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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2AC44244 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2B9EB0A7 { height:12.85pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6F0A5087 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s976DE78A { height:12.8pt } .sA034E78A { height:17.8pt } .s55AA2762 { height:92.4pt } .s4A67B0A7 { height:18.35pt } .sCCCDD88E { height:60.35pt } .s6C356CC2 { height:51pt } .sE948756B { height:50.85pt } .s5111C6A2 { height:9.6pt } .s5111C6A3 { height:9.5pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       THIRD SECTION                   CASE OF TIMERBULATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 44116/10 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 Timerbulatova 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 Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. 3.     The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in either Chechnya or Ingushetia. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by service personnel during special operations. The events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. Their whereabouts remain unknown. 5 .     The applicants or other persons reported the abductions to law ‑ enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have been ongoing for several years without any tangible results being achieved. The applicants lodged requests for information and assistance in the search for their relatives with the investigating authorities and various law ‑ enforcement bodies. Their requests received either only formalistic responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still ongoing. 6.     Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases as presented by the applicants, but questioned the involvement of service personnel in the events. A.     Timerbulatova v. Russia (no. 44116/10) 7.     The applicant was was a relative of three abducted people. She was the mother of Mr Ali Timerbulatov (also spelled as Temirbulatov), who was born in 1977 and Ms Sovdat (also known as Tamara) Timerbulatova, who was born in 1963, and the mother-in-law of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi (also known as Khusen) Magomedov (also spelled as Magomadov), who was born in 1956. 8.     The applicant died on 2 February 2017. Her son, Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov (the brother of Mr Ali Timerbulatov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova, and the brother-in-law of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov), expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings in her stead on 4 September 2017. 1.     Ill-treatment and abduction of Mr Ali Timerbulatov, Mr   Saidal ‑ Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova and subsequent events (a)     Ill-treatment of Mr Ali Timerbulatov, Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova and subsequent events 9.     On 13 August 2001 Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov was arrested in Belorechiye village (Chechnya) and handed over to the police in Gudermes district police station (“the Gudermes ROVD”). 10.     According to him, on 16 August 2001 when he was held in the temporary detention facility of the Gudermes ROVD (“Gudermes police station”), police officers brought his relatives, Mr   Ali Timerbulatov, Ms   Sovdat Timerbulatova and Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov, who had also been arrested, to see him. Then the police officers beat Mr   Ali Timerbulatov and Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov in front of Mr   Mekhidi Timerbulatov. They also threatened to rape Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova to make Mr   Mekhidi Timerbulatov confess to illegal activities. 11.     At some point later Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov confessed to several crimes, including terrorist acts and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. 12.     After that incident Mr   Ali Timerbulatov, Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova and Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov complained of their ill ‑ treatment by police officers to various authorities. 13.     On 7 January 2002 a police officer, Mr S.T., took Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov outside the detention facility and arranged a meeting with his sister, Ms T.T. Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov told her to ask the relatives to stop complaining of their ill-treatment owing to the threats of further repercussions he had received from the police officers. (b)     Abduction of Mr Ali Timerbulatov and subsequent events 14 .     At 9 a.m. on 11 January 2002 several armed men of Slavic appearance in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicant’s home in Gudermes in a green UAZ minivan and a white VAZ ‑ 2106 car. The applicant’s home consisted of two houses in the shared courtyard. The armed men broke into the house where Mr Ali Timerbulatov and his partner (Ms Kh.D.) resided. Then they blocked the door of the second house with the applicant, Ms Kh.D and the applicant’s daughter Ms   A.T. inside. Following that they forced Mr Ali Timerbulatov into one of the vehicles and drove off in the direction of the railway bridge, where a permanent checkpoint manned by military service personnel was located. 15 .     