CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sC66F3853 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s422D12DA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s37839E0D { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3934350C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s980E2CFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6FC64B9D { width:2.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE4EB4F8C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7483BB9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s726BE6B4 { width:4.8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEA32F4F3 { width:4.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCFA4557D { width:5.62pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s62E02B8F { width:5.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAAF284B5 { width:5.84pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAEC88898 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB0AFCFB { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE96E219C { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3BA7E44F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s2182C584 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s1D4E86C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9C2D3A51 { width:189.6pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB8CD64EC { height:72.9pt } .s15C7B0A7 { height:13.65pt } .sEBAC263B { height:28.1pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s9047E8B1 { height:45.4pt } .s14DAB0A7 { height:13.95pt } .sA6164EC { height:71.4pt }       THIRD SECTION   CASE OF UGURCHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 33731/14 and 4 others)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 4 February 2020       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ugurchiyev 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 14 January 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in four applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. The application numbers and the applicants’ personal details are also listed in the appended table. 2.     The applicants were represented by various NGOs, as indicated in the appended table. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     On 5 February and 16 May 2018 notice of the applications was given to the Government. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in Ingushetia, Dagestan and other regions of the Northern Caucasus. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by service personnel. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. Their relatives’ whereabouts remain unknown. 5 .     The applicants reported the abductions to law ‑ enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings remained pending for several years without any tangible results being achieved. The perpetrators have not been established by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending or ongoing. 6.     Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or other witnesses to both the Court and the domestic investigative authorities. Ugurchiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 33731/14) 7.     The first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants are close relatives of Mr Akroman Ugurchiyev, who was born in 1984. The six, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh applicants are close relatives of Mr Umalat Bersanov, who was born in 1978. Abduction of Mr Akroman Ugurchiyev and Mr Umalat Bersanov 8 .     At about 6 p.m. on 23 August 2011 Mr Akroman Ugurchiyev and Mr   Umalat Bersanov were abducted near the latter’s house in the Sunzhenskiy District of the Republic of Ingushetia by a group of about ten armed men in black and camouflage uniforms and balaclavas, who drove a white GAZelle minibus with tinted windows and a silver Lada-Priora model car. The registration number of the minibus contained digits 491 and that of the Lada-Priora started with the digit 2. 9.     On the day of the abduction, the applicants saw those vehicles on the premises of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) in Magas, Ingushetia. Official investigation into the abduction 10 .     On 24 August 2011 the first applicant, his son and the sixth applicant applied to the authorities for assistance with the search for their abducted relatives. 11.     On 24 August 2011 the investigators examined the crime scene. Samples of a dark-red substance and some other items were collected. 12.     On 29 August 2011 the Sunzhenskiy District Investigative Committee of Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 11600046 under Article   126 of the Criminal Code of Russia (abduction). 13 .     On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 14.     On 2 September 2011 the second applicant and one of her sons were questioned. They stated that Mr Ugurchiyev had been working with Mr   Bersanov on a construction site. On the day of the incident he had gone to Mr Bersanov’s house to take the latter’s car. The witnesses further stated that one of the abductors had not been wearing a balaclava and had a Slavic appearance. The abductors had hit Mr   Ugurchiyev on the head with a machine gun and he had fallen unconscious. The witnesses denied Mr   Ugurchiyev’s involvement in illegal armed groups. 