CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 septembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s512B9729 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .s13D05820 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sFF81EB2B { 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:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8611E46E { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; 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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E8B00CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s41FDBC30 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:10pt } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 21 September 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35816/10 Timur TANGIYEV against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are twenty nine Russian nationals listed in the Appendix. They live in various villages and towns in the Chechen Republic. The applicants are close relatives of the eleven men who were allegedly abducted between 2000 and 2004 by servicemen from various places in Chechnya. The circumstances of the applications as presented by the applicants can be summarised as follows. A.     General information pertaining to all of the applications The applicants are close relatives of men who disappeared after having been abducted by servicemen from their homes and public places in Chechnya. In each of the applications the events took place in the areas under full control of the military forces. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives thereafter. In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abduction to law enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In each case the proceedings, after having been suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. According to all of the applicants, they have not been regularly informed of the progress in the criminal proceedings. Some of the applicants have been provided with partial access to the investigation files. 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 stating either that the investigation was in progress or that their requests had been forwarded to another law enforcement agency for examination. No active investigative steps were taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions in Chechnya and the North Caucasus. According to the applicants, the 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. B.     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. 35816/10 Tangiyev v. Russia The applicant is Mr Timur Tangiyev, who was born in 1977, and who is currently serving his sentence in penitentiary facility IK-11 in Stavropol. He is represented before the Court by Mr Valeriy Shukhardin, a lawyer practicing in Moscow. The applicant is the brother of Mr Anzor Tangiyev, who was born in 1978. (a)     Abduction of Mr Anzor Tangiyev On 24 May 2000 Mr Anzor Tangiyev stayed overnight in his neighbour’s, Mr A.D.’s, flat in the block of flats at 2A in Doprizyvnikov street in Grozny. At about 4 a.m. on 25 May 2000 about twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the flat, took both Mr Anzor Tangiyev and Mr A.D. to the courtyard, tied their hands behind their backs, pulled t ‑ shirts over their heads and put them on the ground. They then forced Mr   A.D. in one of the UAZ vehicles, drove him to an unknown destination and placed him in a basement. Mr A.D. was ill-treated by the abductors for four days to make him to confess to membership in illegal armed groups. On the fourth day of the detention Mr A. D. was taken to a different room where he saw Mr Anzor Tangiyev who had signs of ill-treatment, including broken finger on the right hand. Mr Anzor Tangiyev told the servicemen that Mr A. D. did not participate in illegal armed groups. Then Mr A. D. was taken back to the basement. From an overheard conversation between the servicemen and noise of helicopters Mr A.D. understood that he was detained at the Khankala military base, the headquarters of the federal military forces located in the suburbs of Grozny. On 17 June 2000 Mr A.D. was blindfolded and taken to the centre of Grozny in an APC, where he was released in front of the Publishing Company. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction Between 2003 and 2009 the applicant complained of his brother’s abduction to various law enforcement bodies. On 9 March 2010 the Shali district investigative committee opened criminal case no. 38001 under Articles 126 (abduction) and 286 (abuse of authority) of the Criminal Code. On 9 June 2010 the criminal case was suspended. On an unspecified date the latter decision was overruled by the supervisors and the investigation was resumed. On 11 January 2011 the proceedings were suspended again. The applicant was not informed thereof. On an unspecified date between January and April 2013 the applicant complained to the deputy head of the Staropromyslovskiy district investigative committee of Grozny that the suspension of the investigation was unlawful and requested that it be resumed. On 15 April 2013 his complaint was rejected as unsubstantiated. The documents submitted show that the investigation is still pending. 2.     