CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 janvier 2016

.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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sA56DF1A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:115% } .s6ED1B729 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:115%; font-size:10pt } .s6088A1B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:115%; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s734752C4 { margin-left:13.34pt; padding-left:4.51pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s41FDBC30 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:10pt } .s86731D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .s8E8B00CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB3F0F07F { height:90.45pt } .sE1D6C25F { margin-left:17.85pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sDE044F24 { height:70pt } .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 7 January 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13920/12 Zaynab BATALOVA and Others against Russia and 14 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A.     General information pertaining to all the applications The applicants in the present cases are Russian nationals residing in different settlements in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia, Russia, as specified below. Most of 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 the NGO Astreya), and the NGO Materi Chechni based in Chechnya. The applicant in one application out of the fifteen is not legally represented (see the enclosed Appendix). The facts pertaining to all the applications, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. B.     Events surrounding the abductions The applicants are close relatives of men who disappeared in the Chechen Republic and the Sunzhenskiy district of Ingushetia, a region bordering Chechnya, after their abduction from their homes by groups of servicemen between 2000 and 2005. The applicants believe that the servicemen belonged to the Russian federal forces as they were in camouflage uniforms, had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian. Armed with machine guns, the servicemen broke into the applicants’ homes, searched the premises, checked the applicants’ relatives’ identity documents and took the relatives away in military vehicles such as armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and UAZ cars. In a number of instances the vehicles’ registration numbers were missing. 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 All the applicants complained about the respective abductions to the law-enforcement bodies and official investigations were instituted. In each case the proceedings have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results, after being suspended and resumed on numerous occasions. The investigation process has been repeatedly stayed by the investigators owing to their inability to identify the culprits, then resumed by the supervisory bodies who have pointed out a number of flaws in the proceedings, such as the failure to question witnesses or carry out basic expert evaluations. Some applicants have been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. It is unclear whether all of the applicants were questioned by the investigating authorities. It is apparent from the documents submitted that no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. Further to such requests, the authorities have generally reported that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been established, that no special operations were being 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 relatives’ involvement in the activities of illegal armed groups. In all of the cases the applicants have requested information about the progress of the proceedings from the investigating authorities; in response they have received formal letters usually stating that the investigation was in progress and that their requests had been forwarded to yet another law-enforcement authority for examination. According to the applicants, the investigating authorities either failed to take the most important investigative steps, such as questioning witnesses to the abductions, or only took those essential steps after significant and inexplicable delays. D.     Particulars 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. 13920/12 (Batalova and Others v. Russia) The applicants are: 1) Ms Zaynab Batalova, who was born in 1953; 2) Mr Akhyad Tashayev, who was born in 1951, and 3) Ms Markha Tashayeva, who was born in 1998. The applicants live in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni practising in Chechnya. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Musa Tashayev, who was born in 1975. The third applicant is his daughter. (a)     Abduction of Mr Musa Tashayev At about 4 a.m. on 20 November 2000 a group of armed servicemen arrived at Mr Tashayev’s house at 100, Titova Street in Urus-Martan in an APC and an Ural lorry. The servicemen wore camouflage uniforms and spoke unaccented Russian. They forced Mr Tashayev into one of the vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination. Following the abduction, certain servicemen informed the applicants that Mr Tashayev had been taken to the Urus-Martan commander’s office ( Военная комендатура города Урус-Мартан ) . His whereabouts have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 17 May 2001 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office (Прокуратура Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 25052 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On an unspecified date the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed, on 31 January 2008, and then again suspended on several occasions including 29 April 2008, 28   May 2008 and 9 January 2011. On 13 February 2008 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 21 July 2010 the first applicant submitted a request to the investigators to be granted access to the entire investigation file. Her request was rejected. On 30 May 2011 the applicant again requested access for the purposes of consulting the entire investigation file and asked the investigators to resume the criminal proceedings. On 17 June 2011 access to the file was granted, but the investigators refused to resume the proceedings, finding that sufficient investigative steps had already been taken. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 6 December 2010 the first applicant appeared before the Achkhoy-Martan District Court ( Ачхой-Мартановский районный суд Чеченской Республики ) to challenge her lack of access to the criminal case file and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. On 17 December 2010 the district court ordered the investigators to grant her full access to the criminal case file. The remainder of her complaint was rejected. On 27 May 2011 the first applicant lodged another complaint challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the Urus-Martan Town Court ( Урус-Мартановский городской суд Чеченской Республики ) . On 15 July 2011 the town court rejected the complaint, having learned that the investigators had resumed the proceedings several days earlier, on 13 July 2011. On 10 August 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic ( Верховный Суд Чеченской Республики ) upheld the above decision on appeal. 2.     Application no. 24365/12 (Yunusova v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Markha Yunusova, who was born in 1954 and lives in Kalinovskaya village, Chechnya. She is not legally represented before the Court. The applicant is the wife of Mr Akhmed Abdulkerimov, who was born in 1952, and the mother of Mr Abu-Shakhid Abdulkerimov, who was born in 1983. (a)     Abduction of Mr Akhmed Abdulkerimov and Mr Abu-Shakhid Abdulkerimov On the night of 27-28 November 2002 a convoy of military vehicles arrived in the village of Ersenoy, Chechnya. Having left the vehicles at the outskirts of the village, military servicemen entered the settlement on foot. At about 4.45 a.m. on 28 November 2002 the applicant and her family were at home in Ersenoy when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into their house. The servicemen wore balaclavas and spoke unaccented Russian. Having threatened the family members with firearms, they forced Mr Akhmed Abdulkerimov and Mr   Abu-Shakhid Abdulkerimov outside and took them away on foot to the outskirts of the village, where the convoy of military vehicles was waiting. Then they drove off in the direction of the Vedeno military unit. The whereabouts of Mr Akhmed Abdulkerimov and Mr Abu-Shakhid Abdulkerimov have remained unknown ever since. Their abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicant, her family members and a neighbour. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 6 December 2002 the Vedeno district prosecutor’s office ( Прокуратура Веденского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 73124 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 9 December 2002 the applicant was granted victim status. On 17 December 2002 the investigation file was destroyed as a result of a fire on the premises of the public prosecutor’s office. On an unspecified date the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the applicant was informed about this decision on 5 February 2004. On 27 October 2004 the acting prosecutor of the Vedeno district ordered that the investigation file be recovered. On 27 November 2004 the investigation was again suspended. It was subsequently resumed on unspecified dates, suspended on 5   April 2011 and 25 June 2011, and then resumed again on 27 October 2011. On 7 April 2006 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior ( Министерство внутренних дел по Чеченской Республике ) informed the applicant that all possible measures were being taken to identify the perpetrators. On 24 January 2008 the applicant submitted a request to the investigators to be informed about the progress made in the proceedings and to be granted access to the case file. In reply she was informed that the investigation had been suspended but that operational search activities were in progress in order to establish the whereabouts of her husband and son. On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicant again requested access to the contents of the case file and asked to be informed of the progress made in the investigation. The outcome of this request is unknown. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 25 October 2011 the applicant appeared before the Vedeno District Court ( Веденский районный суд Чеченской Республики ) to challenge the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic steps. On 28 October 2011 the court rejected the complaint, having learned that the investigators had resumed the proceedings a day earlier, on 27   October 2011. 3.     