15 .     On 4 September 2011 the sixth applicant was granted victim status and questioned. He stated that his son had been sentenced by the Sunzhenskiy District Court for drug dealing. His mobile telephone with the number 8-960-435-75-75 had been switched off since the incident. The rest of the applicant’s statements were similar to the account of events submitted by the applicants before the Court. 16.     On 9 September 2011 the eleventh applicant and one of Mr   Bersanov’s brothers were questioned but provided no new information. 17.     On 13 September 2011 the first applicant was questioned. He stated that he had heard about his son’s abduction from I., who was a minor and whose parents had witnessed the abduction but had refused to give statements to the investigators. The first applicant further stated that in 2011 the Sunzhenskiy District Court had given his son a suspended sentence of a year’s imprisonment for participation in illegal armed groups. The rest of his statements were similar to the account of events submitted by the applicants to the Court. 18.     On 21 September 2011 the third applicant was questioned. Her statements were similar to those given by the other applicants. 19 .     The investigators requested information from the law-enforcement authorities on Mr Ugurchiyev’s possible affiliation with illegal armed groups. On 22 September 2011 the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia informed the investigators that until 13 July 2010, Mr Ugurchiyev had been a member of the illegal armed group “Jamaat” based in Ingushetia. As for Mr Bersanov, they said that he had been charged with various crimes, including drug dealing. They further stated that Mr Bersanov was suspected of disseminating the ideas of a radical religious movement, Wahhabism. 20.     On 22 September 2011 Mr Bersanov’s neighbours, Ms M.M. and Ms   A.Kh., were questioned. The latter stated that she had seen a pair of spectacles and a pair of slippers left at the crime scene. 21 .     On 23 September 2011 the sixth applicant asked the investigators whether they had been able to identify the owners of the vehicles used by the abductors. He also asked them to save the video recordings from the closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras located near the local police station and the FSB’s headquarters in Ingushetia. 22.     On 26 September 2011 the sixth applicant wrote to the authorities asking them to expedite the investigation into the abduction of his son. 23.     On 13 October 2013 the first applicant applied to the President of the Chechen Republic, for assistance with the search for his missing son. His request was forwarded to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office. 24 .     In October and November 2011 a number of officers from the traffic police were questioned. They stated that on the day of the incident, they had been on duty at the checkpoints “Angara 120”, “Volga 17” and “Kursk 1”, but that neither a GAZelle minibus with registration number 491 nor any vehicles without registration numbers had been stopped. 25.     On 14 and 25 February 2012 two owners of GAZelle minibuses with a registration number starting with 491 were questioned, but they provided no relevant information. 26 .     On 29 February 2012 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant was informed of this. 27.     On 18 April 2012 the first applicant asked the investigators to inform him about any progress in the case. The investigators granted his request. 28.     On 12 May 2012 the investigators’ superior criticised the investigators’ inaction and resumed the proceedings. 29 .     On 10 June 2012 the eleventh applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She reiterated her earlier statements. In addition, she informed the investigators that on 28 October 2011 Mr Bersanov’s brother had been found shot dead near the village of Galashki in Ingushetia. 30.     On the same day the sixth applicant was questioned but provided no new information. 31.     On 11 June 2012 one of Mr Bersanov’s sisters was questioned. She stated that she had heard rumours that members of the Ugurchiyev family were involved with illegal armed groups. 32 .     On the same day the third applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events described above. 33.     On 12 June 2012 the tenth applicant was questioned but provided no new information. 34.     Between 12 and 14 June 2012 the officers from the traffic police were questioned again. No new information was obtained. 35 .     On 25 June 2012 the investigation was suspended. It was subsequently resumed and then suspended again on 28 October 2012. 36.     On 22 May 2013 the first applicant asked the investigators to resume the proceedings and allow him access to the investigation file. 37.     On 24 May 2013 the investigators granted the first applicant’s request to study the case file but refused to resume the proceedings. 38 .     On 24 September 2013 the investigation was resumed. It was then suspended again on 24 October 2013. 