CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 octobre 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 } .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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; 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 } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 16 October 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 65054/11 Marina Magomedovna DZHANKHOTOVA and Gilani Magomedovich DZHANKHOTOV 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 (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya). The applicants in Astamirova and Others v. Russia (9616/12) 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, the majority of whom disappeared in the Chechen Republic after their abduction from home in 2001-2005 by groups of servicemen. According to the applicants, the servicemen belonged to the Russian federal troops as they were in camouflage uniforms, had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian. Armed with machineguns, the servicemen broke into the applicants’ homes, searched the premises, checked the applicants’ relatives’ identity documents and took the latter away in military vehicles, such as armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and UAZ cars. In a number of instances the vehicles’ registration numbers were missing. The abductions took place in the Vedeno, Achkhoy-Martan, Grozny, Shali and Urus-Martan districts of Chechnya. One of the abductions occurred in the Sunzhenskiy district of Ingushetia, a region neighboring the Chechen Republic. In the majority of cases, the abductions were carried out at night or early in the morning, during curfew hours. 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 prosecutors’ offices owing to their inability to identify the culprits and further resumed by the supervisory bodies 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. 65054/11 Dzhankhotov and Dzhankhotova v. Russia The applicants are Ms Marina Dzhankhotova, who was born in 1971, and Mr Gilani Dzhankhotov, who was born in 1969. The first applicant lives is Grozny, the second applicant lives in the village of Syarysh-Mordy, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of SRJI/Astreya. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Uvays Shaipov, who was born in 1967, and the sister of Mr Alvi Dzhankhotov, who was born in 1983. The second applicant is the latter’s brother. The present application concerns the abduction of the applicants’ relatives in 2001 and 2002. (a)     Abduction of Mr Uvays Shaipov and the subsequent events On 23 May 2001 Mr Uvays Shaipov was stopped by Russian servicemen at the checkpoint next to the Kirov-Yurt settlement, Chechnya. The servicemen threatened him with firearms, forced him into an APC with registration number “K-149” and drove off to an unknown destination. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including Ms E.Kh, the mother of Mr Uvays Shaipov. Later on the same day a military officer who introduced himself as “Igor Strelkov” informed the applicants that Mr Uvays Shaipov had been taken to the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala, Chechnya. A month after the abduction, Mr Uvays Shaipov was shown on the television as an accomplice of illegal armed groups in Chechnya arrested by federal forces. It is unclear whether the applicants provided this information to the investigators. The whereabouts of Mr Uvays Shaipov remain unknown since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 18 July 2001 the Vedeno district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 73059 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On an unspecified day in November 2002 (the date is illegible) Ms   E.Kh., the mother of Mr Uvays Shaipov, was granted victim status in the case. She was questioned and confirmed the circumstances of the abduction described above, having additionally stated that immediately after the abduction she had followed the APC with her son and seen it entering the premises of a military regiment stationed in the village of Khatuni, Chechnya. On an unspecified day (the date is illegible) the investigators questioned one of the witnesses, Ms Z.M., who confirmed the circumstances of Mr   Uvays Shaipov’s detention by military servicemen at the checkpoint next to Kirov-Yurt. On 18 September 2002 the investigation in the case was suspended due to failure to identify the perpetrators. On 17 December 2002 the criminal case file was destroyed in a fire occurred in the prosecutors’ office. On 27 October 2004 the acting prosecutor of the Vedeno district ordered that the materials of the criminal case file be restored. On 27 November 2004 the investigation in the case was suspended. This decision was quashed as premature on 26 April 2005 and the investigation was resumed. Subsequently, it was suspended on 26 May 2005, resumed on an unspecified date and again suspended on 7 May 2011. On 20 May 2009 the investigators informed the applicants that the proceedings in the case had been suspended on an unspecified date and that the operational search activities were being taken in order to establish Mr   Uvays Shaipov’s whereabouts. On 5 and 24 May 2011, respectively, the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and was allowed to consult the materials of the case file. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. (c)     Abduction of Mr Alvi Dzhankhotov At around 4.30 a.m. on 31 March 2002 armed servicemen in military camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the applicants’ block of flats no.   12 (there is no indication of a street name in the submitted documents) in the village of Chiri-Yurt in an URAL lorry and a grey UAZ-452 with registration number “835 XA/RUS 95”. A group of about five servicemen broke into the Dzhankhotovs’ family flat where Mr Alvi Dzhankhotov lived with his mother, Ms R.Dzh., and aunt, Ms L.A. The servicemen forced him outside and then took him away to an unknown destination. The same morning two other residents of Chiri-Yurt, Mr Ibragim Asabayev and Mr Alkhazur Asabayev, were abducted under similar circumstances (see below Asabayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 40162/12)). In three days after the abduction servicemen brought Mr Alvi Dzhankhotov back to Chiri-Yurt in a UAZ (“таблетка”) vehicle. They took him into his flat and searched the premises. Ms L.A. was at home and witnessed the search. Thereafter, they forced him back into the vehicle and drove off. The whereabouts of Mr Alvi Dzhankhotov remain unknown since. His abduction took place in the presence of numerous witnesses, including his relatives and neighbors. (d)     Official investigation into the abduction On 24 April 2002 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 31 July 2002 the Shali district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 59174 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status. On an unspecified date (the date is illegible) the investigators questioned Ms L.A., the aunt of Mr Alvi Dzhankhotov, who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as stated above. On 25 September 2002 the investigators requested a number of law ‑ enforcement agencies and military authorities to inform them whether they had arrested or detained Mr Alvi Dzhankhotov. It is unclear from the documents submitted whether any response was given to those requests. On 31 September 2002 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 17 May 2003, 14 July 2003, 8 February 2006, 24 March 2007 in reply to the applicants’ requests for information about the investigation, the investigators informed them that the operational search activities were in progress to establish Mr Alvi Dzhankhotov’s whereabouts. On 24 May 2011 the first applicant was granted full access to the case file. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 2.     Application no. 77744/11 Sadulayeva and Mintsaligov v. Russia The applicants are Ms Raisa Sadulayeva, who was born in 1976, and Mr   Saykhan Mintsaligov, who was born in 2003. The applicants live in the village of Valerik, Chechnya; they are represented before the Court by Mr Dokka Itslayev, a lawyer practicing in Grozny. The applicants are the wife and the son of Mr Musa Mintsaligov, who was born in 1968. (a)     Abduction of Mr Musa Mintsaligov At about 3 a.m. on 10 October 2004 the applicants were at home when a large number of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house at 62 (in the submitted documents the number is also referred to as   69) Kirova Street in Valerik in two APCs and two Ural vehicles without registration numbers. A group of about six servicemen broke into the house, forced Mr Musa Mintsaligov outside and took him away to an unknown destination. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian, most of them were wearing masks and helmets; those without masks were of Slavic and Asian appearance. The whereabouts of Mr Musa Mintsaligov remain unknown since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 15 October 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene. On 16 October 2004 an officer of the Valerik road traffic control service ( ДПС СОМ поселка Валерик ) informed the head of the Achkhoy-Martan district department of interior (the ROVD) that on the night of the abduction, 10 October 2004, a convoy of military vehicles, consisting of two APCs and two Ural vehicles without registration numbers, left the village of Valerik, passed through checkpoint no. 188, and drove off in the direction of Urus-Martan. On 1 November 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 38052 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On an unspecified date the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. On 25 December 2004 she was questioned and confirmed the circumstances of the abduction described above. Between 26 November and 24 December 2004 the investigators questioned numerous witnesses of the events, most of whom were the applicants’ neighbours and the members of their family. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction specified above. On 1 March 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed on 10 June 2008 and 21 July 2011 following the supervisors’ orders and criticism, and then again suspended on 10 July 2008 and 31 July 2011. On numerous occasions between 2004 and 2006 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 Musa Mintsaligov’s whereabouts. On 2 July 2010 the first applicant requested to inform her about the progress in the investigation and to resume the proceedings in the criminal case. On 5 July 2010 the investigators informed her that the proceedings had been suspended on 10 July 2008 and that the operational search activities were in progress. On 2 February 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators to grant her full access to the contents of the file. On 8 February 2011 her request was rejected. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 21 February 2011 the first applicant challenged her lack of access to the criminal case file before the Achkhoy-Martan District Court (the court). On 24 March 2011 the court allowed the applicant’s complaint having ordered the investigators to grant her full access to the file. On 23 June 2011 the first applicant lodged another complaint with the court challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps. On 25 July 2011 the court rejected the complaint having found that on 21   July 2011 the investigators already resumed the investigation. 