CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB181C5A8 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s424290C5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s8F319F86 { margin-bottom:12pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s14E640BA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s9B1FC0F4 { margin-left:12.7pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s93D4590B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA170CB6 { margin-left:0.86pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s958A29C0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:30.49pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC6D26D8E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.81pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEB4DEF1F { font-family:Arial; color:#161616 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { 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-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4B52A9A9 { 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-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; 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 } .sA50A48B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s1B7C2278 { width:122.41pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION CASE OF ISRAILOV v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 21882/09 and 6189/10)   JUDGMENT   Art 2 (procedural) • Russian authorities’ failure to comply with procedural obligation to cooperate with Austrian authorities in the investigation into the murder of the applicant’s son in Austria • Jurisdiction ratione loci • Existence of special features establishing jurisdictional link between Russia and the applicant’s complaint about the lack of an effective investigation • Austria’s detailed criminal investigation aimed at clarifying circumstances surrounding the murder and identity of those responsible • Austrian authorities’ legal assistance request as regards presence in Russia of important witnesses, including alleged perpetrator of the murder • Application of the principles formulated in Güzelyurtlu and Others v.   Cyprus and Turkey [GC] concerning a Contracting State’s procedural duties in respect of a murder committed outside its territory • In specific case circumstances, establishment of all relevant facts and responsibilities only possible with Russia’s cooperation • Russian authorities under a duty in case at hand to render any assistance within their authority and means in respect to evidence sought located in Russia • Response to legal assistance request constituting in substance a refusal • Given context and delay in response which negatively affected the criminal proceedings in Austria, refusal devoid of any legitimacy • Failure to make minimum effort required Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Art 5 • Deprivation of liberty • Applicant’s allegations in respect of ill-treatment and unacknowledged detention in a secret place in Chechnya sufficiently convincing and established beyond reasonable doubt • Government’s failure to provide a plausible explanation to rebut presumption of responsibility on the part of the Russian authorities to account for applicant’s fate and treatment • Ineffective investigation • Applicant’s ill-treatment amounting to torture • Acts of violence caused severe physical and mental suffering which was inflicted intentionally • Arbitrary detention STRASBOURG   24 October 2023   FINAL   24/01/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Israilov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Yonko Grozev,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   21882/09 and 6189/10) 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 a Russian national, Mr Sharpuddi Elfirovich Israilov (“the applicant”), on 14 April 2009 and 20 January 2010 respectively; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints raised under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the sitting judges of the Court to act as ad hoc judge, applying by analogy Rule 29 §   2 of the Rules of the Court (see, for the similar situation and explanation of the background, Kutayev v. Russia , no. 17912/15, §§ 5-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 26 September 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications concern the manner in which the Russian authorities discharged their procedural obligations in relation to the murder of the applicant’s son (Mr Umar Israilov) in Austria in 2009, which was allegedly committed with their connivance. They also concern the alleged ill-treatment and arbitrary detention of the applicant in the Chechen Republic (Chechnya) in 2004-2005 and the illegal search of his apartment and seizure of a sum of money upon his arrest, as well as the lack of an effective investigation into all these events. The applicant cited Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol no.   1 to the Convention. THE FACTS BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.     