39.     On 20 November 2013 the first applicant requested information on the progress in the proceedings. In reply he was provided with the decision of 24 October 2013 to suspend the proceedings. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing. Proceedings against the investigators 40.     On 21 May 2012 the first applicant complained to the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the investigators’ inaction in respect of his information request of 18 April 2012. He subsequently withdrew his complaint. 41.     On 23 August 2013 the first applicant lodged yet another complaint with the Sunzhenskiy District Court against the investigators’ refusal of 24   May 2013 to resume the proceedings. 42.     On 26 September 2013 the District Court terminated the proceedings as the investigation had been resumed on 24 September 2013. Zhovbatyrov and Dorsigova v. Russia (no. 6594/15) 43.     The applicants are the father and the mother of Mr   Vakha Zhovbatyrov, who was born in 1990. Background information 44 .     According to a statement of 21 December 2011 provided by the Ingushetia Federal Security Service, Mr Vakha Zhovbatyrov was suspected of being an active member of Sunzhenskaya, an illegal armed group specialised in attacks on representatives of the authorities (see paragraph 65 below). Abduction of Mr Vakha Zhovbatyrov 45 .     At about 10 p.m. on 4 August 2011 Mr Vakha Zhovbatyrov was detained in Sheripova street, Ordzhonikidzevskaya, Ingushetia, during a passport check carried out by law-enforcement personnel in camouflage uniforms without insignia. He was forced into one of two GAZelle minibuses, one of which had a registration number containing the digits 903 or 904 and the region number 06. During the special operation, the entire neighbourhood was cordoned off by law-enforcement personnel. 46 .     According to the applicants, the special operation was carried out not by the Sunzhenskiy district police – they had also been there but had left after being shown documents by the alleged abductors – but by some other law-enforcement agency. Official investigation into the abduction 47 .     On 5 August 2011 the first applicant lodged a request with the head of the local police for assistance in the search for his missing son. 48.     On the same date the second applicant was interviewed. Her account of events was the same as that submitted to the Court. 49.     On 5 August 2011 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 50.     On 9 August 2011 the Sunzhenskiy district investigative department opened criminal case no. 11600041, under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 51.     On 10 August 2011 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. He stated that he had heard about his son’s abduction from his older son, Mr V.Zh. He reiterated the account of events described above and added that Mr Zhovbatyrov’s mobile phone had been disconnected since the incident. 52.     On 17 August 2011 the second applicant was questioned. Her statement was similar to that of the first applicant. 53 .     On 9 September 2011 the Sunzhenskiy District Court authorised the investigators to request from the telecommunication service provider a list of all incoming and outgoing calls for Mr Zhovbatyrov’s mobile number for the period between 4 and 5 August 2011 and within a radius of 500 metres from the crime scene. 54.     On 21 September 2011 the applicants’ neighbour, Ms Dz. L., was questioned. She stated that on the day of the incident she had been at home and had heard someone calling for help in the Ingush language. She had gone out and seen around fifteen armed men wearing balaclavas and camouflage uniforms who had been forcing a young man into a GAZelle minibus. The next day she had learnt that the young man had been her neighbours’ son. 55.     On 22 September 2011 Mr Zhovbatyrov’s uncle, Mr Zh.I., was questioned. He stated that when leaving his house at around 9.20 p.m. on 4   August 2011, he had seen a white GAZelle minibus with the registration number 903 near the applicants’ house. Later he had learnt that his nephew had been abducted. 56.     On 24, 25 and 26 October 2011 a number of officers from the traffic police were questioned. All of them stated that on the day of the incident, they had been manning the checkpoint “Angara 120”. They had not stopped either a GAZelle minibus with the registration number 903 or 904, or any other vehicles without registration numbers. 57.     On 31 October 2011 the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia informed the investigators that, according to their operational information, Mr Zhovbatyrov was an active member of the Sunzhenskaya illegal armed group, under the command of M.B., which specialised in attacks on law ‑ enforcement officers and other representatives of the authorities. 58 .     On 23 November 2011 the investigators transferred the case file to the investigation department of military unit no. 68799, as the investigators had established the involvement of FSB officers in the abduction of the applicant’s son. In particular, they had found that the two GAZelle minibuses with the registration numbers 903 and 904 had belonged to the Ingushetia FSB. 59.     