CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 21 janvier 2020

.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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6F4B1A1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-10.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC422C878 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17.85pt } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s50F82B64 { width:186.26pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sE0190968 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2BC5B0A7 { height:19.65pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEFB62F38 { height:32pt } .s4A67B0A7 { height:18.35pt } .s2C094500 { height:31.4pt } .s2B41B0A7 { height:19.25pt } .s27932F38 { height:35pt } .s26ACE78A { height:13.4pt } .s7ECB4500 { height:39.2pt } .s34C6B0A7 { height:17.95pt } .s7CAE64EC { height:78.4pt } .s3A1F5D7A { height:22.75pt } .s1A80C676 { height:106.75pt } .s2936263B { height:22.1pt } .s1A2F6575 { height:33.65pt } .s2865D7A { height:20.85pt } .sDD066575 { height:31.75pt }       THIRD SECTION                 CASE OF SAIDOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 36963/09 and 4 others – see appended list)                           JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   21 January 2020       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Saidova and Others v. 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 10 December 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in five applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”). 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 Chechnya, Ingushetia or Dagestan. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly having been 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 reported the abductions to law ‑ enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without any tangible results having been achieved. The applicants lodged requests with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies for information and assistance in the search for their relatives. Their requests received either only formulaic responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been established by the investigating bodies. 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. The Government did not dispute the facts of the case, as presented by the applicants and submitted only preliminary objections as to the admissibility of the applications. A.     Saidova v. Russia (no. 36963/09) 7.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Salikh Saidov who was born in 1979. 1.     Background information and the events preceding the abduction of Mr Saidov 8 .     In January 2005 the applicant’s son-in-law, Mr   Shamil D., was killed during a special operation carried out by the State authorities in Kizil-Yurt, Dagestan. In October 2005 the applicant’s son, Mr Rustam S., also was killed during a special operation carried out in Makhachkala, Dagestan. The applicant’s other son, Mr   Abdurakhman S., and daughter, Ms Sakinat S., (the wife of Mr Shamil D.) were suspected by the authorities of involvement in illegal armed groups. In 2005 the applicant asked the authorities to institute proceedings into abuse of power and other alleged illegal actions taken by the law-enforcement authorities against her son, Abdurakhman S., and her daughter, Sakinat S. Her requests were dismissed in 2006. 2.     Disappearance of Mr Salikh Saidov 9 .     In 2004 Mr   Salikh Saidov moved to Moscow. In July 2005 three friends of Mr   Saidov from Dagestan informed the applicant that they had been arrested with her son Salikh in Moscow. They were released, whereas her son remained under arrest. The applicant found out that following a request by an investigator, Mr E.A., from the Dagestan prosecutor’s office, on 17 July 2005 Mr   Saidov had been arrested by the police in Moscow and taken for questioning to Makhachkala by aeroplane. According to the applicant, in Makhachkala her son was held for three days in the police station where the Organised Crime Unit was based and then transferred to police operational-search bureau no. 2 (ORB-2) in Grozny, Chechnya. Since his detention in July 2005 Mr Saidov has been missing. 10.     On 18 July 2006 in reply to the applicant’s request, Investigator E.A. informed the applicant’s lawyer that no criminal case had been opened against Mr   Saidov and that he had not been either arrested or detained by the Dagestan police. 11.     On 30 August 2006 the deputy prosecutor of Dagestan informed the applicant that on 14 July 2005 a decision to question Mr Saidov had been taken and a request for its execution forwarded to Moscow. However, that request remained unexecuted. At the same time, in his letter of 3 April 2006 Mr V.K, the head of the Department of Organised Crime of the Eastern Administrative Circuit in Moscow, and Mr V.R., the deputy head of the Internal Security Department of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, in their letter of 18 July 2006, both admitted that the applicant’s son had been detained in Moscow on 17 July 2005 following a request by an investigator from Dagestan to be questioned in criminal case no.   558754 opened by the Dagestan prosecutor’s office. 3.     Official investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son 12 .     