CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sF20BAFEF { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s68B99E69 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:30.54pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.26pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB65F62A { margin-left:13.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s9C8E617A { margin-left:4.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F7F604C { margin-left:13.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s980E2CFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6FC64B9D { width:2.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE4EB4F8C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7483BB9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s60C44206 { font-family:Symbol } .s14AC500A { width:3.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB6B9BB7C { width:4.55pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC0098EF4 { width:5.1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s26E826D6 { width:5.65pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9C2D3A51 { width:189.6pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9866263B { height:20.7pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sC9FAE78A { height:16.1pt } .s14C007DB { height:8.45pt } .s4ACE4500 { height:30.4pt } .s178DB0A7 { height:14.55pt } .sEBAC263B { height:28.1pt } .s2520E78A { height:13.8pt } .s6391E78A { height:15.3pt } .s358E564 { height:6.9pt } .s1581B0A7 { height:13.05pt } .sFD47A7EE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s87F54B90 { height:5.4pt } .sD329B0A5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s456A1073 { height:23pt } .sC39FE8B1 { height:42.9pt } .s1C7FEF65 { height:105.15pt } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .s88F29A8E { width:25.55pt } .sA6C25439 { width:103.15pt } .sFE0E3C48 { width:135.55pt } .sE6A77D30 { width:62.85pt } .s9666B9D3 { width:115.1pt } .sE3891F5F { width:62.8pt } .s6B4DD7B5 { width:0.8pt } .s7E246A19 { width:64pt } .s801E50B8 { width:4.45pt } .s6A83BB19 { width:51.05pt } .sC1405C97 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF IZHAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 53074/12 and 4 others ‑ see list appended)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 January 2020         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Izhayeva and Othersv. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 December 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. The application numbers and the applicants’ personal details are also listed in the appended table. 2.     The applicants were represented by the NGOs indicated in the appended table. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in Chechnya and other regions of the Northern Caucasus. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. Their whereabouts remain unknown. 5 .     The applicants reported the abductions to law ‑ enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were ongoing for several years without any tangible results being achieved. 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 other witnesses to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. Izhayeva v. Russia (no. 53074/12) 7.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Arsen Izhayev, who was born in 1980. Abduction of Mr Arsen Izhayev and his neighbour, and subsequent events 8.     At around 3 a.m. on 6 June 2007 about seven to eight armed men in camouflage uniforms in a GAZelle minivan with registration plates no.   A783AP 95 and a VAZ-2110 Lada car arrived at the address of the applicant’s neighbour in Grozny. The neighbour, Mr   A. Dzh, had previously been convicted of organising an illegal armed group, and his mother (Ms   A.T.), brother (Mr U.D.), and sister (Ms M.D.) were at home. The armed men seized Mr A. Dzh., blindfolded him, put him in the minivan and drove away. 9.     When the armed men were leaving the place of the incident, Mr   U.D. asked them who they were. They identified themselves as servicemen from the “oil regiment” ( нефтеполк ). 10.     Shortly thereafter the same group of men arrived at the applicant’s house, broke in, took Mr   Arsen Izhayev and forced him into the Gazel minivan; they put him next to Mr   A. Dzh. 11 .     Both men were then taken to an unknown location, about thirty to forty minutes’ drive away. The vehicle moved at high speed and did not make any stops. Upon arriving at that location, Mr   A. Dzh. and Mr   Arsen Izhayev were placed in two separate cells. 12 .     According to Mr   A. Dzh. (see paragraph 21 below), the abductors ill-treated him to extract information about followers of a radical religious movement (the Wahhabis) and illegal possession of weapons. He denied having that information. After the interrogation, the armed men told him that he was not guilty, blindfolded him, put him in a vehicle, drove him to Grozny and released him. Official investigation into the abduction 13 .     On 6 June 2007 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Leninskiy district police (“the Leninskiy ROVD”) in Grozny. 14.     