CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .sDA30A789 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sE1B422E9 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s68C661F2 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s70B8DB69 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s4E51A0D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s128A42C1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s59EF754D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s1AE6489F { width:14.15pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6B4B17A0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .sB6CC24F7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .s8EB571EB { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s265AD245 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s581CA061 { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s754C1073 { height:25pt } .s2074955B { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s9FAF11FB { margin-left:3.3pt; text-indent:3.8pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sB6FF9115 { width:4.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC3E07CE2 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB7A2C2C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s39C03AB6 { width:5.93pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s387D3C78 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s894252E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.4pt; font-size:10pt } .sD8FD1AED { width:6.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s42327AB4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.35pt; font-size:10pt } .sC7606FBC { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sD81AB0A7 { height:11.35pt } .sF36477E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sD7A0AC52 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .sBD419D00 { width:1.98pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDB7D4500 { height:32.1pt } .s93C96E12 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; font-size:10pt } .s57278DA5 { width:16.68pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF5B4B0A7 { height:10.85pt } .s1B2F38EE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sFA406916 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.3pt; font-size:10pt } .s946186CC { height:1.4pt } .s76FA683B { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .sE24C0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s51A23BCA { margin-left:3.4pt; text-indent:3.7pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s4366C4C0 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s46E6D682 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s854FA709 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:24.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.95pt; font-size:10pt } .s5A8A3FE3 { width:7.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s83BC64C1 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } FIRST SECTION Application no. 8620/09 Khamzat Minkailovich DZHABRAILOV and Others against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicants in the present cases are Russian nationals residing in different towns in the Chechen Republic, Russia, as specified below. Most of the applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, a NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The facts of the cases pertaining to all the applications, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Particulars of each application are tabulated in the Appendix . A.     Events surrounding the abductions The applicants are close relatives of men who disappeared in the Chechen Republic after their abduction from home in 2000 ‑ 2004 by groups of servicemen. According to the applicants, the servicemen belonged to the Russian federal troops, as they were wearing camouflage uniforms, had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian. Armed with machineguns, the servicemen broke into the applicants’ homes, searched the premises, checked the identity documents of the applicants’ relatives and took their relatives away in military vehicles, such as armoured personnel carriers (APCs), UAZ cars or URAL lorries. Only a few of the vehicles displayed official registration plates. In a number of cases the registration numbers had been obscured with mud. None of the applicants has seen their missing relatives since. The abductions took place in the Achkhoy-Martan, Grozny, Gudermes, Kurchaloy, Shali or Urus-Martan districts of Chechnya. In all the cases the abductions were carried out at night or early in the morning, during curfew hours. In some of the cases the applicants submitted that at the material time a special operation had been conducted by Russian servicemen in the area. In the cases of Soltagirayeva and others v. Russia (no. 43724/09), Usumovy v. Russia (no. 47770/09) and Tamayev v. Russia (no. 54728/09), the investigative authorities officially acknowledged that a special operation had been carried out in the area at the time of the events. According to witnesses, after the abductions the applicants’ relatives were taken to the premises of law-enforcement agencies, such as district departments of the interior, military units or military commander’s offices. B.     