On 21 January 2006 the applicant requested information from various authorities concerning her son’s whereabouts. All her requests were forwarded to the investigators but to no avail. 13.     On 27 July 2007 a local newspaper published an article on missing individuals; Mr Saidov was mentioned as one of them. The Dagestan prosecutor’s office forwarded this information to the investigators ordering them to take measures to investigate the allegations contained therein. 14.     On 16 August 2007 the Sovetskiy district prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal case into the abduction of Mr Saidov owing to the lack of corpus delicti . On 23   October 2007 the investigators’ superior annulled that decision. 15.     On 2 November 2007 the investigators again refused to institute criminal proceedings under Article 286 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power) owing to the lack of corpus delicti . This decision was annulled on 23 April 2008 by the investigators’ superior and the material was sent back for additional enquiries. 16.     On 28 April 2008 the applicant yet again asked the investigators in Dagestan and in Moscow to open a criminal case into her son’s disappearance. 17.     On 29 April 2008 the Dagestan prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal case for lack of corpus delicti . 18.     On 29 May 2008 the refusal was annulled and the material was returned for additional enquiries. The applicant was informed. 19.     On 9 June 2008 the Dagestan prosecutor’s office again refused to open a criminal case into the disappearance of Mr Saidov on the same grounds. 20 .     On 16 June 2008 the superior investigator annulled the refusal and instituted criminal proceedings (no. 802476) under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). The applicant was informed. 21 .     On 24 June 2008 Investigator E.A. was questioned. He stated that in July 2005 criminal case no. 558754 had been opened into an assault on a police officer by Mr Rustam S. and two others. The investigators had decided to question Salikh Saidov about the whereabouts of his brother Rustam S. As Mr Saidov had left Dagestan for Moscow, on 14 July 2005 the investigator had ordered Mr Saidov’s arrest and subsequent transfer to Makhachkala for questioning by the police officers from T unit. Following a telephone conversation, a person named K. had confirmed to him that T unit had arrested Mr Saidov and had taken him to Makhachkala. However, neither he nor any other investigators had ever seen or questioned Mr   Saidov. 22.     On 4 July 2008 the applicant was questioned. She stated that she had heard from a man who had been arrested with Mr Saidov, that her son Salikh had been detained in Khankala, Chechnya. In 2006 she had received the same information from a lawyer, Ma., based in Grozny. She had contacted Mr Ya., a local military commander, who had agreed to release Salikh Saidov in exchange for 300,000 Russian roubles (RUB). Subsequently, it had turned out that Salikh Saidov had been detained by Mr   R.K. and had absconded from detention along with several Chechens. 23.     On 4 July 2008 the transport police in Makhachkala informed the investigators that at 3 p.m. on 17 July 2005 Mr Saidov had left Moscow for Makhachkala by aeroplane. 24.     On 10 August 2008 the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigation and pointed out a number of defects in the proceedings to be remedied. The documents submitted show that the orders were not complied with. 25.     On 10 September 2008 Ma. was questioned. He stated that his client, Mr Ch.U., who had been detained in Khankala, had confirmed that a person, whose name he had not been able to remember, had been detained with him in the same cell. 26.     On 12 September 2008 A.I., a lawyer, was questioned. He stated that he had requested information concerning the whereabouts of Salikh Saidov from the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office, the commander of the Vostok military unit and the head of the Chechen Government, Mr R.K., but to no avail. 27 .     On 16 September 2008 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 31 October 2008. 28.     On 24 December 2008 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated that Mr   Saidov had been among the individuals detained in Khankala, but refused to disclose the source of information. 29 .     On 31 December 2008 the investigation was suspended again. 30 .     On 30 August 2009 the investigators’ superior annulled that decision and resumed the proceedings. 31.     In September 2009 the investigators sent a number of requests to various law-enforcement authorities asking to question Mr Ch.U. 32 .     On 30 September 2009 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof. 33.     On 11 November 2009 Mr Ch.U. was questioned in the correctional colony where he was serving his sentence. He stated that between 14   September and 10 October 2005 he had been detained in ORB-2 in Grozny. He had been in the same cell with Mr Saidov, who had later been moved to another cell. He then had been transferred to SIZO 20/1 (remand prison) whereas Mr Saidov had stayed in ORB-2. He had informed his lawyer about Mr Saidov and had asked to contact his relatives. Later he had learned from other detainees of ORB-2 that at around 11 p.m. on 10   October 2005 Mr Saidov had been blindfolded and taken to an unknown destination by prison officers of ORB-2. 34 .     