Application no. 52431/10 Maltsagovy v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov, who was born in 1952: 1)   Ms Mukhazhar Maltsagova, who was born in 1954, the wife; 2)   Mr Ibragim Maltsagov, who was born in 1972, the son; 3)   Mr Dukvakha Maltsagov, who was born in 1973, the son; 4)   Ms Eliza Maltsagova, who was born in 1980, the daughter; 5)   Ms Maret Maltsagova, who was born in 1984, the daughter; The applicants live in Avtury and Serzhen-Yurt, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya). (a)     Abduction of Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov At about 4 a.m. on 3 May 2000 a large group of armed servicemen arrived at the applicant’s house in Avtury in two UAZ minivans ( “tabletka” ) without identification numbers, four APCs and URAL lorry. The servicemen, who broke into the courtyard, had shot the applicant’s barking dog. Ten servicemen were in the courtyard when Mr   Mukhadi Maltsagov went outside to the noise. They asked his name, tied his hands and took him to the street where about fifty servicemen were waiting. They then took him to the premises of the local poultry farm, where the Russian military base was located. According to the applicants, the servicemen belonged to the Russian federal troops as they wore camouflage uniforms, had Slavic features, spoke unaccented Russian and used portable radios. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 3 May 2000 the applicants went to the Shali military commander’s office. The military commander N. told the applicants that that they had not arrested Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov and that he had no information concerning a special operation on that date. Between July and August 2000 the applicants forwarded a number of abduction complaints to various authorities. On 25 December 2000 the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal case no. 22087 into the abduction of Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 5 February 2001 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 5 July 2001 the military prosecutor’s office of the military unit no.   20116 informed the applicant that the involvement of the servicemen in the abduction was not established. On 1 October 2001 the Shali district prosecutor’s office replied to the applicants’ request for information stating that they were taking operative ‑ search measures to establish the whereabouts of Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov and that they would be informed of further developments. On 7 December 2004 the Shali district prosecutor’s office replied to the applicants’ request for information stating that on an unspecified date the criminal case had been resumed. On 6 April 2006 the applicants asked the NGO Edinstvo for assistance in establishing their relative’s whereabouts. It is unclear whether the NGO lodged any complaints on the applicant’s behalf. On 8 February 2010 the applicants requested the investigators from the Shali district investigative committee to inform them of the progress of the investigation. On 12 February 2010 the investigators replied to the applicants that the investigation had been suspended on 12 May 2005 but the Shali district police department was taking operative search measures to establish the whereabouts of Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov. On 2 June 2010 the Chechnya investigative committee forwarded the applicants’ request for an effective investigation of the abduction to the Shali district investigative committee. From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Application no. 56569/11 Tutkhanovy v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Alaudi Tutkhanov, who was born in 1951: 1)   Ms Kulyush Tutkhanova, who was born in 1955, the wife; 2)   Mr Rizvan Tutkhanov, who was born in 1981, the son. The applicants live in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. (a)     Abduction of Mr Alaudi Tutkhanov At 6 p.m. on 2 November 2002 Mr Alaudi Tutkhanov was abducted from his work at the Road Maintenance Department located in the outskirts of Achkhoy-Martan by servicemen in camouflage uniforms in two UAZ vehicles. He has not been seen ever since. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 3 November 2002 the applicants requested the Achkhoy-Martan district department of the interior (“the ROVD”) to establish the whereabouts of their relative. On 29 November 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 63095 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 16 January 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 17 September 2003 the investigation was suspended. On 1 December 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr   Alaudi Tutkhanov a missing person. On 31 January 2008 the Achkhoy-Martan district investigative committee informed the applicants that the criminal investigation was resumed. On 29 February 2008 the investigation was suspended again. On 17 March 2008 the investigation was resumed and on 15 April 2008 again suspended. On 17 March 2011 the applicants requested the Achkhoy-Martan district investigative committee to provide them with copies of documents from the criminal case file. On 29 March 2011 the applicants requested that the investigators question Mr R. M. On 21 April 2011 the investigators granted the applicants’ request for the questioning while the request for copies of the documents was rejected. On 29 April 2011 the investigation was suspended. It is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 25 March 2011 the applicants challenged the decision of 15   April 2008 to suspend the criminal proceedings before the Achkhoy-Martan District Court. The applicants’ complaint was transferred to the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court on the grounds of jurisdiction. On 20 April 2011 the Urus-Martan Town Court rejected the applicants’ complaint as a day earlier the investigators had resumed the investigation. On 18 May 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court, upheld that decision on appeal. 4.     