Main features of the investigation into the abductions In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abduction to the authorities and an official investigation was instituted. In every case the proceedings, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. The investigations have been repeatedly stayed by the prosecutor’s offices owing to their inability to identify the culprits and subsequently resumed by the supervising prosecutors, who have pointed out a number of flaws therein, such as the investigators’ failure to question witnesses or to carry out basic expert evaluations. Some applicants were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. It is unclear whether all of the applicants were questioned by the investigative authorities in connection with the abductions. It follows from the documents submitted that no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. Further to such requests, the authorities have generally reported that involvement of servicemen in the abduction has not been established, that no special operations were carried out at the relevant time, that the applicants’ relatives had not been arrested or detained on their premises and that there was no information as to the involvement of the applicants’ relatives in the activities of illegal armed groups. However, in the cases of Usumovy v. Russia (no. 47770/09), Tamayev v. Russia (no.   54728/09), Ibragimov and others v. Russia (no. 25511/10) and Anayeva and Elmurzayeva v. Russia (no. 32791/10), the authorities have officially acknowledged that servicemen were involved in the abductions. Moreover, in the aforementioned cases of Usumovy and Tamayev the investigation was carried out by military prosecutor’s offices. According to the majority of the applicants, they have neither been regularly informed of the progress in the investigation nor granted access to the criminal case files. In all of the cases the applicants have requested information about the progress of the proceedings from the investigative authorities; in response they have received formal letters usually stating that the investigation was in progress and that their requests had been forwarded to yet another law-enforcement authority for examination. According to the applicants, the investigators have either failed to take the most important investigative steps, such as questioning of witnesses to the abductions, or they have taken those essential steps with significant and inexplicable delays. COMPLAINTS 1.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the cases complain of the violation of the right to life of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix and submit that the circumstances of their detention indicate that they were abducted by State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation was conducted into their relatives’ abduction and subsequent disappearance.   2.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all the cases complain that they have suffered severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the national authorities in connection with the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relatives and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation in that respect. Under the same provision, the applicants in the cases of Dzhabrailov and others v. Russia (no.   8620/09) and Tamayev v. Russia (no. 54728/09) complain that their abducted relatives were subjected to torture.   3.     The applicants in all the cases submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix violated all of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.   4.     The applicants in all the cases complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants in the cases of Dzhabrailov and others v. Russia (no. 8620/09), Suleymanova and others v.   Russia (no. 11674/09) and Sultanova and others v. Russia (no. 21133/09) complain that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of all the applications, have the applicants complied with the six ‑ month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there “excessive or unexplained delays” on the part of the applicants in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives? Have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and   166, ECHR 2009-...)? 2.     Having regard to: (i)     the Court’s numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article   2 were found in respect of both disappearances of the applicants’ relatives as a result of detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among others, Bazorkina v. Russia , no. 69481/01, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva v.   Russia , no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Luluyev and Others v.   Russia , no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia , no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Elsiyev and Others v. Russia , no. 21816/03, 12   March 2009; Asadulayeva and Others v. Russia , no. 15569/06, 17   September 2009; Medova v. Russia , no. 25385/04, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)), and; (ii)     the similarity of the present ten applications both to each other and to the cases cited above, as can be derived from the applicants’ submissions and the interim results of the respective investigations: (a)     Have the applicants made a prima facie case that their relatives (referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix) were detained by State servicemen in the course of security operations? (b)     If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in order to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ abductions and ensuing disappearances (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others v. Turkey , cited above, § 184)? Is the Government in a position to rebut the applicants’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abductions by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events by other means? (c)     Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants’ missing relatives? (d)     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearances of the applicants’ missing relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? 