On 4 February 2010 the investigation was resumed, then suspended and then resumed again on 27 March 2010. The applicant was informed of those decisions. 35.     On 29 March 2010 the investigators examined the journals of registration of remand prison SIZO 20/1 and ORB-2 in Grozny. No information on Mr Saidov was obtained. 36.     On 30 March 2010 officer S.A. from ORB-2 was questioned. He stated that he had never seen or heard of either Mr Saidov or Mr Ch.U. He further stated that individuals who were arrested by the police were not usually taken to ORB-2. 37.     On the same day the lawyer Ma. was questioned. He reaffirmed his previous statements. 38.     On 31 March 2010 another officer from ORB-2, Mr D.M., was questioned. He did not provide any relevant information. 39.     On 27 March 2010 the investigators’ superior criticised the investigation and pointed out a number of defects in the proceedings to be remedied, but to no avail. 40 .     On 9 April 2010 Mr A.B., a former officer of the T police unit was questioned. He stated that following an order of the Dagestan prosecutor’s office he had arrested Mr Saidov in Moscow and transferred him to P. and T., officers of the special police unit. The latter then had taken Mr Saidov to Makhachkala. On arrival at Makhachkala Airport they had left Mr Saidov with the Dagestan police officers. No transfer document had been signed, given that Mr Saidov had had the status of a witness only. 41.     On 12 April 2010 Mr Ch.U. was questioned again and reiterated his earlier statements. On the same day the investigators conducted photo ‑ identification and Mr Ch.U. identified Mr Saidov as his cellmate in ORB-2. 42.     The investigators requested from the police information on the whereabouts of P. and T., officers of the special unit, but to no avail. 43.     On 20 April 2010 Mr A.B. was questioned again. In addition to his earlier statements he stated that Officers P. and T. could have been transferred to the Centre for Control of Special Units of the Ministry of the Interior ( Центр по регулированию деятельности специальных подразделений МВД РФ ). He further stated that he had seen them for the last time in 2007 or 2008 in the investigator’s office in Moscow, where they had been asked to give statements concerning Salikh Saidov. 44 .     On 28 April 2010 Officer T. was questioned and denied knowing either Mr A.B. or Officer P. He did not recognise Salikh Saidov by photograph either. According to his statements, on 17 July 2005 he had arrived in Makhachkala alone for a holiday. He further stated that at the material time he had been a student of the Police Academy and could not have been on a mission. In any event, if the aforementioned people had happened to be on the same flight with him, it must have been a coincidence. 45.     From the documents submitted to the Court it transpires that Officer T. started his service as the police officer in 2006. 46 .     On 6 May 2010 the applicant was questioned again. She stated that another man had been in the same detention centre with Mr   Saidov. The applicant, however, told the investigators that she would disclose her source of information only if the case were transferred to the Southern Federal Circuit investigators. 47.     On the same day the applicant’s daughter was questioned. No new information was obtained. 48.     On 20 April 2010 the head of the police of the Southern Federal Circuit informed the investigators that between 17 July and 31 December 2005 Mr Saidov had not been detained in ORB-2. From the documents submitted it transpires that the applicant’s son never officially registered as a detainee of the detention centre. 49.     On 14 May 2010 the applicant’s representative requested that the investigators transfer the case to the Main Investigations Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia on the grounds that the investigators were partial and had not been able to remedy deficiencies in the proceedings. No reply followed. 50.     On 1 and 19 June 2010 a number of witnesses were questioned. No new information was obtained. 51 .     On 27 June 2010 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 27 July 2010. The applicant was informed. 52.     Meanwhile, on 8 July 2010 the head of the Rys special task force unit of the Ministry of the Interior ( Отряд милиции специального назначения “Рысь” МВД РФ ), Mr E., informed the investigators that Officer P., who had allegedly taken Mr Saidov to Makhachkala, had been questioned. However, a copy of his statement was not furnished to the Court. 53.     On 11 August 2010 the investigation transferred to the Chechen Investigative Committee. 54 .     On 27 August 2010 the investigators suspended the proceedings, resumed and then suspended them again on 17 June 2011. It appears that the investigation is still pending. B.     Machigov v. Russia (no. 8417/10) 55.     The applicant is the brother of Mr Kazbek Machigov, who was born in 1974. 1.     Abduction of Mr Machigov 56 .     On 29 September 2000 Mr Kazbek Machigov was arrested on his way to the Central Market in Grozny by three officers, Mr A.S., Mr A.G. and Mr V.S., on suspicion of alleged drug use. He was taken in their UAZ vehicle to Oktyabrskiy district police station in Grozny. He has been missing since. 57.     For relevant information on disappearance of individuals after their detention in that police station, see also Magomadov and Magomadov v.   