On 29 November 2011 the investigators additionally questioned the second applicant and Mr   Zh.I. No new information was obtained. 60 .     On 2 December 2011 the investigators questioned Mr S.Yu., the head of the Ingushetia FSB. He confirmed that the two GAZelle minibuses with registration numbers R903TK06 and R904TK06 belonged to the Ingushetia FSB. He further stated that between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on 4   August 2011 those vehicles had been used for unknown purposes and that he did not know who had been the commanding officer of the unit which had used the vehicles. In addition, Mr S.Yu. stated that vehicles were not allowed to leave the headquarters between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. He denied that on 4 August 2011 the FSB had carried out a special operation in Sunzhenskiy District in respect of members of illegal armed groups. 61.     On 5 December 2011 the Ingushetia FSB informed the investigators that on 4 August 2011 a counter-terrorism operation had been carried out around the settlements of Nesterovskaya and Nizhniy Alkun, a few kilometres from Ordzhonikidzevskaya. 62.     On 6 December 2011 Mr G.A., a head of department at the Ingushetia FSB, was questioned. He stated that officers on duty did not always register the departure of vehicles from the FSB’s headquarters, for which several duty officers had been subjected to disciplinary penalties. He stated that the fact that the departure of vehicles had not been indicated in the registration book did not mean that the vehicles had not left the FSB headquarters. 63.     According to information from the Ingushetia FSB, documents nos. 004261 and 004262 showed that the GAZelle minibuses had been on mission between 9   a.m. and 6 p.m. on 4   August 2018. During that time, they had been driven 45 kilometres. Mr K. was indicated in the logbooks as the driver of both vehicles. 64 .     On 15 December 2011 Mr K. was questioned and stated that on 4   August 2011, he had driven both vehicles alternately to Nazran; this had taken until 6 p.m. He had not been to Ordzhonikidzevskaya. 65 .     On 21 December 2011 the Ingushetia FSB informed the investigators that Mr Zhovbatyrov was an active member of the Sunzhenskaya illegal armed group, specialised in attacks on law ‑ enforcement officers and other representatives of the authorities, as well as on businessmen refusing to allocate money for the jihad. On 4 August 2011 Mr Zhovbatyrov had left his house to join an illegal armed group under the command of Mr   U. operating in the mountains of Sunzhenskiy District. 66 .     On 22 December 2011 the investigators of military unit no.   68799 refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of Mr K. concerning the abduction of Mr Zhovbatyrov under Article 126 of the Criminal Code. 67 .     On 23 December 2011 the criminal case was remitted to the Ingushetia Investigative Committee. 68.     On 9 January 2012 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 25   January 2012. 69.     On 2 March 2012 criminal case no. 11600041 was joined to two other criminal cases, nos.   11600061 and 116000050, on the abduction of two other people in the same region. The new case was registered as no. 11600050. 70.     On 15 March 2012 the first applicant requested information on the progress of the investigation and access to the case file. On 18 March 2012 his request was granted. 71.     On 25 May 2012 the proceedings were suspended. They were subsequently resumed and then suspended again on 20 July 2012 without any tangible results having been achieved. 72.     On 26 September 2012 the first applicant asked the investigators to inform him about the progress in the case and the results of any investigative measures taken. On 3 October 2012 she was provided with a summary note. 73 .     On 10 November 2012 the investigators’ superior overturned the decision to suspend the proceedings, and they were resumed. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended on 10 December 2012. 74.     On 30 December 2012 the second applicant was granted victim status. 75 .     On 23 May 2013 the second applicant asked the investigators to allow her to study the case file and make copies of documents in the file. On 27 May 2013 her request was granted. Subsequently, the investigators of the Sunzhenskiy District investigative department informed her that the case file had been transferred to the Ingushetia department of the Investigative Committee for a supervisory review and that she would be able to study it after its return. Despite a number of unsuccessful requests submitted to the investigators, the applicant was not able to study the case file. 76.     On 12 February 2014 the first applicant asked the investigators to allow him to make copies of all the documents in the case file. His request was partially granted. 77 .     On 12 August 2016 the investigation was resumed, suspended and then resumed again on 22 June 2018. It appears that the proceedings are still ongoing. Proceedings against the investigators 78 .     