The applicant is originally from Chechnya in the Russian Federation. Prior to the events described below, he and his family lived in the village of Mesker-Yurt (in the Shali District), Chechnya. In 2006 he left Russia; he is keeping his current whereabouts secret for security reasons. On 17   October 2016 the applicant was granted leave to present his own case in the proceedings before the Court under Rule 36 § 2 in fine of the Rules of Court. After the submission of his observations, the applicant was represented by Ieva Zigure, a lawyer practising in Oslo, Norway. The Government were initially represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by his successor in that office, Mr   M.   Vinogradov. 3.     The facts concerning the applicant’s son, Umar (also known as “Alikhan”) Israilov – particularly before the latter left Russia in 2004 – and the facts concerning the applicant’s alleged detention and ill-treatment were points of dispute between the parties. In the statement of the facts of the case given below, the description of the relevant events is based essentially on the applicant’s detailed submissions to the Russian authorities and to the Court and, as indicated below, on the documents that he relied upon. At the same time, due regard is given below to the Government’s denial of the above ‑ mentioned facts and (where they have been formulated) to their comments regarding the applicant’s statement of the facts. While they considered overall that the applicant’s factual submissions with respect to the above-mentioned events were not supported by objective evidence sufficient to establish that the applicant and Umar Israilov had been under the Russian authorities’ control, they also pointed, as noted below, to a few specific doubts and “contradictions” (as they called them) in the applicant’s statement of the facts. EVENTS CONCERNING Mr Umar Israilov’s DETENTION, service in the security forces in CHechnya and FLIGHT ABROAD Umar Israilov’s detention (April-July 2003) and service in the security forces (July 2003-August 2004) 4.     It appears undisputed between the parties that around 2001 the applicant’s son from his first marriage, Umar (“Alikhan”) Israilov, joined an illegal armed group that was active in Mesker-Yurt. 5.     According to the applicant, having been captured in April 2003 by servicemen from the “oil regiment” ( нефтеполк ), Umar Israilov was detained until July 2003 (mostly in Tsentoroy in the Kurchaloy District) on the direct orders of Ramzan Kadyrov, who later became the President of the Chechen Republic (a constituent republic of the Russian Federation). Umar Israilov’s detention in Tsentoroy, where Ramzan Kadyrov was born and his secret service had its base, was not officially documented. 6.     After three months, during which Umar Israilov was regularly subjected to interrogations (accompanied by torture and beatings – often in the gym of the Tsentoroy base in the presence of or with the participation of Ramzan Kadyrov himself and of his close commanders) Umar Israilov was invited by Ramzan Kadyrov to join his security service. In order to avoid the likelihood of being subjected to ill-treatment that was more serious, Umar Israilov accepted. After being assigned basic security tasks, in April 2004 he was ordered by Ramzan Kadyrov to take charge of the security situation in Mesker-Yurt, his native village, where he was expected to confront and eradicate rebel activity. 7.     This complex situation – as well as his involvement in a serious car accident and his subsequent convalescence – prompted Umar Israilov to decide in the summer of 2004 to secretly leave Chechnya and Russia, under a false identity, together with his wife. 8.     Shortly after arriving in Poland, in November 2004, Umar Israilov received a call on his mobile telephone from a person whose voice he immediately recognised as that of Ramzan Kadyrov. The caller asked him to inform “Alikhan” (the name that Umar Israilov used in his day-to-day life) that he (that is, the caller) would kill Umar Israilov’s father and several other relatives that he had captured if “Alikhan” did not return to Chechnya. Umar Israilov identified himself and replied that he would not come back. He and his family left Poland, fearing for their safety, and settled in Austria. 9.     In September and October 2006, during the proceedings in respect of Umar Israilov’s application for asylum in Austria, Human Rights Watch supported the credibility of his allegations by referring also to the consistency of the applicant’s and his family member’s statements, the similarity of their and other detainees’ respective sketches of the base in Tsentoroy, and their agreement on the identity of those who had engaged in torture on that base (see also paragraphs 14-16 below). The applicant’s detention and subsequent events until his departure from Chechnya Detention of the applicant and other family members 10 .     According to the applicant, on 27 November 2004 officers of the security service of the President of Chechnya (commonly known as kadyrovtsy ), acting under the order of Ramzan Kadyrov – who at the time in question was deputy prime minister – detained him, his wife (Mrs   Sh.V.) and Umar Israilov’s sister-in-law (his wife’s sister – Ms E.S.). 11 .     