Russia , (no. 68004/01, § 76, 12 July 2007). 2.     Official investigation into the abduction of the applicant’s brother 58 .     According to the applicant, between 29 September and 16   October 2000 his relatives complained to various law-enforcement authorities of the abduction of Kazbek Machigov and asked for assistance in the search for him. 59.     On 26 October 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   12222 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). 60.     On 17 October 2001 the applicant was granted victim status. 61.     On 21 October 2003 the investigators instituted criminal proceedings (no.   12260) in respect of two suspected officers, Mr A.S. and Mr A.G. Subsequently their names were put on the wanted list. 62.     On 15 July 2004 criminal case no. 12222 was joined with criminal case no. 12260 under the number 12260. 63.     On 1 November 2005 a separate case, no.   61878, against the two officers was severed from case no.   12260. 64 .     On 30 November 2005 the investigation in case no. 61878 was suspended for the failure to identify the whereabouts of the perpetrators. On 25 October 2006 the applicant was informed thereof. 65 .     On 22 January 2009, the applicant appealed against the suspension of the investigation in case no. 61878. He subsequently complained to the human-rights defender of the Chechen Republic of the shortcomings in the investigation and asked for assistance in the search for his brother. This request was forwarded to the investigators. 66 .     On 10 February 2009 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 24 May 2009 for failure to identify the perpetrators. The proceedings are still pending. C.     Patsuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 9862/12) 67.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Adam Patsuyev, who was born in 1984, Mr Ibragim Idigov, who was born in 1983, Mr Salam Kerimov, who was born in 1985 and Mr Lom-Ali Shaipov, who was born in 1982. 1.     Abduction of the applicants’ relatives 68.     The applicants’ relatives Mr Patsuyev, Mr Idigov and Mr Kerimov were cousins. 69 .     On 21 August 2003 the three cousins went to the Sunzhenskiy District Hospital in Ingushetia, where Mr Idigov was to have a wound bandaged. At about 2 p.m. two GAZelle minivans arrived at the hospital. A group of about fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas shouted to those present to get on the ground. They kept shooting in the air and running around, looking for someone. Six of the armed men ran into the surgical unit, where they beat unconscious Mr   R.S., who was having a wound dressed, and Mr Shaipov, who was there with him, breaking Mr Shaipov’s arm. Then they forced Mr R.S. and Mr Shaipov into one of their vehicles. 70.     Meanwhile, Mr Idigov saw the armed men beating Mr R.S. and Mr   Shaipov. He tried to escape from the skirmish through the courtyard, but was shot in the shoulder. Mr Patsuyev and Mr Kerimov wanted to help Mr   Idigov, but were beaten by the armed men. Then all three of them were forced into the white GAZelle minivan, which had a registration number containing digits A-63 and region 95. 71 .     According to eyewitnesses, the armed men dragged several other men out of the hospital, and one of them was shot dead on the porch. After that the abductors drove off. At about 60 m from the hospital they pushed Kh., a surgeon whom they had forced into their vehicle along with other abducted individuals, out of the vehicle. The abductors drove next to the local police car; it had been responding to a call from the hospital’s security staff. The police officers did not take any steps to stop the abductors. 72.     On 22 August 2003 the federal television channel ORT stated in its evening news programme that “as a result of a successful special operation five individuals [had been] detained, three of those bandits ha[d] been identified”. 73.     On the same day a news programme of the Russkaya Liniya news agency broadcast a report, referring to information from the law ‑ enforcement agencies of the Southern Federal Circuit, that five people suspected of involvement in illegal armed groups had been detained as a result of a special operation carried out at the hospital. 74 .     On 23 August 2003 the newspaper Pravozaschita (issue 5(56)) stated that law-enforcement agencies had been involved in the special operation carried out at the hospital. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives 75 .     On 21 August 2003 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 23600052 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 76.     On the same day the investigators examined the crime scene. They collected three pistol bullet cartridges, samples of a brown substance, cloth and an armoured BZT-7521 shield with registration number 9207005. 77.     On 22 August 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 78.     On the same day two medical assistants of Sunzhenskiy district hospital, Ms S.F. and Ms A.Kh., were questioned. No new information was obtained. 79.     On 22 August 2003 the surgeon Mr Kh. was questioned. He stated that he had been in the hospital in the process of treating Mr Shaipov when several armed individuals had rushed into treatment room no. 5 through room no. 4. He had tried to escape but had been captured. The rest of his statement was similar to the account of events described above. 