On or about 19 January 2002 Mr Ali Timerbulatov was taken to cell no. 5 in Gudermes police station. Mr   Mekhidi Timerbulatov was held in cell no. 11 of the same facility and could talk to his brother through the feeding hatch of the cell. 16.     According to Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov, Mr Ali Timerbulatov told his brother that he had been arrested by police officers S.T. and R.U. The next day Mr Ali Timerbulatov was taken away by police officers, including Mr S.T., to an unknown location. Mr Ali Timerbulatov has not been seen since. 17.     A few days later Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov was visited by his sister Ms   T.T. and told that Officer S.T. wanted 5,000 United States dollars (USD) for the release of Mr Ali Timerbulatov. (c)     Events preceding the abduction of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms   Sovdat Timerbulatova 18.     Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova were jewellers at the local market. 19.     On an unspecified date, apparently in January 2002, service personnel contacted Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov, asking him to sell them a large amount of jewellery. They also asked for his address so they could come and collect the jewellery from his home. Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov accepted their request. In late January 2002 he told those details to Ms   S.A. 20 .     On an unspecified date Ms F., who worked in a cafe in Gudermes, contacted Ms   Sovdat Timerbulatova to extort USD 1,500 from her to prevent the forthcoming arrest of Ms   Sovdat Timerbulatova and her husband by service personnel from Khankala. (d)     Abduction of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova and subsequent events 21 .     At 6 a.m. on 29 January 2002 several armed men in balaclavas broke into the flat of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova in Gudermes. At that time their children, Mr A.M. and Ms   A.M., were at home. 22.     The armed men spoke unaccented Russian. They seized jewellery that Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova was to sell at the local market and took both Mr Saidal ‑ Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms   Sovdat Timerbulatova away to an unknown destination. 23 .     The witnesses saw that the armed group had arrived in a white (or grey) UAZ minivan and an UAZ car. They also noted an armoured personnel vehicle (“an APC”) which had been parked nearby. 24 .     Shortly thereafter a grey UAZ minivan (presumably belonging to the abductors) and a white VAZ-2121 (Niva) car passed through checkpoint no.   1 located nearby. The drivers showed special laissez passers which allowed them to avoid inspection by the officers on duty (see paragraph 52 below). 2.     Investigation into the abductions (a)     Investigation into the abduction of Mr Ali Timerbulatov 25.     On 25 January 2002 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 57005 into the abduction of Mr Ali Timerbulatov under Article 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code (“the CC”). 26.     On an unspecified date in February 2002 (the date is illegible) the investigators questioned Mr Ali Timerbulatov’s sister Ms A.T. She stated that he had been abducted by men in camouflage uniforms who had arrived at his house in a UAZ minivan and VAZ-2106 car. 27 .     On 25 March 2002 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant or her relatives were not informed of that decision. 28 .     On 21 April 2005 the proceedings were resumed. 29.     On 29 April 2005 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 30.     On 21 May 2005 without informing the applicant or other relatives the investigators suspended the criminal proceedings once again. 31.     The proceedings were then resumed on 6 December 2006. 32.     On 29 April 2006 the investigators questioned the applicant. Her statement was similar to the account submitted by her to the Court. 33.     On 7 January 2007 the investigation was suspended. It is not clear if the applicant was informed of that or not. Subsequently the investigation was resumed on 24 April 2007, 4 April, 23 May, 27 June, 11 August, and 28   October 2008, 29 April, and 29 June 2009, 23 August 2010, 7   February, 4   April, 31 May and 4 August 2011, 12 January, 26 June, 22   August, 23   September and 28 November 2012, 1 February and 26 August 2013, 21   April, 22 September and 27 November 2014, 25 March and 14   May 2015; and then suspended on 29 June 2007, 8 May, 23 June, 4   August, 16   October and 21 November 2008, 6 June and 29 July 2009, 28 September 2010, 7 March, 4 May and 5 September 2011, 25 February, 26   July, 22   September, 23 October and 10 December 2012, 15 February and 31   August 2013, 21 May, 22 October and 8 December 2014, 27 April and 3   June 2015 respectively. 34.     In the meantime on 2 July 2007 the investigators questioned two neighbours of the applicant, who due to the passage of time could not recall the events of 11 January 2002. 35.     On 2 July 2007 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 36.     On 15 April 2008 the applicant was questioned again. She endorsed her previous statement. 37.     On 18 April 2008 the investigators questioned the applicant’s daughter Ms A.T. Her description of the incident did not differ from that, provided by her mother. 38.     On an unspecified date in 2008 Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 39.     