CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2012

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s20AC3858 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sB55870D9 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s1B9314DE { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sA0D2E1E8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.3pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEC3A4225 { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s519B5748 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:2.85pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s754C1073 { height:25pt } .s4273FCEC { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .sF36477E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s387D3C78 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s3175920E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.3pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s78E3148A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.35pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD81AB0A7 { height:11.35pt } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s609025CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2E85C6F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:4.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC17FCABC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAAD38A00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1081C4CE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.35pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s86731D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s946186CC { height:1.4pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s90F7F4CC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:4.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s76FA683B { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .sC495962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s382DE0B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:4.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:2.85pt; font-size:10pt } .s83BC64C1 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .sC1CFBE7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:18.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } FIRST SECTION Application no. 25088/11 Petimat Khamzatovna BASKHANOVA against Russia and 14 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicants in the present cases are Russian nationals residing in different settlements 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 between 2001 and 2006 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 and sometimes equipped with portable radio sets, the servicemen broke into the applicants’ homes, searched the premises, checked the applicants’ relatives’ identity documents and took the applicants’ 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 Chechnya: in the Achkhoy-Martan, Grozny, Naurskiy, Gudermes, Urus-Martan districts and the town of Grozny and its outskirts. 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 case of Nuraliyevy v. Russia , no.   48134/11 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, in the majority of the cases, 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 Aguyeva and others v. Russia (no. 52076/11) and Sangariyevy v.   Russia (no. 52182/11), the investigative authorities have stated that State servicemen might have been involved in the abductions. According to 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, except for the case of Alkhotova v. Russia (no. 64270/11), 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 Aguyeva and others v. Russia (no.   52076/11) 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 case of Nuraliyevy v. Russia (no. 48134/11) complain that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.   5. The applicants in the cases Aguyeva and others v. Russia (no.   52076/11), Sangariyevy v. Russia (no. 52182/11) and Dashtayev and Others v. Russia (no. 66831/11) complain under Article 8 about the violation of their right to respect for home on the account of the unlawful search conducted by the abductors.   6. The applicants in the cases of Aguyeva and others v.   Russia (no.   52076/11) complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of property as a result of the abductors’ actions. 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 fifteen 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 [GC], 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. Has there been a violation of the seventh and the eighth applicants’ right to respect for home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention in the case of Dashtayev and Others v. Russia (66831/11)? Were effective domestic remedies available to the applicants in respect of the alleged violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention? Did the applicants exhaust those remedies? 6.     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? 7.     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)     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 1. 25088/11 Baskhanova v.   