3.     In respect of all the applications, has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives, the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into their disappearances been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants? 4.     In respect of all the applications, were the applicants’ missing relatives deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on the dates listed in the Annex? If so, was such deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention? 5.     In respect of all the applications, did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article   2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 6.     Further to the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information in respect of each of the applications: (a)     any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants’ allegations that their missing relatives were abducted by State servicemen; and, in any event, (b)     a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants’ complaints about the disappearance of their missing relatives, in chronological order, indicating the dates and authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings; as well as: (c)     copies of documents from the investigation files in respect of all relevant criminal cases, such as, in particular:   (i)     the applicants’ initial complaints about the disappearance of their relatives which had prompted the opening of the investigation;   (ii)     any decision(s) to initiate criminal proceedings;   (iii)     decision(s) to grant the applicants victim status in the criminal proceedings, if any;   (iv)     record(s) of any interviews of State servicemen (such as, for instance, military servicemen, local administration and police officers, servicemen at roadblocks and checkpoints, employees of other law enforcement agencies, etc.) held in connection with the abductions;   (v)     statements of the eyewitnesses to the abductions, if any;   (vi)     if the crime scene(s) were examined, or expert and/or forensic examinations were ordered in the course of the investigation, copies of all the relevant expert reports and findings;   (vii)     where the investigations were suspended and reopened, copies of each and every decision on the suspension/resumption of the proceedings and of the documents containing the reasons for such decisions (such as prosecutor’s orders to resume the investigation and take investigative steps);   (viii)     any other documents relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the allegations and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations. APPENDIX Summary of the information concerning the applicants, their relatives allegedly abducted by State agents, the circumstances of the alleged abductions and the ensuing investigation   No. Application no., date of introduction Applicant’s name, year of birth, relation to the disappeared person, place of residence Represented by Abducted person(s) (name, year of birth, date and place of the alleged abduction) Description of the circumstances of the abduction(s) and subsequent developments Official investigation details, as submitted by the applicants      8620/09 Dzhabrailov and others v.   Russia   09/01/2009 (1)     Mr Khamzat DZHABRAILOV (1941), father, Argun, Shali district, the Chechen Republic   (2)     Ms Tamara TAYSUMOVA (also referred to as DZHABRAILO-VA ) (1955), mother, idem   (3)     Ms Zarema DZHABRAILO-VA (1978), sister, idem   (4)     Ms Larisa DZHABRAILO-VA (1985), sister, idem   MEMORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE (1)     Mr Yakub DZHAB-RAILOV (1981), abducted from home on 15/12/2001 at noon, Argun According to the applicants, on 13-15 December 2001 Russian servicemen conducted a sweeping-up operation in Argun. The town was surrounded by military checkpoints and the residents required authorisation to enter or leave the town. On-duty servicemen in the streets made it impossible for the residents to move around. At the material time the applicants and Yakub Dzhabrailov lived as a family in two neighbouring houses. On 14 December 2001 a group of twenty servicemen arrived at the applicants’ house in an APC and a UAZ “tabletka” car with obscured registration plates. The servicemen were camouflaged and unmasked, of Russian or Asian appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. Having searched Yakub’s house, they made a threat to the applicants that they would take Yakub with them and added that those whom they had taken away had never returned home. On the same day the servicemen took the applicants’ neighbour, Mr Bashir Usmanov, to the Argun district military commander’s office (“the military commander’s office”) where he was let go, but his car was taken away from him by the servicemen and remained on the office’s premises. On 