On the same date, 6 June 2007, the police examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 15.     On 7 June 2007 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. It appears that the complaint was immediately forwarded to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny. On the same day the district prosecutor’s office asked several prosecutors’ offices in Chechnya and the Federal Security Service (FSB) headquarters in Grozny to inform it whether Mr Arsen Izhayev had been arrested by them. The agencies replied that they had no such information. 16.     On 15 June 2007 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 10067 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) (abduction). 17 .     On 19 June 2007 the investigators requested information from the Chechnya traffic police on the owners of cars with the registration plates nos.   A783AP 95 and A738AP 95. On 18 July 2007 the traffic police replied that the registration plates had been assigned to two white UAZ vehicles. The first vehicle belonged to FSB military unit no.   78576 stationed in Grozny, and the second vehicle belonged to hospital no. 5 in Grozny. 18 .     On 25 June 2007 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated that her son had been taken away by armed men in camouflage uniforms, together with Mr   A. Dzh., and that she did not know why he had been abducted. 19 .     Between 20 July and 5 September 2007 the investigators questioned Mr   A. Dzh.’s mother (Ms A.V.), his two brothers (Mr U.D. and Mr Kh.V.) and his sister (Ms M.D.). They stated that he had been arrested by armed men in camouflage uniforms. The same group of men had also arrested Mr   Arsen Izhayev. Later the abductors had realised that Mr   A. Dzh. had been detained by mistake and had released him. In his statement of 5   September 2007 Mr U.D. added that the perpetrators had identified themselves as servicemen from the “oil regiment”. 20.     In the meantime, on various dates in June and July 2007 the investigators had asked detention facilities in Chechnya and neighbouring regions to inform them of Mr Arsen Izhayev’s possible detention on their premises. The replies received stated that those facilities had no such information. 21 .     On 15 August 2007 the investigators questioned Mr   A. Dzh. His statement is described in paragraph 12 above. On the same day he was granted victim status in the criminal case. 22 .     On 15 September 2007 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 23.     On 19 September 2007 the head of the Leninskiy inter-district investigative committee (“the supervising authority”) overruled the above decision as ill-founded, in particular because the investigators had failed to follow up on the information about the registered owners of the vehicles used by the perpetrators. On the same day the investigation was resumed. 24 .     Having sent several requests to law-enforcement authorities, the investigators again suspended the proceedings on 19 October 2007. 25.     On 29 October 2007 the applicant asked the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (UGA) to take measures to establish her son’s whereabouts. On 30 October 2007 the request was forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102, which on 25   November 2007 replied to the applicant saying that it did not have information concerning her son’s whereabouts. 26 .     On 30 October 2007 the supervising authority criticised the decision to suspend the investigation taken on 19 October 2007. It noted that the investigators had failed: to establish whether Mr Arsen Izhayev had been convicted; to dissimilate information about his abduction in the mass media; and to question his colleagues about his personality and any possible conflicts. On the same day the investigation was resumed. 27.     On 28 November 2007 the investigators questioned the driver of the UAZ car belonging to hospital no. 5 in Grozny. He submitted that the vehicle had been allocated to the hospital by the Chechen Ministry of Healthcare. 28.     On 30 November 2007 the investigators suspended the proceedings. 29 .     On 19 December 2007 the above decision was overruled by the supervising authority as ill-founded, and the proceedings were resumed. The investigators were ordered to rectify the shortcomings identified by the decision of 30 October 2007. 30.     Between 24 December 2007 and 19 January 2008 the investigators questioned Mr   Arsen Izhayev’s acquaintances and neighbours. They did not have any relevant information about the event which was being investigated. 31 .     On 20 January 2008 the investigators suspended the proceedings. 32.     On 1 March 2008 the supervising authority overruled the suspension order as ill-founded, specifically because the investigators had failed: to follow up on the statement by Mr U.D., who had noted that the perpetrators had identified themselves as servicemen of the “oil regiment”; to establish what the perpetrators had looked like; to investigate what had happened to the perpetrators’ vehicle, which had been assigned to the FSB unit; to obtain a copy of Mr   A. Dzh.’s criminal sentence for his previous conviction; and to undertake other important investigative measures. 