CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juin 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s38729B7C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s69A82CF5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left } .s839238C { width:51.75pt; display:inline-block } .s74E361E2 { width:45.53pt; display:inline-block } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s2248B85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:21.3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE0FDDB18 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s21B2F906 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s2611B092 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDADB94EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.35pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sCE87C669 { height:146.7pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 8 June 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24748/11 Maryan BACHAKOVA and others against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) A.     General information pertaining to all of the applications 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 Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia, and “Materi Chechni”, an NGO operating in Grozny. The applicants in Chapanovy v. Russia (76566/11) are not legally represented. The facts pertaining to all the applications, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. B.     Events surrounding the abductions The applicants are close relatives of men who disappeared in the Chechen Republic after their abduction from home in 2000-2005 by groups of servicemen. According to the applicants, the servicemen had belonged to the Russian federal troops as they had been in camouflage uniforms, had had Slavic features and spoken unaccented Russian. Armed with machineguns, the servicemen had broken into the applicants’ homes, searched the premises, checked the applicants’ relatives’ identity documents and taken the latter away in military vehicles, such as armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and UAZ cars. In a number of instances the vehicles’ registration numbers had been missing. The abductions took place in the Argun, Shali, Grozny, Achkhoy-Martan and Urus-Martan districts of Chechnya. In the majority of 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. C.     Main features of the investigation into the abductions In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abduction to law-enforcement bodies 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 investigation has been repeatedly stayed by the prosecutor’s offices owing to their inability to identify the culprits and further resumed by the senior prosecutors who pointed out a number of flaws therein, such as the failure to question witnesses or 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 investigating authorities. 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 generally reported that servicemen’s involvement in the abduction had not been established, that no special operations had been 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 latter’s involvement in the activities of illegal armed groups. In all of the cases the applicants requested information about the progress of the proceedings from the investigative authorities; in response they 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 investigative authorities either failed to take the most important investigative steps, such as questioning of witnesses to the abductions, or they took those essential steps with significant and inexplicable delays. D.     Peculiarities of the individual applications Summaries of facts for each of the applications and the most important investigative steps taken by the authorities are outlined below. 1.     Application no. 24748/11 Bachakovy v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Maryan Bachakova, who was born in 1961; 2) Ms Marita Bachakova, who was born in 1966 and 3) Ms Madina Bachakova, who was born in 1971. The applicants live in Argun, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from “Materi Chechni”, an NGO practicing in Grozny. The applicants are the sisters of Mr Aslan Bachakov, who was born in 1974. (a)     Abduction of Mr Aslan Bachakov On 9 October 2001 Russian military forces in Chechnya conducted a special operation in Argun. The town was cordoned off and surrounded by military vehicles. At about 8 a.m. a group of armed masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house at 19 Pervomayskaya Street in one APC with an identification number 023, two UAZ and one VAZ vehicles. Prior to the events, the APC had been on numerous occasions seen on the premises of the Argun military commander’s office. The men threatened the applicants with firearms, searched the premises and detained Mr Aslan Bachakov. One of the men, having introduced himself as an officer of a military commander’s office, assured the applicants that their brother would be questioned and released. Thereafter, the men forced Mr Aslan Bachakov into one of the UAZ vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of Mr Aslan Bachakov remain unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. (b)     The applicants’ search for Mr Aslan Bachakov and the ensuing criminal investigation Immediately after the events, the applicants went to the Argun military commander’s office, where an unidentified officer confirmed the fact of Mr   Aslan Bachakov’s detention on their premises. However, in the course of the applicants’ subsequent visits to the office, the serviceman denied their brother’s detention and refused to disclose information about his whereabouts. On 9 October 2001 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for him. On 1 March 2002 the Argun inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 78026 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 7 March 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. On 1 May 2002 the investigation was suspended due to failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed on 19 April 2003, again suspended on 19 May 2003 and then resumed on 7 October 2010 following the criticism and orders of the supervising prosecutors. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 23 September 2010 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court of the Chechen Republic (the court). On 18 October 2010 the court rejected the complaint having found that on 7 October 2010 the decision to suspend the case had been quashed and the proceedings had been resumed. On 8 December 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the decision on appeal. 2.     Application no. 31280/11 Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Roza Konchiyeva, who was born in 1968; 2) Mr Obusoltan Konchiyev, who was born in 1957 and 3) Mr Supyan Konchiyev, who was born in 1970. The applicants live in Serzhen-Yurt, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from “Materi Chechni”, an NGO practicing in Grozny. The first applicant is the sister of Mr Askhab Konchiyev, who was born in 1973. The second and third applicants are his brothers. (a)     Abduction of Mr Askhab Konchiyev According to the applicants, on 18 July 2002 Russian military forces in Chechnya conducted a special sweeping up operation in Serzhen-Yurt. The servicemen cordoned the settlement and ran identity check of all the residents. At around 12 a.m. on that day (in the documents submitted the time was also referred to as 9 a.m.) a group of armed masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ family house at Shkolnaya Street in Serzhen-Yurt in four APCs and one UAZ vehicle with no registration numbers. The servicemen broke into the house and searched the premises. They then forced Mr Askhab Konchiyev into one of the APCs and took him to an unknown destination. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 27 February 2003 the Shali district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 22042 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 27 February 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. On 27 April 2003 the investigation in the case was suspended due to failure to identify the perpetrators. It is not clear whether the applicants were informed thereof. On 27 July 2006 the investigators informed the applicants that on an unspecified date the investigation had been resumed. Subsequently, the investigation was again suspended on 26 August 2006 and resumed on 2   September 2010. On 5 May 2010 the first applicant requested the investigators to provide her with access to the investigation file. Her request was rejected on 14 May 2010. On 9 June 2010 the first applicant requested the investigators to resume the proceedings and to ensure a thorough investigation into the abduction. Her request was rejected on 21 June 2010. On numerous occasions the applicants complained to various law ‑ enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish Mr Askhab Konchiyev’s whereabouts. It appears that the proceedings in the case are still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 20 August 2010 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court (the court). On 7 September 2010 the court rejected her complaint having found that on 2 September 2010 the investigators had been resumed. On 22 December 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the decision on appeal. 3.     Application no. 34256/11 Movsarova and Others v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Eset Movsarova, who was born in 1956; 2) Mr Idris Movsarov, who was born in 1976 and 3) Ms Madina Devniyeva, who was born in 1972. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from “Materi Chechni”, an NGO practicing in Grozny. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ilyas Movsarov, who was born in 1975. The second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his wife. (a)     Abduction of Mr Ilyas Movsarov and subsequent events At the material time Mr Ilyas Movsarov lived with his wife, the third applicant, and their two minor children at 155 Shcherbakova Street in Grozny. On the night between 29 and 30 April 2002 a group of armed masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in three UAZ vehicles at Mr   Ilyas Movsarov’s house. Having broken in, they searched the premises and checked Mr Ilyas Movsarov’s identity documents. Then they forced him outside, put in one of the UAZ vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination. The next day the applicants went to the Staropromyslovskiy district temporary department of interior (the ROVD) in Grozny. The head of the department, Mr B., informed them that their relative had been detained by officers from the Regional Department of the Fight against Organised Crime of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (RUBOP) ( Региональное управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью Министерства внутренних дел Чеченской Республики ). According to the applicants, Mr Ilyas Movsarov was subsequently seen in detention on the premises of the RUBOP. His whereabouts remain unknown since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 4 June 2002 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   54031 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 3 April 2003 the ROVD issued a certificate stating, in particular, that the operational search activities were being conducted to establish Mr Ilyas Movsarov’s whereabouts. On 14 May 2003 the investigation was suspended. It was subsequently resumed on 6 June 2009 and 8 September 2010 following the supervising prosecutor’s criticism, and suspended on 6 July 2009. On 30 January 2008 the Administration of the Chechen President in reply to the applicants’ request for assistance in the search for their relative informed them that the operational search steps were being taken to establish Mr Ilyas Movsarov’s whereabouts. On 4 July 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 30 July 2010 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps before the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny (the court). On 27 September 2010 the court rejected the complaint having found that on 8 September 2010 the decision to suspend the investigation had been quashed and the proceedings had been resumed. On 15 December 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the decision on appeal. 4.     