15 December 2001 at around noon the same servicemen arrived in the neighbourhood in the APC and cordoned off the area. Some of them broke into the applicants’ house and locked the applicants in, while two others entered Yakub’s house. They forced Yakub outside, put him in the APC and drove to the military commander’s office. Servicemen patrolling the streets witnessed the events but did not interfere. Later on the same day the second applicant went to the Argun town administration where she met about fifty relatives of other men arrested during the special operation. Two representatives of the town council informed her that the arrestees had been taken to a “filtering” point on the outskirts of Argun and agreed to pass on clothes to Yakub. In the evening the applicant learnt that the arrested men would be transferred to the military commander’s office. On 17 December 2001 the military commander’s office informed the applicants that the special operation had been conducted by a special forces unit which did not report to the office and that none of the arrested men had been brought to their premises. Subsequently the applicants learnt that Yakub and seven other persons arrested on 13-15 December 2001 had not been released. On 18 December 2001 the first applicant heard Yakub screaming at the district military commander’s office. The applicants have not seen Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov since his abduction on 15 December 2001. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours. On 9 January 2002 the Argun district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 78010. On 12   January 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 21 January 2004 the district prosecutor’s office criticised the lack of progress in the investigation and the investigators’ failure to take necessary steps. On 14 September 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 stated to the investigators that no military servicemen had been involved in the abduction. On 31 October 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that criminal case no.   78027 had been opened in connection with the discovery of four mutilated corpses on the eastern outskirts of Argun on 28 February 2002. One body was identified as Mr Abdul-Wakhab Yashchurkayev, who had been abducted from home in Argun under similar circumstances in January 2001. The investigation has been suspended and resumed on multiple occasions (the last suspension took place on 2 May 2007) without attaining tangible results. On 28 February 2008 the first applicant requested that the investigators allow him to access the investigation file and resume the investigation. On 6   March 2008 the Shali District Investigation Department of the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office granted his request in part, as regards access to the case file. However, on 1 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer was denied access to the file’s entire contents on the grounds that the investigation was still pending. On 17 July 2008 the investigators informed the applicant that the decision of 6 March 2008 allowed only limited access to the case file. Last document: Letter of the Shali District Investigation Department of 17 July 2008 (see above). It is unclear whether the criminal proceedings are currently pending.        11674/09 Suleymanova and others v.   Russia   19/02/2009 (1)     Ms Mata SULEYMANOVA (1956), mother, Gudermes, Gudermes district, the Chechen Republic   (2)     Mr Ostambek SULEYMANOV (1950), father, idem   (3)     Ms Marem MAGAMALI-YEVA (1981), Mr   Salambek Suleymanov’s wife, idem   (4)     Mr Abdul-Malik SULEYMANOV (2002), Mr   Salambek Suleymanov’s son, idem     STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE Three brothers abducted on 29/10/2002 at around 4 a.m. from home in Gudermes:   (1) Mr Salambek SULEY-MANOV (1974),   (2) Mr Khasanbek SULEY-MANOV (1979) and   (3) Mr Anderbek (also referred to Andarbek) SULEY-MANOV (1981) According to the applicants, in September-October 2002 federal servicemen conducted a special operation in Gudermes and arrested about thirty people, including the Suleymanov brothers. The servicemen took the arrested men to the Gudermes district department of the interior (“the ROVD”) in buses belonging to the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”). After their fingerprints were checked and pictures taken, the arrested men were released. At the material time the applicants and the three brothers resided in two neighbouring houses in Gudermes. Salambek lived together with the third and the fourth applicants while Khasanbek and Anderbek lived together with the first and the second applicants. The town was under curfew. On 28 October 2002 two neighbours, Mr Ali Mukhadiyev and Mr Musa Zakayev, visited the applicants. Anderbek joked that the applicants kept bombs in the basement. It appears that Musa Zakayev had previously been detained by the FSB and released on condition of providing information. According to the applicants, he could have informed the FSB about the joke. On 29 October 2002 at around 4 a.m. a group of camouflaged servicemen in masks and helmets arrived at the applicants’ houses in two UAZ “tabletka” cars. They were armed with short-barrelled automatic rifles ( Тюльпанчик ). The servicemen stormed inside, quickly searched the houses, looking for drugs, firearms, and, in particular, for