CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sDC0F5DF3 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sC176A5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .s7DF027B3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sB27610F1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .sFDFBDAA3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s436F61AC { width:13.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAAD7ECD0 { width:5.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9119587A { width:8.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s839E73DD { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDBE60D67 { width:1.84pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF7177B22 { width:0.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3B2F4E5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sB435C42F { width:1.36pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC5271E73 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none; list-style-position:outside } .sAB6DE361 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4836203C { font-style:italic; text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5BD5C9EB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:9pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAA030450 { width:9.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sDF837F39 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s27331EE1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s390275C7 { margin-left:15.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s7B21E750 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s144DF6AC { width:6.63pt; 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 } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1152E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-25.5pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAE87F36B { width:4.16pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD31C6D03 { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59947BC4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA07D46BD { width:5.6pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s974F4397 { margin-left:17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s962FA65C { width:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s611B9760 { width:184.28pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sAB097C5A { width:204.97pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDEE01590 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sF29177A6 { height:1pt } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE9FDF07F { height:92.75pt } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s991AE78A { height:12.5pt } .s7C6E78A { height:10.7pt } .s24351AEA { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE3A77C17 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF ADZHIGITOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 40165/07 and 2593/08)     JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 3 September 2021 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   Art 14 (+ Arts 2, 3, 8 and Art 1 P1) • Discrimination • Unlawful detention and ill-treatment of Avars by military servicemen of Chechen origin and failure to investigate possible motive of ethnic hatred • No evidence of racial prejudice behind searches and abductions during a military operation against an illegal armed group • No evidence of racial prejudice behind the killing and arson committed by the insurgents Art 2 (substantive and procedural) • Life • Effective investigation • Enforced disappearance of Chechen village residents • State not responsible for killing by members of illegal armed group dressed as military personnel • Lack of effective investigation into disappearance or death Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Inhuman and degrading treatment • Unlawful use of force by military personnel and lack of effective investigation • Mental suffering caused by disappearance of applicants’ relatives Art 13 (+ Art 3) • Lack of effective remedy for mental suffering caused by relatives’ disappearances Art 8 • Respect for home and private life • Unlawful searches conducted by military personnel Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Positive obligations • State not responsible for destruction of properties by illegal armed group dressed as military personnel • Less exacting standard for investigation met and State payment of compensation Art 38 • Non-compliance with State obligation to furnish all necessary facilities   STRASBOURG 22 June 2021   FINAL   22/09/2021   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Adzhigitova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Dmitry Dedov,   María Elósegui,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Andreas Zünd, judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   40165/07 and 2593/08) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the Russian nationals as listed in the (“the applicants”), on 