33.     On 19 March 2008 the investigators questioned the applicant. She confirmed her previous statement, adding that the perpetrators had spoken Chechen. She did not think that she could identify them. 34.     On 20 March 2008 the applicant asked the investigators to allow her to review the case file. Her request was dismissed on 27 March 2008. Subsequently, the applicant successfully challenged that decision in court (see paragraph 42 below). 35 .     On 4 April 2008 the investigators suspended the criminal proceedings. 36 .     On 7 July 2008 the supervising authority overruled that decision and resumed the criminal proceedings. The investigators were ordered: to obtain information about the perpetrators’ vehicles from traffic police checkpoints; to obtain information about Mr Arsen Izhayev’s and Mr   A. Dzh.’s mobile telephones; to obtain data regarding the connections from their mobile telephones; and   to undertake other important investigative measures. 37 .     On 11 August 2008 the investigators suspended the proceedings. 38 .     On 25 December 2008 the above decision was overruled by the supervising authority because the investigators had failed to comply with the orders of 7 July 2008. On the same day the proceedings were resumed. 39.     On 27 January 2009 the applicant provided the investigators with her son’s mobile telephone number. 40 .     On 30 January 2009 the investigators suspended the proceedings. Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed on 11 March 2010 and 18   April 2012, and suspended on 21   March 2010 and 3 May 2012 respectively. 41.     On 28 June 2012 the applicant was granted access to the criminal case file, following her request in that regard. Proceedings against the investigators 42 .     On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny, challenging the investigators’ decision of 27 March 2008 not to allow her to review the criminal case file. The court allowed the complaint on 6 May 2008. 43.     On an unspecified date in 2009 or 2010 the applicant lodged another complaint with the same court, alleging that the authorities had failed to investigate her son’s abduction effectively. The court dismissed it on 11   March 2010. Dibirova v. Russia (no. 66876/12) 44.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Ramaz Dibirov, who was born in 1981. Background information 45 .     On 23 April 2006 Mr Ramaz Dibirov was arrested by police officers from the sixth department of the Ministry of the Interior in Dagestan (“the sixth department”) and taken into custody pending the relevant investigation and trial. The police officers allegedly ill ‑ treated him in order to make him confess to committing acts of terrorism. Subsequently, he was found guilty of the illegal use of weapons and concealment of a crime, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was absolved from serving the sentence, owing to the poor state of his health. 46.     On 15 November 2007 the brother of Mr Ramaz Dibirov, Mr I.D., was allegedly abducted by armed men in balaclavas. Five days later relatives found out that he had been arrested by police officers from the Ministry of the Interior in Dagestan and charged with several offences, including participation in an illegal armed group, the illegal use of weapons, and concealment of a crime. On an unspecified date after 2007 the Dagestan Supreme Court acquitted him. Disappearance of Mr Ramaz Dibirov, subsequent events and the applicant’s attempts to establish his whereabouts (a)    Disappearance of Mr Ramaz Dibirov 47.     On the evening of 25 April 2007 Mr Ramaz Dibirov left a cafe called Teremok in Makhachkala, Dagestan, where he had had dinner with his partner Ms K.D., and went home. He has not been seen since. 48 .     According to the applicant, on 26 April 2007 about twenty other persons were abducted in Makhachkala (see Isayeva v. Russia (no.   70095/12) below). Some of them were arrested, while others were subsequently killed. (b)    Subsequent events 49 .     On the next day, 26 April 2007, at 4 a.m. Ms K.D. received a telephone call from Mr   Ramaz Dibirov and could hear his screams and those of another person. A few minutes later the call was disconnected. 50.     At 1 p. m. on the same day Ms K.D. received a second call from Mr   Ramaz Dibirov’s telephone and heard two men discussing what they should do with the telephone and the SIM card. (c)    The applicant’s attempts to establish her son’s whereabouts 51 .     On 10 June 2007 the applicant and the parents of the other abducted persons had a meeting with the head of the sixth department, Officer I.T. He told her that there was a unit within the sixth department which reported directly to the Minister of the Interior in Dagestan, and that that unit had been involved in recent abductions in Dagestan. The applicant and the other parents showed photographs to Officer I.T., and he identified Mr Ramaz Dibirov and three other abducted persons and said that they were all being detained at one of their offices. A few months later, during a meeting which the applicant had with officials and law-enforcement agents about the abduction, Officer I.T. denied ever having seen the abducted persons. 