CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29048B37 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sFD1A6A23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s2AD04A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .s4009AD68 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:7pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD4F9A385 { width:4.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { 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; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .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 } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .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 } .sAE1ABF8F { width:36.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sEE48D15E { width:149.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } THIRD SECTION CASE OF F.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 71671/16 and 40190/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 4 • Positive obligations • Respondent State’s failure to fulfil substantive and procedural obligations to protect female migrant workers from trafficking and labour exploitation • Credible suspicion or prima facie evidence of applicants’ trafficking for labour exploitation triggered positive obligations • Applicants were victims of cross-border trafficking and servitude • Lack of adequate legislative and administrative framework to prohibit and prevent trafficking, forced labour and servitude, and to protect its victims • Authorities’ failure to take operational measures by identifying applicants as (potential) victims of trafficking and providing them protection and assistance • Lack of cooperation and assistance to civil society actors who supported applicants • Lack of criminal investigation into credible allegations of trafficking, forced labour, servitude and gender-based violence as tool of coercion fostered sense of impunity among traffickers, precluded applicants’ recovery from their traumatic experiences and deprived them of opportunity to seek compensation in respect of damage they had suffered, including earnings withheld by traffickers • Discriminatory attitude towards irregular female foreign migrant workers • Failure to cooperate effectively with other States concerned in cross-border trafficking cases Art. 14 (+ Art 4) • Discrimination • Domestic authorities’ inaction condoning trafficking, labour and gender-based violence and reflecting discriminatory attitude towards applicants as women who were foreign workers with irregular immigration status • Authorities’ general and discriminatory passivity created climate conducive to applicants’ trafficking and exploitation   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 10 December 2024   FINAL   10/03/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of F.M. and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis, President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović, judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the applications (nos.   71671/16 and 40190/18) 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 two Kazakhstani nationals, Ms F.M. and Ms A.M. (“the first and second applicants”), and two Uzbekistani nationals, Ms G.N. and Ms B.K. (“the third and fourth applicants”), on 25 November 2016, and by Ms N.I., a Kazakhstani national, on 15 August 2018 (“the fifth applicant”); the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the applications; the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed; the observations submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the AIRE Centre, which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an ad hoc judge, applying by analogy Rule 29 §   2 of the Rules of Court (see Kutayev v. Russia , no. 17912/15, §§ 5-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 12 November 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the respondent State’s alleged failure to comply with its positive obligations under Article   4 of the Convention to protect female migrant workers from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan who were victims of human trafficking and labour exploitation. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ details are set out in the appendix. 3.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. I.         Reports of the applicants’ alleged trafficking and exploitation and the russian authorities’ response 4 .     The applicants submitted a copy of the case file of preliminary inquiries conducted by the Russian investigation authorities into the applicants’ alleged trafficking between 2002 and 2016 from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to Russia for labour exploitation lasting between several months and ten years at convenience stores in the Golyanovo district of Moscow (“the Golyanovo stores”) belonging to nationals of the Russian Federation – the sisters Zhanar   I. (Z.I.) [1] and Zhansulu I. (Zh.I.) [2] and their respective husbands, Rashid M. (R.M.) and Saken M. (S.M.). The applicants also submitted medical documents, articles published in the media and other material in relation to their cases. The relevant documents can be summarised as follows. A.    