10   September and 1   December 2007 respectively; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”); the decision to give priority to application no. 2593/08 (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 25 May 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications concern the operation carried out in the village of Borozdinovskaya by the Vostok Battalion in Chechnya on 4 June 2005. The applicants alleged that military service personnel unlawfully searched their houses, arrested, ill-treated and killed local men, and set four houses on fire; they also alleged discrimination on the grounds of their belonging to an ethnic group (Avar). They furthermore claimed that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into those events. THE FACTS 2.     Application no. 40165/07 was lodged by applicants nos. 1-29, as listed in the Appendix. They were represented by Ms A. Sobko, a lawyer of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre at Middlesex University (EHRAC), a non-governmental organisation (NGO) based in London, in partnership with another NGO, the Memorial Human Rights Centre based in Moscow. 3.     Application no. 2593/08 was lodged by applicants nos. 30-126, as also listed in the Appendix. They were represented by Ms O. Sadovskaya and Mr R.   Radzhabov, lawyers of the Committee against Torture, an NGO based in the town of Nizhny Novgorod. 4.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented 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. 5.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.          BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 6.     The applicants lived in the village of Borozdinovskaya (“the village”), in the Shelkovskoy district of Chechnya close to the border with the Russian Republic of Dagestan. It is surrounded by dense forest and was mostly inhabited by Avars (people of a north-east Caucasian native ethnic group that originates in the territories of Dagestan). Several Chechen and Russian families also lived there. According to the applicants, Avar village residents had a tense relationship with their Chechen neighbours. 7.     About one hundred kilometres from the village (in the town of Gudermes) was stationed the Vostok Battalion, whose members were recruited from ethnic Chechens and which was headed by Lieutenant Colonel Sulim Y. (“Lieutenant Colonel Y.”). It was known for its active participation in the fight against illegal armed groups operating in hard ‑ to ‑ reach areas, such as forests or mountains. 8.     At the time of the events Lieutenant Colonel Y. was on sick leave; he had been replaced by Lieutenant   G.        ATTACK OF 3   JUNE 2005 9.     In the early hours of 3 June 2005 members of an illegal armed group killed Mr T. Akh. in the village. He was the father of a soldier in the Vostok Battalion. The perpetrators also attacked the head of the local authority and wounded a police officer and seized his firearm and his vehicle. In the late evening of the same day they killed another police officer, burned his car, and stole his identification documents and firearm.     PLANNING OF THE SPECIAL OPERATION 10.     Shortly after the events of 3 June 2005 the commander of military unit no.   27777, which was stationed in the settlement of Khankala, ordered subordinate military personnel to arrest the perpetrators of the attack, who were allegedly hiding in the forest next to the village. 11.     The arrest operation was entrusted to two groups of Vostok Battalion soldiers. The first group was tasked with locating the attackers and arresting them; the second group was to take up its post in the forest and be ready to assist the first group if required. 12.     The second group comprised thirty-three soldiers headed by Lieutenant A. Commander of military unit no.   27777 instructed him not to deviate from the set route, or to enter the village or leave the forest area.     CONDUCT OF THE SPECIAL OPERATION 13 .     On the morning of 4 June 2005, the two groups left the military base in armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”), Ural lorries, UAZ all-terrain vehicles and VAZ cars. 14 .     At about 1.30 p.m. on the same day, on the way to the designated area, Lieutenant   A. ordered the subordinate military personnel to seal off the village and search the residents’ houses for firearms or other evidence of membership of the illegal armed group. He also ordered them to arrest the male residents of the village and gather them at the local school in order to identify the people responsible for Mr T. Akh.’s death. 15 .     Thirty minutes later several dozen soldiers sealed off the village. Then they carried out house-to-house searches, intimidating the residents with automatic weapon and applying force to those of them who resisted. They checked the identification documents of male residents and submitted several of those men to body searches. 16.     