On 11 December 2014 the second applicant complained to the Grozny Military Garrison Court under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the investigators’ failure to take all possible steps to verify the involvement of the FSB in the abduction. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown. Valibagandov v. Russia (no. 67897/16) 79.     The applicant is the brother of Mr Omar Valibagandov, who was born in 1975. Disappearance of Mr Omar Valibagandov 80.     At around lunch time on 22 August 2013 Mr Omar Valibagandov left his relative’s flat in Makhachkala, Dagestan, to go to work. He then stopped answering his mobile phone. That night Mr Valibagandov, who had been shot in the thigh with a rubber bullet, was taken by ambulance to Izberbash hospital, handcuffed and under FSB surveillance. 81.     On 23 August 2013 a group of about twenty to twenty-five police officers waited at Izberbash hospital for the ambulance with Mr   Valibagandov. 82 .     In the hospital, during the removal of the bullet, Mr Valibagandov told the doctors that he had been abducted, beaten up and shot at by law ‑ enforcement officers. Shortly after the medical procedure, he was taken to a police car and driven off. He has been missing ever since. Official investigation into the incident 83.     On 23 August 2013 a surgeon from Izberbash hospital informed the local police about Mr   Valibagandov’s hospitalisation. 84 .     On 23 August 2013 the police interviewed Mr Valibagandov, who allegedly gave them a statement he had written himself, the authenticity of which was subsequently questioned by the investigation into his disappearance (see paragraphs 111, 114, 118-120, 122, 124 and 129 below). According to the statement, earlier that day he had found an airgun on Izberbash beach and had shot himself accidentally with it. He had then gone to the hospital on his own. He had no complaints on account of the aforementioned incident. The statement contained neither the name of the interviewing police officer nor any other indication of who had carried out the interview. 85 .     On the same day the applicant applied to the local police for assistance with the search of his missing brother. 86 .     On 23 August 2013 police officers examined the beach and found a bullet cartridge. From the documents submitted to the Court, it follows that that item was not collected as evidence (see paragraph 105 below). 87.     On 26 August 2013 a police officer in charge of the inquiry   into the incident involving Mr Valibagandov, in view of the latter’s explanations, refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime. 88.     On 30 August 2013 the head of Izberbash hospital informed the investigators that after Mr Valibagandov’s medical treatment at the hospital’s surgery department, he had been taken away by the police. 89 .     On 4 September 2013 the applicant was interviewed. He stated that on 22 August 2013 his brother Omar Valibagandov had taken their relative’s car and had left the flat in Makhachkala to go to the office. He had planned to collect his salary arrears and to borrow money from the director of the company he worked for. At around 4.30 p.m. on the same day their relative, Mr G.R., had received a text message from Omar’s mobile phone number stating that Omar had had problems and would not be available for a couple of days, and telling him where the car could be found. Later the same day, the applicant and Mr G.R. had found the car at the location specified in the text message. They had subsequently collected a video recording from CCTV cameras at that location. The video footage had shown an unidentified man parking Mr G.R’s car, then another man arriving in a Lada vehicle and leaving Mr   G.R’s car keys in its front-left wheel. 90.     On 25 October 2013 the Izberbash prosecutor overruled the refusal to institute criminal proceedings of 26   August 2013 and ordered that an additional investigation be carried out. 91.     On 30 October 2013 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Investigative Committee and the Izberbash district prosecutor’s office. In his request, the applicant stated that his brother had been abducted by the FSB and the Izberbash police. He further requested that criminal proceedings be instituted in respect of those officers and that they be questioned about the abduction. 92.     On 7 November 2013 the Izberbash inter-district department of the Investigative Committee opened criminal case no. 305182 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 93 .     On 10 November 2013 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. He stated that his brother had been working in a local company as a debt collector. He had had money issues with the director of the company, Mr P., who had owed his brother money for a sold car and a plot of land. He further stated that after Mr Valibagandov’s abduction, he and his other brother, Mr I.B., had talked to Mr A., an FSB officer, Dr R., a surgeon from Izberbash hospital, and the ambulance doctor. All of them had confirmed that Mr   Valibagandov had been taken to Izberbash hospital by armed men in an FSB vehicle. He had been handcuffed and only in underwear. The applicant finally stated that Mr D.R., an officer accompanying Mr Valibagandov, had told him that after leaving the hospital, Mr Valibagandov had asked him to release him, which he had done. 94.     