the bomb allegedly hidden in the basement. Threatening the applicants in unaccented Russian, the servicemen ordered them to lie down on the floor. They collected the applicants’ and the three brothers’ identity documents, put the latter in the UAZ and drove off in the direction of the town centre, with unobstructed passage through a checkpoint on the way. A week later a former classmate of Khasanbek told the applicants that their relatives had been detained in a temporary detention centre (“the IVS”) on the ROVD’s premises. FSB officers guarded them and occasionally took them out. Khasanbek had passed an item of his clothing over to his parents through another acquaintance and asked him to inform them of his place of detention. However, the ROVD officers denied that the brothers were detained there and did not allow the applicants to enter the premises. Another of the applicants’ neighbours, a ROVD officer, also confirmed that the three men had been held at the ROVD. The applicants subsequently learnt from anonymous sources that in 2003 the brothers had been detained at the premises of an FSB department, that in 2003 Salambek had been taken to Rostov and onward to Yaroslavl and that Mr   Aslan Dzhamadayev, the head of the criminal search unit at the ROVD, had ordered the abduction. The applicants have not seen their three relatives since their abduction on 29 October 2002. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives, neighbours and acquaintances. On 29 October 2002 an investigation team examined the crime scene and questioned some of the applicants’ neighbours. On 1 November 2002 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   57098 in connection with the abduction. According to the investigation plan prepared on the same day, the abduction could have been perpetrated by criminals pursuing a blood feud, by creditors, by members of illegal armed groups or by officers of power structures deployed in Chechnya. On 12   December 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office stated that “the investigation had failed to establish to which power structure the abductors had belonged”. On 16   August 2006 the district prosecutor’s office stated that “the only substantiated investigative theory was that the culprits had belonged to power structures”. In November 2002, May and June 2005, April 2006 and September 2008 the investigators sent out queries to a number of law-enforcement agencies in Moscow and the Southern Federal Circuit, including the Ministry of the Interior and various ROVD offices, detention centres, military commander’s offices and FSB departments. Only negative replies were received. On 15 November 2002 the first, second and third applicants were questioned and the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. He was repeatedly questioned on 18 June 2005 and 20   April 2006. On 16 November 2002 the investigators questioned an eyewitness. On 18   May 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. On 20 April 2006 and 23   September 2008 she was questioned again. On 5 and 6 May 2006 the investigation questioned the head of the IVS and a senior inspector at the ROVD, who denied having any knowledge of the Suleymanov brothers. According to the IVS registration log examined on 5 May 2006, the brothers had not been detained there. On 13 April 2006 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office criticised the progress of the investigation and the investigators’ failure to take necessary steps. On 17 November 2006 the first applicant requested permission to access the investigation file, which was granted by a decision of 15   January 2007. However, she was only allowed to do so on 11   November 2008. At some point later the applicant complained to a court that the investigation was ineffective, but the outcome of this complaint is unknown. On 12 September 2008 a supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigators question Mr   Aslan Dzhamadayev. It is unclear whether this order was complied with. The investigation has been suspended and resumed on several occasions (the last suspension took place on 14 October 2008) without attaining tangible results. Last document: Decision to suspend the investigation of 14 October 2008 (see above). It is unclear whether the criminal proceedings are currently pending.      16488/09 Chankayev and Chankayeva v.   Russia   13/03/2009 (1)     Mr Viktor CHANKAYEV (1948), Mr Ramzan Chankayev’s father and Aslan Chankayev’s uncle, Urus-Martan, Urus-Martan district, the Chechen Republic   (2)     Ms Zaynap CHANKAYEVA (1954), Mr Ramzan Chankayev’s mother, idem   STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE Two men abducted on 19/09/2001 at 10 a.m. from home in Urus-Martan:   (1)     Mr Ramzan CHAN-KAYEV (1985) and   (2)     Mr Aslan CHAN-KAYEV (1985) On 19 September 2001 a group of about fifteen servicemen arrived at the applicants’ neighbourhood in Urus-Martan and cordoned off the area. Their UAZ car had no registration plates and the registration number of their URAL lorry was obscured with mud. All of the servicemen were armed, in camouflage uniforms and masks, save for the commanding officer. The latter was unmasked, had Slavic features and had an FSB emblem on his sleeve. After a quick search of the applicants’ house, the servicemen told them in unaccented Russian that they had to take away Ramzan and Aslan to check their fingerprints at a