Russia   09/01/2009 (1)     Ms Petimat Baskhanova (1980), wife, Katyr ‑ Yurt, Achkhoy-Martan district, the Chechen Republic     Not legally represented (1)     Mr Ruslan Baskhanov (1980), abducted from home in Achkhoy ‑ Martan at 3   a.m. on 6   January 2004 At about 3 a.m. on 6 January 2004 a group of about fifteen camouflaged and masked servicemen arrived at the applicants’ house in two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and took away the applicant’s husband. The applicant has not seen Mr Ruslan Baskhanov ever since. The account of the events is based on the statement provided by the applicant and copies of documents received from the authorities. On 15 January 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   38002. On 26 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 stated to the investigators that military servicemen had not been involved in the abduction. On 15 May 2004, 16 July 2008 and 28   March 2009 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 26 November 2008 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Ruslan Baskhanov a missing person. On 24 February 2009 the investigators informed the applicant that she had the right to review only certain documents from the investigation file, but not the entire contents. On 24 March 2009 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed as the investigators had failed to take a number of basic steps, such as establishing the owners of the APCs used by the abductors and granting the applicant victim status in the criminal case. On the same date the applicant was granted the victim status. On 11 October 2010 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court partially allowed the applicant’s complaint against the decision to suspend the investigation of 28 March 2009 and ordered the investigators to take necessary steps. Last document: Decision to allow the applicant’s complaint in part (see above). The criminal proceedings are currently pending.     2. 44277/11 Idigova and others v.   Russia   14/07/2011 (1)     Ms Khava Idigova (1961), wife, Grozny, the Chechen Republic   (2)     Mr Ibragim Khamzatov (1999), son, idem   (3)     Ms Marem Khamzatova (2000), daughter, idem   Stitching Russian Justice Initiative   (1)     Mr Magomed Khamzatov (1959), abducted from home at about 5   a.m. on 5   December 2004, Grozny     At the material time the applicants and Mr   Magomed Khamzatov lived at no.   93 in Saltykova ‑ Szhedrina Street in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny. At about 5 a.m. on 5 December 2004 the first applicant saw from the window a group of about ten to twelve armed servicemen in military uniforms, masks, bulletproof vest and helmets running down the street and breaking into the neighbouring house, which belonged to the applicants’ relatives. Shortly after that the armed men went to the applicants’ house demanded that the first applicant opened the door. They said that they were the police conducting identity checks. The intruders, who spoke unaccented Russian, took Magomed outside along with his passport and some clothing. The first applicant followed the abductors and saw that they had arrived in the neighbourhood in a UAZ minivan parked on a neighbouring street. A number of the applicants’ neighbours saw the servicemen forcing Magomed Khamzatov in the vehicle and driving away. On the same night the same group of servicemen broke into the house of the applicants’ neighbours, the family of Ms   A.T., quickly checked identity documents and searched the house. The applicants have not seen Magomed Khamzatov since his abduction on 5   December 2004. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours.   At about 11 a.m. on 5   December 2004 an investigation team examined the crime scene and questioned the first applicant and some of her neighbours. On 15 December 2004 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 7   December 2004) the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   33090. On 18   December 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 24 February 2005 applicant’s relative, Magomed Khamzatov’s father, wrote to the Federal Service of the Execution of Punishment asking them to confirm whether his son Magomed was detained on the premises of the main Russian military base in Khankala, Chechnya. No reply was given to this request. On 25 March 2005 the first applicant requested that the investigators resumed the investigation of the criminal case. In their reply of 1   April 2005 the investigators informed her that the proceedings were in progress. On 18 July 2005 the applicants were informed that the criminal investigation was resumed. On 10 August 2005 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20102 stated to the applicants that military servicemen had not been involved in the abduction. On 18 January 2006 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court declared Magomed Khamzatov a missing person. On 26 June 2006 the applicants were informed that the investigation had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the applicants did not contact the investigation between June 2006 and July 2011. Last document: The letter of 26   June 2006 (see above). It appears that the criminal proceedings are currently pending.   3. 44284/11 Vezirov and others v.   