52.     On 11 June 2007 an acquaintance of the applicant from a law ‑ enforcement agency told her that he had seen her son detained on the premises of Operational-Search Bureau no. 2 (“ORB-2”) in Khankala, Chechnya. 53.     Several days later the applicant learned that Mr   Ramaz Dibirov’s partner, Ms A.D., had recently been abducted from a bus stop, taken to Gudermes, Chechnya, for two weeks and then released. In Gudermes she had witnessed the ill-treatment of the applicant’s son. 54 .     On 10 July 2007 the head of the Dagestan Security Council, Officer G.G., had a meeting with the applicant and the parents of the other abducted persons. During that meeting he told the applicant that her son was being detained at ORB-2 in Khankala, Chechnya. 55.     The applicant sent that information to the investigators (see paragraphs 62 and 63 below). Official investigation into the incident 56 .     On 26 April 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Makhachkala prosecutor’s office, alleging that her son had been abducted by law-enforcement agents. 57.     Shortly thereafter the investigators asked temporary detention facilities and a remand prison in the region to inform them whether Mr   Ramaz Dibirov had been arrested. The authorities replied that they had no such information. 58 .     On 14 May 2007 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Makhachkala opened criminal case no. 701605 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 59 .     A copy of the case file submitted by the Government to the Court was missing certain pages. From the documents in the Court’s possession, it appears that the investigation proceeded as follows. 60 .     On 16 May 2007 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. She alleged that her son had been arrested by State agents. 61.     On 17 May 2007 the investigators questioned Ms K.D., who told them about the telephone calls from Mr Ramaz Dibirov’s telephone on 26   April 2007. 62 .     On 18 June 2007 the applicant informed the investigators that about three weeks beforehand Mr   Ramaz Dibirov’s partner, Ms A.D., had been abducted from a bus stop in Makhachkala. Having spent two weeks in detention, she had returned home. The applicant had spoken with Ms A.D.’s brother, who had said that Ms A.D. had been arrested by law-enforcement agents and then taken to Gudermes, Chechnya. While in detention she had witnessed Mr Ramaz Dibirov being ill-treated by State agents in front of her. The applicant also submitted that her acquaintance from a law ‑ enforcement agency had seen Mr Ramaz Dibirov in detention at ORB-2 in Khankala. 63 .     On 10 July 2007 the applicant provided the investigators with additional information. She submitted that earlier that day she had had a meeting with the head of the Dagestan Security Council (Officer G.G.), who had told her that Mr Ramaz Dibirov was being detained at ORB-2 in Khankala. He had told her that twice – first during a private conversation in his office, and then in the presence of the parents of the other abducted men, including the applicant in the case of Isayeva v. Russia (no. 70095/12). 64.     On 10 July 2007 the investigators questioned the applicant in the case of Isayeva v. Russia (no. 70095/12). She confirmed the statement made by Officer G.G. as described by the applicant. 65 .     On 16 July 2007 the investigators questioned Officer G.G., who stated that according to information received from the prosecutor’s office, Mr Ramaz Dibirov was being detained at ORB no. 1. 66.     On 29 July 2007 the investigators questioned Ms K.D. She alleged that she had received the first telephone call during Mr Ramaz Dibirov’s arrest (see paragraph 49 above). 67.     On 15 October 2007 the proceedings were suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 68.     On 26 March 2008 the above decision was overruled by the deputy prosecutor of the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Makhachkala (“the supervising authority”) because the investigators had failed to follow up on the information about Mr Ramaz Dibirov’s alleged detention in Chechnya. 69.     On 28 March 2008 the proceedings were resumed. 70.     It appears that at some point the investigators questioned Mr Ramaz Dibirov’s brother, who stated that Mr Ramaz Dibirov had been abducted by men in a GAZelle minivan with registration plates no. B 413 OOO RUS. 71.     On an unspecified date the investigators received a list of incoming and outgoing calls from Mr Ramaz Dibirov’s and Ms   K.D.’s mobile telephones. 72.     Meanwhile, the investigators had asked law-enforcement authorities to take certain investigative steps (the Government did not provide the Court with copies of the investigators’ requests in that regard). Most of the requests remained unanswered. 73.     On 29 April 2008 the proceedings were suspended. 74 .     