Reports concerning the first and second applicants 1.      Communication of the International Organization for Migration 5 .     On 11 June 2010 the mission of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Moscow transmitted the following information concerning the labour exploitation of Kazakhstani nationals in Moscow, received from its partner channels in Kazakhstan, to the head of the Moscow Directorate General of Internal Affairs ( Главное управление внутренних дел по городу Москве ). On an unspecified date in May 2007, the first and second applicants, who are sisters, had been recruited in Kazakhstan by Ms   M.M., a Kazakhstani national, to work at a convenience store in Uralskaya Street in Moscow (“store U”). They had been transported to Russia by Mr R.M., the store owner, who had taken their identity documents away upon their arrival in Moscow. The store owners had exploited the applicants along with other workers (approximately 12 individuals), confining them in the store, giving them spoilt food and forcing them to drink alcohol. During official inspections the workers had been hidden, except for a few of them who had been given fake Russian identity documents. On 11   January 2009 the first applicant had given birth to a boy on the store premises and had then been taken to a hospital (presumably Moscow municipal clinical hospital no.   13). The store owners had misappropriated the birth registration documents and, two months later, had taken the boy away from his mother, announcing that he would be sent to southern Kazakhstan. The first applicant was unaware of the whereabouts of her son and sister. After her return to Kazakhstan, on the IOM’s recommendation the first applicant had submitted complaints to the police and the prosecutor’s office in Shymkent, at her place of residence. The IOM provided details about the applicants’ and their alleged traffickers’ identities and the location of the store, inviting the police to conduct an inquiry, to suppress possible criminal actions and to establish the whereabouts of the first applicant’s child and the second applicant. The IOM asked to be informed of the results of the inquiry in order to be able to notify the first applicant. The applicants’ dates of birth as provided in the communication indicated that at the time of their recruitment, they had been aged 18   years (the first applicant) and 17 years and between six and seven months (the second applicant). 6 .     Police officers of the Moscow Directorate General of Internal Affairs and the police department of the East Administrative Circuit of Moscow carried out a preliminary inquiry. They visited store U in the Golyanovo district of Moscow and on 13 July 2010 interviewed its manager, R.M., who acknowledged that the first applicant had worked in his store in the past. He denied any wrongdoing on his part. Several individuals presented as employees of the store gave similar statements (records of 26 July 2010). No traces of the workers living on the store premises were found. The police officers reported to their superiors that no evidence of unlawful confinement or the use of slave labour had been established. The results of the inquiry were transferred to the Golyanovo district police department, which on 5   August 2010 refused to institute criminal proceedings. On 12   August 2010 the Preobrazhenskiy inter ‑ district deputy prosecutor set the decision aside on the grounds that the inquiry had not been thorough and that it was necessary to interview the applicants. On 8   September 2010 the Golyanovo police department again decided to dispense with criminal proceedings, stating that the first and second applicants were in Shymkent, Kazakhstan, at the place of their permanent registration and could not therefore be interviewed. On the same day the prosecutor set the decision aside, on the grounds that it had been taken by an unauthorised body, and ordered that a preliminary inquiry be carried out by the Preobrazhenskiy inter ‑ district investigation unit of the Investigative Committee of Moscow (“the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit”). 7 .     On 17   September 2010 the investigator from the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of the offences of abduction and unlawful deprivation of liberty.   On 13   October 2010 the prosecutor wrote to the head of the unit, stating that the investigator had failed to establish the circumstances of the case and his decision was unfounded. The next day the recipient replied that it was obvious that an additional inquiry would not lead to a different outcome and that any shortcomings could be addressed without setting aside the investigator’s decision. On 13 November 2010 the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit instructed the Golyanovo police department to establish the circumstances of the first applicant’s employment at the store and to collect relevant documents (a permit for the employment of foreign migrant workers, a contract of employment, and documents relating to salary payments and accommodation). The Golyanovo police neighbourhood officer interviewed R.M., who stated that the first applicant’s contract of employment, including the information about the duration of her employment, had been destroyed (record of 17 December 2010). 