Russia   14/07/2011 (1)     Mr Zaurbek Vezirov (1954), the father of the abducted men, Ilyinovskoye (also spelt as Ilyinovka), Naurskiy district, the Chechen Republic (2)     Ms Aminat Vezirova (1957), the mother of the abducted men, idem (3)     Ms Raisa Bibulatova (1979), the wife of Ms Askhab Vezirov, idem (4)     Ms Elisa Vezirova (1990), the sister of the abducted men, idem (5)     Ms Elina Vezirova (1990), the sister of the abducted men, idem (6)     Ms Rukiyat Vezirova (1986), the sister of the abducted men, the Rostov region (7)     Ms Zhansari Vezirova (1980), the sister of the abducted men, Grozny   Stitching Russian Justice Initiative   Two men abducted at 4   a.m. on 7   July 2003 from home in Ilyinovskoye:   (1)     Mr Kharun Vezirov (1977)   and   (2)     Mr Askhab Vezirov (1979) At about 4 a.m. on 7 July 2003 a group of about ten servicemen arrived at the applicants’ house in several UAZ vehicles and a GAZEL minivan. The servicemen, who were armed and in camouflage uniforms and masks, checked identity documents of the family members and then dragged Kharun Vezirov to the backyard, where they subjected him to beatings demanding in unaccented Russian that he showed them firearms allegedly hidden in the house. Having searched the house, the servicemen forced Kharun and Askhab Vezirov in the GAZEL minivan and drove away in the direction of the town of Argun, Chechnya. The applicants have not seen Kharun and Askhab Vezirov since their abduction on 7 July 2003. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours.   On 27 February 2004 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   34025. On 9 March and 25 May 2004 the third and first applicants accordingly were granted victim status in the criminal case. On 19 August 2004 the applicants were informed that the investigation of the criminal case had been resumed. On 12 March 2007 and 14 April 2011 the applicants were informed that the investigation had been suspended on 19   September 2004 for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the applicant did not contact the investigation from March 2007 to April 2011. Last document: The letter of 14 April 2011 (see above). It appears that the criminal proceedings are currently pending.   4. 44313/11 Ismailova and others v.   Russia   12/07/2011 (1)     Ms Khazan (also spelt as Khaza) Ismailova (1957), aunt, Goyty, the Chechen Republic   (2)     Ms Medni Isayeva (2003), daughter, idem   (3)     Ms Zina Ismailova (1939), grandmother, Grozny Stitching Russian Justice Initiative   (1)     Mr Aslambek Isayev (1981), abducted on 16   Avril 2003 at around 3   a.m. from home in Grozny At the material time the applicants and Aslambek Isayev lived together in flat no.   8 (in the documents submitted also referred to under no.   11) at 54,   Tobolskaya Street in Grozny. The applicants’ neighbourhood was surrounded by military checkpoints. The area was under curfew. At about 3 a.m. on 16 April 2003 a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in two UAZ vehicles. They broke into the house, asked the applicants in Russian whether any firearms were hidden on the premises and quickly searched it. After that they told the applicants that identity checks had been conducted in the area and that more than fifty persons had been already arrested as the result. Then they said that they would check Aslambek’s identity, put him in one of the UAZ cars and drove away. The applicants have not seen Mr Aslambek Isayev since his abduction on 16   April 2003. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours.   On 1 May 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 40070. On 12 May 2003 the wife of Aslambek Isayev, Ms   M.M., requested that the Chechnya Prosecutor assisted her in the search for her husband. On 15 May 2003 the investigators questioned the third applicant who stated, amongst other things, that Aslambek’s abductors had informed the applicants about the identity checks in the area resulting in the arrest of about fifty local residents. On the same date, 15 May 2003, the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative Ms M.K. who stated that in the morning of 16   April 2003 Aslambek’s wife had arrived at her house and told her that Aslambek had been arrested by military servicemen who had arrived in two UAZ vehicles. On 19 May 2003 the wife of Aslambek Isayev, Ms   M.M., was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 19 May 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant whose statement about the events in question was similar to the one given by Ms   M.K. on 15 May 2003. On 22 May 2003 the crime scene was inspected. No evidence was collected. On 1 August 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about it on 10 August 2003. On 12 May 2005 the decision to suspend the proceedings was overruled for the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. On 7 June and 21 December 2005 the first applicant complained to a number of law-enforcement authorities, including the Chechnya Military Prosecutor, the Chechnya Prosecutor and the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor about Aslambek’s abduction by ‘representatives of power structures’ and that the investigation into the incident was ineffective. On 8 June 2005 the investigators again questioned Ms   M.M. On 15 June 2005 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On an unspecified date in March 2006 the first applicant again complained to the Chechnya Prosecutor that the investigation was ineffective. On 20 January 2008 Ms M.M. complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court that the investigation was ineffective. The outcome of this complaint is unknown. On 15 April 2009 the first applicant requested that the investigators allowed her to access the criminal case file. On 20   May 2009 she reiterated her request. No reply was given. On 26 January 2011 Ms M.M. again complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court that the investigation was ineffective. The outcome of this complaint is unknown. Last document: the complaint of 26   January 2011 (see above). It appears that the criminal proceedings are currently pending. 