80.     On 22 August 2003 the commander of the police OMON (Special Task Force Unit), Mr O.Ch., was questioned. He stated that on 21 August 2003 a group of policemen in two GAZelle minivans and one Niva jeep had arrived at their military base. The leader of the group, Major I.N., had asked him to provide him and his men with several helmets and a bulletproof vest, which he had done. Mr O.Ch. had then left for Khankala; after his return he had learned that a special operation had been conducted in Sunzhenskiy district hospital, where several individuals had been abducted. An armoured shield had been left behind at the crime scene by the abductors. 81.     On 24 August 2003 the investigators ordered a   ballistic   examination of the bullet cartridges found at the crime scene. 82.     On 25 August 2003 the deputy commander of the OMON was questioned. He stated that following orders from Mr O.Ch., he had briefed the group of the Temporary Joint Unit (“the TJU”). Then he had informed Mr O.Ch. that the members of the group had not had special individual protection equipment. Only at some point later had he become aware that Commander O.Ch. had provided the group with an armoured shield. He further stated that none of the members of the TJU had introduced themselves. 83.     On 25 August 2003 the mother of Mr Patsuyev, Ms M.P., was granted victim status and questioned. She stated that on 21 August 2003 her son had left for university and had been missing ever since. Later that day she had learnt that her son had been abducted along with four other men from Sunzhenskiy District Hospital by a group of armed military men. 84.     On 25 August 2003 the third applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She gave the same account of events as submitted to the Court. 85.     On 26 and 27 August 2003 the first, second and third applicants complained to the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office, asking to institute criminal proceedings into the abduction of their relatives. 86.     On 27 August 2003 Ms F.E., a medical assistant of Sunzhenskiy district hospital, was questioned. She stated that she had seen a young man being shot in the shoulder and then taken in a GAZelle minivan by a group of armed men. 87.     On the same day, 27 August 2003, the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. He stated that he had heard about his son’s abduction from Mr I.A., an ambulance driver. 88.     On 27 August 2003 the investigator’s examined the armoured shield, three bullet cartridges, a hat and a vest collected from the crime scene. 89.     On 5 September 2003 the head of the Ingushetia Department of the Federal Security Service (FSB) was questioned. He denied that on 21   August 2003 the FSB had conducted a special operation in Sunzhenskiy district hospital. 90.     On 10 September 2003 a doctor from Sunzhenskiy District Hospital was questioned. His statements were similar to the account of events submitted before the Court. 91.     On 17 September 2003 the first applicant wrote to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office asking for assistance in the search for his son and the other abducted men. 92.     On 30 September 2003 Officer A.B. of the OMON was questioned. He stated that on 21 August 2003 he had been on duty at the check point in Karabulak and seen two GAZelle minivans and a Niva jeep entering the military base and then leaving it. He further stated that he had heard about the abduction of five men from the hospital. 93.     On 7 October 2003 the medical assistant from Sunzhenskiy District Hospital, Ms S.F., who had been questioned earlier, stated that she could identify one of the perpetrators – the one who had beaten Mr R.S. and who had had an armoured shield with him. 94.     On 8 and 10 October 2003 Ms R.K., an eyewitness and a doctor from Sunzhenskiy District Hospital, was questioned. She provided no new information. 95.     On 16 October 2003 Mr M.Ch., a medical intern from Sunzhenskiy District Hospital, was questioned. He stated that while he had been examining Mr   Idigov, a group of armed men had rushed into the surgery and started beating the man who had been getting treatment from the medical assistant. He and Mr Idigov had tried to escape from the hospital, but the latter had been shot in the shoulder. Subsequently, Mr M.Ch. had been captured by one of the armed men, beaten unconscious and taken to the GAZelle minivan. There had been many witnesses to the incident, including Ms A., a dentist. Mr M.Ch. had been released later on and gone to the hospital for medical assistance. 96.     On 16 October 2003 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the blood samples collected from the crime scene. 97.     On 27 October 2003 the forensic-examination report indicated that blood found was group B. 98.     On 8 February 2004 following a request by the investigators the Federal Security Service informed them that Mr Shaipov had been a member of an illegal armed group in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya, and that he had been put on the wanted list within the framework of criminal cases nos. 63063 and 63810, which had been instituted by the Chechen investigators. The FSB further stated that Mr R.S., who had been abducted along with the applicants’ relatives, had also been a member of an illegal armed group, had always been armed and was also on the wanted list. 99.     