On 25 August 2008 the supervising authority overruled the above decision as ill-founded. They criticised the investigators for failing to: obtain documents regarding Mr Ramaz Dibirov’s state of health; examine the list of telephone calls which had been obtained; follow up on the statements by Mr   Ramaz Dibirov’s brother about the abductors’ car; clarify some discrepancies in the witness evidence; question Ms A.D. and her brother, who had informed the applicant of her son’s ill-treatment in Gudermes; verify the information about Ms A.D.’s arrest in May-June 2007; check whether Mr Ramaz Dibirov was suspected of participation in illegal armed groups; check the database of unidentified remains for possible matches with Mr Dibirov’s body; and verify information on Mr   Dibirov’s alleged detention in Khankala. It was also noted that the competent authorities had left most of the investigators’ requests for investigative activity unanswered, and that the replies received were all of a formalistic nature. On the same date the investigation was resumed. 75.     Subsequently, the proceedings were suspended on 2 October 2008, 22 February, 27 March, and 26 November 2009, 18 April, 28 May and 16   October 2010, 30 April and 25 November 2011, 5 January and 11   October 2012, and then resumed on 21 January, 27 February and 26   October 2009, 12 March, 26 April and 29 August 2010, 29 March, 24   October and 5 December 2011, and 10 September 2012 respectively. 76 .     On 21 January, 12 March, 26 April and 22 July 2010, and 29 March and 5 December 2011 the supervising authority repeatedly criticised the investigators for failing to remedy the shortcomings identified in the order of 25 August 2008. 77.     On 1 August 2011 the applicant asked the investigators to allow her to access the case file. On an unspecified date, following her complaint to the Leninskiy District Court in Makhachkala (see paragraph 79 below), the request was granted. Proceedings against the investigators 78.     On 24 August 2010 the applicant complained to the Leninskiy District Court in Makhachkala of the investigators’ failure to inform her of the progress in the investigation and provide copies of the documents from the investigation file. On 6 September 2010 the court allowed the complaint in part, finding the investigators’ failure to keep the applicant informed unlawful. 79 .     On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicant complained to the same court about the lack of access to the case file. On 25 October 2011 she withdrew her complaint, as the investigators had granted her the access which she had sought. 80.     On 6 September 2012 the applicant complained to the same court that the investigation was ineffective and that the investigators had unlawfully suspended the criminal proceedings. Having found that the investigators had resumed the investigation three days earlier, the court dismissed her claim on 13 September 2012. Isayeva v. Russia (no. 70095/12) 81.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Isa Isayev, who was born in 1982. Background information 82 .     In 2002 the applicant’s son, Mr Isa Isayev, was arrested and detained in a remand prison, where he met Mr Kh. Later, the applicant’s son and Mr   Kh. were released. Mr Kh. was apparently wanted by the police. According to the applicant, in order to locate Mr Kh., Officer S.G. from the Directorate for Combating Extremism and Criminal Terrorism at the Ministry of the Interior in Dagestan contacted Mr Isa Isayev and invited him to cooperate, but the latter refused, saying that he had no information concerning Mr Kh.’s whereabouts. In May-April 2007 Mr   Isa Isayev complained to his mother of being under constant surveillance by law ‑ enforcement agents. He was allegedly threatened by Officer G.S. Disappearance of Mr Isa Isayev and the applicant’s attempts to establish his whereabouts (a)    Disappearance of Mr Isa Isayev 83.     At about 2 p.m. on 26 April 2007 Mr Isa Isayev left his home in Makhachkala. At that time servicemen of the Sovetskiy regional police in Makhachkala (hereinafter “the ROVD”), in cooperation with the   Police Special Task Unit   (“the OMON”) from Rostov-on-Don, conducted a special operation in a neighbouring house. The house and the nearby area were cordoned off by servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas. Isa Isayev did not return and has been missing ever since. 84.     According to the applicant, about twenty male residents of Makhachkala, including her son, were abducted by law-enforcement agencies on that day (see the Dibirova application above (no. 66876/12)). (b)    The applicant’s attempts to establish her son’s whereabouts 85.     On 2 May 2007, during the search for her son, the applicant spoke to Mr A.M., a lawyer involved in the search for the group of men who had disappeared on 26   April 2007. Mr   A.M. told her that after his disappearance, her son had been seen in a police station with a group of men who had been detained during the special operation. 86 .     On 10 June 2007 the applicant contacted Officer I.T., who told her that he had seen her son and the other abducted men on the premises of the ROVD (see paragraph 51 above). 87 .     On 10 July 2007 the applicant had a meeting with Officer G.G., an official from the Dagestan Security Council, who told her that her son had been taken to the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala and that a criminal case had been opened against him. 88.     