Thereafter the Vostok Battalion soldiers arrested most of the male residents, including some of the applicants (eighty-four people, according to the Government; over two hundred people according to the applicants) and transported them to the village school. 17 .     Eleven relatives of the applicants (Mr   Kamil Magomedov, born in 1955; Mr Abakar Aliyev, born in 1982; Mr Said Magomedov, born in 1960; Mr   Akhmed Magomedov, born in 1979; Mr   Akhmed Madomedov, born in 1977; Mr   Eduard Lachkov, born in 1986; Mr Shakhban (also spelled as Shagban) Magomedov, born in 1965; Mr Murtuz Umarov, born in 1987; Mr   Magomed Isayev, born in 1969; Mr   Akhmed Kurbanaliyev, born in 1978; and Mr   Magomed Kurbanaliyev, born in 1982) (“the eleven men”) were among the people arrested. Nine of them were ethnic Avars, one of them was a member of the Tsez (a north Caucasian ethnic group) and one of them was Russian. 18.     The detained people were placed at the school yard. The soldiers ordered the men to pull their shirts up over their faces and to lie on the ground. They were forbidden from talking or moving. They remained in that position for several hours while the soldiers checked their identities and their possible links to the illegal armed group. According to the applicants, during the check the soldiers beat the villagers and humiliated them. Some people heard or saw soldiers taking several detained men away. 19 .     Between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. military personnel released several village residents and transferred the remainder of them to the school’s gym. Then they made the villagers lie on the floor and forced them to remain in that position for several hours. The applicants submitted that the soldiers had beaten the arrested men and insulted them on account of their Avar ethnic origin. 20.     At about 8 p.m. Lieutenant   G. and a group of subordinate military personnel arrived at the school in four vehicles. 21.     According to the Government, all the detainees were released following Lieutenant   G.’s order to that effect. 22 .     At 9.30 p.m. the members of the Vostok Battalion returned to their base in Gudermes. 23.     According to the applicants, before leaving the village the soldiers set fire to four houses located at 9 and 11   Lenina Street, 9   Naberezhnaya Street and 27   Mayakovskogo Street.       ALLEGED ATTACK OF 4 JUNE 2005 24 .     According to the Government, members of the illegal armed group observed the special operation from a hiding place. On the evening of 4   June 2005, they put Vostok Battalion uniforms on and entered the village in order to provoke hatred against military personnel by attacking the villagers, who would wrongfully assume that the attack was being carried out by Vostok Battalion soldiers. 25.     According to the Government, a group of insurgents – including Sultan Akh. (code names “Malysh” and “Killer”), A.M., Sultan Ab. (code name “Khafiz”) and men going by the code names “Ayub”, “Anbar”, “Malik” and “Bilal” entered the village from the side opposite to the location of the school. 26.     Shortly thereafter they started the above-mentioned fire at 9 and 11   Lenina Street; Sultan Ab. fired no less than six shots from an AK-47 assault rifle. Then the group split up: some of the men went to the western end of the village, while others went to the southern end. 27.     At the western end “Ayub” and Sultan Akh. set fire to the house at 27   Mayakovskogo Street by firing into it with an AK-47. 28.     At the southern end of the village A.M. started the fire at 9   Naberezhnaya Street. Sultan Akh. fired two shots from an under-barrel grenade-launcher and at least one shot from an assault rifle. “Ayub” fired at the house with a machine gun; and Sultan A. fired no fewer than thirty shots with his assault rifle. The group also fired a red signal rocket at the house in order to set it on fire; Mr Magomazi Magomazov (“Mr Magomazov”) was inside the house. He received numerous blast and firearms injuries and died on the spot. 29.     According to the Government, Lieutenant G. and his subordinates arrived in the north-western part of the village at about 8   p.m. on 4 June 2004. Having heard gunshots and having seen the smoke from burning houses he moved to Lenina Street, and then to Mayakovskogo and Naberezhnaya Streets. He realised that the insurgents had set fire to the above-mentioned village houses. The soldiers attempted to pursue them, but the members of the illegal armed group dispersed into the forest. Eleven village residents joined them.     AFTERMATH OF THE EVENTS OF 4 JUNE 2005    Pursuit of the illegal armed group by the Vostok Battalion 30 .     According to the Government, on 5 June 2005 at about 9.45 p.m. in the mountainous area near the village the Vostok Battalion pursued a group of about fifteen fleeing insurgents. 31.     The next day the soldiers searched the area and found a base designed for guerrilla warfare, with two tents, a hunting gun, a flamethrower, grenades and ammunition rounds, and the identification papers of a police officer killed on 3 June 2005 (see paragraph 90 below).    