2.      Legal assistance request from the Ministry of the Interior of Kazakhstan 8 .     On 28 July 2010 the Ministry of the Interior of Kazakhstan sent a legal assistance request to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Russia in relation to a criminal investigation in a case opened on 3 July 2010 into a complaint by the first applicant concerning offences allegedly committed against her and her minor sister, the second applicant. The request stated that in June 2010 the first applicant had run away from store U and had returned to Kazakhstan by train, without any identity documents. The measures sought in the request included, inter alia : interviewing the store owners; establishing the circumstances of the applicants’ recruitment, transportation, exploitation and the physical abuse to which they had allegedly been subjected in store U; establishing the location of and seizing the applicants’ identity documents; identifying all individuals employed in store U and interviewing them as witnesses, if necessary in the presence of a representative of the embassy of Kazakhstan in Russia; and obtaining documents relating to their employment and migrant status. 9 .     On 7 December 2010 the investigator from the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit questioned R.M. as a witness and inspected store U in R.M.’s presence, within the framework of the legal assistance request from the Ministry of the Interior of Kazakhstan. R.M. confirmed that the first and second applicants, both of whose parents had died, had been employed by him in the past. He denied committing any offences against them. He stated that the first applicant’s residence in Moscow had been registered and documents for her employment had been in place; however, all the documents had been destroyed. He asserted that all his employees were now Russian nationals employed in accordance with the labour legislation. His wife, Z.I., a national and permanent resident of Russia, was the co-owner (along with R.M.) of the company running the store. She was currently in Kazakhstan. The investigator inspected the store premises, which were located on the ground floor of an apartment block. He also inspected a basement room, noting that it had no lighting and could not sufficiently be lit with a pocket light. He concluded that there were no premises that were used as accommodation. 10 .     The results of the preliminary inquiry were communicated to the Ministry of the Interior of Kazakhstan. The investigation in Kazakhstan was suspended. B.    Events of 30 October 2012 concerning the fourth applicant 1.      Events of 30 October 2012 11 .     Between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 30 October 2012, Mr O.M. from Alternativa, an organisation of volunteers helping victims of slavery, arrived at a convenience store on Novosibirskaya Street in the Golyanovo district of Moscow (“store N”) together with other volunteers, journalists, in particular from the Novaya Gazeta newspaper and various television channels, and two women, who had arrived from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in order to help their daughters – the fourth applicant and Ms Z.A. – who had allegedly been exploited in store N for many years. The group entered the store and, filming the premises and staff and overcoming the resistance of the store owners – Zh.I. and S.M. – and their assistants, took a group of nationals of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan outside, including the fourth applicant and Ms   L.A. As for Ms Z.A., she, together with her baby, was taken outside another store located nearby. 12 .     According to eyewitnesses’ statements, in the course of the intervention Zh.I. left by car, taking with her one of the workers, Ms   R.K., and four children, including the fourth applicant’s son, Ms   L.A.’s son and two children of a former female worker, whose whereabouts were unknown. Zh.I.’s attempts to take away two other workers, Ms   M.A. and Ms   Z.B., failed owing to the journalists’ intervention. 13 .     The activists alerted the police that the owner of store N had forcefully kept women in the store and kidnapped their children. At midday officers from the Golyanovo district police department examined the store and seized two recorders, which were part of a video-surveillance system installed in the store premises, and a towel with stains resembling blood. On the same day the seized items were transferred to the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit, which was responsible for conducting the inquiry. 14 .     Mr O.M. and other volunteers accompanied the workers to the Golyanovo district police station, where they lodged complaints and were interviewed. 15 .     In their complaints the fourth applicant and Ms L.A., an Uzbekistani national, alleged that Zh.I. and S.M. had forced them to work without pay for ten years, confining them in store N under the threat of physical violence. They had lived in the store without passports and registration. They also complained about the abduction of their children earlier that day. 16 .     