On 21 February 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 100.     Meanwhile, on 26 February 2004 the head of Achkhoy-Martan police was questioned and confirmed the information received from the FSB. 101.     On the same day, 26 February 2004, the fourth applicant was questioned. He stated that his son, Mr Shaipov, while living in Achkhoy ‑ Martan, Chechen Republic, had been taken to the police on several occasions. Then he had moved to Ingushetia and had lived there ever since. According to the applicant, Mr Shaipov had never taken part in illegal armed groups. Subsequently, the investigators questioned the father of Mr R.S., who denied that his son had had any affiliation with illegal armed groups. 102.     On 15 March 2004 the mother of Mr Shaipov, Ms G.Sh., was granted victim status and questioned by the Chechen investigators. She stated that her son had never engaged in any illegal activities or been arrested. 103.     On 17 March 2004 the father of Mr R.S. was granted victim status and was questioned. He provided no new information. 104.     On 20 May 2004 the investigation was resumed. 105.     On 18 June 2004 the second applicant was questioned but provided no new information. 106.     On the same day, 18 June 2004, the wife of Mr Shaipov was granted victim status. 107.     On an unspecified date in June 2004, Mr B., an OMON officer, was questioned. He stated that on 21 August 2003 he had seen two GAZelle minivans and a Niva jeep entering the military base and then leaving it. He further stated that later he had learned about the abduction from the hospital. 108 .     On 20 June 2004 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators. 109.     On 9 December 2004 the applicants complained to the FSB and requested assistance in the search for their abducted relatives. Their requests were transferred to the investigators. 110.     On 28 March 2005 the mother of Mr Shaipov, Ms G.Sh., requested that the investigators inform her of the progress in the proceedings and grant her as well as Mr Shaipov’s wife victim status in the criminal case. It appears that no reply followed. 111.     On 27 June 2005 the applicants requested that the investigators inform them of the progress in the proceedings. 112.     On 4 July 2005 the applicants requested that the investigators resume the proceedings and take steps to identify the perpetrators and bring charges against Mr   O.Ch. The investigators provided the applicants with a summary information statement, but rejected the request. 113 .     On 13 December 2005 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings. On 14 December 2005 his request was granted and the investigation was resumed. 114.     On 14 December 2005 the investigators collected from the first applicant issue 5(56) of the newspaper Pravozaschita for examination and added it to the case file. 115.     On an unspecified date in December 2005 the second applicant wrote to the military prosecutor’s office, complaining of the lack of progress in the investigation and asking for assistance in the search for his son. 116.     On 16 December 2005 the first applicant was questioned. No new information was obtained. 117.     On 14 January 2006 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 22 June 2006. 118.     On 26 June 2006 the first, the second and the third applicants were questioned. They stated that they had called a reporter from Pravozaschita , Ms A.Ch., and had asked her about a photo of the applicants’ relatives published in one of the issues where they had been depicted squatting with their hands up. Ms A.Ch. had told them that she had received that photo via email and she would try to find the sender’s email address. Then they had lost contact with her. 119 .     On 23 July 2006 the investigation was suspended. 120 .     On an unspecified date between August and December 2006 the aunt of Mr Kerimov, Mr Patsuyev and Mr Idigov, Ms Z.K., complained to the investigators of the lack of progress in the criminal case and asked the investigators to expedite the investigation. 121 .     On 26 February 2007 the applicants requested that the investigators inform them of the progress in the proceedings. 122.     On 5 December 2008 the deputy head of the FSB counter-intelligence unit informed Ms Z.K. that they did not have any information on the abduction of her relatives. He further stated that the GAZelle minivan with registration number A632VX95RUS was registered under the name of Mr T. 123 .     On 27 August 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings and then suspended them again on 26 September 2010. The applicants were informed thereof. 124.     On 10 March 2011 the mother of Mr Shaipov requested that the investigators inform her of the progress in the case. In reply, the investigators allowed her to study the case file and make copies of certain documents. 125.     On 5 October 2011 the first applicant complained to the President of Russia of the investigators’ inactivity. 126 .     On 7 December 2011 the investigation was resumed, then suspended and then again resumed again on 10 April 2014. 127.     On 19 April 2014 Mr I.A. was questioned and stated that on 21   August 2003 he had arrived at Sunzhenskiy District Hospital in an ambulance and had seen two young men being taken by a group of about ten armed men from the hospital to a GAZelle minivan. During the questioning Mr I.A. was shown a photo of the applicants’ relatives from issue 5(56) of Pravozaschita . He did not recognise the place where the photo had been taken. 