Reaction of the village residents 32.     Between 4 and 9 June 2005 the village residents found the burned body of Mr   Magomazov (on which gunshot wounds were visible) inside the burned-out house at 9   Naberezhnaya Street; they also found carbonised human remains at the burned-out house at 11   Lenina Street. The remains were handed over to the police. 33 .     On 5 June 2005 the village residents allegedly heard on the news that the Vostok Battalion had carried out a special operation in the village and had arrested eleven members of the above-mentioned illegal group. According to the radio report, the commander of the illegal armed group had been killed. 34 .     Shortly after that the village residents complained to the law ‑ enforcement authorities about the special operation and the disappearance of the eleven men. 35 .     On 16 June 2005 a large number of village residents, including some of the applicants, left the village for neighbouring Dagestan, where they set up a makeshift camp. The families initially refused to leave the camp and to return to their homes until what had happened to the “disappeared” men had been determined. The authorities reportedly encouraged the villagers to return to the village. In July 2005 the chief of the Federal Security Service in Chechnya and the Special Envoy of the Russian President to the Southern Federal District held a meeting with village residents and promised to investigate the incident and to punish those responsible. Most villagers had returned to it by the end of June. Subsequently many villagers left the village again. 36.     The former residents of the village lodged an application with the Federal Migration Service in the Republic of Dagestan to be granted the status of internally displaced persons in 2006, but the local authorities refused that application. Appeals against that refusal lodged with the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan were dismissed on 7 November and 22 December 2006, respectively, for lack of evidence. 37 .     While the investigation into the special operation was ongoing the village residents individually and as a group repeatedly contacted various authorities between 2005 and 2007, including the Russian President, the Prime Minister of Russia and the chairman of the Russian State Duma, asking for their assistance in the investigation. Those complaints were forwarded to the investigating authorities, who replied in a summary fashion that the proceedings were under way.    Reactions of the media 38.     The local radio company and the local television companies denied that a broadcast about the military operation in the village mentioned by the applicants (see paragraph 33 above) had ever been broadcast (see paragraph   51 below). 39.     In July 2005 an Internet periodical, Gazeta.ru, posted a copy of entry no.   535 in the crime registration log of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (see paragraph 64 below). 40 .     On 19 April 2006 an Internet periodical, War Industry Express ( Военно-промышленный Курьер ), published an article entitled “‘Vostok’ – is the case solved?” ( «Восток» – дело решенное? ). It suggested that the Vostok Battalion personnel had been the victims of an operation staged by an illegal armed group. The periodical mentioned a case in which Chechen insurgents in police uniforms had abducted a civilian. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 41.     On 29 June and 4 July 2011, the Court gave notice of the applications to the Russian Government and requested them to submit copies of the investigation files related to the events of 4   June 2005. 42.     In reply the Russian Government declined to submit copies of the requested files in their entirety, referring to the secrecy of the pre-trial investigation. 43.     The description of the investigative measures below is based on the documents in the Court’s possession.    The first criminal investigation      Opening of the investigation and the legal classification of the offences 44 .     From 5 until 8 June 2005 investigators from the Shelkovskoy district prosecutor’s office visited the village and interviewed its residents. They submitted that the special operation had been carried out by the Vostok Battalion, under the command of Lieutenant   Colonel   Y. 45 .     On various dates in June 2005 dozens of village residents formally asked the Shelkovskoy district prosecutor’s office, the Chechen prosecutor’s office and the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to open a criminal investigation into the events. A few village residents submitted that the perpetrators had used racist insults against Avars or had ordered them to leave Chechen territory. 46 .     