5. 48134/11 Nuraliyevy v.   Russia   13/07/2011 (1)     Ms Maret Nuraliyeva (1970), sister, Grozny, the Chechen Republic   (2)     Ms Aset Nuraliyeva (1972), sister, Dyshne ‑ Vedeno, the Chechen Republic   Materi Chechni (1)     Mr Daud Nuraliyev (1979), abducted from home in Chechen ‑ Aul on 16   June 2002   (2)     Mr Khalid Nuraliyev (1974), abducted from the street in Chechen ‑ Aul on 23   June 2002 At the material time the applicants and their brothers Daud and Khalid lived together in Chechen-Aul. Between 10 and 24 June 2002 the Russian military forces conducted a ‘sweeping-up’ operation in Chechen–Aul. The temporary headquarters of the operation was stationed at the outskirt of the village. On 16 June 2002 a group of about ten armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in two APCs. The servicemen, some of whom were masked, searched the house and demanded Daud in unaccented Russian to proceed with them for an identity check; Daud was put in one of the APCs which drove away towards the temporary military headquarters. On 23 June 2002 at the corner of Sadovaya and Sovkhoznaya Streets the same group of military servicemen in APCs detained Khalid Nuraliyev and took him to the temporary headquarters. According to the applicants, at some point in 2005 they found out that after the abduction Khalid Nuraliyev had been detained in a prison in the Rostov region. In response to their requests to the authorities asking to confirm this information, the applicant received negative replies. The applicants have not seen their brothers since their abduction in June 2002. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours. On 28 June 2002 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   56099. The document stated that Khalid Nuraliyev had been abducted ‘by unidentified persons during the special operation’. It is unclear whether the applicants contacted the authorities between July 2002 and May 2010. On 26 May 2010 the first applicant complained to the Grozny district prosecutor that the investigation of her brothers’ abduction by servicemen during the special operation was ineffective and requested to be informed of its progress. On 3 June 2010 the investigators replied to the applicant stating that they had taken all possible measures to have the crime resolved. On 11 November 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 18 October 2010 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 11 November 2010 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the proceedings for the investigators’ failure to take basic steps and ordered its resumption. On 14 November 2010 the investigation was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 24 February 2011 the first applicant complained to the Grozny District Court that the investigation of criminal case no.   56099 was ineffective and requested the court to order the authorities to effectively investigate the crime. On 14 March 2011 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint stating that the investigation had been resumed. On 13   April 2011 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Chechnya Supreme Court. Last document: The decision of 13 April 2011 (see above). The criminal proceedings are currently pending.           6. 49486/11 Khamstkhanova v.   Russia   18/07/2011 (1)     Ms Arbiyat Khamstkhanova (1960), wife, Grozny, the Chechen Republic     Mr Dokka Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny 1)     Mr Iles Khamstkhanov (1960, in the documents submitted the date of birth was also stated as 1955), abducted from home at 11   p.m. on 12   January 2006, Grozny At about 11 p.m. on 12 January 2006 a group of ten armed servicemen in bulletproof vests and special helmets (the uniform usually worn by special forces) arrived at the applicant’s house in three UAZ vehicles. One of the vehicles was armoured, the others were equipped with radio stations. The servicemen smashed windows and broke into the house. They grabbed Iles and dragged him outside; two of the intruders held the applicant’s son Khussein at gun point and ordered him not to move. The servicemen put Iles in one of the vehicles and drove away in the direction of the Oktyabrskiy district department of the interior in Grozny (the ROVD). The applicant’s son Khussein immediately went to the ROVD with his relatives; there they were told that Iles had been arrested by mistake and that he would be released soon. The applicant has not seen her husband Iles Khamstkhanov since his abduction on 12   January 2006. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicant and her relatives and copies of documents received from the authorities.   