According to a record of her interview by a Golyanovo police officer on 30 October 2012, the fourth applicant stated, inter alia , that in November 2002 Zh.I. had recruited her (at the age of 25), promising a salary of between 800 and 1,000 United States dollars, and arranged for her travel from Uzbekistan to Moscow by train, together with Ms   L.A. Upon their arrival in Moscow, Zh.I.’s driver had picked them up at a railway station and taken them to store N, where S.M. had taken away their passports under the pretext of registration of their residence in Moscow. They had been forced by Zh.I. and S.M. to work without pay, registration of residence or a work permit, being subjected to regular beatings and confined in the store under the threat of violence. The fourth applicant had given birth, at Moscow municipal clinical hospital no.   36, to two children, whom Zh.I. had taken away from her. Her daughter, K., born in May 2003, had been sent at the age of a few months to Zh.I.’s relatives in Kazakhstan, where she had allegedly died of an unspecified disease. The applicant had rarely seen her son, who had been held in one of Zh.I.’s flats nearby. According to a record of her interview at 9.50   p.m. on the same day at the Golyanovo police station by the investigator from the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit, the fourth applicant stated that all workers had slept in the store premises on foam mats, which had been stored during the day in a van. Her employment had not been based on any documents. Zh.I. had constantly beaten her up. Her body had always been bruised and scarred. She had repeatedly asked the store owners to let her return home. They had kept saying that they would let her go soon and would pay her for the whole period of her work. She wished to receive her unpaid salary. 17 .     According to a medical certificate issued by the trauma centre of polyclinic no.   222 in Moscow, the fourth applicant was examined at 3 p.m. on 30   October 2012; the dislocation of a finger joint and multiple contusions of soft tissue of the ribcage and both shins were recorded. 18 .     When interviewed by a police officer at 1.45 p.m. on 30 October 2012, Ms   L.A. gave similar statements about her recruitment in Uzbekistan in 2002 (at the age of 16), her transportation to store N in Moscow together with the fourth applicant, her exploitation without pay and the physical violence to which she had been subjected for ten years by the same couple. Ms L.A. complained about the disappearance of her daughter, born in 2008, whom Zh.I. had taken to Kazakhstan six months previously, announcing later that the girl had been a victim of an accident. According to the record of her interview at 9.20 p.m. on 30   October 2012 at the Golyanovo police station by the investigator from the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit, Ms   L.A. stated that she had been dependent on the store owners and had therefore been unable to do anything to change her situation. Zh.I. and S.M. had many relatives and friends in Moscow who organised their businesses in the same way, notably by confining foreign migrant workers in their stores and making them work without pay. One such example was a store on Uralskaya Street in Moscow owned by M., whose workers were kept in the store, working without pay and being subjected to beatings. 19 .     According to statements by Ms Z.B., a Kazakhstani national, she had been recruited in Kazakhstan by S.M.’s sister, who in mid-October 2012 had bought her a flight ticket and taken her (at the age of 23) to Moscow. A driver sent by S.M. had picked them up at an airport and taken them to store N, where she had been received by Zh.I. and S.M., who had seized her passport under the pretext of registering her residence and obtaining other documents. He had also taken away her mobile phone, saying that workers were not allowed to call relatives. She had found herself among eight or nine other migrants who had been locked up in the store, working without pay and being subjected to beatings by S.M. and Zh.I. She had seen Zh.I. beating the fourth applicant, Ms L.A. and Ms R.K. 20 .     Two male workers, Kazakhstani nationals, gave similar statements to the police on 30 October 2012. One of them stated that upon his arrival at store N in December 2011, S.M. had seized his passport and mobile phone. He had been working without pay or any contract of employment. He had been living in the store premises along with seven other workers who, like him, had worked without pay. Zh.I. had regularly beaten him up. Another male worker stated that he had lived in the store along with other workers, whose identity documents had been kept by Zh.I. Three children had been confined in the store and ill-treated by Zh.I. 21.     At the police station Ms M.A., an Uzbekistani national, felt unwell and was taken to a hospital by the ambulance (see paragraph 33 below). 22 .     