On 6 June 2005 the Shelkovskoy district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings under Articles 105 § 2 (ж) (“aggravated murder”), 126 § 2 (a), (г) and (ж) (“aggravated kidnapping”), and 167 §   2 (“aggravated intentional destruction of property”) of the Russian Criminal Code (“CC”). Subsequently the applicants challenged the legal classification of the offences, but to no avail (see paragraphs 131-134 below).      Transfer of the case to the military prosecutor’s office and the granting of victim status 47 .     By 14 June 2005 the investigators had established that the criminal acts in the village had allegedly been committed by Vostok Battalion soldiers. On the grounds of that allegation they transferred the investigation to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment of the Military Forces for Counterterrorist Operations in the Northern Caucasus Region (hereinafter “the UGA” and “the military prosecutor’s office”). 48.     The investigators granted victim status in the criminal proceedings in question to seventy-two people. Most of the applicants were granted that status during the period of June-August 2005, when they were questioned by investigators from the military prosecutor’s office. Certain residents were refused victim status in those criminal proceedings because they had been granted that status in the proceedings against Lieutenant A., or because they had not demonstrated that any damage had been caused to them (see paragraph 132 below).      Summary of the investigative measures 49 .     By 1 October 2005 the investigating authorities had questioned over 1,500 witnesses (including village residents and service personnel), collected DNA samples from some of the missing men’s relatives, examined thirty-eight locations (including the burned-out houses, the village school and the headquarters of the Vostok Battalion), and subjected to forensic examination 629 items of firearms, the bodies of all those killed, and the remains of the burned-out houses. 50.     The investigators also examined documents from the respective headquarters of the UGA and of the Vostok Battalion, the military commander’s office of the Shelkovskoy district and the Shelkovskoy district police department. 51 .     In late 2006 the investigators asked local radio and television companies whether they had broadcast any material about the events in the village of 4 June   2005. The companies replied in the negative.      Evidence given by village residents 52 .     The male village residents who had been detained at the school were interviewed by the investigators in June and July 2005. According to them, on 4 June 2005 armed men speaking Chechen had arrived at the village in military vehicles, gathered all the male residents of the village aged above sixteen into the local school, collected their passports, and asked them about their ethnicity; they had then released ethnic Chechens and ordered ethnic Avars to remain on the school’s premises. The armed men had questioned the Avars about the incident of 3 June 2005 and had ill-treated them until the late evening, when they had left the village, taking several village residents with them. The witnesses identified the armed men as soldiers from the Vostok Battalion, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Y. 53.     The female village residents described the events that had taken place outside the school. 54.     When questioned on 8 June and on 6 July 2005 applicant no.   26 stated that on 4 June 2005, she had seen a large group of people in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas armed with automatic rifles and portable grenade launchers at Lenina Street, where she lived. She had been told by other villagers that her son, Mr Murtuz Umarov, had been taken by the armed men into the school. Other villagers had been released from the school at about 10 p.m. on that day, but not her son and his friend, Mr   Eduard Lachkov. Late in the evening, she had seen a group of armed men, including Lieutenant G. (also known as “Khamzat”). Several other witnesses had seen him among the armed men who had surrounded the burning houses. According to two witnesses, he had given the order for the houses to be set on fire. 55 .     When questioned on 23 June 2005 applicant no. 1 stated that on 4   June 2005 at about 2.30 p.m. a group of armed men in military vehicles had taken away her husband, Mr   Kamil Magomedov, and his passport. The applicant and her relatives had gone to the village school and had remained nearby until about 7.30 p.m., when they had seen about five vehicles approaching from the south. Shortly thereafter the applicant had heard sounds of several explosions and shooting from automatic weaponry. The armed men who had guarded the school had appeared to be nervous; they had talked in Chechen between themselves and had ordered the locals away from the school. The applicant had returned home. At about 8:30 p.m. between five and seven armed men in Vostok Battalion t-shirts and armed with automatic rifles had entered her house at 27   Mayakovskogo Street. One of them had hit the applicant in the chest; another had hit her daughter-in-law. The armed men had insulted the applicant and her family and had forced them to move outside and then to move about 50 metres away from the house. They had then poured liquid from a jerry-can onto the floor of the house and fired at the house with their weapons. When they had left after 9   p.m. the applicant and her family had extinguished the flames. The applicant’s husband had not returned home, and she had had no news from him since that evening. 