The applicant and her relatives immediately lodged a written complaint about the abduction with the ROVD. On 14   January 2006 investigators arrived at the applicant’s house and questioned her, her daughter and her son Khussein. On 23 January 2006 the applicant complained about the abduction to Chechnya prosecutor. On 30 January 2006 the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no.   52007. On 31   January 2006 the applicant was granted victim status. On 31 January and 10 March 2006 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaints about the abduction to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. On 20 April 2006 the applicant was informed that on an unspecified date the investigation of the abduction was resumed. On 20 May 2006 the applicant was informed that the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 29 May 2006 the applicant was informed that on 25   May 2006 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation and that the proceedings had been resumed. It is unclear whether the applicant contacted the investigative authorities between August 2006 and January 2011. On 25 February 2011 the applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Grozny that the investigation of her husband’s abduction by representatives of power structures was ineffective and requested that it be resumed and carried out in an effective manner. On 27 April 2011 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint stating that the investigation had been resumed on 26 April 2011. On 6 May 2011 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended. Last document : the decision to suspend the investigation of 6   May 2011 (see above). The criminal proceedings are currently pending.             7. 52051/11 Akhilgovy v.   Russia   01/08/2011 (1)     Mr Bayal (in the documents submitted also spelt as Bayali) Akhilgov (1958), father, Urus ‑ Martan, the Chechen Republic   (2)     Ms Bikhana Akhilgova (1958), mother, idem Mr Dokka Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny (1)     Mr Lom-Ali Akhilgov (1986), abducted from home on 8   January 2003 at around 3   a.m. , Urus-Martan At the material time the united military alignment (the UGA) ‘West’ (‘ Запад’ ) was stationed in Urus-Martan, in about one km from the applicants’ house. The area was under curfew; checkpoints were situated on all roads leading to and from the town. On 8 January 2003 the applicants and their sons Lom-Ali and Magomed were at home. At about 3   a.m. a group of armed servicemen in khaki-coloured camouflage uniforms arrived at the neighbourhood in several vehicles, including an APC, a URAL lorry and a UAZ minivan. Some of them were in masks. The soldiers, who spoke unaccented Russian, broke into the house, pointed their guns at the first applicant and took Lom-Ali outside. They told the second applicant that she would find her son on the following day at the Zavodskoy district department of the interior in Grozny (the Zavodskoy ROVD). Then they walked out to the street with the applicant’s son in the direction of the UGA headquarters; they dragged him over the bridge and then put in the UAZ minivan. According to the applicants’ neighbours, another group of soldiers, about twenty, was waiting for the first group in about 300 metres from the applicants’ house. The applicants have not seen their son Lom-Ali Akhilgov since his abduction on 8   January 2003. The applicants’ account is based on statements provided by them, their relatives and neighbours. In the morning of 8 January 2003 the applicants went to the Zavodskoy ROVD looking for Lom-Ali. The police denied his arrest or detention on their premises. On 10   January 2003 the applicants complained about the abduction to the Urus ‑ Martan prosecutor. On 30 January 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   34009 (in the documents submitted also referred to under no.   63044). On 30 March 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. At some point between April 2003 and July 2009 the investigation of the criminal case was transferred to the Achkhoy ‑ Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office. On 9 July 2009 the first applicant complained to the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office that the investigation of his son’s abduction by federal servicemen was ineffective and requested that the authorities granted him victim status and informed him about the progress in the proceedings. On 20   July 2009 the investigators replied that the investigation had been resumed for failure to take basic steps, such questioning of the witnesses to the abduction and crime scene examination. From the documents submitted it follows that the investigation was suspended from 30 April 2003 to 20 July 2009. It is unclear whether the applicants contacted the authorities during this period. On 28 July 2009 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 30 July 2009 the investigators requested that remand prison IZ ‑ 15/1 in Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia, informed them whether Lom-Ali Akhilgov was detained on their premises. The outcome of this request is unknown. On 20 August 2009 the investigation was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 3 September 2009 the first applicant complained to the head of the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district investigations department that the investigation was ineffective and requested to be allowed to review the case file. On 15 September 2009 the investigators replied to the applicant that he had the right to access only the documents which reflected investigative steps taken with this participation. On 18 November 2009 the first applicant complained to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court that the investigation was ineffective and requested the court to order the investigators to resume the proceedings and allow him to review the case file. On 11   December 2009 the court allowed the complaint stating that for more than six years the investigation had been unlawfully suspended and that the applicant was entitled to review the entire contents of the case file. On 11 November 2010 the first applicant again complained to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court that the investigation was ineffective. On 19 May 2011 the investigation of the criminal case was resumed. On 20 May 2011 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint stating that the investigation had been resumed on 19   May 2011. On 15 June 2011 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Chechnya Supreme Court. Last document : The decision of 15 June 2011 (see above). The criminal proceedings are currently pending.   