Application no. 869/12 Magaziyev and Others v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Said-Emin Magaziyev, who was born in 1979: 1)   Mr Saydar Magaziyev, who was born in 1941, and lives in Zakan ‑ Yurt, the father; 2)   Ms Tumisha Yunusova, who was born in 1948, and lives in Zakan ‑ Yurt, the mother; 3)   Ms Berlant Magaziyeva, who was born in 1972, and lives in Grozny, the sister; 4)   Ms Zarema Magaziyeva, who was born in 1968, and lives in Grozny, the sister; 5)   Mr Said-Magomed Magaziyev, who was born in 2002, and lives in Zakan-Yurt, the son. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya). (a)     Background information On 10 September 2002 Mr Said-Emin Magaziyev was taken to the Achkhoy-Martan district department of interior (ROVD) and questioned by the police investigator Mr M. K. and an officer of the Federal Security Service (FSB) Mr V. K., in connection with a theft. The next questioning was scheduled for 16 September 2002 by the FSB officers and Mr   Said ‑ Emin Magaziyev was released. On 16 and 17 September 2002 Mr Said-Emin Magaziyev was unable to go to the FSB office and planned to go there on 18 September 2002. (b)     Abduction of Mr Said-Emin Magaziyev At 3.00 a.m. on 18 September 2002 seven or eight armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicants’ house, bound Mr Said-Emin Magaziyev’s hands and legs and took him away in an APC towards the Samashki village. On the next day the first applicant went to the Samashki military commander’s office, where the servicemen told him that Mr Said-Emin Magaziyev had been brought to that office at 4 a.m. on 18 September 2002 but a few hours later taken to an unknown destination in UAZ minivan. (c)     Official investigation of the abduction On 28 September 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 63072 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 27 December 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 8 August 2003 and 9 March 2007 the Ahckhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that the criminal proceedings had been resumed. On 7 April 2007 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on an unspecified date. The applicants were not informed thereof. On 10 June 2008 the investigation was again suspended. The applicants were informed thereof on 10 July 2008. On 16 January 2009 the criminal proceedings were resumed. On 20 January 2009 the forth applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. On 14 May 2009 the third applicant requested that the investigators grant her permission to access the criminal case file. On 21 June 2011 the fourth applicant requested that the investigators take measures necessary for an effective investigation. The investigation is still pending. 5.     Application no. 2660/12 Esambayeva v. Russia The applicant, Ms Ayant Esambayeva, was born in 1956, and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is represented by Mr Dokka Itslayev, a lawyer practicing in Grozny. The applicant is the mother of Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev, who was born in 1986. (a)     Background information The applicant’s husband and two sons, ten and eleven years old at the material time, died during a bombardment of Grozny in 1994. When the military operation was launched in Chechnya in 1999, the applicant moved to Nazran, Ingushetia. (b)     Abduction of Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev On 28 May 2000 the applicant’s son, Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev (thirteen years old at the time), left Nazran and went to Grozny by bus. According to the witnesses who were in the same bus with him, as he did not have identity documents on him, he was taken off the bus by the servicemen at the checkpoint near the canning factory in Grozny. He was forced into an APC and taken away. While being taken to the APC Mr   Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev shouted out his name and that of the applicant and asked the bus passengers to inform her of his arrest. Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev has been missing ever since. (c)     Official investigation of the abduction On 31 May 2000 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Leninskiy district temporary department of interior of Grozny (“VOVD”) and asked for assistance in the search for her son. On 14 July 2000 the applicant lodged a similar request with the Grozny prosecutor’s office. Between May to September 2000 the law-enforcement authorities took steps to establish Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev’s whereabouts but to no avail. On 18 December 2000 the Leninskiy VOVD refused to open criminal case into the abduction of Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev. On 27 August 2001 the applicant requested a number of State bodies, including the Russian Ministry of the Interior, to establish her son’s whereabouts. Similar request was forwarded to the International Committee of the Red Cross. On 20 July 2005 the criminal search department of the Leninskiy ROVD reported to the head of the police department that they could not establish Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev’s whereabouts. On 29 July 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 40147 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 14 September 2005 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 29 September 2005 the investigation was suspended. On 19 January 2006 the criminal proceedings were resumed and on 20   February 2006 they were again suspended. On 16 June 2007 the investigators requested that the police from the Leninskiy ROVD assisted them in taking a number of investigative steps. On 18 March 2010 the applicant requested that the investigators take measures to find her missing son. On 4 June 2010 the applicant requested the investigators to provide her with copies of documents from the criminal case file. On 8 June 2010 the applicant’s request was granted. Another request for documents was granted on 9 June 2011. From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending. 