128.     On 11 May 2014 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators (a)     First set of proceedings 129.     On 9 June 2006 the applicant appealed against the decision of 14   January 2006 to suspend the criminal proceedings. 130.     On 23 June 2006 the Sunzhenskiy District Court rejected the complaint as the investigation had already been resumed on 22 June 2006. (b)     Second set of proceedings 131.     On 23 June 2010 the applicants challenged the decision of the investigators on suspension of the proceedings before the Sunzhenskiy District Court. 132.     On 29 June 2010 the District Court allowed the applicants’ complaint regarding the investigators’ inaction. It stated, amongst other things, that the investigators had failed to verify the involvement of the officers from the TJU who had been stationed at the material time in Karabulak, Ingushetia, given that an armoured shield of that unit had been found at the crime scene. In addition, the investigators had failed to order a comparative examination of the three bullet cartridges found at the crime scene with the firearms used by the “mobile group”. D.     Adisova and Others v. Russia (no. 13793/13) 133.     The applicants are close relatives of Mr Musa Adisov, who was born in 1978, Mr   Ashab Aliyev, who was born in 1964, Mr Khamdula Gayrbekov (also spelt Gayribekov), who was born in 1964 and Mr   Vakharsolta Ibalayev, who was born in 1972. 1.     Abduction of the applicants’ relatives 134 .     On 12 April 2002 a group of officers in military uniforms and in special military vehicles, armed and with service dogs conducted a special operation in Alleroy, in Nozhay-Yurt District, Chechnya. They cordoned off the village, carried out identity checks, searched houses and questioned local residents. They abducted the applicants’ relatives from their homes. 135.     One of the officers told the first applicant that her son would be taken to the local office of the FSB for an identity check and released afterwards. After that the abducted individuals had been taken to the police station in Alleroy and then transferred to the police station in Khankala. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives (a)     Investigation into the abduction of Mr Musa Adisov, Mr   Ashab Aliyev, Mr   Khamdula Gayrbekov 136 .     On 22 and 26 April 2002 the applicants complained to the Nozhay Yurt District Prosecutor’s office of the abductions and asked to assist them in the search for their missing relatives. 137.     On 22 April 2002 Ms A.Z., the wife of Mr   Ashab Aliyev, was questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. 138.     On 15 June 2002 the first applicant applied to the Special Representative of the Russian President on Human Rights in Chechnya for assistance in the search for her missing son. Her request was forwarded to local law-enforcement authorities. 139 .     On 20 June 2002, the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings into the abduction of Mr Khamdula Gayrbekov (no. 71030), Mr Musa Adisov, (no. 71031) and Mr   Ashab Aliyev (no.   71032) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). Subsequently, on 18 July 2002 the prosecutor merged all three criminal cases under the joint number 71030. 140.     In June and July 2002 the investigators sent several requests to the law ‑ enforcement authorities concerning the whereabouts of the abducted men. 141.     On 16 July 2002 the head of the Nozhay-Yurt district police, in reply to the prosecutor’s inquiry, stated that Mr Adisov, Mr Aliyev and Mr   Gayrbekov had been taken to the premises of the joint special-force group ( сводная специальная группа ), to check their possible affiliation with illegal armed groups. 142.     On 9 and 13 August 2002 the investigators interviewed the fathers of Mr   Adisov and Mr T.S., both of whom provided an account of events similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. They further stated that in the past, between 1999 and 2000, Mr Adisov had served in the so ‑ called national armed forces of the self-proclaimed Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, but he had not taken part in clashes with the federal forces. 143.     On 15 August 2002 the wife of Mr Aliyev requested that the investigators inform her of the progress in the proceedings. No reply followed. 144.     On 19 August 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. On the same day, the investigators granted Ms   A.Z., the wife of Mr Aliyev, victim status and questioned her. She stated that her husband had worked in the customs service of the self-proclaimed Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. After the service had been dissolved, in June 2001 Mr Aliyev had been pardoned by the authorities and had returned to Alleroy. 145.     On 24 August 2002 the applicants requested the investigators to intensify the search for their abducted relatives. In addition, they informed them that in 2001 Mr Aliyev and Mr Gayrbekov had given up their machine guns to the authorities and had been pardoned. According to the applicants, none of their relatives had participated in clashes with the federal forces. 146.     On 20 September 2002 the investigation was suspended, resumed and then suspended again on 12 April 2003. 