3.     Application no. 851/12 Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Maymunt Dishnayeva, who was born in 1939; 2) Ms Medina Beligova, who was born in 1961; 3) Ms Medinat Idigova, who was born in 1959, and 4) Mr Adam Akhmadov, who was born in 1954. The first applicant lives in the town of Shali, Chechnya; she is the mother of Mr Abdul-Malik Dishnayev, who was born in 1970, and Mr Abdul Dishnayev, who was born in 1974. The second and third applicants live in Grozny, they are their sisters. The fourth applicant lives in Avtury, he is the father of Mr Timerlan Akhmadov, who was born in 1980. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of SRJI/Astreya. (a)     Abduction of Dishnayev brothers and Mr Timerlan Akhmadov On 9 March 2003 Mr Abdul-Malik Dishnayev, Mr Abdul Dishnayev and their acquaintance Mr Timerlan Akhmadov arrived at Grozny and stayed at the second and third applicants’ house at 6 Partizanskaya Street. At about 2 a.m. on 10 March 2003 a large group of 120 to 130 armed servicemen in yellow camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in an APC, URAL lorries and UAZ-452 ( “таблетка” ) vehicles. A group of ten servicemen broke into the house and searched the premises. They spoke unaccented Russian and were of Slavic appearance; some of them were equipped with radio portable devices. The servicemen forced the Dishnayev brothers and Mr Timerlan Akhmadov outside, put them in the vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives remain unknown since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 13 March 2003 the Leninskiy district prosecutors’ office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 20050 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 13 June 2003 the fourth applicant was questioned as a witness; he confirmed the circumstances of his son’s abduction as described above. On the same date the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. This decision was subsequently quashed on 25   July 2006 and the investigation was resumed. On several occasions between 2003 and 2010 the applicants complained to various military and law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relatives. It is unclear whether any replies were given to these requests. On 19 March and 16 April 2010 the applicants were informed that the criminal case had been transferred to the special cases investigation department of the investigations committee at the Chechnya prosecutors’ office (отдел по рассмотрению особо важных дел Следственного Управления Следственного Комитета при прокуратуре РФ по Чеченской Республике) for further investigation and that the operational search activities were in progress. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 4.     Application no. 867/12 Abubakarova v. Russia The applicant is Ms Zura (in the documents submitted also referred to as Roza) Abubakarova, who was born in 1954. She lives in the village of Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers of SRJI/Astreya. The applicant is the mother of Mr Aslan Abubakarov, who was born in 1979. (a)     Abduction of Mr Aslan Abubakarov At the material time the applicant and her family lived at 50 Matrosova Street in Achkhoy-Martan. The Achkhoy-Martan district department of interior (the ROVD) was across the street from there house. The Achkhoy ‑ Martan district department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) was also nearby, in approximately three hundred metres from the house. At about 3 a.m. on 14 October 2004 a large number of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in two APCs and two URAL lorries without registration numbers. The servicemen were of Slavic appearance, spoke unaccented Russian and were wearing helmets. Some of them were equipped with metal shields and portable radio devices. A group of around six servicemen broke into the house, searched the premises and checked the identity papers. Then they forced Mr Aslan Abubakarov into one of the URAL lorries and drove off in the direction of the FSB. Later that night, shortly after the abduction, the applicant’s relatives went to the checkpoint located at the outskirts of Achkhoy-Martan in the search for Mr Aslan Abubakarov. Servicemen manning the checkpoint told them that a convoy of military vehicles had unrestrictedly passed through earlier that night. The whereabouts of Mr Aslan Abubakarov remain unknown since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicant, members of her family and neighbours. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction Immediately after the abduction the applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 1 November 2004 Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 38050 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). It is unclear from the documents submitted whether the applicant was granted victim status and/or questioned. On 1 March and 6 May 2005 the applicant was informed that on an unspecified date the investigation in the case was suspended and resumed respectively. On 6 June 2005 the investigation was suspended and then on 29 January 2007 it was resumed. On 14 March 2007 the investigation was again suspended and resumed on an unspecified date. The applicant was informed thereof on 31 October 2007. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on an unspecified date and then suspended on 14 September 2011. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 5.     Application no. 9616/12 Astamirova and Others v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Zinaida Astamirova, who was born in 1941; 2) Ms Alisa Novruzova (also spelled as Navruzova), who was born in 1971, and 3) Ms Elza Novruzova (also spelled as Navruzova), who was born in 1975. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are not legally represented before the Court. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Adam Novruzov, who was born in 1973. The second and third applicants are his sisters. (a)     Abduction of Mr Adam Novruzov At about 4 a.m. on 14 July 2003 the applicants and other members of their family were at home at 5 Morskaya Street in Grozny when a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks broke into their house. The servicemen threatened all those present with firearms, searched the premises and forced Mr Adam Novruzov outside. The second applicant tried to stop the servicemen who were taking her brother away, but they started shooting in the air preventing her from further actions. The servicemen took Mr Adam Novruzov on foot to the nearby Mazayeva Street, where two grey military UAZ (“таблетка” ) vehicles were waiting. They loaded him in one of the vehicles and drove off. According to the applicants, during the search the abductors took away several family jewellery items (two golden chains and one golden ring with diamonds). The whereabouts of Mr Adam Novruzov remain unknown since. According to the applicants’ submissions, several other residents of Grozny were abducted the same night under similar circumstances. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 14 July 2003 the applicants informed the authorities of the events and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. They also reported the disappearance of the jewellery items (see above). On the same date a police officer of the Zavodskoy district department of interior of Grozny (the Zavodskoy ROVD) examined the crime scene. A machine gun (“AK-74”) shell was collected as evidence. Later on during the day the investigators of the Zavodskoy district prosecutors’ office of Grozny (the investigators) examined the crime scene. Another machine gun shell, a bullet and fingerprints from window frames were discovered and collected as evidence. On 21 July 2003 the Zavodskoy ROVD informed the investigators that a special operation had been conducted by a federal special service in the area of the abduction. On 23 July 2003 the investigators opened criminal case no. 30119 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 24 July 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction and the property seizure described above. On 6 and 11 August 2003 the second and third applicants were questioned. They also confirmed the circumstances of the events as described above. On 23 September 2003 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on several occasions following the supervisors’ orders and criticism and then again suspended. Thus, the proceedings were resumed on 9 February 2005, 26   January 2007, 24 November 2008, 11 July 2011 and suspended on 9   March 2005, 26 February 2007, 27 December 2008 and 21 July 2011. On unspecified dates in January 2005, on 3 February 2007 and on 28   November 2008 the investigators requested a number of law ‑ enforcement agencies to inform them whether they had arrested or detained Mr Adam Novzurov or whether they were in possession of any information about his whereabouts. No replies in the positive were received. On 20 and 23 February 2005 the third and second applicants were questioned again. They reiterated their previously given statements. On 30 April 2005 the Oktyabrskiy district department of interior of Grozny (the Oktyabrskiy ROVD) informed the investigators that according to information collected from their operational search activities, Mr Adam Novruzov was allegedly serving a sentence in one of correction facilities in the Saratov Region. On the same date the Oktyabrskiy ROVD requested the head of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences in the Saratov Region ( ГУИН МЮ по Саратовской области ) to provide information on whether Mr Adam Novruzov had been or was detained in the Saratov Region. It is unclear whether any response was given to this request. On 26 January 2007 the first applicant was questioned. She reiterated her previously given statements concerning the abduction and additionally stated that certain Mr M.Ch. and Mr A.U., law-enforcement officers in 2003, had allegedly been involved in the abduction. On 7 February 2007 Mr A.U., a police officer at the time of the abduction, was questioned. He denied any involvement in the incident. On 7 March 2007 the investigators were informed that Mr M.Ch. was serving a sentence in a correction facility of the Penza Region after his conviction by a court for a number of criminal offences. From the documents submitted it follows that the investigators did not question him in connection with the abduction. On 9 December 2008 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ neighbours who witnessed the abduction. All of them confirmed its circumstances as described above. On 16 December 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators granted her access to the case file. The outcome of this request is unknown. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 27 June 2011 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny (the court). On 12 July 2011 the court rejected her complaint having found that the day earlier, on 11 July 2011, the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. 6.     Application no. 13843/12 Khamidova and Elmurzayeva v. Russia The applicants are Ms Minga Khamidova, who was born in 1950, and Ms Roza Elmurzayeva, who was born in 1976. The applicants live in the village of Duba-Yurt, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of SRJI/Astreya. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein (also spelled as Suliman Said-Khusin) Elmurzayev, who was born in 1978. The second applicant is his sister. (a)     Abduction of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev At about 4 a.m. on 2 April 2005 the applicants’ family was at home at 23   Rodnikovaya Street in Duba-Yurt when a large group of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at their house in two UAZ (“таблетка” ) vehicles and a white Niva model car. Having requested all male members of the family to go outside, the servicemen searched the premises. Thereafter, they forced Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev and his father, Mr S.E., into the vehicles and drove off in the direction of Khankala, passing unrestrictedly through a military checkpoint located at the outskirts of the village. The body of Mr S.E. was found on 8 May 2005 on the bank of the Sunzha River, Chechnya. The whereabouts of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev remain unknown since his abduction. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants, their family members and neighbours. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 14 June 2005 the Shali district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 46060 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 9 February 2006 the applicants were informed about a decision to suspend the investigation in the case. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on unspecified dates and suspended on 21 August 2006, 9 March 2009, 8 April 2009 and 18 September 2010. On 5 March 2007 and 21 June 2010 the applicants were informed that the operational search activities were being carried out in order to establish their relative’s whereabouts. On 24 August 2011 the investigation was resumed. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 7.     Application no. 13909/12 Elzhurkayevy v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Tamara Elzhurkayeva, who was born in 1954; 2) Mr Mumady Elzhurkayev, who was born in 1941, and 3) Ms Layla Elzhurkayeva, who was born in 1972. The applicants live in the Katayama settlement, Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of SRJI/Astreya. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev, who was born in 1982. The third applicant is his sister. (a)     Abduction of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev and subsequent events At about 4 a.m. on 3 August 2004 the applicants’ family was at home at 78 Shcherbakova Street in Grozny, when a large group of approximately thirty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house in a VAZ-21010, UAZ vehicles and a “ Zhiguli ” model car. Most of the servicemen were wearing masks and only one of them, apparently a commander, was unmasked; they spoke Chechen and Russian. A group of about fifteen of them broke into the applicants’ house and searched the premises. Having checked the identity papers, they seized a service identity card of the brother of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev, Mr R.E., who was a police officer. Then the servicemen forced Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev outside, put him into one of the vehicles and drove off having unrestrictedly passed through checkpoints on their way. On the same morning Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev’s acquaintance was arrested by the North Caucasus Regional Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime ( Северокавказское региональное управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью ) (the RUBOP). He was detained in a detention facility for five days and then released. He stated that he had been held in the same facility with Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev and had been able to hear the latter’s voice. The applicants provided this information to the investigators. The whereabouts of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev remain unknown since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. In about a month after the abduction, the RUBOP arrested Mr A.I., a friend of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev. Mr A.I. was questioned about his relations with Elzhurkayevs’ family, shown Mr R.E.’s service identity card seized from the applicants’ house on 3 August 2004 and subsequently released. On an unspecified date in 2008 the first applicant went to the Leninskiy district prosecutors’ office of Grozny in connection with the investigation into the abduction. At the office she saw a RUBOP officer called “Muslim”. She recognised him as the unmasked serviceman in charge of her son’s abduction on 3 August 2004. The applicant immediately informed the investigators thereof. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 3 August 2004 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 13 August 2004 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutors’ office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 33066 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 3 and 18 August 2004 the second and third applicants respectively were granted victim status in the case. They were questioned and confirmed the circumstances of the abduction described above. On 4 August 2004 the investigators requested a number of State authorities to inform them whether they had arrested or detained Mr   Magomed Elzhurkayev. No replies in the positive were received. On 20 October 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. On 13 October 2004 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators and then resumed on 24 May 2005. The applicants were informed only of the latter on 14 June 2005. On 25 December 2008 the investigation in the case was suspended. Subsequently, it was resumed 28 June 2005, 1 November 2005, 12   December 2005, 22 May 2006, 2 February 2008, 24 March 2008, 7 July 2008, 3 September 2008, 24 November 2008, 19 July 2009, 7 July 2010 following the supervisors’ orders and criticism and again suspended on 28   July 2005, 1 December 2005, 12 January 2006, 22 June 2006, 4 March 2008, 25 April 2008, 8 August 2008, 3 October 2008, 25 December 2008, 29 July 2009 and 12 July 2010. On 9 July 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She reiterated her previously given statements On 27 August 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators to inform her about the progress in the proceedings and to grant her access to the case file. The outcome of this request is unknown. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 8.     Application no. 34909/12 Israilovy v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Satsita Israilova, who was born in 1947; 2) Mr Visarg (also spelled as Viysarg) Israilov, who was born in 1966; 3) Mr Vakhid Israilov, who was born in 1978; 4) Mr Rizvan Israilov, who was born in 1965; 5) Mr Ayndi Israilov, who was born in 1975, and 6) Ms Rumisa Israilova, who was born in 1980. The applicants live in the settlement of Martan-Chu, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov, a lawyer practicing in Grozny. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov, who was born in 1973. The second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are his sister and brothers. (a)     Abduction of Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov At about 2 a.m. on 27 July 2003 the applicants’ family was at home at 19, Trudovaya Street in Martan-Chu when a group of about six armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into their house. The servicemen were wearing helmets; most of them were unmasked and were of Slavic appearance. Having checked the identity papers, the servicemen took Mr   Abdul-Mezhid Israilov away to the Martan-Chu military commander’s office where a convoy of an APC and two UAZ vehicles were waiting. They put Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov into one of the vehicles and drove off in the direction of Urus-Martan. The applicants followed the convoy until the checkpoint located at the outskirts of Martan-Chu. There they learnt from servicemen manning the checkpoint that the convoy, which had unrestrictedly passed through, belonged to the military unit known as “DON-100”. The applicants continued to follow the tire tracks left by the APC in the mud. The tracks brought them to the Urus-Martan military commander’s office. The whereabouts of Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov remain unknown since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested that an investigation be initiated. On 10 September 2003 the Urus-Martan prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 34092 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 11 September 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the case. On 10 November 2003 the investigation was suspended. On 17 June and 13 July 2005 the applicants were informed that the proceedings had been suspended but the operational search activities were in progress in order to establish Mr Abdul-Mezhid Israilov’s whereabouts. On 10 August 2009 the first applicant requested the investigators to inform her about the progress of the investigation and to grant her victim status in the case. It is unclear from the documents submitted whether any reply was given to this request. On 1 March 2010 the first applicant reiterated her request. On 16 March 2010 it was rejected by the investigators. On 23 June 2011 the second applicant was granted access to the case file. On 20 April 2012 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 9.     Application no. 36883/12 Shabazovy v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Mr Sultan Shabazov, who was born in 1937; 2) Ms Sovdat Shabazova, who was born in 1942, and 3) Ms Roza Shabazova, who was born in 1963. The applicants live in Sernovodsk, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of “Materi Chechni”, an NGO practicing in Chechnya. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Aslan Shabazov, who was born in 1968. The third applicant is his sister. The present application concerns the abduction of the applicants’ relative which took place in Ingushetia, a region in the Russian Federation neighbouring the Chechen Republic. (a)     Abduction of Mr Aslan Shabazov At about 10 p.m. on 21 May 2004 Mr Aslan Shabazov was visiting his acquaintance, Mr A.T., in the latter’s house at 115 Dyakova Street in the Nesterovskaya settlement, Ingushetia, when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived in two “Gazel”, an UAZ, three UAZ (“таблетка” ) and a VAZ-21099 vehicles. The servicemen broke into the house, forced Mr Aslan Shabazov outside, put him into one of the vehicles and drove off to the bank of the river Assa where two helicopters were waiting. Then they took him away in one of the helicopters to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of Mr Aslan Shabazov remain unknown since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 29 May 2004 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 15 June 2004 the deputy prosecutor of the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutors’ office in Ingushetia informed the applicants that Mr Aslan Shabazov had been put on the authorities’ wanted list and thereby detained on 21 May 2004 by servicemen of the Chechnya Department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB). On 9 November 2004 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutors’ office of Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 