6.     Application no. 2671/12 Zaurbekova v. Russia The applicant, Ms Zarina Zaurbekova, was born in 1977 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is represented by Mr Abubakar Vadayev, a lawyer practicing in Grozny. The applicant is the wife of Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev, who was born in 1971. (a)     Abduction of Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev At 11 a.m. on 5 February 2000 several APCs, URAL vehicles and a lorry for transporting detainees (“Avtozak”) arrived at the applicant’s house in Kirova street in Grozny. Several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms without insignias and triangle headscarfs covering their heads, demanded all the men to go outside with their identification documents. The servicemen then put Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev and his neighbour Mr R. in the Avtozak. Few hours later they took them outside, put them on their knees and tied up the hands behind their backs with metal wire. One of the servicemen was filming the events on a video camera. At about 4 p.m. the servicemen put Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev and his neighbour Mr R. back in one of the vehicles and drove off towards bus station in Grozny. The mother of Mr R. found out from one of the servicemen that they were from the Special Police Task Force Unit (“OMON”) from Saint Petersburg. Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev and Mr R. have not been seen ever since. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 26 July 2000 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Envoy of the Russian President on Human Rights and Freedoms in Chechnya (the Envoy). On 29 September 2000 the applicant lodged the abduction complaint with the Grozny prosecutor’s office. On 30 September 2000 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office requested the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior to take measures to search for the applicant’s husband. That request was forwarded to the Oktyabrskiy district police station (the Oktyabrskiy district temporary department of the interior (“the VOVD”)). On 25 October 2000 the VOVD refused to open criminal proceedings for the lack of corpus delicti . On 12 November 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 25 October 2000 and opened criminal case no. 12255 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 12 January 2001 and then on 19 March 2003 the investigation was suspended and on 19 November 2002 and 21 April 2003 it was resumed. On 29 April 2003 criminal case no. 12255 was joined with other cases under the joint number.   15025. On 6 June 2003 the mother of Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 28 June 2003 and then on 6 June 2004 the investigation was again suspended. On 4 June 2004 the criminal case concerning the abduction of Mr   Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev and Mr R. was separated from the criminal case no. 15025 and again given the number. 12255. On 11 February 2005 the criminal proceedings were resumed. On 12 and 18 February 2005 the investigators inspected the crime scene. On 16 March 2005 the investigation was again suspended and on 15 June 2011 it was resumed. On 16 June 2011 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 25 June and 24 July 2011 the investigation was again suspended and on 17 July and 14 September 2011 respectively it was resumed. From the documents submitted it follows that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against investigators On 7 September 2011 the applicant challenged the investigator’s decision of 24 July 2011 to suspend the investigation with the Zavodskoy District Court. On 16 September 2010 the latter dismissed the complaint as two days earlier the investigation had been resumed. 7.     Application no. 2674/12 Vatsayevy v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev, who was born in 1979: 1)   Ms Rukiyat Vatsayeva, who was born in 1949, the mother; 2)   Mr Said-Khamzat Vatsayev, who was born in 1973, the brother; 3)   Ms Yezira Vatsayeva, who was born in 1987, the sister. The applicants live in Chechen-Aul, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. (a)     Abduction of Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev On 11 July 2002 the servicemen under the commandment of General   I.   B. conducted special operation in Chechen-Aul. Being afraid for her son’s personal safety, the first applicant told Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev to go to her sister, who lived in the Belgatoy village. On the way to Belgatoy, next to the Argun river, Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev and a fellow villager, whose identity the applicants did not disclose before the Court, were shot at by the servicemen. One of the two men was injured and fell on the ground on the bank, the other one jumped into the river and was carried away by the strong current. The servicemen picked up the injured man and took him away to an unknown destination. The eyewitnesses did not see who had been injured and who had jumped into the water. According to the applicants, the injured man must have been Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev as his passport was later found on the bank. The applicants have not seen Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev ever since. (b)     Official investigation of abduction On 23 July and 9 September 2002 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Grozny district police