On 4 August 2008 the investigators questioned him. He submitted that he had met his brother (Mr Ali Timerbulatov) at Gudermes police station in January 2002. Police officers had arranged the meeting to put pressure on Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov in the context of the criminal proceedings against him. Mr Ali Timerbulatov had had injuries on his body and had been accompanied by two men, one of whom had been in camouflage uniform and a balaclava. The next day Chechen police officers had taken Mr Ali Timerbulatov to an unknown destination. Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov was ready to submit the names of the police officers involved in the abduction if the investigators would ensure his and his relatives’ personal safety. 40.     On 1 December 2008 Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov was questioned again. He specified that the meeting with his brother in Gudermes police station had taken place on or around 20 January 2002. 41.     On 21 July 2009 the investigators questioned Ms Kh.D. Her description of the incident was similar to the one submitted by the applicant before the Court. 42.     On 23 July 2009 and then on 15 and 18 February 2011 the investigators questioned several police officers from Gudermes. They had no information about the identity of the perpetrators. 43.     On 4 April 2011 Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov was questioned. He submitted that his brother had been arrested on 11 January 2002 by Officers S.T. and R.U. He also listed several detainees, including Mr   Yu.M., who could confirm his account of the events. 44.     On 13 and 15 April 2011 and 10 July 2012 the investigators questioned several detainees mentioned by Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov. None of them had seen Mr Ali Timerbulatov at Gudermes police station. 45.     On 7 June 2011 Mr   Mekhidi Timerbulatov asked the investigators to take certain investigative steps and ensure his personal participation therein. On 10 June 2011 his request was dismissed. 46.     On 28 June 2011 the applicant asked the investigators to carry out certain investigative steps and to annul the order of 4 May 2011 to have the proceedings suspended. On 28 June 2011 the investigators granted the request in the first part. The remainder of the request was dismissed. 47.     On 4 August 2011 the investigators obtained the applicant’s blood sample and ordered a DNA test. The outcome of the test is unknown. 48.     On 21 October 2011 the police questioned Mr Yu.M. He confirmed that in January 2002 he had seen Mr Ali Timerbulatov detained at Gudermes police station. Mr Ali Timerbulatov had told him that he had been detained after blackmailing someone with a video recording. 49.     On 20 February 2012 the investigators questioned Officer S.T. He submitted that in early January 2002 the investigators in Mr   Mekhidi Timerbulatov’s case had cross-examined Mr   Mekhidi Timerbulatov with Mr Ali Timerbulatov. The latter had been an important witness in the criminal case because he had been giving evidence against five or six participants in a bombing attack. After the cross-examination Mr   Ali Timerbulatov had gone home. Officer S.T. further submitted that Officer   R.U. (another individual allegedly involved in the abduction) had been killed in 2005. 50 .     On 12 November 2013, following an application by the applicant, the Gudermes Town Court in Chechnya declared Mr Ali Timerbulatov dead. (b)     Investigation into the abduction of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms   Sovdat Timerbulatova 51 .     On 30 January 2002 the applicant complained of the abduction of Mr   Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova to the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office in Chechnya. 52 .     On the same day the police questioned Officers V.G., A.M. and A.D., who had been on duty at checkpoint no. 1 located about 100 to 150 m from the flat of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova. They submitted that a grey UAZ minivan and a white VAZ ‑ 2121 (Niva) car had passed through the checkpoint on 29   January 2002 at about 6 a.m. The cars had not been inspected, because their drivs had shown special laisser passes. 53.     On 1 February 2002 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 57006 into the incident under Article   126 (abduction) of the CC. 54.     On the same date, 1 February 2002, the investigators questioned Ms   Sovdat Timerbulatova’s sister, Ms A.T. She stated that the abduction had been perpetrated by service personnel, who had arrived at the flat in UAZ vehicles and an APC. 55.     It appears that on 1 February 2002 the police examined the crime scene and the checkpoint. No evidence was collected. 56.     On 3 February 2002 the investigators questioned Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov’s son, Mr A.M. His submission was similar to the applicant’s account of the events before the Court. 57.     On the same date, 3 February 2002, the investigators questioned Ms   S.A., who stated that on 23 or 24 January 2002 Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov had told her that service personnel from the local military headquarters had been interested in buying a large amount of jewellery from him. After their persistent requests he had given them his address so they could come and collect the jewellery from his house. 58 .     