04600072 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 9 February 2005 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on several occasions following the supervising prosecutors’ orders and criticism and then again suspended. In particular, the proceedings were resumed on 16 January 2007, 5 March 2007, 22 July 2008, and on an unspecified date in 2012. They were suspended on 23 February 2007 and 23   August 2008. On numerous occasions between 2004 and 2009 the applicants wrote to various law enforcement agencies, including the FSB, requesting them to provide information about their relative’s whereabouts and assist in their search for him. In reply they received letters stating that the agencies were not in possession of information about Mr Aslan Shabazov or that the operational search activities were in progress in order to establish his whereabouts. On 4 August 2011 the applicants requested the investigators to inform them about the progress of the proceedings and to grant them access to the case file. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. On 10 September 2011 the applicants challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetia. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown. On 11 November 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators to grant him victim status and on 12 February 2012 his request was granted. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 10.     Application no. 40162/12 Asabayeva and Others v. Russia The applicants are: 1) Ms Zura Asabayeva, who was born in 1952; 2) Mr Mustpiy Asabayev, who was born in 1944; 3) Mr Valid Asabayev, who was born in 2000, and 4) Ms Laysa Magomadova, who was born in 1979. The first and second applicants live in Chiri-Yurt, Chechnya; they are the parents of Mr Ibragim Asabayev, who was born in 1977, and Mr Alkhazur Asabayev, who was born in 1981. The third applicant lives in Chiri-Yurt, he is the son of Mr Ibragim Asabayev. The fourth applicant lives in Vashendaroy, Chechnya; she is the wife of Mr Ibragim Asabayev. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of SRJI/Astreya. (a)     Abduction of the Asabayev brothers At about 4.30 a.m. on 31 March 2002 servicemen in two APCs, two UAZ (“таблетка” ) and an URAL lorry with registration number “385 95 RUS” arrived at the applicants’ block of flats no. 14 (there is no indication of a street name in the submitted documents) in Chiri-Yurt. The applicants, Mr Ibragim Asabayev and Mr Alkhazur Asabayev were at home when a group of five armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into their flat. The servicemen searched the premises and took Mr Ibragim Asabayev and Mr Alkhazur Asabayev away. Sometime later after the abduction the Shali district military commander General Nakhayev in the presence of the head of the Shali district administration informed the applicants that their relatives were detained at the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala. The whereabouts of the Asabayev brothers remain unknown since. Their abduction took place in the presence of numerous witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 15 July 2002 (in certain documents the date was also referred to as 16   September 2002) the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59153 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 25 July 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. On 15 September 2002 the investigation in the case was suspended and then resumed on 30 April 2003 owing to the supervising prosecutor’s orders and criticism. Then it was again suspended on 26 June 2003. On 22 June 2005 the supervising prosecutors, having examined the applicants’ complaint about the lack of progress in the investigation, ordered it be resumed and a number of steps be taken. On 12 July and 24 August 2005 the head of the Shali district department of interior (the ROVD) informed the applicants that the operational search activities were in progress to establish their relatives’ whereabouts. On 30 January 2007 the Human Rights Centre Memorial on behalf of the applicants requested the investigators to provide information about the progress in the proceedings. No reply was given to this request. On 25 December 2009 the first applicant requested the investigators to inform her about the progress in the proceedings and to grant her access to the materials of the criminal case file. No reply was given to this request. On 21 March 2011 the applicants again requested information about the progress in the investigation. On 14 April 2011 the investigators replied that the proceedings had been suspended and that the operational search activities were in progress. On 10 May 2011 and 10 June 2011 the investigators informed the applicants that on unspecified dates the proceedings in their case had been resumed and then again suspended. On 22 June 2011 the applicants were granted full access to the investigation file. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. COMPLAINTS 1.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications, save for the first applicant in Dzhankhotov and Dzhankhotova v Russia (no. 65054/11) with regards to her complaint about the abduction of Mr Uvays Shaipov, 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, save for application Astamirova and Others v. Russia (no.   9616/12) and application Dzhankhotov and Dzhankhotova v. Russia (no.   65054/11) in respect of the abduction of Mr Uvays Shaipov, 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 in substance under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants in the application Shabazovy v. Russia (no. 36883/12) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under A