The applicant, who was in charge of a working team employed by company K. at a construction site near Severnyy airport, was detained at his workplace by a group of armed men driving a Lada car and headed by someone the applicant identified as S.-E.I., and who was known by the nickname “Razvedchik” (intelligence officer). Sh.V. was already in the car because they had gone to her at the applicant’s apartment and forced her to leave her minor children there and to guide them to the applicant’s working place. The men told the family that they were looking for Umar Israilov. According to the applicant’s and Sh.V’s later statements (see paragraphs 34 and 42 below), the same men searched the applicant’s apartment and seized a number of items there, including his personal documents and a large amount of cash. The search-and-seizure operation was not documented in any manner. According to Sh.V., the servicemen were allowed to pass the checkpoint of the military restricted area near the airport in order to remove the applicant from his workplace. Moreover, E.S’s arrest was witnessed, according to the latter, by her sister (who made a statement to that effect in July 2007) and by her neighbours. 12 .     The three detainees were taken to the security base in Tsentoroy. Sh.V. was allowed to return home later the same day. While she was at the security base, she saw the servicemen showing her husband the purse where they kept their cash and also witnessed him being beaten in the courtyard of the base. 13 .     The applicant was beaten upon arrival at the base. He was then taken to the gym and remained there for some time. In the gym he was beaten again by eight individuals – three of whom he was able to recognise. They hit him with a rifle butt and a stick, his hands having first been tied to an exercise machine and his feet tied to a billiards table. He was also subjected to electric shocks administered with a machine resembling a field telephone (which had a rotating handle). Whenever the applicant lost consciousness, he had cold water poured over him and the beatings would then continue. During the ill ‑ treatment, the applicant was repeatedly asked where his son was and whether he could force him to return. 14 .     The applicant submitted that he had been held at the gym in Tsentoroy for about four days. He gave a detailed description – including a sketch – of the premises (a courtyard, gym, two cells, and so on) and of the treatment to which he was allegedly subjected. He named some of the individuals that he had recognised among both the officers and among the other detainees whose ill-treatment he had witnessed, and provided the name (J.) and photograph of the head of the Tsentoroy base who had been present in the gym. The applicant recognised individuals whose kidnappings and (in the case of at least two of them – Ramzan Kadyrov’s former security officer in charge of Mesker-Yurt, Supyan Ekiyev, and a village mayor, Said-Ali Iriskhanov) torture and subsequent death were reported by an NGO, the Memorial Human Rights Centre (“Memorial”) and local media at the beginning of 2005. While he was chained bleeding in the gym, he witnessed one visit by Ramzan Kadyrov, and Mr Kadyrov’s involvement in the torture of some detainees (including Supyan Ekiyev, who was subjected to electric shocks that left him with traces of burns). After Ramzan Kadyrov left, one of his guards told the applicant that he had called Umar Israilov in Poland, finding his number in the applicant’s mobile telephone, which had been seized after his arrest. 15 .     The applicant suffered a number of injuries: several of his teeth were knocked out; deep wounds were inflicted on his legs by the wires with which they had been tied while he was being tortured with electric shocks; and his ribs were bruised (see paragraph 32 below for the forensic expert examination performed later). 16 .     E.S., Umar Israilov’s sister-in-law, submitted a detailed statement dated 20 June 2007 confirming that during her stay at the base in Tsentorory, shortly after the applicant’s arrest, she had seen the applicant being ill-treated – including in the gym. 17 .     According to the applicant, on 1 December 2004 all of the detainees held at the Tsentorory base were transferred to the security service headquarters located in Gudermes. The applicant’s detention there lasted for more than 300 days. This base (known as the “Vega base”) was located next to the local boxing club, and the applicant submitted to the domestic authorities a detailed description of the premises and of the treatment to which he had been subjected there. On the basis of information provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Chechen Republic, the Government formally contested the existence of a military base known as the “Vega base” in Gudermes. 18 .     