On the same day at the Golyanovo police station, the investigator from the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit interviewed the fourth applicant’s mother, Ms   T.K., an Uzbekistani national. She stated that her daughter had left for Moscow ten years earlier and that she had unsuccessfully tried to find her daughter since then. On 15 October 2012 she had learnt from a woman who had escaped from store N that her daughter had been unlawfully held and exploited in store N without pay, and had been dispossessed of her passport. Ms T.K. had travelled to Moscow together with Ms   T.A., whose daughter had been in a similar situation. On 28   October 2012 they had met with Mr O.M., who had promised to help. On 30 October 2012 she had entered the store together with Mr O.M. and others and taken her daughter out. She said that the store owner had subjected her daughter to beatings and forced labour. 23 .     The investigator also interviewed Mr O.M., who stated that on 28   October 2012 he had met with Ms T.A. and another woman, who had complained that their daughters and other girls from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan had been unlawfully held in store N and beaten up, and that their identity documents had been seized by the store owner. After a preliminary visit to the store Mr O.M. had contacted his collaborators and journalists. He described in detail the events of the morning of 30 October 2012, as a result of which a group of women had been taken out of the store and sheltered in a minibus before calling the police. On the same day one of the journalists who had participated in the visit to the store gave a statement in which she recounted the events of that day and the released women’s experiences. She noted that the enslaved women had several times complained to the Golyanovo district police department. However, instead of examining their complaints, police officers had returned them to the store owners, who had subjected them to severe beatings. The police had known about the unlawful situation of the workers and had sided with the store owners. 24.     At 1.05 p.m. on 30 October 2012 a police officer of the Golyanovo district police department interviewed R.M., who stated that he knew nothing about the abduction of children. At 11 a.m. that day S.M., his relative, had called him and asked to look after store N because all the sales assistants had been taken to the Golyanovo police station. 25.     At 6 p.m. on 30 October 2012 D.Kh., a neighbourhood police officer of the Golyanovo district police department, interviewed Ms S.I. She stated that she had learned about the abduction of children from the television news and had discussed the matter with her sister Z.I., who had called her at about 3.30 p.m. that day. She knew nothing more about the abduction. As regards her other sister, Zh.I., S.I. had not been in contact with her for a while after a quarrel. Zh.I. had not called her that day. 26 .     According to a report by a deputy head of the criminal search unit of the Golyanovo police department to his superior, at 6.10 p.m. on 30   October 2012 he received a call on his mobile phone from a woman who gave an address where the children could be found. He and two other police officers located the children and took them to the Golyanovo district police station, where they were reunited with their mothers (the fourth applicant and Ms   L.A.). 27 .     According to S.M.’s statements to the police on 30 October 2012, he was in possession of his workers’ documents, which he kept in the store. Between 10.30 p.m. and midnight on 30 October 2012 the investigator from the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit searched store N in S.M.’s presence. According to the record of the search, passports were found in a safe and seized. Mattresses were found in two vans parked near the back entrance to the store. S.M. explained that the mattresses were used by his workers to sleep on in the store. 28 .     The events of 30 October 2012 were widely reported in the media. In an article published on 2 November 2012, Novaya Gazeta described those events, together with photographs and the stories of seven released workers including the fourth applicant (relating her ordeal, including the removal of her daughter K., born in 2006), Ms L.A., Ms Z.A., Ms M.A. and Ms Z.B. It was reported that the interviews at the police station had lasted for 11   hours, after which the administration of the Golyanovo police department had decided to detain the released workers pending their deportation, prohibiting the women and children from leaving. Only after midnight had the workers been allowed to leave the police station owing to the journalists’ intervention. 29 .     After leaving the police station, the workers and their children were provided with shelter and meals by members of Alternativa and other volunteers. Next day the Civic Assistance Committee ( Комитет «Гражданское Содействие» – “the CAC”), a charitable non-governmental organisation (NGO) helping migrants and refugees, was contacted. The CAC provided the workers with accommodation, financial aid for basic needs, and legal, medical and other assistance. 2.      Ensuing inquiry 30 .     