Later, on an unspecified date, an unidentified man who had been detained in Khankala and then released informed the applicant that Mr Isa Isayev had been seen there. 89.     The applicant sent the information which she had obtained to the investigators (see paragraphs 96 and 98 below). Official investigation into the disappearance 90 .     On 30 April 2007 the applicant lodged an official complaint, requesting that the authorities provide assistance in the search for her son. 91.     On 17 May 2007 the Sovetskiy district prosecutor’s office in Makhachkala refused to open a criminal case into the disappearance, referring to the absence of a criminal act. 92.     On 24 May 2007 a supervising prosecutor overruled the above decision and ordered that an investigation be instituted. 93 .     On 29 May 2007 the prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   702839 (in the documents submitted, the number was also referred to as 702819) under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 94 .     A copy of the case file submitted by the Government to the Court was missing a certain number of pages. From the documents in the Court’s possession, it appears that the investigation proceeded as follows. 95 .     On 6 June 2007 the applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. Her statement to the investigators was similar to her account before the Court. She stated that on the day of Mr Isayev’s disappearance a special operation had been conducted in a neighbouring house by officers from the ROVD and the   OMON   from Rostov-on-Don. According to her, Mr Isa Isayev had been arrested and taken to a police station in Makhachkala under a fictitious name. Later the applicant had heard that her son had been transported to a military base in Khankala. 96 .     On 11 July 2007 the investigators again questioned the applicant. She informed them about her conversation with Officer G.G. (see paragraph 87 above). 97 .     On 29 July 2007 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was then resumed on 17 August, 25 September and 13 December 2007, 9 April and 20 October 2008, 3 March 2009, 19   January and 24 May 2011, and 5 March 2012, and then suspended on 25   September and 25 October 2007, 18 January, 9 May and 20 November 2008, 3 April 2009, 19 February and 23 June 2011 and 5 April 2012 respectively. 98 .     On 3 and 13 August and 19 September 2007 the applicant informed the investigators about threats from Officer G.S. which Mr Isa Isayev had received shortly before his disappearance. She also informed the investigators about her conversation with Officer   I.T. (see paragraphs 82 and 86 above). 99.     On 17 August and 19 October 2007 the supervising investigating authority criticised the investigators for failing to take important investigative measures, in particular: failing to establish the location of the FSB detention facility in Khankala where members of illegal armed groups were detained; and failing to question Officer G.G. and obtain a character reference for the applicant’s son. 100 .     On 22 December 2007 the investigators informed the Minister of the Interior in Dagestan about the poor quality of the operational-search activities in the case. According to them, the local police either gave only formalistic replies to their requests for assistance or did not reply at all. The investigators asked the minister to ensure that his subordinates provided effective operational support in relation to the investigation of the criminal case. 101 .     On 25 December 2007 the investigators questioned Officer G.G., who confirmed that, according to his information, Mr Isa Isayev was being detained in Khankala. 102.     On 18 January 2008 the investigators questioned Officer N.D., the commander of the Khankala garrison. He stated that there were no detention facilities on the premises of the Khankala headquarters, and that the applicant’s son was not being detained there. 103.     On 20 and 21 April 2008 the investigators again questioned the applicant. She stated that before his abduction her son had been under pressure from Officer S.G., who had sought information on Mr Kh.’s whereabouts (see paragraph 82 above). She also stated that on 2 May 2007 she had spoken to Mr A.M., a lawyer who had been involved in the search for the group of men who had disappeared in Makhachkala on 26 April 2007. Mr   A.M. had told her that after his disappearance, her son had been seen in a police station with the other men detained that day. 104.     On 24 April 2008 the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour. He confirmed that the entire neighbourhood had been blocked by State agents on 26 April 2007, and that later that day the applicant had been looking for her son. 105.     On 15 August 2008 the first deputy prosecutor of Dagestan ordered that a number of procedural flaws in the investigation should be eliminated. In particular, the investigators were ordered: to properly verify the information submitted by the applicant; to question Mr A.M.; to obtain information from law-enforcement agencies about the special operation conducted on 26 April 2008; to question the applicant’s neighbours about that operation; to check if the applicant’s son had had a mobile telephone with him at the time of his abduction; to obtain information about his personality and social connections; and to carry out other measures. 