On 31 March 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed on 8 December 2006, 24 April 2007, 8 April, 23 May, 27 June, 11 August, and 28 October 2008, 29 April and 23 June 2009, 30 August and 30 November 2010, 7 February, 4   April, 31 May and 4 August 2011, 12 January, 26 June, 22 August, 23   September and 28 November 2012, 31 January, 26 August 2013, 22   September and 27 November 2014, 25 March and 14 May 2015; and then suspended again on 8 January and 28 May 2007, 8 May, 23 June, 4   August, 16 October and 21 November 2008, 6 June, 23 July 2009, 30   September and 2 December 2010, 7 March, 4 May, 30 June, 5 September 2011, 25 February, 26 July, 22 September, 23 October and 10 December 2012, 15 February, and 31 August 2013, and 22 October and 8 December 2014, and 27 April and 3 June 2015 respectively. 59.     In the meantime on 29 September 2003 the Naurskiy District Court in Chechnya declared Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms   Sovdat Timerbulatova missing persons. 60.     On 3 December 2007 the investigators dismissed Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov’s application for victim status in the criminal proceedings. Subsequently that decision was quashed by the Gudermes Town Court (see paragraph 74 below). 61.     On 17 April 2008 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. She also informed the investigators of the extortion incident carried out by Ms   F. (see paragraph 20 above). 62.     On 20 June 2008 the investigators questioned Ms F. She denied extortion. Later that day the investigators cross-examined her with the applicant. During the cross-examination, Ms F. insisted that she had not extorted money from the applicant’s daughter. As regards the abduction, she alleged that it had been perpetrated by the FSB Officer S.N. 63.     On 19 July 2008 Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 64.     On 1 April 2009 the applicant asked the Chechen Parliamentary Committee on the Search for the Disappeared to assist her in the search for her sons. On 20 April 2009 her request was forwarded to the investigators. 65.     On 27 May 2009 the investigators granted victim status in the criminal proceedings to Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov’s sister, Ms Kh.S. 66.     On 22 and 24 June 2009 the investigators questioned Officers A.M. and V.G., who had been on duty at checkpoint no. 1. According to them, on 29   January 2002 at about 5 or 6 a.m. a white or grey UAZ and white VAZ (Niva) car had arrived at the checkpoint. Officer V.G. had approached the UAZ car. Both the driver and a passenger had been in camouflage uniforms. The passenger had introduced himself and showed an FSB service card and a special laissez passer , requesting to let the two cars pass. Officer V.G. had let them go without inspecting the second car. 67.     Between 2010 and 2011 the investigators sent various requests to law-enforcement authorities to identify the perpetrators; they also questioned several local police officers and the applicant’s relatives. No relevant information was obtained. 68.     On 25 May 2011 the applicant asked the investigators to resume the investigation and to provide her with access to the case file. On 10 June 2011 she was given access to the case file. On 28 June 2011 the investigators refused to resume the investigation. 69.     On an unspecified date in June 2011 (the date is illegible) Mr   Mekhidi Timerbulatov asked the investigators to carry out certain investigative steps and to ensure his personal participation therein. On 30   June 2011 his request was dismissed. 70.     On 1 August 2011 Mr   Mekhidi Timerbulatov was provided with detailed information about the progress in the investigation following a request by him. 71.     On 4 August 2011 the investigators obtained the applicant’s blood sample and ordered a DNA test. Then they compared her DNA with those in the DNA database of unidentified remains. No matches were found. 72.     On 20 February 2012 the investigators questioned the head of the Gudermes district police, Officer S.T. Owing to the time lapsed he was unable to recall the name of the officer who had been in charge in Gudermes police station in January 2002, or the names of the individuals who had been detained there at that time. 73.     On 11 July 2012 the investigators questioned Mr A.T. He submitted that in late December 2011 – early January 2011 he had been detained in Gudermes police station. As he had been held in solitary confinement, he was unable to say whether the applicant’s relatives had been detained in the same facility. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators’ decision 74 .     In April 2008 Mr Mekhidi Timerbulatov appealed against the investigators’ refusal to grant him victim status in the two sets of the criminal proceedings. The Gudermes Town Court granted his claims on 8   April 2008. B.     Makhauri v. Russia (no. 70640/10) 75.     The applicant is the mother of Mr Sukhrap (also spelled as Sukhrop) Makhauri, who was born in 1980. 1.     Abduction of Mr Sukhrap Makhauri 76 .     At about 4 p.m. on 6 July 2006 a group of about thirty armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicant’s house in the village of Nesterovskaya, Ingushetia, in armoured APCs, UAZ vehicles and GAZelle minivans. The men broke into the house and without identifying themselves beat Mr Sukhrap Makahuri unconscious in front of the applicant demanding that he tell them where he had hidden weapons. He was then thrown into one of the vehicles and taken away to an unknown location. 2.     Subsequent events 77 .     