56 .     When being interviewed on 23 June 2005 Mr Nazarbek M., who had lived at 9   Lenina Street in a house belonging to his son, Mr Said Magomedov, stated that at about 8 p.m. 4 June 2005 he had been standing in front of the house when a group of four or five armed men in camouflage trousers and t-shirts with the words “Vostok Battalion” had approached him. One of the men had knocked him to the ground, put the automatic rifle to his head and threatened to kill him if he moved. Then the men had dragged him along the street, with his face down on the ground. Shots had been fired, and the man who had been manhandling him had run away. He had seen the house at 9   Lenina Street on fire. Then several UAZ and VAZ vehicles had arrived and another group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had surrounded the burning house. Mr Nazarbek M. had not been able to approach his house and extinguish the fire since the armed men had threatened him with automatic rifles. 57 .     Applicant no.   11, who had lived at 9   Naberezhnaya Street, was questioned on 25 June 2005. She stated that at about 8 p.m. on 4 June 2005 she had been outside of her house when she had seen smoke and had heard gunfire coming from Lenina Street. The applicant had been frightened and had gone home but had been prevented from entering it by a group of armed men. Some of them had had balaclavas on their heads, Vostok Battalion t ‑ shirts and camouflage trousers. The men had fired at the house and set it on fire. The applicant had heard her husband give a scream in the courtyard and several explosions. Then a group of twenty armed men had arrived and encircled the house, so that no one could approach it. The armed men had left two or three hours later. On the following day the body of the applicant’s husband had been found inside the burned-out house. 58 .     Applicant no.   10 (the daughter of applicant no. 11), was questioned on 28 June and on 4 October 2005. Her statement was similar to that of her mother. In addition, she submitted that the armed men had first checked her family’s passports and had then taken her father, Mr Magomazov, into the house. She had first heard the sounds of blows and her father screaming inside the house, and then rounds of automatic gunfire and explosions. After setting the house on fire, the first group had left the place and then a larger group of armed men in camouflage and balaclavas had arrived. They had surrounded the house and had not allowed anyone to approach until the house had burned to the ground. 59.     Other witnesses confirmed that they had seen armed men in Vostok Battalion t-shirts who had set fire to several houses. The witnesses also described the arrival of several cars carrying up to twenty armed men wearing camouflaged fatigues without clear insignia, who had surrounded the burning houses, preventing the residents from approaching the site or extinguishing the fires. 60.     In their subsequent statements the villagers detailed the compensation paid to them in the aftermath of the events. Thus, for example, Mr Abdurakhman M. stated on 27 July 2005 that he had received 200,000 roubles (RUB) for the losses that he had sustained. He and his family had returned to the village at the end of June 2005, but after another security incident they had decided to move to Dagestan. He stated that he expected further compensation in the amount of RUB   350,000.      Evidence by anonymous witnesses 61 .     On 24 June 2005 three anonymous witnesses with the code names “Magomed Gaydarov”, “Khabib Kurbanov” and “Ruslan Yelgushiyev” gave evidence about the events on Naberezhnaya Street and Lenina Street. According to them, between 7.30 and 8 p.m. three to five men in camouflage trousers and armed with automatic rifles and grenades had poured gasoline over the houses and set fire to them. One of the witnesses had seen an armed man entering the house at 9   Nabereznaya Street and had heard the sounds of gunfire and explosions coming from inside the house. The armed men had not allowed people to approach the houses. After a while they had run into the forest and a new group of men under the command of Lieutenant G. arrived. The second group had pursued the first group into the forest and had then returned. The witnesses gave detailed descriptions of the arsonists and were ready to identify them from photos. 62 .     On 25 June and 29 October 2005, the investigators carried out a crime-scene   reconstruction at the village, assisted by “Ruslan Yelgushiyev” and “Magomed Gaydarov”. 