106.     On 13 November 2008 the investigators questioned two neighbours of the applicant, neither of whom had seen the arrest of her son. 107 .     On 19 November 2008 the investigators questioned the lawyer A.M. He could not recall the conversation with the applicant on 2 May 2007. 108.     On 7 July 2009 the applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the case file. No reply was given to the request. 109.     On 23 March 2011 the applicant was questioned. She confirmed her previous statements. 110 .     On 29 March 2011 Ms G.R., a human rights activist in Dagestan, and Ms Sh.D., the mother of another man who had disappeared, were questioned. They confirmed that a group of about twenty young men had disappeared in Dagestan on 26 April 2007, and recounted a conversation which they had had with Officer I.T., who had told them that he had seen the abducted men at the ROVD. 111.     On 15 November 2011 the applicant’s lawyer, Mr Sh.I., requested access to the case file. On an unspecified date the investigators allowed him to access some of the documents in the case file. 112.     On 13 February 2012 Mr Sh.I. requested full access to the case file and asked that the proceedings be resumed. The investigators refused to grant full access to the file, but resumed the proceedings. Proceedings against the investigators 113.     On 5 March 2010, before the Sovetskiy District Court in Makhachkala, the applicant challenged the lack of access to the case file and the investigators’ failure to examine her request of 7 July 2009. On 25   March 2010 the court dismissed her complaint, finding that the application had been duly examined on 14 August 2009 and that there were no obstacles to accessing the file. 114.     On 16 April 2012, before the same court, the applicant’s legal representative challenged the refusal to grant full access to the investigation file. On 26 April 2012 the court discontinued the proceedings, finding that the investigators had granted him full access to the case file on 25 April 2012. Ilyasova v. Russia (no. 71667/12) 115.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Suleyman Ilyasov, who was born in 1985. Background information 116 .     Between 2006 and 2008 Mr Suleyman Ilyasov participated in an illegal armed group operating in Chechnya. 117.     On 12 March 2009 he surrendered to the authorities and admitted that he had taken part in illegal activities. 118 .     On 21 March 2009 the authorities decided against instituting a criminal case against Mr   Ilyasov, referring to the absence of   corpus delicti . Abduction of Mr Suleyman Ilyasov 119.     During the night of 1 October 2009 the authorities conducted a special operation in the village of Aslanbek-Sheripovo, Chechnya, where Mr   Ilyasov lived with his family. 120 .     A group of fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived in the village in a UAZ vehicle, a VAZ 2114 car, three Lada Priora cars, a jeep, and a white GAZelle minivan with registration plate no.   A499XX. The UAZ vehicle was equipped with firing ports and had a registration plate containing the digits 357 or 754. Two of the other vehicles in the convoy had registration plates containing the digits 745 and 283. The armed men were of Chechen appearance and spoke Chechen; some of them wore helmets and one of them had the OMON insignia on the back of his uniform. 121.     The men forced entry into the house of the applicant’s neighbour, Ms A.N., searched the premises and then left. Some of them went into the courtyard of the house of another neighbour, Mr U.S., and asked him how to find the Ilyasovs’ house. 122.     At about 11 p.m. that night the men forced entry into the applicant’s house. The applicant, Mr Ilyasov, his sister (Ms A.I.) and other family members were at home. Several men forced Mr Ilyasov outside, while others searched the premises and seized his identity documents, his mobile telephone and the mobile telephone belonging to Ms A.I. The men then took Mr Ilyasov to the vehicles mentioned above, which were parked about two hundred metres away from the Ilyasovs’ house. They handcuffed him and put him into the white GAZelle minivan. Ms A.I. followed the men and saw her brother in the minivan. She managed to get into the van, but the men threatened to beat her and she got out. The convoy then left, driving though the nearby village of Shatoy in the direction of Grozny, and passing through road checkpoints on the way without hindrance. Official investigation into the abduction 123 .     On 2 October 2009 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Shatoy inter-district prosecutor’s office. On the same day her complaint was referred to the Grozny inter-district investigation department of the Chechnya Investigations Committee   (“the investigators”) for further processing. 124.     On the next day the police interviewed several of the applicant’s neighbours. None of them had seen the abduction. They had learned about it from the applicant on the morning of 2 October 2009. 