According to the applicant, the detainees were allegedly kept in three cells located in the cellar of a two-storey building. While in detention there, the applicant saw more than one hundred people, some of whom were security officers who had behaved inappropriately in some way. Many had been beaten and tortured; the majority of those detained there were later released. According to the applicant, he was not beaten during the time in which he was held in Gudermes. He submitted that he had been detained there for several months together with three brothers (with the family name of Ch.) who had been reported by Memorial to have been kidnapped (allegedly by the “oil regiment”). He also witnessed the detention of a 70-year-old man (the father of a rebel leader, Doku Umarov), whose kidnapping and subsequent secret detention had been widely reported. The 70-year-old was not ill-treated during the time that they had both been held in Gudermes. 19 .     The applicant’s cell measured less than ten square metres; at times there were as many as ten detainees in it, and the conditions were appalling. The cell was damp and cold, and the toilets were situated in the yard. The applicant was taken for a bath only twice during his stay; he was rarely allowed to wash himself under a tap or to change his clothes; the food was basic and no medical aid was available. The applicant had no official contact with the outside world, but a few weeks into his detention he managed to pass a message to his wife. From March 2005 onwards the applicant’s wife regularly went to the base and brought him clean clothes and toiletries, which were sometimes accepted by the guards. Through the assistance of guards, they also managed to have two brief meetings. E.S. spent about two months at the same base before her release. She described her stay there as “terrible”. The cell was located in the cellar, so the walls were damp. The guards took the women to the toilets outside three times a day. Detainees had hardly any opportunity to wash themselves or to change their clothes. While at the base, E.S. did not see the applicant, but was informed of his presence by other detainees. 20.     During the period of the applicant’s detention he and his family members did not lodge any complaints with the authorities for fear of further reprisals. The applicant’s release and the authorities’ preliminary inquiry into events before his departure from Chechnya 21 .     According to the applicant, he was released on 4 October 2005, on the first day of the Ramadan fast. As he was being released, one of the commanders, S.I., told him that he should not tell anyone about his stay there. He said that the applicant’s detention had never officially happened and that there was no paperwork to confirm it. When he enquired about the documents and money that had been confiscated on 27 November 2004, the applicant was allegedly told by S.I. that the latter did not know anything about the money and that the applicant should return later to deal with the issue of missing documents. The applicant’s release and his physical and psychological state of health (significant weight loss, missing teeth and stuttering speech) were described in statements made by the applicant’s wife, Sh.V., and by his younger son, M.I., in July 2007 (see, in particular, paragraph   42 below). 22.     Following his release, the applicant tried for some time to recover the documents and money seized from his house by asking the base commanders in person that they be returned, but to no avail. He also allegedly lodged complaints with various authorities, although no copies of any such complaints have been retained. With respect to the above-mentioned statement of the facts, the Government expressed their doubts that a person who had been allegedly unlawfully detained (and moreover ill-treated) would voluntarily return to the premises where those events had happened. 23 .     In the meantime, on 12 October 2005 Mr Rudolf Bindig, a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights with respect to the situation in the Chechen Republic, sent a detailed letter to Mr   Vladimir   Ustinov, Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (“the Russian Prosecutor General”), requesting information about a number of reported killings and abductions, among which numbered Supyan Ekiyev’s killing and the applicant’s abduction on 27 November 2004 (see paragraph 91 below). 24 .     On 17 November 2005 the Grozny prosecutor’s office was alerted by a member of the Duma (the Russian Federal Parliament) about a number of alleged murders and abductions in Chechnya – including the applicant’s abduction and ill-treatment. On the same day the Shali district prosecutor’s office was instructed to provide information in that regard within two days. 25 .     On 18 November 2005 the applicant’s cousin, I.I., was questioned in that regard. He stated, inter alia , that towards the end of November 2004, the applicant’s wife had come to see him and his family and had told them that the applicant had been detained on 27 November 2004 at his workplace. He also stated that on a date that he could not remember – “for example at the end of September 2005” – the applicant himself had visited him and his family and had told them that he had been released the previous day. The applicant had not talked any more about his detention. In their observations, the Government pointed to the inconsistency between this statement and the date of release indicated by the applicant (namely, 4   October 2005). 26.     