8. 52076/11 Aguyeva and others v.   Russia   11/08/2011 (1)     Mr Khedi Aguyeva (1960), mother, Malorechnaya, Kurchaloy district, Chechnya   (2)     Mr Inderpash Ismailov (1956), father, Tsotsi-Yurt, Kurchaloy district, Chechnya   (3)     Ms Marusa Aguyeva (1921), grandmother, Malorechnaya, Kurchaloy district, Chechnya   (4)     Ms Luiza Makhmadova (in the documents submitted also spelt as Makhamdova) (1985), Dzhandar Ismailov’s wife, Gudermes, Chechnya   (5)     Mr Atama Ismailov (2003), Dzhandar Ismailov’s son, idem Stitching Russian Justice Initiative   Two brothers abducted on 21   January 2003 at about 6   a.m. from home in Gudermes:   (1)     Mr Dzhandar Ismailov (1979) and   (2)     Mr Dzhalil Ismailov (1982) At the material time the town of Gudermes was under curfew; it was surrounded by military checkpoints. A special military unit no.   291 of the 42nd regiment of the motorised infantry division of the Russian Ministry of Defence called ‘Battalion Vostok’ ( батальон 291-го мотострелкового полка 42-ой гвардейской мотострелковой дивизии Министерства Обороны РФ ) was stationed in the settlement. According to the applicants, the battalion was involved in special operations of the Russian federal forces. Dzhandar and Dzhalil Ismailov lived with their families, including the applicants, on the second floor of block of flats at no.   52 in Kavkazskaya Street in Gudermes. In the early hours of 21 January 2003 a group of about ten to fifteen servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the applicants’ address in a grey UAZ vehicle with smeared registration numbers. The only one serviceman without mask had dark hair and a clearly visible scar on the left cheek. The intruders, who were armed with machineguns, dispersed throughout the building on each floor. Then they broke into the applicants’ flat; quickly searched it and took away gold jewellery and 250,000   Russian rubles (RUB) (about EUR   6,500). They were in a rush and gave no explanations for their actions; after the search they took Dzhandar and Dzhalil outside without allowing them to put on warm clothing. They forced the brothers in the UAZ vehicle and drove away in the direction of Grozny. About two of three months after the abduction the second applicant was informed by Mr   A.Kh., an officer from the Vostok battalion, that his sons were detained by the battalion’s commander Dzhabrail Yamadayev. The applicants have not seen their relatives since their abduction on 21   January 2003. The account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours. On 21 January 2003 the applicants complained in person about the abduction to the Argun district prosecutor’s office. On 23 January 2003 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 32005. On 24 January 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 6 March 2003 the first applicant complained to the Gudermes prosecutor and the Chechnya prosecutor about the abduction of her sons by representatives of power structures. On 2 December 2004 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation of the criminal case had been suspended on 23   April 2003 for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 11 September 2008 the first applicant complained to the Gudermes inter-district investigations department that the investigation of her sons’ abduction was ineffective and requested the authorities to allow her to review the case file. On 11   October 2008 the investigators replied that the proceedings had been suspended on 23 April 2003 and that she could review the file in their office. On 23 March 2009 the investigators informed the first applicant that she could not review the case file as she did not have the victim status in the criminal case. On 5 April 2009 the first applicant again complained to the investigators that the investigation was ineffective and requested to be allowed to review the case file. On 21 April 2009 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 8 May 2009 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation had established a possible involvement of representatives of law-enforcement agencies in the abduction. On 1 June 2009 the first applicant’s lawyer requested that the investigators granted him access to the case file. No reply was given to this request. From the documents submitted it follows that the investigation was suspended from 23 April 2003 to 11   June 2009. On 14   February 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators provided her with an update on the progress of the proceedings. No reply was given to this request. Last document:     The request of   14 February 2011 (see above). It appears t