station (the ROVD). On several occasions between 2002 and 2005 the applicants complained of the police’s failure to take necessary investigative steps to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office. On 24 January 2006 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 54006 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). On 30 January 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 24 March 2006 and 16 June 2011 the investigation was suspended and on 4 June and 21 July 2011 respectively it was resumed. From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against investigators On 1 July 2011 the applicants appealed the investigator’s decision of 16   June 2011 to suspend the investigation to the Grozny District Court. On 22   July 2011 the latter dismissed the complaint as a day before the investigators had resumed the proceedings. On 24 August 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. 8.     Application no. 52498/12 Dzhambulatova v. Russia The applicant, Ms Lyubov Dzhambulatova, was born in 1964 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is not legally represented. The applicant is the sister of Mr Khamit Dzhambulatov, who was born in 1957. (a)     Background information At 8 p.m. on 28 August 2002 a group of fifteen to twenty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the courtyard of the applicant’s house in Grozny. Some of them remained in the courtyard, while the others entered the house. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian. They searched the premises and left. (b)     Abduction of Mr Khamit Dzhambulatov On 7 September 2002 several armed servicemen in balaclavas broke into the applicant’s house again. After they checked the house, the servicemen took out Mr Khamit Dzhambulatov. Two minutes later when the applicant went outside she noticed the APC with dirt on the registration number driving away. The applicant’s neighbours told her that Mr Khamit Dzhambulotov was forced into that APC. The applicant has not ever seen her brother since. (c)     Official investigation of the abduction On 9 September 2002 the applicant complained to the head of the administration of the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her brother. On 12 September 2002 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Grozny town prosecutor’s office. On 12 October 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor office opened criminal case no. 54087 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 12 December 2002 the investigation was suspended and on 12   October 2004 it was resumed. On 12 December 2004 the investigation was again suspended. On 17 June 2009 the applicant requested the investigators to grant her victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 11 June 2010 the applicant requested that the investigators allowed her to access the criminal case-file, that they resume the proceedings and inform her of their progress. On 26 September 2011 the criminal proceedings were resumed. On 27 September 2011 the applicant was granted victim status. On 26 October 2011 the investigation was suspended and on 27   December 2011 it was resumed. On 27 January 2012 the investigation was again suspended. On 3 February 2012 the applicant requested the Chechnya prosecutor’s office to resume the investigation and allow her to access case-file. On 27 February 2012 the applicant again requested that the investigators allowed her to access the case-file. On 13 March 2012 and on an unspecified date in 2013 the investigation was resumed and on 23 March 2012 and 18 December 2013 respectively it was suspended. It is still pending. 9.     Application no. 65488/12 Chapsurkayevy v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev, who was born in 1964: 1)   Ms Mirsa Chapsurkayeva, who was born in 1963, the wife; 2)   Mr Ayub Chapsurkayev, who was born in 1982, the son; 3)   Ms Regina Chapsurkayeva, who was born in 1989, the daughter; 4)   Mr Imran Chapsurkayev, who was born in 1990, the son; 5)   Mr Muslim Chapsurkayev, who was born in 1997, the son; 6)   Mr Yusup Chapsurkayev, who was born in 1998, the son; The applicants live in Shali, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov, a lawyer practising in Grozny. (a)     Abduction of Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev At 5 a.m. on 17 July 2002 several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in Shali. Another group of servicemen also broke into the house of Mr   Khamzat Chapsurkayev’s brother situated nearby. Speaking unaccented Russian they requested identity documents and handcuffed Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev. They searched the house turning everything upside down. They then pulled the shirt over Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev’s head and forced him outside. One of the servicemen was filming the events on a video camera. The servicemen forced Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev into the one of three APCs and drove away. Several neighbours witnessed abduction of Mr   Khamzat Chapsurkayev. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 24 October 2002 the first applicant requested the Chechnya prosecutor’s office and the Envoy to take measures to establish her husband’s whereabouts. On 29 November 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59267 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 29 January 2003 the investigation was suspended. On 13 March 2003 the first applicant requested that the NGO Fond Vozvrasheniye assisted her in the search for Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev. On 17 April 2004, the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.   