Application no. 34290/11 Shovkhalova v. Russia The applicant is Ms Rizan Shovkhalova, who was born in 1961 and lives in Avtury, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The applicant is the sister of Mr Adam Sadgayev, who was born in 1967. (a)     Abduction of Mr Adam Sadgayev At the material time Mr Adam Sadgayev, his wife, Ms M.Shch., and his mother, Ms A.S., lived at 17 Sovetskaya Street in the town of Shali. At around 5 a.m. on 17 February 2005 a group of about twenty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at Mr Adam Sadgayev’s house in a Gazel vehicle and an UAZ minivan («таблетка»). Some of the servicemen were masked and wore helmets; those of them who were not masked were of Slavic appearance; they spoke unaccented Russian and used portable radio sets. The servicemen broke into the house and searched the premises. Thereafter, they took Mr Adam Sadgayev away to an unknown destination. Mr Adam Sadgayev’s abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including his wife, mother and their neighbors. His whereabouts remain unknown since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction Immediately after the abduction the applicant and her relatives informed the authorities thereof and requested that a criminal investigation be initiated. According to the applicant, the investigators lost their initial complaint of the abduction that led to the delay in the opening of the criminal case. On 5 April 2005 the Shali district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 46036 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 12 April 2005 Ms M.Shch., the wife of Mr Adam Sadgayev, was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 5 July 2005 the investigators informed the applicant’s relative Ms   M.Shch. that the proceedings in the case had been suspended. It had subsequently been resumed and then again suspended on unspecified dates, Ms M.Shch. was informed on 7 February 2006 and 7 November 2008, respectively. On 4 December 2008 the investigators granted Ms M.Shch. partial access to the investigation file. On 28 December 2010 the applicant was granted victim status in the case. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 5.     Application no. 38134/11 Tembulatovy v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Petimat Tembulatova, who was born in 1944; 2) Mr Saidakhmed Tembulatov, who was born in 1964 and 3) Ms Medina Tembulatova, who was born in 1966. The first and second applicants live in Argun, Chechnya; the third applicant lives in Grozny. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from “Materi Chechni”, an NGO practicing in Grozny. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn (also spelled Said ‑ Khuseyn) Tembulatov, who was born in 1972. The second and third applicants are his brother and sister. (a)     Abduction of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov According to the applicants, on 2 April 2001 the Russian military forces in Chechnya conducted a special sweeping up operation in Argun and cordoned certain town districts with military vehicles. At around 7 30 p.m. that day (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 2 August 2001) a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived in two APCs with identification numbers “A 631” and “813” at the applicants’ house at 12 Solnechnaya Street in Argun. The men, who spoke unaccented Russian, broke into the applicants’ house and searched the premises. Having seized Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov’s passport, the servicemen forced him into one of the APCs and drove off to the outskirts of Argun where they joined a larger group of servicemen and then left in the direction of Khankala. On the same day a resident of the neighbouring house at 8 Solnechnaya Street in Argun, Mr T.A., was abducted under similar circumstances. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the first applicant and the neighbours. On 31 May 2001 the local radio station broadcasted an interview with an officer of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) who stated that Mr   Sayd ‑ Khuseyn Tembulatov and Mr T.A. had been detained by the FSB. The whereabouts of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov remain unknown since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 13 April 2001 the Argun inter-district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 45038 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On an unspecified date the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 13 June 2006 the investigation in the case was suspended due to failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed and then again suspended on several occasions. Thus, it was resumed on 2 October 2002, 5 August 2010, 16 February 2011 and then suspended on 2 August 2003, 6 August 2010 and 16 March 2011. On numerous occasions the applicants complained to various military and law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov’s whereabouts. It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 18 October 2010 and on an unspecified date in 2011 the applicants challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court (the court). On 29 October 2010 and 17 February 2011 the court rejected their complaints having found that the investigators had earlier quashed the decisions to suspend the investigation and resumed the proceedings. 6.     Application no. 41877/11 Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Aset Edilsultanova, who was born in 1956; 2) Ms Zarema Chokkarayeva, who was born in 1982; 3) Ms Myalkhazni Edilsultanova, who was born in 2001; 4) Mr Magomed Edilsultanov, who was born in 2000, and 5) Mr Movladi Edilsultanov, who was born in 2003. The applicants live in the village of Chiri-Yurt, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya). The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov, who was born in 1980; the second applicant is his wife and the third, fourth and fifth applicants are his children. (a)     Abduction of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov and subsequent events At about 6.30 a.m. on 13 April 2003 a group of fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived in two grey UAZ vehicles and one APC without identification numbers at the applicants’ house at 136 Lenina Street (currently named Kadyrova Street) in Cheri-Yurt. The men spoke unaccented Russian, most of them were masked; those without masks were of Slavic appearance. Having checked the identity documents, the men ordered Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov to proceed into one of the UAZ vehicles and drove off with him in the direction of Staryye Atagi. Then they passed through a military unit stationed in the village of Chechen-Aul and went in the direction of Argun. In the search for their relative the applicants went to the office of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) stationed in Staryye Atagi. One of the FSB officers confirmed that Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had been brought to their premises but then transferred to Shali. At the Shali prosecutors’ office the applicants were informed that Mr   Ruslan Edilsultanov had been shortly detained there and then transferred to Khankala, where the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Chechnya was located. Sometime later the applicants received information from unidentified sources that Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had allegedly been detained in a remand prison in Vladikavkaz. During one of the applicants’ visits to that prison, a chief officer, who introduced himself as “Yuriy Borisovich”, confirmed that the applicants’ relative had indeed been detained on their premises for some time but then transferred elsewhere in the town of Pyatigorsk. The applicant provided that information to the investigators (see below). The whereabouts of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov remain since then unknown. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 13 April 2003 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened into the incident. On 12 May 2003 the Shali district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 22080 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of her son’s abduction described above. On an unspecified date the investigation in the case was suspended. It is unclear whether the applicants were informed about this decision. The investigation was subsequently resumed and again suspended on several occasions following the prosecutors’ orders and criticism. In particular, the investigation suspended on 21 May 2006 and 8 May 2009 and resumed on 19 April 2006 and 14 January 2011. On 29 April 2005 the investigators requested the remand prison in Vladikavkaz to provide information on whether Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had been detained on its premises. It appears that no reply was given to that request. On 10 February 2011 the investigators again questioned the first applicant. She reiterated her previously given statement. On numerous occasions the applicants complained to various military and law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov’s whereabouts. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 21 December 2010 the applicants challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the Shali Town Court (the court). On 17 January 2011 the court rejected the complaint having found that on 14 January 2011 the investigators had resumed the investigation. 7.     Application no. 42835/11 Moltayevy v. Russia The applicants are Mr Ziyavdi Moltayev (in the documents submitted also spelled as Ziyaudi Maltayev), who was born in 1942, and Ms Shema Moltayeva, who was born in 1941. The applicants live in the village of Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from “Materi Chechni”, an NGO practicing in Grozny. The applicants are the parents of Mr Adlan Moltayev (also spelled as Maltayev), who was born in 1979. (a)     Abduction of Mr Adlan Moltayev At about 4 a.m. on 11 March 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived in an APC and an UAZ vehicle at the applicants’ house at 20 Shkolnyy Lane in Achkhoy-Martan. Speaking unaccented Russian, the men searched the premises, forced Mr Adlan Moltayev outside, put him in the APC and drove off to an unknown destination. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. The whereabouts of Mr Adlan Moltayev remain unknown since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 12 April 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 63027 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). On 14 April 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 12 June 2002 the investigation was suspended. It was subsequently resumed and then suspended on numerous occasions, including the suspensions on 12 June 2003, 10 July 2008, 30 April 2009 and 4 March 2010. On 13 January 2011 the applicants requested investigators to grant them full access to the case file. The request was rejected. On numerous occasions the applicants complained to various military and law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish Mr Adlan Moltayev’s whereabouts. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 15 March 2010 the applicants challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the Achkhoy-Martan District Court (the court). On 12 April 2010 the court allowed the complaint in part, having found that the investigator had failed to take the necessary steps. On 29 September 2010 the applicants again complained of the investigators’ inaction to the court. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown. On 1 February 2011 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court challenging their lack of access to the case file. On 5   April 2011 their complaint was allowed, the investigators were ordered to grant the applicants full access to the investigation file. 8.     Application no. 62160/11 Umarova and Others v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Sina Umarova, who was born in 1940; 2) Ms Chekhag Bizayeva, who was born in 1955; 3) Ms Khadi Nurgaliyeva, who was born in 1952; 4) Ms Petimat Murtazaliyeva, who was born in 1982; 5) Mr Turpal Murtazaliyev, who was born in 1999, and 6) Mr Turpal-Ali Murtazaliyev, who was born in 2000. The first applicant lives in the village of Shikaroy, Chechnya. She is the mother of Mr Arbi Umarov and Mr Aslanbek Umarov, who were born in 1957 and 1969 respectively. The second applicant lives in the village of Novyye Atagi, Chechnya. She is the mother of Mr Andarbek Abubakarov, who was born in 1975. The third applicant lives in the Kalinovskaya settlement; the fourth, fifth and sixth applicants live in Borozdinovskoye (also spelled as Borozdinovskaya) settlement, Chechnya. The third applicant is the mother of Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev, who was born in 1979; the fourth applicant is his wife and the fifth and sixth applicants are his children. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya). The circumstances surrounding the abductions of local residents in the course of the special military operation conducted in Novyye Atagi on 24   April 2001 have already been examined by the Court in Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 53036/08, 61785/08, 8594/09, 24708/09, 30327/09, 36965/09, 61258/09, 63608/09, 67322/09, 4334/10, 4345/10, 11873/10, 25515/10, 30592/10, 32797/10, 33944/10, 36141/10, 52446/10, 62244/10 and 66420/10, 9 January 2014 (see application no. 30592/10, Ibragimova v.   Russia ). (a)     Abduction of the applicants’ relatives At the material time, the applicants and their families lived in the Red Cross refugee camp situated in the building of a former school in Novyye Atagi in the Shali district. Between 2 and 3 p.m. on 24 April 2001 a large group of about a hundred armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the camp in four APCs, four UAZ and one UAZ («таблетка») vehicles and abducted Mr Arbi Umarov, Mr Aslanbek (also spelled as Aslambek) Umarov, Mr Andarbek Abubakarov, Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev and Mr Masoud Khakimov (with regards to the abduction of Mr Masoud Khakimov, see Pitsayeva and Others, cited above). Immediately after the abduction the applicants complained thereof to the Shali military commander’s office. The commander, Mr Nakhayev, confirmed to the applicants that their relatives were detained by military servicemen and that the detainees would return home on the following day. The applicants have not seen their relatives since their abduction on 24   April 2001. (b)     Official investigation into the events On 12 July 2001 the Shali district prosecutors’ office opened criminal no.   2313 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 10 and 15 August 2001 the first and the second applicants respectively were granted victim status in the criminal case. On 12 September 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed and again suspended on numerous occasions. Thus, the investigation was resumed on 1 May 2002, 1 July 2002, 13 June 2008, 15 May 2009 and suspended on 1 June 2002, 26 September 2002, 11 June 2007 and 14 June 2009. On 12 August 2002 the criminal case was transferred to the military prosecutors’ office of the military unit no. 68798 for further investigation where it was given the number 34/35/0173-02. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On an unspecified date in 2008 the first applicant complained of the investigators failure to take basic steps to the Military Court of the Grozny Garrison (the court). On 6 October 2008 the court rejected the complaint having found that on 13 June 2008 the investigators had resumed the proceedings. 9.     Application no. 62172/11 Oybuyev and Others v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Mr Movldi Oybuyev, who was born in 1946; 2) Ms Yakha Oybuyeva, who was born in 1954; 3) Ms Moltkhan Geliskhanova, who was born in 1981; 4) Ms Petimat Oybuyeva, who was born in 1998; 5) Ms Yasmina Oybuyeva, who was born in 2005, and 6) Mr Iznaur Oybuyev, who was born in 2001. The applicants live in the village of Staryye Atagi, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya). The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Rizvan Oybuyev, who was born in 1974, the third applicant is his wife and the fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are his children. (a)     Abduction of Mr Rizvan Oybuyev At around 11 p.m. on 1 April 2005 a group of armed servicemen in a green Gazel minivan, grey VAZ-21099 and two VAZ-2109 and VAZ-2106 vehicles arrived at the applicants’ family house at 151 Nagornaya Street in Staryye Atagi. The men were in camouflage uniforms and spoke unaccented Russian, most of them were masked; those unmasked were of Slavic appearance. Having broken into the house, they searched the premises and checked Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s identity documents. Then they forced him in one of the vehicles and drove off. Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s brother, Mr I.O., ran after the convoy of the military vehicles and saw them heading in the direction of the abandoned mill at the outskirts of Staryye Atagi where a Russian military unit was stationed. The abduction of Mr Rizvan Oybuyev took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. His whereabouts remain unknown since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities of the incident and requested, both orally and in writing, that criminal proceedings be opened. On 6 May 2005 the Grozny district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 44037 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 17 May 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. On 6 August 2005 the investigation in the case was suspended and then resumed on an unspecified date and then again suspended on 22 February 2006. On 20 November 2007 the Staryye Atagi local administration issued a certificate stating that on 1 April 2005 Mr Rizvan Oybuyev had been detained and taken away from his home by servicemen. On 21 July 2009 the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 10.     Application no. 76566/11 Chapanovy v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Zaluba Chapanova, who was born in 1950; 2) Mr Sykesh Chapanov, who was born in 1930; 3) Mr Vakha Chapanov, who was born in 1969, and 4) Mr Beslan (also spelled as Bislan) Chapanov, who was born in 1977. The applicants live in the village of Alkhazurovo, Chechnya. They are not legally represented. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Lema Chapanov and of Mr Aslan Chapanov, who were born in 1974 and 1979, respectively. The third and fourth applicants are their brothers. (a)     Abduction of the Chapanov brothers At around 5 a.m. on 12 September 2000 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 15 September 2000) the Chapanov family was at home when a group of about twenty armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived in two APCs and a white VAZ ‑ 2106 vehicle at their family house at 57 (formerly no. 55) Titova Street in Alkhazurovo village. Having searched the premises and checked the identity documents, the men informed the applicants that they were going to detain the Chapanov brothers (in particular, Mr Lema Chapanov, Mr Aslan Chapanov, as well as the third and fourth applicants) and take them to Urus ‑ Martan for further identity check. Then the servicemen ordered that the applicants showed title documents for the family Niva model car with the registration number 8405 MT parked in the courtyard of their house. Having seized the documents, the men ordered that the four brothers followed the APCs in the Niva car. On the highway between the village of Goyskoye and Urus-Martan the convoy stopped. The servicemen ordered the brothers to get out of their car and pull tee-shirts over their heads. Then they put them into one of the APCs and the convoy drove for about three hours to an unknown destination. Having arrived somewhere the brothers were ordered to leave the APC and take off the tee-shirts from their heads. The brothers saw a large area with a big number of military vehicles and armed servicemen speaking unaccented Russian. Thereafter the servicemen blindfolded the brothers, tied their hands behind the back and put them in cells. When one of the brothers asked where they were, a cellmate replied that they were in Khankala. The next day the servicemen put the fourth applicant into an APC with the registration number containing digits “823” and took him back to Alkhazurovo. Having searched the premises of the applicants’ family house, the servicemen dropped the fourth applicant off at the outskirts of the village. The third applicant was released a week later and returned home. According to his statements, throughout his detention in Khankala he was detained in the same cell with one of his brothers, Mr Aslan Chapanov. Mr Lema Chapanov and Mr Aslan Chapanov have not been seen ever since. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants, their relatives and neighbours. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction of Mr Lema Chapanov and Mr   Aslan Chapanov On 8 December 2000 the applicants informed the authorities of the incident and requested assistance in search for their relatives. In their statements they repeatedly complained about the unlawful seizure of their Niva car. On 15 February 2001 the Urus-Martan district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 25025 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 15 April 2001 the investigation in the case was suspended. It was subsequently resumed on 11 August 2001, 18 March 2002 and 19 May 2006 following the supervising prosecutors’ criticism and then suspended on 11   September 2001, 25 April 2003 and 19 June 2006. On 8 September 2001 the fourth applicant was granted victim status in the case. On an unspecified date in September 2001 he was questioned and confirmed the circumstance of the abduction described above. On 22 May 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She also confirmed the circumstances of her sons’ abduction. On 7 July 2010 and 4 April 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators to resume the proceedings in the criminal case and to grant her full access to the case file. On 12 July 2010 and 6 April 2011 respectively her requests were rejected. On 6 June 2011 the first applicant challenged the lack of access to the criminal case file before the Urus-Martan Town Court. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown. The criminal investigation is still pending. COMPLAINTS 1.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain about 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 abduction indicate that the perpetrators had been State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation was conducted into the matter. 2.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain that they suffer severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in connection with the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relatives and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incidents. 3.     The applicants in all the applications submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix violates all of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention. 4.     The applicants in all the applications 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 applications of Bachakovy v. Russia (24748/11), Konchiyeva and Others (31280/11), Movsarova and Others (34256/11), Tembulatovy (38134/11), Moltayevy (42835/11) 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 Chapanovy v Russia (76566/11) complain that State agents unlawfully seized their vehicle in the course of the detention of their relatives, thereby violating their property rights guaranteed under Article 1 of the Protocol no. 1 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of the applications of Bachakovy v. Russia (24748/11), Tembulatovy v. Russia (38134/11), Umarova and Others v. Russia (62160/11), Chapanovy v. Russia (76566/11) have the applicants complied with the six ‑ month time-limit laid down in Article 35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on behalf of the applicants “excessive or unexplained delays” 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)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their respective applications with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction and/or disappearance of their relatives.   2.     Having regard to: -     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 recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012 and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014), and; -     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)     Did the applicants make out 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], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 184, ECHR 2009)? 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 a 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 as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 6.     In respect of the application Chapanovy v. Russia (no. 76566/11), were the applicants deprived of their property contrary to the provisions of Article 1 of the Protocol no. 1 of the Convention in the course of the abduction of their relatives? 7.     Further to the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following informati