On 31 October 2012 investigators from the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit continued their interviews at the unit office. The fourth applicant and Ms   L.A. confirmed their previous statements.   Ms Z.A. gave similar statements about her exploitation in store N since 2006, when she had been brought to Moscow from Kazakhstan at the age of 14. Her birth certificate had been taken away by Zh.I., who had forced her by means of beatings to work without pay, along with ten other workers who had been prohibited under the threat of violence from leaving the store. Z.A.’s mother, Ms   T.A., a Kazakhstani national, was also interviewed, recounting her efforts to help her daughter. 31 .     Ms T.A. had previously complained to the Golyanovo district police department, and in May 2012 she had solicited the assistance of the Kazakhstani embassy in Moscow, which had requested the Golyanovo district police department, in a letter of 2 May 2012, to conduct an inquiry into her complaints. On 4 May 2012 D.Kh., a neighbourhood police officer from the Golyanovo district police department, had dismissed Ms T.A.’s complaints about her daughter’s forceful confinement at store N. His refusal to institute criminal proceedings had been based on statements by Ms Z.A. and Ms   L.A. (who was Z.A.’s aunt) denying any criminal conduct on the part of the store owners, and Ms   T.A.’s withdrawal of her application (see paragraphs 71 and 90 below). 32 .     According to records of their interviews on 31 October and 1   November 2012 by the investigators from the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit, Zh.I. and S.M. were Russian nationals who had immigrated to Russia from Kazakhstan in 1986 and 1993 respectively and had owned the company operating store N since 1999. They acknowledged that they had been employing migrant workers from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan “unofficially”, without employment contracts. S.M. acknowledged that the workers had given him their identity documents, which he had kept in the store. They denied that any violence had been used against the workers or that they had been confined at the store and asserted that they had paid them salaries and provided them with free meals and accommodation. The workers had allegedly been lodged in the store owners’ flat no. 3 in the same apartment block in which the store was located. The store owners occupied another flat, no. 37, in the same building. According to S.M., the fourth applicant’s and Ms L.A.’s sons were living in flat no. 37 together with him and his wife, whereas according to Zh.I., the children were living in flat no. 3 together with their mothers. As regards the alleged abduction of the children the previous day, Zh.I. explained her actions by her concern for the children’s safety. She acknowledged calling a police officer and informing him of the children’s location after learning about the media coverage of the situation at the store and the news about her abducting the children. According to a copy of Zh.I.’s passport, joined to the case file of the inquiry, one of her children was a girl, K., born on 4 July 2006. 33 .     At around 3 a.m. on 1 November 2012 the abduction and forceful confinement of Ms R.K. and the two children of a former worker (see paragraph 12 above) was reported to the police by Ms M.A. with the help of a journalist. Interviewed by the police, Ms   M.A. stated that she had been transferred from Uzbekistan into Zh.I.’s custody on 7 October 2012 (aged   22), having been deceived into believing that her art project would be sponsored by Zh.I. The latter had taken her to Moscow, seized her passport and mobile phone and brought her to store N, where she had been confined and exploited without pay, along with the fourth applicant and the other workers. Zh.I. had beaten her up. During the activists’ visit to the store on 30   October 2012 Zh.I. had ordered her and Ms   Z.B. to get out through a window in the storage room. Zh.I.’s sister, Z.I., who had been in a car with the workers’ children, had ordered Ms   M.A. and Ms Z.B. to get into the car, from which they had been pulled out by one of the journalists. The activists had then taken them to Golyanovo police station. Ms M.A. recounted having felt unwell at the police station and having been taken by the ambulance to hospital no. 54, from which she had been abducted at knifepoint by Z.I. and the latter’s daughter. Ms M.A. had spent the night and the following day in the custody of Zh.I., S.M., Z.I. and other individuals. For some of that time she had been held in a store belonging to Zh.I.’s friends together with Ms   R.K. and the two children of a former worker. On 31 October 2012 Zh.I. had unsuccessfully tried to send Ms M.A. to Kazakhstan by train. At a railway station Ms M.A. had escaped with the help of a stranger, who had taken her to the Golyanovo police station, where she had again met Mr O.M. and the journalists. 34 .     