125.     On 5 and 7 October the investigators asked several law ‑ enforcement authorities whether Mr Ilyasov had been arrested by them. No affirmative reply was forthcoming. 126 .     On 7 October 2009 the investigators photographed the applicant’s house and attached the photos to the investigation file. 127.     On the same day, 7 October 2009, the investigators questioned the applicant and her daughter Ms   A.I. Their statements were similar to the applicant’s submission to the Court described above. 128.     On 15 October 2009 the investigators refused to open a criminal case, stating that Mr Ilyasov might have been detained by law-enforcement agencies in connection with his involvement in illegal armed groups. 129.     On 17 October 2009 the investigators received a letter replying to a request for information that they had sent to the traffic police regarding the registered owners of vehicles with the registration plates nos. A499XX95 and A357KX95, numbers which had been mentioned by Ms A.I. According to the letter, the first plate belonged to Mr R.Yu. and the second belonged to the Grozny police department. The investigators then asked the police to locate Mr   R.Yu. 130.     On 30 October 2009 the decision of 15 October 2009 refusing to open a criminal case was overruled as unlawful. 131 .     On 9 November 2009 the investigators opened criminal case no.   81010 under Article 126 § 2 and Article 161 § 2 of the CC (aggravated abduction and robbery). 132 .     On 10 November 2009 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the statement which she had given before. 133.     On the same day, 10 November 2009, the investigators questioned Ms   A.I., who stated that Mr Suleyman Ilyasov had been visited by two members of an illegal armed group in September 2009. 134.     On 11 and 12 November 2009 the investigators granted victim status to Mr Suleyman Ilyasov’s brother (Mr R.I) and sister (Ms A.I.). 135.     On various dates in November 2009 the investigators requested information from a number of law-enforcement agencies as to whether they had arrested or detained Mr Ilyasov, and whether any special operation had been conducted in the village at the time of the abduction. No positive response was received. 136 .     On 27 November 2009 the traffic police informed the investigators that a vehicle with the registration plate no. A357KX95, a white GAZelle minivan, was listed as belonging to the OMON police unit. Subsequently, the investigators obtained information that the vehicle was used by a police sergeant, A.M. 137.     On 17 November 2009 and 7 December 2010 the Shatoy District Court   in Chechnya authorised the gathering of information from the mobile telephones of Mr Suleyman Ilyasov and Ms A.I. 138 .     On 24 November 2009 the investigators examined the crime scene. Several objects, including items of clothing belonging to Mr Ilyasov, were collected as evidence. On 30 November 2009 the investigators ordered a forensic biological examination of the evidence. 139.     On 24 November 2009 the investigators questioned Ms A.N., who stated that at around 11 p.m. on 1 October 2009 a group of ten to fifteen armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at her house, inspected the premises and left. 140 .     On the same date, the investigators questioned the applicant’s fellow villagers, Mr U.S. and Ms S.S., both of whom stated that on the evening of 1 October 2009 a group of men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at their house and asked them about the location of the Ilyasovs’ house. 141.     On 24 November 2009 the investigators questioned several servicemen who had been manning checkpoint no. 221 at the entrance to Shatoy on the night of the abduction. They all stated that they did not recall a convoy of vehicles passing though the checkpoint that night. 142 .     On 27 November 2009 the traffic police informed the investigators that the UAZ vehicle with the registration number   A357KX95 was used by the OMON. Subsequently, the investigators were informed that an officer, S.A., had been using the vehicle since 6 June 2008. 143.     On 2 and 18 December 2009 the investigators asked the OMON to provide them with information about any special operation in respect of Mr   Suleyman Ilyasov and his alleged arrest, and to ensure that the officers responsible for the vehicles with the registration plates nos.   A499KX95 and A357KX95 gave their statements to the investigators. As no reply was received, the investigators repeated their request on 29 December 2009, 22   November 2011 and 7 October 2013. 144.     On 3 December 2009 the forensic experts informed the investigators that it was impossible to carry out an examination of the evidence, owing to a lack of qualified specialists. 145.     On 5 December 2009 the investigators questioned the owner of the vehicle with registration plates no. A499XX95, Mr R.Yu. He denied having visited the applicant’s village. 146.     On 2 and 16 December 2009 Mr R.I. was questioned again. He repeated his account of the circumstances of his brother’s abduction. 147.     On 7 January 2010 the investiga