One hour after Mr Sukhrap Makhauri’s arrest the armed men returned. They stayed in the applicant’s garden overnight expecting members of an illegal armed group to come for the hidden weapons. 78.     On the next day, 7 July 2006, the men searched the applicant’s house with a metal detector and found a box of cartridges for automatic firearms. A group of police officers from the Sunzha district police station (“the Sunzha ROVD”) under the command of Officer R.O. arrived at the scene and drafted the crime-scene-examination report. 79 .     On 11 and 12 July 2006 Investigator R.O. from the Sunzha ROVD questioned the applicant’s husband and the applicant. They stated that on 6   July 2006 a group of men in camouflage uniform had taken away their son, Mr Sukhrap Makhauri. As regards the origin of the box of cartridges, they submitted that it had been brought home and hidden by their son Mr   R.M., who had died in 1996. 3.     Official investigation of the abduction 80.     On an unspecified date in July 2006 the applicant complained of her son’s abduction to the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) in Ingushetia. 81.     On 26 July 2006 the FSB forwarded her complaint to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office, which referred it to the Sunzha district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia. 82.     On 27 July 2006 the investigators questioned Officer I.Kh., who at the material time had been working in the applicant’s village. He submitted that on 6 July 2006 he had seen two APCs, two GAZelle minivans and an armoured URAL vehicle driving towards the applicant’s house. He had immediately reported that to his superior officer, A.T. The latter had also noted the vehicles and they had started to follow them with another local police officer, A.A. The three officers had seen the vehicles blocking the street where the applicant lived. The men in camouflage uniforms had got out of the vehicles and entered the applicant’s house. Officer I.Kh. had noticed a man in civilian clothes and had spoken to him. The man had explained that the men who had arrived at the applicant’s house had been members of the operative unit under the command of Officer   K. They had been instructed to search the applicant’s house and arrest Mr Sukhrap. Later Officer I.Kh had learned that the man in civilian clothes had been Officer   G. The next day, 7 July 2006, a group of police officers from the Sunzha ROVD under the command of Officer R.O. had arrived at the applicant’s house, searched it, and found the box of cartridges. 83.     On 28 July 2006 the investigators questioned Officer A.T. His submissions were similar to those made by Officer I.Kh. 84.     On 21 August 2006 the Sunzha district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 06600061 under Article 126 (abduction) of the CC. 85.     On 23 August 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. Her statement was similar to her submission to the Court. 86.     On the same day, 23 August 2006 the investigators questioned Officers I.Kh and A.T. who endorsed their statements of 27 and 28   July 2006. 87.     On 1 and 9 September 2006 the investigators questioned several neighbours of the applicant, who confirmed her account of the events. 88.     In the meantime the investigators asked various law-enforcement authorities including the FSB, the Sunzha ROVD and remand prisons to inform them whether Mr Sukhrap Makhauri had been arrested and placed in custody. The replies received stated that those bodies had no such information. 89 .     On 21 November 2006 the investigation was suspended. 90.     On 2 April 2009 the applicant requested the investigators to inform her of the progress of the proceedings and the measures taken to establish the whereabouts of her son. On the same day the investigators replied to her by sending a copy of the letter of 5 February 2009. 91.     According to the applicant, she learned from unidentified sources that Officer G. had been responsible for the search in their house. Therefore, on 17 April 2009 she requested that the investigation be resumed and Officer G. be questioned. 92 .     On 20 April 2009 the investigators resumed the proceedings and requested that law-enforcement agencies provide information about Officer G.’s whereabouts. 93.     On 20 May 2009 the proceedings were suspended. They were resumed again on 11 June 2009. 94.     On 15 June 2009 Officer G. was questioned. He stated that he had searched the applicant’s house with the FSB officers. However, they had not taken Mr Sukhrap Makhauri away and had left the place without him. On their way to Magas, he had received information that as soon as they had left the applicant’s house, Mr Sukhrap Makhauri had received a phone call from a man wanted for involvement in illegal armed groups. He and the officers had immediately returned to the applicant’s house, but Mr Sukhrap Makhauri had already left. They had stayed in the applicant’s garden for the night, expecting that members of illegal armed groups would show up. In the morning they had repeatedly searched the house and found the box of cartridges, which had subsequently been taken to the local police. 95.     On 11 July 2009 the investigation was suspended. It was subsequently resumed on 24 November 2010 and then suspended again on 30 December 2010. 4.     Proceedings against the investigators’ decision 96.     On 17 March 2010 the applicant appealed against the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 11 July 2009 to the Sunzha District Court in Ingushetia. 97.     