On 13 November 2013 the Izberbash Town Court, at the request of the investigators, ordered the mobile phone service provider to furnish the records of Mr Valibagandov’s mobile phone calls. 95 .     On 14 November 2013 Dr R., the surgeon from Izberbash hospital, was questioned. He stated that on the night of 22 to 23 August 2013 he had been on duty. At around 7 a.m. on 23 August 2013 Mr D.R, a police officer, had entered the surgery with other men, one of whom had been in uniform. Officer D.R. had asked whether a wounded man had been brought to the hospital. Meanwhile, an ambulance from the Karabudakhkent district had arrived with a handcuffed man who had been wounded by gunshot. The ambulance doctor had told him that the man had been found at Achi train station, and the ambulance staff had immediately informed the police about the man. They had then taken the man to the surgery and, with the help of a medical assistant, Ms G.L., and a nurse had extracted a rubber bullet. During the medical treatment Mr Valibagandov had informed Dr R. that a group of men in balaclavas had beaten him up and had demanded something. After finishing the surgery, Dr R. had given the rubber bullet to the head of the hospital, along with the report on the surgery. When Dr R. had left the surgery unit, he had seen seven to eight police officers taking Mr Valibagandov away in one of the two police vehicles. 96.     On 19 November 2013 a nurse from Izberbash hospital was questioned. She provided no new information. 97.     On 25 November 2013 the Ministry of the Interior of Dagestan informed the investigators that police officers, Mr M.A. and Mr Kh.T., had gone to Izberbash hospital after receiving information on Mr   Valibagandov’s hospitalisation. The letter further referred to the explanation Mr   Valibagandov had given about the incident of 23 August 2008 (see paragraph 84 above). 98.     On 27 November 2013 Mr G.R. was questioned. His statements were similar to the account of the events described above. 99 .     On 29 November 2013 the investigators examined Izberbash hospital’s registration log. According to the log, Mr Valibagandov had arrived at the hospital with multiple injuries on his body, including a gunshot wound. 100.     On 3 December 2013 FSB officer A. was questioned. He stated that a doctor from Izberbash hospital had told him that Izberbash police officers had taken Mr Valibagandov with them. 101 .     On 5 December 2013 Mr D.R., the deputy head of Izberbash police, was questioned. He stated that upon arrival at the hospital, he had entered the surgery unit and seen Mr Valibagandov in bed. He had talked to him and ascertained that Mr Valibagandov had received his injuries accidentally. He had left after a group of police officers had arrived at the hospital. 102 .     On 7 December 2013 Mr P., the director of the company, was questioned. He stated that Mr Valibagandov had wanted to borrow money to buy a car, but he had refused to lend it. Shortly afterwards, he had received a video message from Mr Ka., the head of an illegal armed group, threating to kill his son if he did not transfer the money to him. Mr P. had immediately informed Mr Valibagandov about the incident and had urged him to settle the issue, but to no avail. In early October 2013 he had received a text message from Mr Valibagandov’s mobile phone number threatening to retaliate. 103.     On 7 December 2013 Mr P.’s son and two employees of the company were questioned, but they provided no new information. On the same day Mr G.T., the deputy head of the company, was questioned. He stated that they had been threatened regularly by the local criminal groups. Before his abduction, Mr Valibagandov had informed him that the same criminal groups had threatened him as well. 104.     On 8 December 2013 Mr Valibagandov’s cousin and wife, and the applicant’s wife were questioned. None of them provided any new information. 105 .     On 11 December 2013 two police officers, Mr P.Ya. and Mr   Ma.A., were questioned. Officer P.Ya. stated that on the instructions of his superior, he had examined the crime scene and found a bullet cartridge. He had taken a photograph of the crime scene and a bullet cartridge, but had not collected it as evidence. Officer Ma.A. stated that on the day of the incident he had left for Izberbash hospital having received information about the hospitalisation of a wounded man. When he had arrived at the hospital, he had met officers D.R. and I.Kh. He had then gone to the X-ray unit, where Mr Valibagandov had been waiting for treatment. After the operation, Mr Valibagandov had left.   106.     On 11 December 2013 the head doctor of Izberbash hospital was questioned. He stated that on 30 August 2013 a police officer, Mr Sh.Sh., had requested information about Mr Valibagandov’s treatment at the hospital. In reply, he had provided a written explanation along with copies of the registration log as well as the rubber bullet extracted from Mr   Valibagandov’s thigh. 107.     