On the same day the police visited the store in which Ms M.A. had allegedly been held overnight, and interviewed individuals found there. One of them, the store owner’s son, confirmed that at 10 p.m. on 30 October 2012 his father’s friend, S., had brought two children and two women and asked him to shelter them. They had spent the night and the following day in the basement of the store. At 11 p.m. on 31 October 2012 S. had arrived and taken them away by car. 35.     On 1 November 2012 an initial inquiry into Ms M.A.’s report conducted by the Novogireyevo district police was transferred to the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit, which joined it on the same day to the inquiry concerning store N. 36.     On 2 November 2012 the Golyanovo police department inspected store U in the presence of R.M. It was reported that no children or other individuals had been found confined in the store. 37 .     On the same day Mr O.M. and two journalists who had witnessed the alleged abduction by Zh.I. of Ms R.K. and the children lodged complaints with the Golyanovo police department, requesting an investigation into the offences allegedly committed by Zh.I. and S.M., notably the abduction on 30   October 2012, the disappearance of the daughters of the fourth applicant and Ms L.A., and the forceful detention and ill ‑ treatment of the fourth applicant and the other women who had been exploited for slave labour. When interviewed by the police on the same day, the journalists stated, inter alia , that they had seen serious injuries to the bodies of the fourth applicant, Ms   L.A. and Ms Z.A., including scars, broken fingers, injuries to the chest and back, wrenched ears and knocked out teeth. During their visit to store N Ms R.K. had told them about her wish to get away from the store and her fears of reprisal by the store owners. Zh.I. had prevented Ms R.K. from leaving with the journalists. 38.     On 2 November 2012 the fourth applicant, Ms L.A. and Ms Z.A. lodged complaints with the Moscow Directorate General of Internal Affairs alleging that they had been subjected to slavery, confinement, ill-treatment, threats and torture by Zh.I., S.M. and, occasionally, their relative, Mr M.K. 39.     All the complaints were joined to the inquiry being conducted by the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit (as confirmed by its letter to the complainants of 9   November 2012). 40 .     On 3 November 2012 an investigator examined flat no. 3, belonging to Zh.I. and S.M., and found nothing relevant to the inquiry. 41 .     On the same day the investigator interviewed Mr D.L., a police officer who had been working at the Golyanovo district police department since 2006. D.L. stated that store N had regularly required police intervention. He recalled a complaint received from the Kazakhstani embassy two years earlier, concerning the alleged confinement and forced labour of a certain Ms   K. He also recalled that 6 to 12 months later Ms   L.A. had complained that her employers had taken away her children. The store owners in turn had accused her of stealing 100,000 roubles (RUB). The Golyanovo district police department had carried out a preliminary inquiry. Ms L.A. had eventually stated that she had no complaints against her employers and had continued working in the store. In all those cases the Golyanovo district police department had decided not to institute criminal proceedings. 3.      Decision to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the fourth applicant’s alleged deprivation of liberty and its setting aside 42 .     On 4 November 2012 a senior investigator from the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit, D.S., held that the information collected during the preliminary inquiry was sufficient to indicate the presence of the elements of an offence under Article 127 § 2 (g) of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty against two or more persons) committed against the fourth applicant and Ms L.A., who had arrived from Uzbekistan and had allegedly been deprived of their liberty and held in store N under the threat of violence between 2002 and 30 October 2012. It was therefore necessary to institute criminal proceedings and conduct face-to-face confrontations, forensic examinations and other investigation activities in order to verify the complainants’ statements and to establish all the circumstances of what had happened. 43 .     On the same day the head of the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit assigned the case to a group of three investigators led by D.S. 44.     On 5 November 2012 the investigators ordered that the fourth applicant and Ms L.A. be granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and interviewed them in the presence of their lawyers. They confirmed their earlier statements. The fourth applicant also stated that during inspections by the Migration Service Zh.I. had given her and her co-workers passports belonging to other people; however, the inspectors had not paid any attention. 45.     On the same day Zh.I. and S.M. were interviewed as witnesses, reiterating their earlier statements. 46 .     On 5 November 2012 investigator D.S. ordered that flats nos. 3 and   37 and store N be searched for the fourth applicant’s and Ms L.A.’s belongings. The searches were conducted on the same day, and no such items were found. 47.     