On 22 March 2010 the District Court dismissed the complaint, stating that the investigators had taken all the necessary steps. On 6 April 2010 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Ingushetia, which on 11 May 2010 upheld the decision of 22 March 2010. C.     Novrzukayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 52089/11) 98.     The first and the second applicants are the parents of Mr Idris Novrzukayev (also spelled as Novrzakayev, Nouruzukayev, Novzurkayev and Novrznukayev), who was born in 1984. 99.     The third applicant is the mother of Mr Abdul-Vab (also spelled as Abdulvab) Dilayev, who was born in 1984. 100.     The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are the siblings of Mr   German Abuyev, who was born in 1984. 1.     Abductions of the second applicant, Mr Idris Novrzukayev, Mr   Abdul-Vab Dilayev, and Mr German Abuyev, ill-treatment of the second applicant and Mr German Abuyev, and subsequent events (a)     Abduction of Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev 101 .     At about 9 a.m. on 14 August 2002 service personnel from the 45th   regiment started a “sweep” operation in Agishty village, Chechnya. 102 .     At about 10 a.m. that morning, after service personnel had checked his identity documents, Mr Idris Novrzukayev left his house to visit his aunt, Ms   A.N., who lived in the centre of Agishty. A few minutes later the third applicant also went out and followed her son, Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev. In the village centre she saw twenty armed service personnel and two APCs next to Ms A.N.’s house. According to the third applicant, Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev were on the ground face down with their hands behind their backs in the courtyard of Ms A.N.’s house When neighbours started to gather, the service personnel quickly forced Mr   Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev into the APC, which had the vehicle identification number 424, and drove off. 103 .     Later on the same day the third applicant and other women went to the temporary military headquarters located at the outskirts of Agishty, where all arrested men from the village were usually held. She noticed the APC no. 424 parked nearby. When she asked for the reasons for Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev’s detention, the service personnel replied that they would be released after an identity check. (b)     Abduction and ill-treatment of the second applicant and Mr German Abuyev 104 .     At about midday on the same day (14 August 2002) a group of armed men arrived in an APC at the second applicant’s house. Five or six of them remained outside, while the other twelve forced their way in. After checking the second applicant’s identity papers and searching the house, the men took him outside and forced him into the APC no. 424. The second applicant saw his son, Mr Idris Novrzukayev, inside that APC. One of the intruders told the second applicant that his son had been detained as he had attempted to run away. Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev was also in the APC. 105.     The second applicant, his son Idris Novrzukayev and other detainees were taken to the basement of an abandoned building at the outskirts of Agishty. The nicknames of two of the men who kept them in that building were   Kvadrat   (“Square”) and   Otets   (“Father”). 106.     The next morning (15 August 2002) Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr   Abdul-Vab Dilayev were put in the APC and driven away. 107 .     At 3 p.m. on that day another APC arrived with Mr German Abuyev in it. He was taken out of the vehicle to the basement, while the second applicant was being put in it. The service personnel turned on loud music in the APC but he still could hear Mr German Abuyev’s screams of pain coming from the basement. After the torture ended, Mr German Abuyev was taken out of the basement and the second applicant was returned to the basement and tortured. 108 .     In the basement one of the service personnel held the second applicant’s legs, while the other suffocated him. They then closed his nose and poured water in his mouth from a five-litre canister. When the canister was empty, they kicked him in the stomach and all of the water came out. They repeated this five times. Then they put the second applicant on the table and tortured him with electricity. The second applicant still refused their offer to work for them. The service personnel pulled him from the table on the floor and broked few ribs by jumping on his chest. Such was the pain the second applicant begged the service personnel to shoot him, but the men continued jumping on his chest. Then one of them took the knife and cut him in the groin, so the latter passed out. 109 .     Then the service personnel brought a doctor to the basement, who concluded that the second applicant would not survive further ill-treatment. After that the service personnel threw him on the floor and he passed out. When he regained consciousness, he discovered that he was lying on the grass behind a building. Ten minutes later APC no. 424 arrived and took Mr   Abdul-Vab Gilayev and Mr German Abuyev away to Khatuni, a village where the 45th military regiment was stationed. 110 .     On 15 August 2002, on the day following the abduction, the second applicant was found at the outskirts of Agishty next to the temporary military headquarters. He did not seek medical help in the hospital as he was afraid of revenge from his abductors. Instead he was informally examined by a local doctor, Kh.Kh., who noticed fractures of the jaw and ribs, brain and chest contusions, and a number of haematomata and abrasions on the body. (c)     Subsequent events 111.     