63 .     At various dates in 2005 “Ruslan Yelgushiyev” identified the bodies of Sultan Akh. and Sultan Ab. He stated that those men had set on fire the houses at 9 and 11   Lenina Street.   “Khabib Kurbanov” identified Sultan Ab. and A.M. as the men who had set on fire the house at 27   Mayakovskogo Street. In December 2005 and January 2006 “Magomed Gaydarov” identified two men killed on 11 December 2005 in the Kurchaloy district (see paragraph 101 below) as those who had committed arson at 9   Naberezhnaya Street.      Special message, operations report and record no. 535 in the crime registration log of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior 64 .     On 6 June 2005 the Chechen Ministry of the Interior received a special message, with an operations report dated 5 June 2005 attached thereto. The documents were prepared by the duty unit of the Chechen Ministry of the Interior and were for official use only. They read as follows: “At 8.30 p.m. on 5 June 2005 the duty unit of the Chechen Ministry of the Interior received a message from the soldier on duty at the Shelkovskoiy district police station. According to it, seventy or eighty Vostok Battalion soldiers in two APCs, three armoured Ural lorries, and six or eight UAZ vehicles carried out a special operation aimed at arresting members of an illegal armed group in [the village] between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. on 4 June 2005. They arrested eleven men on suspicion of having committed criminal offences: [List of the eleven men]. The aforementioned people are not registered in the database of the Chechen Ministry of the Interior. For unknown reason a fire broke out in [the village]. It damaged the houses at the following addresses: [List of the four houses and their owners]. The circumstances of [Mr Magomazov’s] death are the subject of the ongoing investigation ... The arrested men are being checked for membership in an illegal armed group ...” 65 .     On the basis of the above report, entry no.   535 was made in the crime registration log of the Chechen Ministry of the Interior at 8.15 p.m. on 5 June 2005. It reads as follows: “On 4 June 2005, between 3 and 8.30 p.m., the Vostok Battalion carried out a special operation in [the village]. They burned down four houses: [List of the burned-out houses and their owners]. They also drove away to an unknown destination: [Names of the eleven men].” 66.     On 2 July 2005 the investigators questioned an officer of the Shelkovskoy district police who had visited the village shortly after the attack. Having questioned village residents she reported to the Shelkovskoiy District police that the arson, arrests and killings had been committed “by people who had introduced themselves as Vostok Battalion soldiers”. 67 .     On the same day the investigators questioned the police officer from the duty unit of the Chechen Ministry of the Interior who had prepared the special message and the operations report. According to him, because he had read it in a hurry, he had misinterpreted the crime-scene report and hence had erroneously informed the Chechen Ministry of the Interior that the attack had been perpetrated by service personnel from the Vostok Battalion. 68.     On 1 August 2005 the officer who wrote entry no. 535 stated that it had been formulated on the basis of the information received from the duty unit of the Chechen Ministry of the Interior. 69.     Later on the same day the investigators checked the Ministry of the Interior’s database. It said that one of the eleven men, Said Magomedov, had been wanted since October 2005 on suspicion of committing fraud.      Witness evidence given by military personnel and police officers    Military commander of the Shelkovskoy district 70 .     The commander stated that on the evening of 4 June 2005 he had met Lieutenant G. as he had been leaving the village with a group of soldiers. Lieutenant G. had told him that members of an illegal armed group had burned down several houses in the village and escaped to the forest. The commander had not seen any detainees in the battalion’s vehicles.    Lieutenant Colonel Y. 71 .     Lieutenant Colonel Y. stated that he had been on sick leave between 2 and 7 June 2005. During that period had been was replaced by Lieutenant G., who had informed him of the events of 3 June 2005. At some point later Lieutenant G. had made a telephone call to Lieutenant Colonel Y. and had told him that an illegal armed group headed by S. Akh had been responsible for the attack of 3 June 2005. 72.     Between 4 and 7 June 2005 the Vostok Battalion had been ordered to take part in the special operation in the area around the village. Lieutenant Colonel Y. had not been informed of any incidents occurring during that operation; about two weeks later he had learned that Vostok Battalion personnel had carried out identity checks in the village and had detained male residents. 73.     