On 6 November 2012 the Moscow Preobrazhenskiy inter-district deputy prosecutor set aside the decision to institute criminal proceedings as unlawful and unfounded. The prosecutor concluded that the inquiry, together with the previous inquiry in May 2012 into Ms Z.A.’s alleged confinement at the store, had clearly demonstrated the absence of any elements of an offence under Article 127 § 2 (g) and exposed contradictions in the alleged victims’ statements. He found that for a decade the complainants had been working in the store salesroom, a place open to the public, which implied communication with customers. The complainants had conceived children with individuals of their choice and had given birth in healthcare institutions, where they had stayed on their own, subsequently applying to the civil registry offices for registration of their children’s births. Ms L.A. and Ms Z.A. had travelled to Kazakhstan, where they had met relatives. The complainants had therefore enjoyed unrestricted freedom of movement and a real opportunity to complain about their situation to the store customers, police officers, doctors, civil registry officers, the embassies of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and their relatives, which they had failed to do. Their allegations of physical violence were unsupported by any documents, and their fears regarding Zh.I.’s threats of violence were not plausible because there had been up to ten workers in the store including the complainants’ de facto husbands and other male workers. In any event, the complainants alleged that they had been beaten on account of their misconduct and not for the purposes of their confinement at the store. Ms   L.A. and Ms Z.A. had previously denied during the inquiry in May 2012 that there had been any unlawful conduct on the part of the store owners. 48.     The prosecutor remitted the case for an additional inquiry, in particular in order to examine records of video-cameras installed in the store and in the entrance of the apartment block in which flat no. 37 was located. (a)    The investigator’s appeals against the prosecutor’s decision of 6 November 2012 49.     Investigator D.S. unsuccessfully applied (with the approval of his superiors in the Investigative Committee) to higher prosecutors, requesting them to set aside the decision of the Preobrazhenskiy deputy prosecutor of 6   November 2012. He argued that the veracity of the complainants’ allegations could only be confirmed or disproved within the framework of criminal proceedings. The fact that Ms   L.A. had travelled to Kazakhstan between 2002 and 2012 was not sufficient to exclude an offence under Article   127 § 2 (g) because she might have feared for the safety of her child, who had remained in Moscow at the time. The prosecutor’s unfounded setting aside of the decision to institute criminal proceedings had deprived the complainants of access to justice and violated their rights. 50.     The investigator’s applications were dismissed, and the prosecutor’s decision that criminal proceedings should not be instituted was endorsed by all higher prosecutors, in decisions dated 9 and 21 November 2012, 4 and 28   December 2012, 22 February 2013 and 9 April 2013. On the last ‑ mentioned date the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation reiterated the findings set out in the decision of 6 November 2012, while noting that it had been established that the fourth applicant and Ms L.A. had worked as store assistants in the store belonging to S.M. and Zh.I. without any employment documents. The Prosecutor General noted that the records of video-cameras installed in the store and in the entrance of the apartment block in which the complainants had allegedly resided had not been examined; records of their crossing the State border had not been obtained; and it had not been established whether they had been registered users of mobile phones. He concluded that the prosecutors’ decisions were lawful and reasoned and that it was for the Investigative Committee to carry out a proper preliminary inquiry. (b)    Civil society demands to institute criminal proceedings 51 .     The fourth applicant and Ms L.A. collected signatures via the internet site www.change.org for a petition to institute criminal proceedings and carry out an investigation into the crimes allegedly committed by Zh.I. and S.M. against them and other people who had been held in slavery. The petition expressed a strong disagreement with the prosecutor’s setting aside of the decision to institute criminal proceedings. It noted that in 2002 Zh.I.’s sister, S.I., had been arrested in another slavery case concerning the same stores. 52.     On 14 December 2012 the petition was sent to the prosecutor’s office of Moscow via a form for citizens’ complaints on the prosecutor’s office internet site. The prosecutor’s office transferred the application to the Preobrazhenskiy investigation unit, which replied, on 12 March 2013, that it had been joined to the case file of the inquiry. 53 .     On 1 February 2013 Ms S.A. Gannushkina, in her capacity as Chair of the CAC, head of the “Migration and Law” network of the human rights NGO Memo