laboratory, which was situated on the premises of an Azeri market on the western outskirts of Urus-Martan. As the applicants refused to let their relatives go, the commander started shooting in the air. After that, the servicemen collected the bullet shells, put Aslan in the UAZ and Ramzan in the URAL and drove away. On the same morning the servicemen conducted an identity check at Mr Nurid Sayubov’s house in the neighbourhood. Immediately after the arrest, the first applicant went to the market and the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office but his arrested relatives were not there. Then he went to the district prosecutor’s office, where he was told that the two men had been taken to the IVS at the Urus-Martan ROVD. In the evening, an official from the local administration confirmed this information to the second applicant, adding that both men would be released as soon as they had had their fingerprints checked. Mr Radmir Arbekov, an assistant to the district prosecutor, agreed to pass on some food brought by the applicant for them. However, Ramzan and Aslan were not released that day. On 20 September 2001 the ROVD officers informed the applicants that their relatives had been transferred to the district military commander’s office. However, nobody at the office acknowledged their detention. On 8 October 2001 the second applicant saw the commanding officer who had participated in her relatives’ arrest at the military commander’s office. Sometime later she saw two other servicemen, who could have also participated in her relatives’ abduction. When approached, one of the servicemen introduced himself as Vitaliy. The applicants have not seen Ramzan and Aslan Chankayev since their abduction on 19 September 2001. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours.   As of the day following the abduction, the applicants complained to various law-enforcement agencies. On 1 October 2001 Mr Arbekov, the assistant to the district prosecutor, wrote to the Chechnya FSB that, according to a registration log of the Khankala FSB department, the Chankayevs had been detained there. On 15 October 2001 the district military commander’s office sent out queries to military units of the Ministry of Defence and the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior. On 16   October 2001 the ROVD informed the applicants that their relatives were not listed in their databases and that operational-search files had been opened in connection with their abduction. On 27 October 2001 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   25137. On 20 March 2002 the head of the Main Service for the Execution of Punishments stated that the applicants’ relatives had not been detained in the detention centres in the Rostov Region. On 26 March 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 13   October 2005 she requested permission to access the investigation file. No response followed. On 21 November 2005 the Urus-Martan ROVD denied that any special operation had been conducted by the servicemen of the military units stationed in the area. On 2 February 2009 the Achkhoy-Martan District Investigation Department of the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation had been suspended. Last document: Letter of the investigation department of 2 February 2009 (see above). It is unclear whether the criminal proceedings are currently pending.      21133/09 Sultanova and others v.   Russia   30/03/2009 (1)     Ms Maret SULTANOVA (1958), mother, Samashki, Achkhoy-Martan district, the Chechen Republic   (2)     Ms Madina SULTANOVA (1993), sister, idem   (3)     Mr Khusain SULTANOV (1984), brother, idem   (4)     Ms Razet SULTANOVA (1988), sister, idem   (5)     Ms Zalina SULTANOVA (1989), sister, idem   (6)     Mr Ibragim RAZHIPOV (1982), brother, idem   STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE (1)            Mr Dzhamali (also referred to as Khasan ) SULTA-NOV (1986), abducted on 05/11/2004 at around 3   a.m. from home in Samashki Mr Dzhamali (also referred to as Khasan) Sultanov has been suffering from a disability. In September 2004 he had an argument with Mr Ruslan Solgiriyev, a local police officer. According to the applicants, the latter, in order to get back at Dzhamali, could have deliberately misinformed the Achkhoy ‑ Martan ROVD that Dzhamali was involved in illegal activity. On 5 November 2004 at around 3 a.m. a group of servicemen arrived at the applicants’ house. Five of them broke into the house. They were in camouflage uniforms and armed with machineguns; three of them wore masks and the others were wearing helmets and caps. Those with open faces were of Slavic appearance; the servicemen spoke Russian and Chechen. They asked whether the applicants had any weapons or drugs, then checked Dzhamali’s passport, forced him outside and put him in a khaki UAZ car. They said that they were taking him to Grozny. Then the UAZ departed in the direction of Achkhoy ‑ Martan, accompanied by a convoy of about ten vehicles, including UAZs, GAZEL minivans, VAZ-21099 and Lada ( Жигули ) civilian cars. Later in the night a serviceman manning a roadblock in the vicinity confirmed that the convoy had entered Achkhoy-Martan. According to the applicants, the abductors acted on the false information given to the ROVD by Ruslan Solgiriyev. Five days later the applicants’ acquaintance, Mr Akhdan, who served at the seventh military commander’s squadron stationed