslim Abzailov 155 .     On 6 July 2003 Mr Khizir Magomadov – who at the relevant time was a trainee in the police – Mr Muslim Abzailov and Ms F.G. went to the village of Noviye Atagi in Mr Muslim Abzailov’s car. 156 .     On the motorway between the town of Shali and Noviye Atagi their car broke down in the vicinity of the 70th tank regiment’s base. They stopped to repair it. Shortly after an armoured Ural lorry approached. Several men from the lorry checked the identity documents of Mr   Khizir Magomadov and Mr   Muslim Abzailov and then forcibly took them away in the direction of Shali. Ms F.G. returned home by taxi. 2.     Official investigation into the abductions 157 .     On 7 July 2003 Mr Khizir Magomadov’s and Mr   Muslim Abzailov’s families complained of the abduction to the police. 158 .     On 9 July 2003 Mr Khizir Magomadov’s and Mr   Muslim Abzailov’s brothers requested the assistance of the Shali district prosecutor’s office in the search for their relatives. 159 .     On 4 August 2003 the investigators opened criminal case no.   22122 into the abduction of Mr Khizir Magomadov and Mr M. Abzailov under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 160.     On 28 August 2003 an uncle of Mr Khizir Magomadov was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 161.     On 15 September 2003 the investigators questioned Ms F.G. She submitted that Mr Khizir Magomadov and Mr   Muslim Abzailov had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms who had arrived in an Ural lorry. 162.     In August-October 2003 the investigators sent several requests to law-enforcement and military authorities to check if they had any information concerning Mr Khizir Magomadov’s and Mr Muslim Abzailov’s whereabouts. They replied that they had no information. 163.     On 4 October 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 164.     On 29 January 2004 the investigators informed the second applicant that they were taking measures to establish the whereabouts of her husband and to identify the perpetrators of his abduction. 165.     On 15 July 2004 the first applicant asked the Russian Ombudsman to assist in the search of her husband. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who replied that the search was under way (the date of the reply is illegible). 166.     On 5 August 2004, following an application by the first applicant, the Shali District Court declared Mr Khizir Magomadov a missing person. 167.     On 11 August 2004, following an application by the second applicant, the Oktyabrskiy District Court declared Mr   Muslim Abzailov a missing person. 168 .     On 21 February 2005 the investigators found a cache of firearms and the identity documents of Mr   Muslim   Abzailov (see paragraph 145 above). It is unclear whether the related documents were included in the case file. 169.     On 28 March 2006 the investigators resumed the criminal investigation. 170.     On 4 April and 10 April 2006 the investigators granted victim status to the first and second applicants. 171.     On 29 April 2006 the investigation was suspended. 172.     On 30 July 2007 the second applicant complained of the above decision to the Shali district prosecutor’s office. On 1 August 2007 the prosecutor’s office annulled it and ordered that the criminal investigation be resumed. 173 .     The investigators resumed the investigation on 1 August 2007 and suspended them again on 1 September 2007. 174 .     On 15 June 2008 the second applicant asked the NGO Svetliy Put to assist her in establishing her husband’s whereabouts. 175.     On 28 August 2008 the Shali District Court declared Mr Khizir Magomadov a deceased person. 176.     In April 2009 the applicants contacted various authorities seeking their assistance in the search for their missing relatives. Their requests were forwarded to the investigators, who informed the applicants on 20   May 2009 that the investigation had been suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators and that the operative-search activity was still ongoing. 177 .     On 20 February 2013 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the criminal case file. Her request was granted on 4 March 2013. 178.     In 2014 the applicants asked a number of law-enforcement authorities to assist them in establishing their husbands’ whereabouts, but no tangible progress followed. 3.     Proceedings for compensation of non-pecuniary damage 179 .     On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a civil claim with the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny seeking compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage in the amount of RUB 5,000,000 (approximately EUR   123,950) caused by the alleged arrest and subsequent killing of Mr   Khizir Magomadov by service personnel. 180 .     Having examined the documents from the criminal case file the court concluded that Mr   Khizir Magomadov had been arrested by state agents and that the ensuing investigation had been ineffective. Bearing that in mind, on 17 December 2012 the court partly granted the first applicant’s claim awarding her RUB 950,000 (approximately EUR 23,550) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment became final on 18   January 2013. H.     Akhyadova and Others v. Russia (no. 73542/14) 181.     The first applicant is the mother of Ms Bariyat (also spelled as Bariya and also known as Makka) Akhyadova, who was born in 1981. The second, third, fourth and fifth applicants are her sisters and brother. The sixth and seventh applicants are her children. 1.     Abduction of Ms Bariyat Akhyadova 182 .     At about 4 a.m. on 6 October 2004 a group of about ten armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicants’ house in the town of Vedeno in a UAZ minivan and a UAZ car without registration plates. The men spoke unaccented Russian and were in balaclavas. They made a forced entry into the house, arrested Ms Bariyat Akhyadova and took her away in one of the vehicles to an unknown destination. 2.     Subsequent events 183 .     At about noon on 8 October 2004 presumably the same group of armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas again arrived at the applicants’ house in a UAZ minivan and an APC. They searched for Ms Bariyat Akhyadova’s children (the sixth and seventh applicants) and left having not found them in the house. 3.     Official investigation into the abduction 184 .     On 6 October 2004 the first applicants informed the local police of the abduction and requested that a criminal investigation be opened. 185.     On the same date the investigators examined the crime scene (no evidence was collected), and questioned the first applicant and her husband. They provided the investigators with details of the abduction, which were similar to those set out above. 186 .     On 11 November 2004 the Vedeno district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 43052 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 187.     On 12 November 2004 first applicant was granted victim status in the case. She was