147.     On 17 February 2004 the investigation was resumed and on the same day suspended again. 148.     On 6 April 2004 in reply to the investigators’ enquiries, the head of the Nozhay-Yurt police stated that Mr Adisov, Mr Aliyev and Mr   Gayrbekov had been arrested by the FSB on the suspicion of membership of illegal armed groups. 149.     On 11 May 2004 the investigators’ superior annulled the suspension and resumed the proceedings. 150.     In May or June 2004 the first applicant complained to the investigators, asking for the search for the abducted men to be intensified. (b)     Investigation into the abduction of Mr Vakharsolta Ibalayev 151 .     On 23 August 2002 the fourth applicant asked the authorities to assist her in the search for her missing husband. 152.     On 28 August 2002 the fourth applicant again complained of the abduction of her husband. 153.     On 7 February 2003 Mr I.Kh. complained of Mr Ibalayev’s abduction to the Special Representative of the Russian President in Chechnya. That request was forwarded to the investigators. 154 .     On 25 March 2003 the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings into the abduction of Mr Ibalayev (no.   36024) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 155.     On 12 and 28 April 2003 Ms   A.Z., the wife of Mr Aliyev, and Mr   I.Kh. were questioned and gave statements similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court. 156.     On 7 April 2003 the fourth applicant was interviewed and reaffirmed her previous statements. 157.     On 25 May 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 158.     On 27 June 2003 in reply to the investigators’ information request Mr Pe.A., the commander of the Nozhay-Yurt military command, informed them that Mr   Ibalayev, Mr Adisov, Mr Aliyev and Mr Gayrbekov had been arrested during the special operation in Alleroy. 159.     On 17   February 2004 the investigation was resumed, then suspended later on the same day and then again resumed on 11 May 2004. (c)     Joinder of the criminal cases and further investigation 160.     On 11 May 2004 the investigators joined criminal case no.   7130 (see paragraphs 139 and 154 above) to criminal case no. 36024. 161 .     On the same day the investigators requested the head of the military unit stationed in the Nozhay-Yurt district whether that unit had carried out the special operation on 12 April 2002 in Alleroy. In reply, the officer informed the investigators that joint special-force group SSG-6 ( сводная специальная группа -6) along with the FSB and special police units had conducted a special operation in the Nozhay-Yurt district and set up a checkpoint in the Alleroy village. During the operation Mr Gayrbekov, Mr   Adisov and Mr   Ashab Aliyev had been arrested on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups. 162.     On 15 May 2004 the fourth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated that Mr Ibalayev and his brother had been arrested by military service personnel and taken in a UAZ type vehicle to the SSG-6 unit, which was stationed in the vicinity of Alleroy village. In addition, she stated that after the abduction she and other relatives had gone to Mr Pa.A., the Nozhay-Yurt district military commander, and sought information on the abducted men. They had been informed that both of them had been transferred to a police station in Khankala. 163.     On 17 May 2004 the third applicant was granted victim status and questioned along with the first applicant. Their statements were similar to that of the fourth applicant. In addition, they stated that Mr Z.B., the mayor of Alleroy village had gone to Khankala and had then told them that their relatives had been detained there. 164.     On 18 May 2004 Mr Z.B. was questioned and denied having personally been to Khankala. He had just heard from Mr Pa.A. that the applicants’ relatives had been detained in Khankala and had told the applicants about it. 165.     In June 2004 a number of police officers from the Alleroy police were questioned and stated that they were never informed of special operations conducted by the FSB and the military commander’s office. 166.     On 11 June 2004 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 167.     On 29 June 2004 the head of the Alleroy police station, Mr D.V., was questioned. He stated that on 12 April 2002 a special operation had been conducted in Alleroy, a number of individuals had been arrested and taken to the checkpoint for an identity check. Not everyone had been transferred to the police station. He could not recall whether the applicants’ relatives had been among the arrested men. According to the witness, the operation had been supervised by the Nozhay-Yurt military commander. 168.     On 2 August 2004 the investigation was resumed. The investigators requested the record of the military operations from the Nozhay-Yurt military commander. On 10 August 2004 the latter replied, refusing to furnish the records, due to the confidentiality of its contents. 169.     On 3 November 2004 the wife of Mr Ibalayev, Ms I.Kh., was granted victim status in the criminal case. She and three witnesses were questioned on the same day and gave accounts of events similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. 170.     On 22 November 2004 the proceedings were suspended, then resumed on 13 January 2005 and then again su