in Achkhoy-Martan ( седьмая ачхой-мартановская комендантская рота ), confirmed having seen the convoy in Achkhoy-Martan. He submitted that a UAZ car had entered the the ROVD’s grounds, while the rest of the convoy continued to drive. According to Mr Akhdan, Dzhamali had been detained at the ROVD and had been questioned by Mr V.N. Kulikov, the head of the ROVD’s criminal search department. According to the applicants, Mr V.N. Kulikov was the head of the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD in Voronezh and was on a temporary assignment in Achkhoy-Martan. According to the Memorial NGO, in November 2006 Mr Kulikov had participated in the abduction of another Samashki resident, Mr   Murad Magomadov. In a meeting with the first applicant, Mr A. Sadovnikov, Mr Kulikov’s deputy at the Achkhoy ‑ Martan ROVD denied that Mr Dzhamali had been detained at the ROVD. Mr Akhdan was killed several days after the conversation with the applicants. The applicants have not seen Mr Dzhamali Sultanov since his abduction on 5 November 2004. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours. On 15 November 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 38053. On 28 December 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 15 March 2005 the investigation was suspended. On 19 August 2006 the district prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s complaint against the decision to suspend the investigation. On 30 June 2006 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr Dzhamali Sultanov a missing person. On 29 July 2006 the ROVD informed the first applicant that an operational-search file had been opened in connection with the abduction. In March and April 2007 district departments of the Federal Service for the Execution of Punishment in the Southern Federal Circuit stated that Dzhamali had not been detained on their premises. On 25 April 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant of the investigation’s progress stating that, amongst other things, the investigators had questioned over seventy witnesses, including the applicants’ relatives and neighbours, forwarded information requests to a number of law-enforcement agencies in the Southern Federal Circuit and examined registration logs of the checkpoints in Samashki and the Achkhoy-Martan district. The involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been established. Last document: On 27 April 2007 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the applicants’ request for assistance in the search for Dzhamali to the district prosecutor’s office. It is unclear whether the criminal proceedings are currently pending.      36354/09 Eldarov v.   Russia   29/06/2009 (1)     Mr Elsi ELDAROV (1956), brother, Gekhi, Urus-Martan district, the Chechen Republic   STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE (1)     Mr Aldan ELDA-ROV (1964), abducted from the applicant’s house on 09/08/2000 at around 11 a.m., Gekhi At the relevant time the applicant and Aldan lived in neighbouring houses in Gekhi. According to the applicant, on 9 August 2000 federal servicemen started a three-day sweeping-up operation in Gekhi. They surrounded the settlement in their UAZ cars and URAL lorries, cordoned off the area and blocked the roads leading to and from the settlement. The servicemen deployed on the eastern outskirts of Gekhi. Around two hundred of the village’s male residents were arrested during the operation. At around 10.30 a.m. a group of servicemen conducted a search at Aldan’s house. They took away a group photograph of Aldan, his brother and some police officers from Grozny, all of whom were in military uniforms. Then the servicemen left and Aldan went to see the applicant. Later, at around 11 a.m., two servicemen arrived at the applicant’s house in a UAZ lorry, no. OBS 31-62 (ОБС 31-62). The applicant knew the servicemen personally as Mr Vadim and Mr Oleg Yefimenko. The latter was in charge of the operation in the applicant’s street. Prior to their being sent to work with the Urus-Martan ROVD, both officers had worked in the economic crimes unit of the Penza ROVD. The servicemen told the applicant that they were to bring Aldan to the military base in connection with the photograph, then they put him in their car and left. The applicant was unable to follow them because his car was stopped by servicemen carrying out the special operation. On that day the servicemen also arrested Mr Akhmet Kadyrov and his two brothers. After checking their passports, the servicemen took them to the military base in an APC and placed them in cages and tents with other detainees. The cages were surrounded by dozens of military vehicles, including armoured personnel carriers (APCs), tanks and a helicopter. The detainees, who were questioned about whether they knew any rebel fighters or local residents who had weapons, were subjected to beatings. Akhmet shared his cell with Aldan. As Aldan was in a very bad state after questioning, servicemen took him in an APC to hospital. Akhmet and his brothers were released. On 10 August 2000 the head of the local administration, Mr   Said-Selim Aydamirov, informed the applicant that the servicemen conducting the operation would release the detainee in exchange for a machinegun. The applicant agreed to the exchange. However, after having visited the military base, Mr   Aydamirov stated that Aldan had been taken to hospital. In September 2000 a burial site was discovered on the outskirts of Gekhi. Two of the bodies identified belonged to the Musayev brothers, also Gekhi residents, who had been arrested in the same period of time as Aldan. The applicant has not seen Mr Aldan Eldarov since his abduction on 9 August 2000. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicant and Mr Akhmet Kadyrov.   Since August 2000 the applicant has complained to various law-enforcement agencies. On 18   September and 28 October 2000 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office criticised the ROVD’s failure to open a search file in connection with the abduction. On 18 September 2000 the ROVD refused to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with the discovery of the burial site on outskirts of the Gekhi. On 27 September and 21 December 2000 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 denied the involvement of servicemen in the abduction. On 16 October 2000 the applicant yet again requested that the Chechnya military prosecutor open a criminal case. He submitted that Mr Yefimenko had informed him that the police had handed Aldan over to servicemen of the 245 th mechanised-infantry regiment of the Ministry of Defence, headed by General Nedobitko. It is unclear whether this information has been examined by the authorities. On 18 October 2000 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the ROVD’s decision of 18   September 2000 and opened criminal case no.   24047 in connection with the discovery of the bodies. It appears that at some point an investigation into Aldan’s abduction was initiated in the course of this criminal case. On 17 December 2000 the applicant was granted victim status. On 6 December 2000 the North-Caucasus Department of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior denied any having any information concerning Aldan’s whereabouts. On 30 December 2000 the Urus-Martan ROVD opened a search case file in connection with Aldan’s disappearance. On 3 January 2001 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the investigators were going to subject the discovered remains to a forensic expert evaluation. It is unclear whether any investigative steps were taken between January 2001 and January 2009 and whether the applicant contacted the authorities during this period of time. On 27 January and 30 April 2009 the applicant requested that the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office inform him of the progress of the investigation and resume it, if it had been suspended. On 5 May 2009 the investigator decided to provide the applicant with copies of the procedural decisions concerning the opening of the criminal case and granting the applicant victim status. Last document: The investigator’s decision of 5 May 2009 (see above). It is unclear whether the criminal proceedings are currently pending.      43724/09 Soltagirayeva and others v.   Russia   16/07/2009 (1)     Ms Zura SOLTAGIRA-YEVA (1955), mother, Gudermes, Gudermes district, the Chechen Republic   (2)     Ms Rukiyat KHEZRIYEVA (1975), wife, idem   (3)     Mr Islam SOLTAGIRAYEV (2001), son, idem   (4)     Mr Sayfulla SOLTAGIRAYEV (1998), son, idem   (5)     Ms Inzhila SOLTAGIRA-YEVA (2000), daughter, idem   STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE (1)            Mr Askhab SOLTA-GIRA-YEV (1973), abducted from home on 12/04/ 2002 at around 3   a.m., Gudermes In 2001 Mr Askhab Soltagirayev was pardoned as a result of an act of the Government aimed at former members of illegal armed groups. In 2000 Askhab’s brother, Mr Alikhan Soltagirayev, was allegedly killed by Russian servicemen. At the material time the applicants, save for the first applicant, resided together in Gudermes. According to the documents submitted, on 12 April 2002 Russian servicemen conducted a special operation in the Gudermes area, as a result of which many men were arrested. At around 3 a.m. on that date a group of ten to fifteen masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms armed with grenades and machineguns broke into the applicants’ house. The unmasked intruders were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian, while the masked ones spoke Chechen. Some of them searched the house, while the others grabbed Askhab and his passport, took him outside and put him in a grey UAZ “tabletka” minivan. Then the servicemen departed towards the town centre, accompanied by another grey UAZ car and a URAL lorry. Later in the morning the applicants and their relatives went to the Gudermes ROVD, where many people were waiting for the release of their relatives who had been detained on the same day under similar circumstances. At around 10 a.m. one of the arrested men, Mr Askhab from the village of Belorechye (also referred to as Ilaskhan-Yurt), was released and told the applicants that their relative had been detained at the ROVD along with other men. On the same day two ROVD officers, Mr Dzhanar Yasayev and Mr Ilyas Makayev, confirmed that Askhab Soltagirayev had been detained there until at least 2   p.m. and then taken to the premises of an FSB department. However, some time later the head of the ROVD, Mr   Magomed Eldarov, informed Askhab’s uncle, Mr Said-Magomed Soltagirayev, that his nephew had not been detained on their premises. The applicants have not seen Mr Askhab Soltagirayev since his abduction on 12 April 2002. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, thei