According to the applicants, a certain FSB officer from the military headquarters of the 45th regiment informed them that Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev had confessed to membership of an illegal armed group. The FSB officer and a serviceman promised to release the applicants’ missing relatives in exchange for a gun and a television set. The second applicant bought a gun and the third applicant bought a television set which they handed over to the FSB officer and the serviceman. However, their relatives were not released. 2.     Official investigation into the abductions 112 .     On 29 August 2002 Mr German Abuyev’s mother complained to the Special Representative of the Russian President in Chechnya of the abduction of her son allegedly perpetrated by service personnel during a “sweep” operation of 14 August 2002. 113 .     On 22 October 2002 an uncle of Mr Idris Novrzukayev complained of the abduction of Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr   Abdul ‑ Vab Dilayev to the deputy head of the Chechen Government. He described the circumstances of their abduction and the abduction of the second applicant, noting that the latter had been found unconscious with evidence of violence having been used on him (his broken ribs and jaw and the brain contusion) on 15   August 2002. He also noted that Mr Idris Novrzukayev’s family had already contacted the Chechen Prosecutor, the Chechen military prosecutor, the Chechen president and other officials, seeking their assistance in the search for their abducted relatives, but to no avail. 114.     The aforementioned requests were later transferred to the Shali district prosecutor’s office for examination. 115.     On 21 November 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   59260 under Article 126 (abduction) of the CC. 116 .     On 21 November and 14 December 2002 the first and third applicants respectively were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. It appears that the third applicant’s name in the relevant decision was misspelled. On the same day they were questioned by the investigators. Their version of the events was similar to that submitted to the Court. The first applicant mentioned the injuries inflicted on her husband, the second applicant, by the service personnel. According to her, he had not sought medical assistance because he was afraid of persecution. 117.     In the meantime the investigators asked various law-enforcement authorities to provide them with information about the alleged arrest of the applicants’ relatives. The respondent authorities stated that they had no information in that regard. 118.     On 21 January 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators. 119.     On 21 May 2003 the investigation was resumed. 120 .     On 14 June 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. Having been questioned by the investigators about his injuries, he stated that he had been beaten by the service personnel, but there was no need to order his medical examination as due to the passage of time it would be to no avail. 121.     On 14 June 2003 the investigators examined the crime scenes. No evidence was collected. 122 .     On 21 June 2003 the proceedings were suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were not informed thereof. 123 .     On unspecified dates in 2005 the first and third applicants contacted the Chechen President seeking his assistance in the investigation. By letters of 15 June and 19 April 2005 they were informed that their requests had been forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office. On 31   May 2006 the second applicant repeated her request to the Chechen President. On 21 June 2006 she was informed that her request had been forwarded to the investigators. No further replies followed. 124 .     On 7 May 2007 without having the proceedings formally resumed the investigators questioned Mr A.G., who had been arrested during the “sweep” operation in August 2002. He submitted that he had been subsequently taken to remand prison no. IZ-2 in Pyatigorsk, Stavropol Region, where he had allegedly met Mr Idris Novrzukayev, Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev and Mr German Abuyev. 125 .     On 29 December 2007, following a request by the first applicant concerning the progress in the proceedings, the investigators informed her that the search was ongoing. 126.     On 8 February 2008 the first and third applicants requested that the investigators update them about the course of the proceedings and provide them with copies of certain documents from the case file. On 25 March 2008 the investigators dispatched the requested material to the applicants. 127.     On 2 November 2009 the first applicant asked the investigators (i)   to resume the proceedings; (ii) to locate the relevant service personnel of the 45th regiment, in particular, Officer A.L.; (iii) to identify the officers who had been in APC no. 424 during the special operation on 14 August 2002; and (iv) to grant her access to the case-file material. The outcome of the request is unknown. 128.     On 8 April 2010 the third applicant complained to the investigators’ superior of their disregard of her numerous requests and the lack of information about the course of the criminal proceedings. 