On the same day the Shali district prosecutor’s office refused to open criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s alleged abduction. The decision referred only to the introductory part of I.I.’s statement, in which he had mentioned that the applicant had moved to Grozny in 2003 and had been living there for some time. 27 .     On 6 December 2005, in reply to Mr   Rudolf Bindig’s letter (see paragraph 23 above), the Russian Prosecutor General informed Mr Bindig of, inter alia , the refusal to open criminal proceedings on the grounds that checks made had not confirmed the information provided in his letter concerning the applicant’s abduction. The Prosecutor General’s reply also briefly affirmed that the killing of Supyan Ekiyev, who had been detained since 27   November 2004, had been justified by the fact that he had put up armed resistance to the Chechen security forces. 28.     On 26 January 2006, the Grozny prosecutor’s office quashed the Shali district prosecutor’s office decision of 18 November 2005, noting that the applicant’s cousin, I.I., had reported the applicant’s detention, and criticising the fact that no further evidence had been collected. 29 .     Summoned to the Shali district prosecutor’s office on 8 February 2006, the applicant was urged by the prosecutor to state that since November 2004 he had been away from home with a lover and that he had made up the above-mentioned story about his being kidnapped from his workplace in order to keep secret the real reason for his absence. The applicant understood that if he refused to sign a statement to that effect (which had already been drawn up for him, dated 9 February 2006) he would suffer further reprisals. He therefore signed it. 30 .     On 9   February 2006 the Shali district prosecutor’s office declared that it would not open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged kidnapping in November 2004, referring to the applicant’s above-mentioned statement. 31.     Subsequently, the applicant decided to leave Russia. He obtained passports for himself and his family and left the country on an unspecified date not later than August 2006. E.S. also left Russia in September 2006. 32 .     In August 2006 a forensic medical expert in Norway examined the applicant and noted that he had sustained injuries to his teeth, legs and feet. The expert concluded that the account given by the applicant of the violence to which he had been subjected in November 2004 was consistent with his physical injuries and reported physical symptoms (namely, pain in the left part of the chest, headaches and dysuria) and psychological symptoms (sleep disturbance and anxiety). The applicant’s complaints to the Russian authorities Preliminary inquiry until the opening of criminal investigations 33 .     Over the course of several months from October 2006 onwards the applicant and his son, Umar Israilov, sent several complaints to prosecutors in Russia. The applicant gave as his correspondence address a mailbox number located in the United States of America. 34 .     The applicant and his son gave detailed accounts of their detention and ill-treatment, indicating the dates on which (and places where) they had suffered that treatment (and the names of persons they had identified as the perpetrators), and requested the opening of a criminal investigation into their allegations. The applicant, in particular, described in detail his arrest on 27   November 2004, his subsequent ill-treatment in Tsentoroy and his detention at the “Vega base” in Gudermes; he also mentioned the search of his apartment and the seizure of a bag containing 178,000 Russian roubles (see paragraphs 10-15 and 17-18 above). The applicant further explained again that, when he had later been interrogated after his release, he had feared for his life and had not dared to refuse to sign the invented testimony about his alleged escapade with a lover (see paragraph 29 above). In some of his submissions the applicant mentioned not only his full name but also his nickname of “Ali”. This nickname was also used in several official documents signed by prosecutors and investigators in the criminal case concerning the applicant’s alleged detention and ill-treatment. It appears clear from those documents that the applicant was indeed also known as “Ali”. 35 .     On 2 February 2007 the Shali district prosecutor’s office, referring to a complaint that had been lodged with them by the applicant on 22 January 2007, refused to open criminal proceedings. That decision was taken following three interviews with witnesses. A security forces commander, S. ‑ E.I., testified that he had known the applicant’s son, who had worked for the security forces and had subsequently been in charge of these forces in Mesker-Yurt for a while; however, he had not known the applicant or his other relatives, whom he had not arrested. The applicant’s sister, Z.E.A., testified that she had found out from the applicant’s wife, Sh.V., about his detention; moreover, the applicant himself had told her that upon his return he had been summoned by the Shali district prosecutor’s office and had testified that he had been away with a lover. She did not know which story was true. The third witness was the investigator who had taken the applicant’s deposition concerning his alleged escapade with a lover. The investigator reiterated the story about the alleged escapade. The decision of the Shali district prosecutor’s office also noted that in December 2006 Umar Israilov had been placed on the list of wanted persons because he faced charges relating to several serious crimes. On 22 February 2007 the above-mentioned refusal of 2   February 2007 to open criminal proceedings was also quashed and further investigative steps were ordered; in particular, the questioning was ordered of E.S., the Ch. brothers and the other individuals identified as co-detainees by the applicant, as well as of staff of the company from whose worksite the applicant had allegedly been arrested. 