On 12 December 2013 one of the police officers, Mr Ma.A, was questioned again. He stated that he had seen Mr Valibagandov in the operating room without handcuffs. The rest of his statement did not provide any new information. 108.     On 12 December 2013 the investigators asked the head of the Izberbash police to provide CCTV footage of the police station for the period between 22 and 24 August 2013. In reply, the police stated that the recording for that period had been deleted owing to the expiry of the mandatory storage period. 109 .     On 23 December 2013 the investigators questioned the applicant, who stated that he had both the CCTV recording of the location where Mr   Valibagandov had parked the car (see paragraph 89 above) and Mr   G.R.’s mobile phone. Subsequently, the investigators collected the recording and the mobile phone, and examined both. 110 .     On 28 December 2013 Ms Sh.G., the ambulance doctor, was questioned. She stated that on 23 August 2018 ambulance unit no. 3 had received a call from a police officer, who had informed them about an injured man near a highway to Izberbash. When the ambulance crew had arrived at the place of the incident, three to four vehicles and around ten armed men had been waiting there. Some of the armed men had been wearing uniforms with the FSB insignia. One of them, who had introduced himself as the head of the FSB group, had ordered the ambulance crew to take the injured man, Mr Valibagandov, to Izberbash hospital. The ambulance crew had then taken Mr Valibagandov out of a white minibus and placed him in the ambulance. He had been handcuffed, wearing only underwear and had had a number of bruises and injuries on his arms and hips. The white minibus had escorted the ambulance to the hospital, where around fifteen to twenty police officers had already been waiting. Mr   Valibagandov had been taken to the operating room, where an old man had approached him and had started speaking in a language Ms Sh.G. could not understand. That man had remained in the operating room. She further stated that Mr Valibagandov had told her that he had been abducted and tortured severely, but some “kind people” had helped him to get free. He had then asked if the people in uniforms were from the FSB, to which she had answered affirmatively. Subsequently, the ambulance crew had left Izberbash hospital. On their way to the ambulance headquarters the white minibus which had escorted them to the hospital had overtaken them. When the ambulance had been passing the place of the incident, the ambulance crew had seen four to five vehicles there, along with the white minibus and people in civilian clothing and camouflage uniforms. 111 .     On 10 January 2014 the investigators seized Mr   Valibagandov’s handwritten explanation of the account of events (see paragraph 84 above) for forensic examination. 112.     On 15 January 2014 the Izberbash Town Court granted a request by the investigators to collect as evidence the incoming call list for the ambulance telephone number. 113.     On 15 January 2014 the ambulance driver and a police officer were questioned but provided no new information. 114 .     On 16 January 2014 the investigators received samples of the handwriting of police officers D.R., P.Ya., B.K., M.A. and Kh.T. 115.     On 20 January 2014 the investigators ordered a graphological examination of Mr   Valibagandov’s handwritten explanation. 116.     On 8 February 2014 the investigators collected the video recording showing the threats being made to company director Mr P. 117.     According to information received from the Ministry of the Interior in Dagestan, Mr Valibagandov had been known as a person disseminating the ideas of   a radical religious movement. 118 .     A forensic examination carried out on 5 February 2014 concluded that Mr   Valibagandov’s interview of 23 August 2013 had been carried out by Officer P.Ya. The handwriting of the text belonged neither to Mr   Valibagandov nor to the police officers mentioned above (see paragraph 114 above). 119 .     On 17 February 2014 Mr A.M., another police officer, was questioned. He stated that on 23 August 2013 he had met Mr Valibagandov in Izberbash hospital and questioned him about the incident. In reply, Mr   Valibagandov had told him that he had injured himself with an air pistol and that he had no complaints. He had then proposed that Mr Valibagandov sign an explanation statement to that effect, which Mr Valibagandov had done in the police car and then left. Officer A.M. contended that he had forgotten to put his name and service rank on Mr Valibagandov’s statement. 120 .     On 17 February 2014 the investigators decided to collect handwriting samples from Officer A.M. The forensic examination, carried out on 27 February 2014, found that A.M.’s handwriting and that on the explanation statement did not match. 121.     On 18 February 2014 the Izberbash Town Court granted a request by the investigators to collect the list of incoming calls from Officer D.R.’s mobile phone. 122 .     On 20, 23 and 24 February 2014 police officers Kh.T, D.R., M.A, A.M. and P.Ya refused to undergo a polygraph test to verify their statements given to the investigation. 123.     