129 .     On 6 May 2010 the third applicant was informed that the criminal case file had been temporarily transferred to the Regional Investigative Committee for assessment of the quality of the investigation. 130 .     On 7 July 2010 the supervising investigating authority, having reviewed the case file, prepared a list of investigative steps to be taken. It included an expert examination of the second applicant to establish the injuries allegedly inflicted on him by the abductors. 131 .     8 July 2010 the proceedings were resumed. 132 .     On 9 July 2010, the investigators questioned the first applicant. She endorsed her previous statements. In addition, she mentioned that the second applicant had been informally examined by the local doctor, Kh.Kh., who had noticed many injuries on his body. She also mentioned that her son had allegedly been seen in remand prison no. IZ-2 in Pyatigorsk. 133 .     On 10 July 2010 the second applicant was questioned. His submission was similar to that of his wife. In addition, he provided a detailed description of his arrest and ill-treatment by the service personnel. The investigators invited him to undergo an expert medical examination with a view to establishing the injuries received during the alleged torture   in 2002, but the second applicant refused, stating that the traces of ill ‑ treatment had long gone. 134.     On 11 and 12 July 2010 the second and fourth applicants respectively were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 16   July 2010 the investigators obtained DNA samples from them to compare with those from the database of unidentified remains. The outcome of the research is unknown. 135.     In the meantime the investigators attempted to obtain information on whether a special operation had been carried out in the applicant’s village on 14 August 2002 and whether the applicants’ relatives had been detained in Stavropol Region as alleged. The military authorities stated that they had no information about the special operation. The detention centres replied that the applicant’s relatives had never been in detention in the Stavropol Region or the other neighbouring regions. 136.     On 22 and 27 July 2010 the investigators questioned the uncle of Mr   Idris Novrzukayev and the third applicant. They endorsed their previous statements and noted that after the abduction their relatives had allegedly been seen in the remand prison in Pyatigorsk in Stavropol Region. 137 .     On 27 July 2010 the investigators again granted victim status to the third applicant (apparently because the spelling of her name in the previous decision had been incorrect). In their decision they mentioned the abduction of the applicants’ relatives and the ill-treatment of the second applicant. On the same day the investigators also obtained a DNA sample from the third applicant. 138.     On 6 August 2010 two residents of Agishty confirmed to the investigators that service personnel of the 45th regiment had carried out a special operation in their village on 14 August 2002. 139.     On 8 August 2010 the proceedings were suspended. 140.     On 14 December 2011 the first applicant asked the investigators to inform her of the developments in the case. In reply she was informed on 13   April 2012 that the proceedings had been suspended on 8 August 2010 and that the operative-search activity was ongoing. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators’ decision 141.     On 25 June 2010 the first applicant appealed against the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 21 June 2003 to the Shali Town Court in Chechnya. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown. D.     Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) 142.     The first and fourth applicants are the siblings of Mr   Lechi Tasuyev, who was born in 1955. The second and third applicants are his children. 1.     Abduction and ill-treatment of the first applicant 143 .     In the evening of 29 May 2003 two UAZ minivans driven by officers with a special service card passed through a checkpoint near Shalazhi (also spelled as Salazhi) village in Chechnya (see paragraph 151 below). 144.     At about 6.30 p.m. on 29 May 2003 two vehicles arrived at the applicant’s house in Shalazhi village, Chechnya. At that time the first applicant was in the courtyard of his house. A group of ten to twelve armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas left the vehicles, seized the first applicant, blindfolded him, forced him into one of the two UAZ minivans and then took him away to an unknown destination. 145 .     Having arrived at that unknown destination, the men took the first applicant to a basement and placed him on his own in a cell that had a floor and walls made of concrete. There were pools of blood and shell casings everywhere. The cell had a heavy iron door and no windows. The men handcuffed the first applicant, blindfolded him, plugged his ears, put adhesive tape over his eyes and beat him. He was detained in the cell for eleven days and subjected to regular beatings. For the entire period he was not given any food. On the twelfth day of his detention, on or around 10   June 2003, the service personnel took the first applicant outside, put him in the boot of a vehicle and drove to Grozny, where they released him somewhere in the town. The first applicant asked passers-by to take him to his relatives, who, shortly after his arrival, called an ambulance to provide medical assistance to him. 2.     Abduc