36.     Separately, on 21 February 2007, the Chechnya prosecutor’s office quashed the Shali district prosecutor’s office decision of 9   February 2006 (see paragraph 30 above). Criminal investigation into the applicant’s complaints (file no.   10021) 37 .     By a letter dated 12 March 2007, received by the applicant on 5   July 2007, the applicant was informed by the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny that it had examined his claims concerning his alleged illegal detention, ill-treatment, and other actions against him and his family. It was decided to open a criminal investigation file (no.   10021) in respect of his having been illegally deprived of his liberty and his having been ill-treated (Articles 117 and 127 of the Russian Criminal Code). The applicant received no procedural documents pertaining to that investigation. 38 .     The aforementioned decision to open a criminal investigation was based on a report drafted the same day, 12 March 2017, by the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office which indicated that there was sufficient initial data corroborating the statement of the facts given by the applicant with respect to his detention by Chechen special forces. In that respect, Z.I., the stepmother of rebel leader Doku Umarov, gave a statement to the effect that her aged husband had been arrested at the beginning of May 2005 for five months. Two brothers (A. and K., whose surname was Ch.) gave statements asserting that they remembered a co ‑ detainee who had been held in the basement cells in Gudermes who they had called “Ali” and who had told them that he had already been detained for about six months before they themselves had been placed in detention there at the beginning of May 2005. Ali had told them that he had been detained because his son had been a combatant and had later left the country. The witnesses stated that no detainee had ever been ill ‑ treated (Ali included), and that one of them remembered that Ali’s wife had visited him several times during the five months and four days that they had been detained. The two brothers also mentioned that their third brother, M., had also been taken into detention with them and that during the same period the aged father of the rebel leader Doku Umarov had also been detained. They had been released a few days after Ali’s release; one of the two brothers added that on the day of their release, they had an interview with the head of the detention centre, S.I. 39 .     During the investigation, the investigator solicited information from several institutions. Moreover, in the light of the applicant’s assertion contained in his statement dated 9 February 2006 that he had been arrested at his workplace near Severnyy airport, a certain construction company stated (in response to the investigator’s asking if the applicant had ever been on its payroll) that the applicant had never been its employee and that the company had never done any work at the above-mentioned airport construction site. 40 .     On 19 March 2007 an investigator from the Shali district prosecutor’s office ruled that the applicant should be granted victim status. The applicant did not receive a copy of that decision. 41.     The case was transferred to the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office; subsequently, on 12 June 2007, an investigator attached to that prosecutor’s office decided to terminate the investigation. 42 .     Apparently unaware of the above-mentioned decision of 12 June 2007, on 24 July 2007 the applicant, having just received the letter of 12   March 2007 (see paragraph 37 above), wrote to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny, asking it, inter alia , to “correct the omission” and open criminal investigations in respect of the theft of money by the security forces at the time of his arrest (in addition to investigating his complaints of ill-treatment and unlawful detention). He asked for copies of the various procedural decisions that had already been adopted in the course of the investigation and of those that would be adopted in investigation no.   10021; he also submitted copies of many documents that supported his allegations, and affirmed his and his family’s availability and willingness to give statements via letters rogatory, with the help of a Norwegian law office. The applicant described in detail in a twelve-page statement the facts about which he complained (see