According to Lieutenant Colonel Y., on 4 June 2005 the insurgents had worn Vostok Battalion uniforms in order to incite violence against Vostok Battalion personnel.    Lieutenant G. 74.     Lieutenant G. stated that on 3 June 2005, he had gone to the village to help T. Akh’s family to organise his funeral. He had been accompanied by about thirty subordinate military personnel. Local people had told him that the attack of 3 June 2005 had been perpetrated by an illegal armed group headed by S. Akh. After assisting with the funeral, the soldiers had returned to Gudermes. 75.     On the same day, 3 June 2005, Lieutenant G. had received two operational instructions. In accordance with those instructions several groups of soldiers had been formed and ordered to search the area in the vicinity of the village. 76.     The groups had left the duty unit of the Chechen Ministry of the Interior between 2 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 4   June 2005. One of the groups had been headed by Lieutenant A. 77.     At about 8 p.m. on 4 June 2005 Lieutenant G. had arrived at the village to check the conduct of the special operation. Having determined that the Vostok Battalion soldiers under the command of Lieutenant A. had arrested village residents, he had reprimanded Lieutenant A. for exceeding his powers and ordered him to release the people. The latter had immediately complied with the order. 78.     When Lieutenant G. had been at the village school, he had heard screams and seen smoke rising from the centre of the village. He had gone there with a group of soldiers under the command of Sergeant G. in two UAZ vehicles and two VAZ cars. 79.     At Lenina Street he had seen two burning houses and ordered the subordinate personnel to surround them in order to prevent villagers from entering the houses. The village residents had told him that the houses had been set on fire by men in Vostok t-shirts. 80 .     Shortly thereafter he had seen smoke rising from other parts of the village. Together with his soldiers he had gone to Naberezhnaya Street, where he had heard automatic gunfire rounds and grenade explosions. A house had been burning. The outraged locals had told him that four or five men wearing Vostok Battalion uniforms had started the fire. Lieutenant G. had then realised that the military personnel could not have been involved in the arson, because all of them had remained at the school. He had ordered Sergeant G.’s to arrest the perpetrators. 81 .     After that Lieutenant G. had returned to the school. On the way there he had met the military commander of the Shelkovskoy district and had told him about the events. Once at the school, Lieutenant G. had ordered Lieutenant A.’s group to return to Gudermes. At about 9.30   p.m. the soldiers had left the village; soon afterwards Lieutenant G. had ordered the members of Sergeant G.’s group to return to their base. None of the village residents had been taken to the duty unit of the Chechen Ministry of the Interior.    Lieutenant A. 82.     Lieutenant A. acknowledged that, in breach of the order given by his commander, he had entered the village with a group of soldiers, searched the residents’ houses, arrested eighty-four men and forcibly detained them in the local school for several hours. 83.     Lieutenant G. had arrived at the school at about 8 p.m., scolded him for the breach of instructions and ordered him to release the local people. Lieutenant   A. had complied with that order. 84.     Thereafter, Lieutenant G. had seen smoke rising from the centre of the village and had gone there with a group of soldiers. He had found out that insurgents had set fire to several houses. He had returned to the school at about 9.20 p.m. Ten minutes later the soldiers had left the village. According to Lieutenant A., the soldiers had not set houses on fire or taken away local men and killed them.    Vostok Battalion personnel 85.     Twenty-seven soldiers submitted that they had visited the village together with Lieutenant G. to assist at the funeral of their colleague’s father on 3   June 2005. 86 .     Eighteen soldiers submitted that under Sergeant G.’s command they had searched the forest surrounding the village from 2 a.m. until 7 p.m. on 4   June 2005. Lieutenant G., with a group of soldiers, had met them at about 8   p.m. on that day. Together they had gone to the local school, where Lieutenant G. had scolded the other group of soldiers for arresting village residents. Then they had seen smoke and flames rising from the centre of the village and heard screams. Lieutenant G. had ordered them to accompany him to Lenina Street, at the centre of the village, and then to Mayakovskogo and Naberezhnaya Streets. They had been told that the houses had been set on fire by men in Vostok Battalion t-shirts. From Naberezhnaya Street, they had pursued the perpetrators, but had then been recalled for security reasons. Their column had left the village at about 9.30   p.m. They had not detained