On 23 February 2014 Dr P. and Officer D.R. were cross-examined. They gave conflicting statements concerning the officer’s arrival at the hospital. The doctor reiterated that Officer D.R. had arrived at the hospital and waited until Mr Valibagandov had been brought in by the ambulance crew, whereas the officer contested that account of the event. 124 .     On 24 February 2014 Officer P.Ya. was questioned. He stated that when he had been given the file on Mr Valibagandov’s hospitalisation along with his explanation statement, the field on the statement where information on the interviewer should have been filled in had been left blank. Therefore, he had filled in the form himself, but had not put his name as the interviewer, since he personally had not carried out that interview (see paragraph 84 above). 125.     On 26 February 2014 Mr Sh.R., a police officer from the Makhachkala police, was questioned. He stated that on 25 August 2014 he had received the file on Mr Valibagandov’s hospitalisation and his subsequent disappearance. The file included a rubber bullet extracted from Mr Valibagandov’s thigh. He had then sent all the materials, including the rubber bullet, to Izberbash police station by regular post. 126.     On 4 March 2014 Officer D.R. was additionally questioned. His statements concerned the phone numbers he had contacted on 23 August 2013. Those numbers had belonged to his fellow colleagues from the Izberbash police, officers Kh.T, G.A., M.Sh, and O.N. 127.     On 5 March 2014 all of the aforementioned officers and Officer G.M., also from the Izberbash police, were questioned. They all stated that they did not remember whether they had talked to Officer D.R. on the day of the abduction. All of the officers refused to undergo a psychophysiological examination. 128.     On 7 March 2014 the investigators examined the rubber bullet. No new information was revealed. 129 .     On 25 March 2014 the investigators ordered a comparative forensic examination of Mr Valibagandov’s signature on the statement of 23 August 2013 and in his passport. The forensic examination report, provided on the next day, did not contain any conclusive findings on the possible match of the signatures. 130.     On 26 March 2014 an expert examined the CCTV footage of the car park on 23 August 2013, which the applicant had provided to the investigators, but was unable to identify either the cars or the individuals on it (see paragraph 109 above). 131 .     On 2 April 2014 the investigators examined the crime scene – the surgery unit of Izberbash hospital. No evidence was collected. 132 .     On the same date the investigators decided to collect the footage of the CCTV cameras in Izberbash hospital. However, given that the mandatory storage period for the recordings had expired, they were unable to obtain any information. 133 .     On 4 April 2014 the investigation was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators. The applicant was informed. 134.     On 27 May 2014 the applicant’s representative asked the investigators to grant him access to the case file and allow him to make copies of some documents. On 30 May 2014 that request was refused on the grounds that the investigation was still pending. 135 .     On 21 July 2014 the decision to suspend the investigation was overruled by the Izberbash district prosecutor as unlawful and premature, as the investigators had failed to take a number of basic steps, such as establishing the circumstances in which Mr   Valigabandov had been wounded. 136.     On 5 August 2014 the investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of police officers P.Ya. and A.M. due to the absence of corpus delicti in their actions. 137 .     On 1 September 2014 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed. 138 .     On 10 October 2014 the applicant’s representative wrote to the investigators, seeking information on the progress of the case and asking to make copies of some documents. In reply, the investigators informed the applicant’s representative that the proceedings had been suspended and he could obtain copies of the documents sought from the Dagestan department of the Investigative Committee. 139 .     On 18 November and then on 17 December 2014 the applicant’s representative lodged a complaint with the Izberbash district prosecutor’s office about the investigators’ inaction. He received no reply to either complaint. 140 .     On 17 November 2015 the investigators’ superior overruled the decision of 1 September 2014 to suspend the proceedings. 141.     On 7 December 2015 the investigators granted a request by the applicant’s representative that information on the mobile telephone numbers used near the crime scene be obtained in order to identify possible witnesses. 142 .     On 24 December 2015 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 14 May 2016. The applicant was informed. 143.     On 10 June 2016 Dr R. from Izberbash hospital and police officer M.A. were cross-examined. They each reiterated their earlier statements. 144 .     On 14 June 2016 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed. 145.     On 25 May 2018 the Dagestan prosecutor’s office overruled the decision to suspen