paragraphs 10 et seq. above) and referred to the written witness statements given by the applicant’s wife (Sh.V.), one of his children (M.I.), and four other relatives (including E.S.). He also submitted: photographs of his legs that showed traces of injuries allegedly inflicted by torture; sketches of the sports hall in which he had been tortured and of the building in which he had been detained; other photographs; reports issued by non-governmental organisations concerning his detention and the detention of the Ch. brothers (who had been held with him); and press cuttings. It appears from the file that, despite his lodging fresh requests (which were sent by registered mail in September 2007 and April 2008) for documents, he did not receive any more information from the authorities about the progress of the investigation into his complaints until March 2009 (see paragraph   52 in fine below). 43 .     On 21 December 2007 the head of the Gudermes criminal investigation service noted that the decision of 12 June 2007 to terminate the investigation (and to close file no.   10021) in respect of his illegal detention and ill-treatment was unfounded for failure to undertake the prescribed investigative actions and to clarify the facts of the case. He therefore quashed that decision and reopened the investigation, instructing the investigator to question a larger circle of witnesses in order to learn more about the applicant’s personality and his whereabouts, and to arrange for his questioning via letters rogatory. He also ordered that information be obtained regarding the serious criminal charges against the applicant’s son, Umar Israilov, and that it be ascertained why, given the seriousness of those charges, the local administration had provided only positive views about the applicant and his son. 44 .     After the above-mentioned instructions had resulted in several letters being sent to various authorities, the investigation was terminated on 24   January 2008 and – after that decision had been quashed because the requested investigative actions (see paragraph 43 above) had not been carried out – again on 21 March 2008. 45 .     On 13 January 2009, the applicant’s son, Umar Israilov, was murdered in Vienna, Austria (see paragraph 64 below). The murder and the initial findings of the ensuing investigation in Austria were widely covered in the global media. That media coverage included background information about Umar Israilov and the Chechen President, Ramzan Kadyrov, and the situation in Chechnya in general. 46 .     On 4 February 2009 the decision of 21 March 2008 to terminate investigation no.   10021 was quashed and the appropriate officials were instructed to send letters rogatory to Norway (where the applicant had been granted asylum). A couple of weeks later further investigative measures were ordered – in particular, instructions were issued for the interrogation of certain persons (who had been mentioned by the applicant) who worked for the security services of the President of the Chechen Republic. 47 .     Following (i) an order dated 24 February 2009 issued by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office for an investigation to be opened into the causes of Umar Israilov’s death in Vienna and (ii) in particular, the publication of an article in the Novaya Gazeta newspaper, on 4 March 2009 the Deputy Prosecutor of Chechnya ordered that investigative and procedural measures in that respect be undertaken – including, if necessary, the questioning of Ramzan Kadyrov and of persons in his inner circle. However, the latter decision was cancelled as premature a few days later by the head of the Chechnya Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (“the Chechnya investigative committee”) on the grounds that such measures were not necessary, given that one of the investigators was about to decide on the necessary investigative measures independently and, in that regard, was attempting to verify the information published in Novaya Gazeta (see paragraph 46 in fine above). 48.     In the following weeks the investigator obtained a letter from the Shali district medical agency stating that the applicant had not sought its help at any time between 2004 and 2006. A medical expert was commissioned to provide an expert opinion; however, that expert concluded that it was not possible to express any opinion on the applicant’s injuries on the basis of the photographs provided by the prosecutor. Several relatives of the applicant, when questioned, denied having had any knowledge about his alleged detention. 49 .     The applicant’s sister, Z.E.A., who had already been questioned in 2007, asserted in a statement that she gave to the prosecuting authorities that the applicant had been away from home between the end of 2004 and October 2005 and that upon his return he had told her that he had been detained with the aim of forcing his son, Umar Israilov, to return to Russia. He had appeared to be in good health. Z.E.A. added that several weeks later the applicant had admitted to her in private that he had never been detained but had escaped in the company of a woman. At the end of her testimony the applicant’s sister mentioned that she had learned from public sources of the murder in January 2009 of Umar Israilov in Austria. 