20166 replied to the applicant’s information request stating that on 17   July 2002 their servicemen had neither carried out any special operations nor detained anyone. On 29 February 2010 and then on 6 May 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings and grant her access to the case-file. No reply was given to this request. From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against investigators On 6 May 2010 the first applicant complained of the investigator’s failure to take basic investigative steps to the Shali District Court. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown. 10.     Application no. 24711/13 Lorsnukayeva and Idrisova v. Russia The applicants, Ms Asma Lorsnukayeva (also referred to as Lorsanukayeva and Lorsunkayeva), who was born in 1939, and Ms   Lipa Idrisova, who was born in 1968, are the mother and wife of Mr   Alvi Lorsnukayev (in the documents submitted also referred to as Lorsanukayev, Lorsunukayev, Lorsankayev), who was born in 1961. The applicants live respectively in Gekhi and Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. (a)     Abduction of Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev On 10 May 2002 Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev went with the second applicant to Grozny to visit his brother Mr Ar. L. At 2 p.m. on 12 May 2002 a group of eight to nine armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the Mr Ar. L.’s flat. Without any explanations, they pulled Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev’s shirt over his head, took him barefoot outside and forced in the UAZ minivan (“ tabletka ”) with tinted windows and without registration numbers. The servicemen spoke Russian and Chechen. One of Mr Ar. L.’s neighbours, Mr. V. B., who was in the flat at the time of the incident, attempted to inform the servicemen that he was a police officer from the Leninskiy district police station. The servicemen disregarded this information, kicked him and then pushed him down on the floor along with the other neighbour, Mr. S. E., present during the events. Then the servicemen took Mr Ar. L. outside and put him in the UAZ vehicle with Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev in it. The second applicant attempted to stop the servicemen, but they hit her with the riffle buts and drove off. Five minutes later the servicemen pushed Mr Ar. L. out of the UAZ vehicle and proceeded to an unknown destination. Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev has not been seen ever since. (b)     Subsequent events About three weeks later, in the end of May 2002, a man, who refused to identify himself, passed a written message to Mr Ar. L. from Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev. The message, written on an empty cigarette box, stated that “I am here”. According to the man that cigarette box was thrown out of a vehicle next the building of the Federal Security Service in Grozny. (c)     Official investigation of the abduction On 20 June 2002 the applicants requested the Grozny prosecutor’s office to establish Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev’s whereabouts and the perpetrators of his abduction. On 24 July 2002 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   48116 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 24 September 2002 the investigation was suspended. On 15 July 2008 the applicants requested that the investigators inform them of the progress of the investigation, resume the proceedings and allow to access the case-file. On 23 July 2009 the investigation was resumed. On 20 August 2009 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 22 August 2009 the investigation was suspended. On 29 June 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the case-file. On 30 August 2012 the investigation was resumed. It is still pending. (d)     Proceedings against investigators On 26 June 2012 the applicants appealed the decision of 22 August 2009 to suspend the investigation to the Leninskiy District Court. On 8 August 2012 the complaint was transferred to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court. On 31 August 2012 the latter dismissed it as a day before the investigators had resumed the investigation.On 24 October 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal. 11.     Application no. 24725/13 Kaysarova and Isiyeva v. Russia The applicants, Ms Aymani Kaysarova, who was born in 1960, and Ms   Khedi Isiyeva, who was born in 1989, are the mother and sister of Mr   Arbi Isiyev, who was born in 1985. The applicants live in Argun, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. (a)     Abduction of Mr Arbi Isiyev At 1.10 p.m. on 29 September 2004 Mr Arbi Isiyev left his home in Argun to visit his aunt, who resided in the same town. When Mr Arbi Isiyev was walking down the Gudermesskaya Street, several servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas forced him in a white “GAZ-3110” car and took him to an unknown destination. The abduction took place in the presence of witnesses Ms S. Sh. and Mr R. D. and one the applicants’ neighbours, whose identity the applicant did not disclose before the Court. Mr Arbi Isiyev has not been seen ever since. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 30 September 2004 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Argun town police department. The applicants stated that the perpetrators had been State agents. On 23 October 2004 the Argun town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 48042 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 18 March 2008 the investigation was suspended. On 22 April 2010 and then again on 22 July 2011 the applicants requested the investigators to grant them access to the criminal case file. On 1 August 2011 the applicants’ request was granted. On 26 October 2011 the investigation was resumed and on 26 November 2011 it was suspended again. On 4 September 2012 the applicants requested that the investigators inform them of the progress in the proceedings. On 11 September 2012 the proceedings were resumed. They are still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 17 October 2011 the applicants complained to the Shali Town Court that the investigation was ineffective and protracted. On 17 November 2011 the latter dismissed the complaint as on 26 October 2011 the investigators had resumed the investigation. On 21 December 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on the appeal. On 7 September 2012 the applicants complained of the investigators’ decision of 26 November 2011 to suspend the investigation to the Shali District Court. On 17 September 2012 the latter dismissed the complaint as on 11 September 2012 the investigators had resumed the investigation. On 31 October 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. COMPLAINTS 1.     Referring to Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications 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 abduction and ensuing disappearance indicate that they had been abducted by State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation was carried out into the incidents. 2.     Referring to 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 national authorities in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation in that respect. 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 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.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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, 165-66, ECHR 2009, and Gakayeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 51534/08, 4401/10, 25518/10, 28779/10, 33175/10, 47393/10, 54753/10, 58131/10, 62207/10 and   73784/10, §§ 311-12, 314, 10 October 2013)? 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 eleven 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 , cited above, §   184)? Are 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 or periods of time 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 under Article   2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 6.     Further to the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information in respect of each of the applications: (a)     any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants’ allegations that their missing relatives had been abducted by State servicemen; and, in any event, (b)     a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants’ complaints about disappearance of their missing relatives, in the chronological order, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings; as well as: (c)     copies of documents from the investigation files in respective criminal cases, including the case-files nos. 38001, 22087, 63095, 63072, 40147, 12255, 15025 54006, 54087, 59267, 48116, 48042, which are relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the allegations and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations. APPENDIX No. Number, name of the application and the date of its introduction The applicants’ details (name, year of birth, family relation to the abducted person, place of residence) Representative Name and year of birth of the abducted person/s   Brief description of the circumstances of the abduction Relevant details of the official investigation   35816/10 Tangiyev v.   Russia   14/05/2010 Mr Timur Tangiyev (1977), the brother, IK ‑ 11 in Stavropol   Mr   Valeriy Shukhardin Mr   Anzor Tangiyev (1978) On 25 May 2000 about twenty servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicant’s flat and took Mr   Anzor Tangiyev and Mr   A.D. in the UAZ vehicles to the Khankala military base in the suburbs of Grozny.   On 9 March 2010 the Shali district investigative committee opened criminal case no. 38001. The investigation is currently pending.     52431/10 Maltsagovy v.   Russia   31/08/2010 (1)   Ms   Mukhazhar Maltsagova (1954), the wife, Avtury, Chechnya   (2)   Mr Ibragim Maltsagov (1972), the son, Avtury, Chechnya   (3)   Mr Dukvakha Maltsagov (1973), the son, Avtury, Chechnya   (4)   Ms Eliza Maltsagova (1980), the daughter, Serzhen-Yurt, Chechnya   (5)   Ms Maret Maltsagova (1984), the daughter, Avtury, Chechnya Stichting Russian Justice Initiative / Astreya (SRJI/Astreya)   Mr   Mukhadi Maltsagov (1952)   On 3 May 2000 a group of armed servicemen arrived at the applicant’s house in Avtury in two UAZ minivans (“ tabletka” ) without identification numbers, four APCs and a URAL lorry and took Mr Mukhadi Maltsagov away.   On 25 December 2000 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22087. The investigation is currently pending.   56569/11 Tutkhanovy v.   Russia   22/08/2011 (1)   Ms Kulyush Tutkhanova (1955), the wife, Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya.   (2)   Mr Rizvan Tutkhanov (1981), the son, Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya   Materi Chechni   Mr   Alaudi Tutkhanov (1951) On 2 November 2002 Mr   Alaudi Tutkhanov was abducted from his work in Achkhoy-Martan by servicemen in camouflage uniforms who drove in two UAZ vehicles.   On 29 November 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 63095. The investigation is currently pending.     869/12 Magaziyev and Others v.   Russia   22/12/2011 (1)   Mr Saydar Magaziyev (1941), the father, Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya   (2)   Ms Tumisha Yunusova (1948), the mother, Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya   (3)   Ms Berlant Magaziyeva (1972), the sister, Grozny, Che