50 .     In April 2009 two of the Ch. brothers – namely, A. and K., who had already been questioned (see also paragraph 38 above) – affirmed their previous assertions that they had been in detention for a period of time in 2005, when a person named “Ali” had been detained with them; however, in view of the time that had elapsed since then, they stated that they would not be able to recognise him if they saw him again. They also indicated that their third brother had not been detained. The text of the two brothers’ statements of April 2009, as recorded by the investigator, was identical. The third Ch. brother was also questioned and stated that he had never been detained and knew nothing of his brothers’ detention. 51 .     On 18 May 2009 the criminal investigation was terminated again. The decision referred essentially to the testimony of the applicant’s sister, Z.E.A. (see paragraph 49 above) and of the investigator before whom the applicant had signed a statement in February 2006 that he had never been detained but had escaped in the company of a woman. The testimony of the third Ch. brother (see the preceding paragraph) was mentioned but not that of the other two brothers. The decision further stated that it was not possible to establish the applicant’s whereabouts abroad and that no letters rogatory could therefore be sent. 52 .     After another decision to restart investigative measures (consisting mainly of sending letters requesting information, adding to file no.   10021 documents from the terrorism-related criminal file relating to Umar Israilov’s activities, and questioning again two witnesses who had first been questioned in 2007), on 19   June 2009 an investigator from the Gudermes investigation service quashed the decision concerning the applicant’s victim status (see paragraph   40 above). He repeated the reasons given in the decision of 18 May 2009 and considered that there was sufficient information to establish that no crime had been committed against the applicant. On 25 June 2009, the investigator refused a request lodged by the applicant (who had been informed of the decisions dated 6 March and 19 June 2009 to terminate criminal investigation no.   10021) for copies of documents from the investigation file on the grounds that he had lost his victim status. 53.     On 29 June 2009, upon re-examining the applicant’s complaints and the witness statements sent by the applicant to the prosecution authorities (see paragraphs 33-34 and 42 above), a junior investigator from the Gudermes investigation service submitted to his supervisor a proposal to sever the material concerning allegations that were not related to the crimes under examination by investigation no. 10021 – including the material concerning the illegal search and seizure of money on 27 November 2004 – and to open a separate investigation into those allegations in order to gather sufficient information as to be able to adopt a decision regarding those separate allegations. Later on the same day, a senior investigator from Gudermes retracted that proposal and confirmed the termination of the criminal investigation into all allegations concerning possible criminal acts, owing to a lack of credibility on the part of the applicant (and of his family in general) in view of the statements given by the other witnesses (see paragraphs 49-50 above). 54 .     It appears that the applicant did not receive a copy of the senior investigator’s decision of 29 June 2009 and that, more generally, he was not informed of most of the domestic authorities’ decisions, despite his having lodged renewed queries (in January and July 2010 respectively) regarding the progress of the investigation into the distinct events in which his son, Umar Israilov, and he himself had been involved. 55.     Separately, in July 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali District Court concerning the alleged inactivity of the prosecution service in respect of his case. A decision of that court dated 27   October 2010 confirming the refusal to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged detention and ill-treatment was partially quashed on 25   May 2011 by the Supreme Court of Chechnya, which referred the matter to the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny. The latter court decided on 21   June 2011 to partially terminate the proceedings. 56.     In February 2015, the authorities informed the applicant that he or his representative could come to the investigators’ office in order to acquaint himself with criminal file no.   10021. Umar Israilov’s murder and the investigation and trial in Austria Threats to Mr Umar Israilov, and the Austrian police’s actions 57.     In February 2007 Ramzan Kadyrov became the President of Chechnya. 58 .     In early June 2008 a man of Chechen origin (A.K.) approached Umar Israilov in Austria and said that he had been sent by Ramzan Kadyrov. A.K.   tried to persuade Umar Israilov to return to Chechnya, arguing – according to the applicant – that he could seek a pardon from Ramzan Kadyrov if he withdrew his allegatio