Application no. 27987/12 (Zaurbekovy v. Russia) The applicants are: 1) Ms Ayna Zaurbekova, who was born in 1963; 2) Ms Roza Zaurbekova, who was born in 1969; 3) Ms Zareta Zaurbekova, who was born in 1988; 4) Ms Petimat Zaurbekova, who was born in 1998; 5) Mr Yusup Zaurbekov, who was born in 1989; 6) Mr Ramzan Zaurbekov, who was born in 1990, and 7) Ms Rebat Zaurbekova, who was born in 1928. The applicants live in Grozny. They are represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov, a lawyer practicing in Grozny. The first and second applicants are respectively the sister and wife of Mr   Musa Zaurbekov, who was born in 1964. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are his children and the seventh applicant is his mother. (a)     Abduction of Mr Musa Zaurbekov At about 3 a.m. on 6 May 2003 the applicants and Mr Zaurbekov were at home at 157 Shefskaya Street in Grozny when a group of about ten armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into their house. Most of the servicemen were in balaclavas and those without masks were of Slavic appearance. They forced Mr Zaurbekov outside and took him away on foot in the direction of the nearby school no. 49 where two APCs and two UAZ vehicles were parked waiting. The servicemen put Mr Zaurbekov in one of the vehicles and drove off in the direction of Grozny city centre. The whereabouts of Mr Musa Zaurbekov have remained unknown ever since. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 6 May 2003 the first applicant informed the Chechnya prosecutor’s office ( Прокуратура Чеченской Республики ) of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 16 May 2003 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny ( Прокуратура Старопромысловского района г. Грозный ) opened criminal case no. 50052 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 5 June 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. On unspecified dates the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about these decisions on 6 January and 4 December 2004. The investigation was subsequently resumed on 30 April 2006, suspended on an unspecified date, and resumed again on 2 March 2007. On 3 November 2011 the first applicant submitted a request to the investigators to be granted access to the criminal case file. Her request was granted. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 4.     Application no. 32554/12 (Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia) The applicants are: 1) Ms Larisa Betereskhanova, who was born in 1971; 2) Mr Sharpudi Dudarkayev, who was born in 1949; 3) Mr Shaaman Dudarkayev, who was born in 1994; 4) Mr Shamkhan Dudarkayev, who was born in 1992; 5) Ms Birlant Dudarkayeva, who was born in 1990; 6) Mr Rizvan Dudarkayev, who was born in 1999; 7) Ms Petimat Dudarkayeva, who was born in 1997. The applicants live in Goyskoye (also spelled as Goyskaya) village, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev (in the documents submitted also spelled as Dudurkayev), who was born in 1954. The second applicant is his brother. The other five applicants are his children. (a)     Abduction of Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev At about 3 a.m. on 4 November 2002 a group of ten to twelve armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in Goyskoye. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen searched the premises, checked Mr Dudarkayev’s passport and took him away to an unknown destination. In two days after the abduction, on 6 November 2002, the same military servicemen again arrived at the applicants’ house in an Ural lorry. They thoroughly searched the premises and left. The whereabouts of Ms Zayndi Dudarkayev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicants. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 5 November 2002 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her husband. On 8 November 2002 the first applicant was questioned by the investigators. Her statement to the authorities was similar to the account submitted before the Court. On 23 December 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 61164 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On the same date, 23 December 2002, the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 1 February 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned again. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as specified above. On 1 April 2004 the first applicant submitted requests to several law enforcement agencies for assistance in the search for her husband. It is unclear whether any reply was given to these requests. On 18 June 2007 the supervising prosecutor requested that operational search activities be undertaken in order to establish Mr Dudarkayev’s whereabouts. On 23 June and 5 July 2007 the investigators informed their superiors that the operational search activities had not produced any positive results. On 14 February 2008 the supervising prosecutor ruled that the decision of 23 December 2002 to suspend the investigation had been premature and unlawful and ordered that the proceedings be resumed. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions in response to criticism from the supervising prosecutors: it was resumed on 16 April 2008 and 7   December 2011 and then suspended on 26 March 2008, 16 May 2008 and 14 January 2012. Between February and April 2008 the investigators asked a number of law-enforcement authorities and detention facilities whether they had arrested or detained Mr Dudarkayev or whether any special operation had been conducted on the date of his abduction in Goyskoye. No information in the affirmative was received. On 13 March 2008 the first applicant was questioned again. She reiterated her previous statements. Between 15 and 20 March 2008 the applicants’ neighbours were questioned. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described by the applicants. On 18 February 2011 the first applicant submitted a request to be granted full access to the investigation file. Her request was rejected. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 18 March 2011 the first applicant appeared before the Urus-Martan Town Court to challenge her lack of access to the criminal case file. On 28   March 2011 the court allowed the complaint, having ordered the investigators to grant her access to the contents of the investigation file. On 2 December 2011 the first applicant lodged another complaint challenging the decision of 16 May 2008 to suspend the investigation. On 7   December 2011 the court rejected her complaint, having learned that the investigators had resumed the proceedings on the same date, 7   December 2011. 5.     Application no. 39694/12 (Abdurzakova and Others v. Russia) The applicants are: 1) Ms Asyat Abdurzakova, who was born in 1973; 2) Ms Salmatu Abdurzakova, who was born in 1943; 3) Mr Ramzan Abdurzakov, who was born in 1998; 4) Ms Milana Musayeva, who was born in 2002. The applicants live in Novye Atagi, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov. The first applicant is the sister of Mr Aslambek Abdurzakov, who was born in 1976. The second applicant is his mother and the third and fourth applicants are his children. (a)     Abduction of Mr Aslambek Abdurzakov At the material time, Mr Abdurzakov lived with his family at 9   Partizanskaya Street in Duba-Yurt, Chechnya. At about 4 a.m. on 20 July 2002 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 15 May 2002) the whole family was at home when a large group of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house in an APC and a grey military UAZ minivan ( tabletka ). A group of about ten servicemen broke into the house, searched the premises, forced Mr Abdurzakov outside, then put him in one of the vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination. The same morning, at some point before the abduction, the same servicemen had broken into Mr Abdurzakov’s neighbours’ house and shot a neighbour, Ms Z.U., in the leg. Sometime after the abduction the second applicant received a note, allegedly handwritten by Mr Abdurzakov, saying that he was being held in the Urus-Martan district pre-trial detention centre ( следственный изолятор Урус-Мартановского района ) . Mr Aslambek Abdurzakov’s whereabouts have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the first and second applicants and other members of their family. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 25 July 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office ( Прокуратура Шалинского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 59168 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 26 July 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status. She and several other witnesses to the abduction were questioned. The applicant’s submissions before the investigators were similar to her account before the Court. The contents of the witnesses’ statements are unclear due to the poor quality of the copies furnished to the Court. On the same date, 26 July 2002, the investigators seized two machine-gun shells found in the house of Ms Z.U., who had been shot in the leg by the abductors. The shells were forwarded for a ballistics expert examination. On 27 July 2002 the applicant was questioned again. She confirmed the statement she had given previously and additionally submitted that the abductors’ APC and the UAZ minivan had displayed the registration numbers “2077” and “33-46”, respectively. On the same date the investigators questioned the second applicant. Her account of the events was similar to the applicant’s. She also stated, in particular, that a few days after the abduction she had seen the abductors’ UAZ minivan entering the premises of the Shatoy district department of the interior ( Отдел внутренних дел Шатойского района Чеченской Республики ) . On 25 September 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 31 August 2007 the above decision was overruled by the supervising prosecutor and the investigation was resumed. It was subsequently suspended once again on 30   September 2007, 25 November 2007, 20   January 2008 and 1 April 2012 and resumed on 25 October 2007, 20   December 2007 and 1 March 2012 in accordance with the supervisors’ orders, and after criticism from them. On 24 September 2007 the investigators seized the detention log from the Urus-Martan district pre-trial detention centre for examination. On 16 February 2008 the first applicant submitted a request to the investigators to be informed about the progress made in the proceedings, to order resumption of the investigation and to ask the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences ( Федеральная служба исполнения наказаний ) to provide confirmation as to whether Mr Abdurzakov was being detained in one of their detention facilities in Russia. On 20 June 2009 the applicant’s request was granted in part. The investigators asked the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences to inform them whether Mr Abdurzakov had been detained in a detention facility after his abduction. The outcome of this enquiry is unknown. On 5 March and 20 October 2011 the first applicant was granted access to the investigation file. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On an unspecified date in 2012 the first applicant appeared before the Shali Town Court in Chechnya ( Шалинский городской суд Чеченской Республики ) to challenge the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown. 6.     Application no. 66877/12 (Magomadova v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Anisat Magomadova, who was born in 1957 and lives in Grozny. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (in partnership with the NGO Astreya), (SRJI/Astreya). The applicant is the mother of Mr Lema (also known as Lom-Ali; in the documents submitted also spelled as Lyoma) Magomadov, who was born in 1981. (a)     Abduction of Mr Lema Magomadov On the night of 13-14 November 2002 the applicant and her son, Mr   Magomadov, were at home at 40, Pervyy Pertopavlovskiy Lane in Grozny, when around one hundred armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived outside their house. The servicemen spoke Russian; some of them were wearing helmets and were equipped with portable radio sets. A group of them broke into the house, searched the premises, then forced Mr Magomadov outside and took him barefoot and undressed in the direction of the checkpoint located about three hundred metres away from the applicant’s house. On the morning of November 14 2002 the applicant’s neighbours examined the area. Along with numerous shoeprints left on the ground, they found traces of bare feet, presumably those of Mr Magomadov, who had been taken away on foot. Having followed the trail, the neighbours arrived at the checkpoint, where they discovered tyre tracks left by an APC. From officers who had manned the checkpoint on the night of the abduction the neighbours learnt that an APC had indeed parked at the checkpoint during the night and at some point a group of military servicemen had arrived with a young man, barefoot and undressed, had put him into the APC and had driven off. The whereabouts of Mr Lema Magomadov have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicant and her neighbours. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 14 November 2002 the applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her son. On 15 November 2002 a police officer of the Leninskiy district department of the interior in Grozny ( Отдел внутренних дел Ленинского района г. Грозый (РОВД) ) (hereinafter “the ROVD”) reported the abduction to the head of the ROVD stating that on the night of 13-14   November 2002, unidentified military servicemen had abducted Mr   Magomadov from his home in Grozny. On the same date, 15 November 2002, the Grozny town prosecutor’s office (Прокуратура города Грозный) opened criminal case no. 48212 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 7 January 2003 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statement was similar to the account before the Court. On an unspecified date (the date is illegible) the crime scene was inspected. No evidence was collected. On 15 January 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 26 May 2004, in accordance with the supervisors’ orders and after criticism from them, and suspended again on 25 June 2004. It was subsequently resumed on 4 June 2010 and suspended on 4 July 2010. Between May and June 2004 and again in July 2007 the investigators asked a number of State authorities, detention facilities, hospitals and psychiatric institutions to tell them whether they had any information about Mr Lema Magomadov’s whereabouts or whether any special operations were being conducted on the night of his abduction in Grozny. No reply in the affirmative was received. On 13 June 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant again. She confirmed the statements she had given previously. On several occasions between 2005 and 2009 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for her son. In reply she received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish his whereabouts. On 27 August 2011 the applicant submitted a request to the investigators to be informed about the progress made in the proceedings and to be granted access to the investigation file. Her request was granted. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant appeared before the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny ( Ленинский районный суд г. Грозный ) to challenge the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. On an unspecified date in 2010 (the date is illegible) the court rejected her complaint. 7.     Application no. 71672/12 (Dutayeva v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Tamara Dutayeva, who was born in 1949 lives in the village of Avtury, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by Mr   Dokka Itslayev, a lawyer practicing in Grozny. The applicant is the mother of Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev, who was born in 1980. The facts raised in the present application had already been examined by the Court in Sasita Israilova and Others v. Russia (no. 35079/04, 28   October 2010) in respect of the abduction of Mr Ilyas Yansuyev and Mr   Isa Yansuyev. (a)     Abduction of Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev At the material time, Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev had gone to Grozny on business. He was staying in the flat of his acquaintances, Mr Ilyas Yansuyev and Mr Isa Yansuyev, at 110/24 Ionisiani (in the documents submitted the street was also referred to as Ioanisiani) Street in Grozny. At about 4 or 5 a.m. on 13 February 2003 a group of about forty armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the Yansuyev family’s block of flats in two APCs. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian and were wearing masks. Having broken into the flat, they searched the premises, forced Mr   Zelimkhan Dutayev, Mr Ilyas Yansuyev and Mr Isa Yansuyev outside and took them away in one of the APCs to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 17 February 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 20039 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 17 April 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. This decision was overruled on 20 April 2004 and the proceedings were resumed. The proceedings were subsequently resumed and suspended on numerous occasions, including suspensions on 27   May   2004, 6 June 2006, 6 September 2007, 4 March 2008, 14 May 2008, 25 July 2008, 25 December 2008, 29 January 2009, 3 March 2009 and 21   May 2009. On 18 February 2009 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her account before the investigators was similar to that before the Court. On an unspecified date in March 2012 the applicant submitted a request to the investigators to be informed about the progress made in the proceedings and to be granted access to the criminal case file. Her request was granted, the applicant was informed that the investigation had been suspended and that operational search activities were in progress to establish her son’s whereabouts. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 8.     Application no. 72821/12 (Azizovy v. Russia) The applicants are Ms Roza Azizova and Mr Mukhtar Azizov, who were born in 1961 and 1953 respectively and live in Shali, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by the NGO Materi Chechni practising in Chechnya. The applicants are the parents of Mr Magomed (also spelled as Magomet) Azizov, who was born in 1981. (a)     Abduction of Mr Magomed Azizov At about 3 a.m. on 5 February 2003 a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the Azizovs’ family house at 13 Naberezhnaya Street in Shali in an UAZ minivan ( tabletka ) and a Gazel minivan without registration plates. The servicemen were equipped with protective shields and helmets; they spoke unaccented Russian. Having broken into the house, they searched the premises, checked passports, and then forced Mr Azizov outside. The first applicant asked the servicemen where they were from. One of them replied that they were from the military commander’s office. The servicemen put Mr Azizov in one of their vehicles and drove off in the direction of the Shali city centre. The whereabouts of Mr Magomed Azizov have remained unknown ever since. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their family members. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 8 February 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office ( Прокуратура Шалинского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 22026 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 9 February 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statement was similar to the account before the Court. On 10 February 2003 the investigators questioned Mr R.A., whose statement was similar to that of the first applicant. On 8 April 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On several occasions between 2003 and 2009 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their son. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their son’s whereabouts. On 30 April 2011 the decision of 8 April 2003 to suspend the investigation was overruled, in accordance with the supervisors’ orders and and after criticism from them, and the proceedings were resumed. They were subsequently suspended on 10 June 2011 and resumed again on 25   April 2012. Between 18 and 25 May 2011 several witnesses to the abduction were questioned. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the events as described above. On 7 July 2011 the first applicant submitted a request to be granted access to the investigation file. It is unclear from the documents submitted whether she received any reply to this request. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 9 April 2012 the first applicant appeared before the Shali Town Court ( Шалинский городской суд Чеченской Республики ) to challenge the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic steps. On 26 April 2012 the court rejected the complaint, having learned that the investigators had resumed the proceedings the day before, on 25 April 2012. On 6 June 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. 9.     Application no. 79938/12 (Pashayeva v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Malikat Pashayeva, who was born in 1958 and lives in Grozny. She is represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov. The applicant is the mother of Mr Ruslan Pareulidze (also spelled as Paraulidze), who was born in 1982. The present application concerns the abduction of the applicant’s son from his home in Nesterovskaya settlement, Ingushetia, a region neighbouring Chechnya. (a)     Abduction of Mr Ruslan Pareulidze At the material time, Mr Pareulidze had travelled from Grozny to Nesterovskaya settlement, Ingushetia, to visit his aunt, Ms M.M. He was staying at her house at 29 (in the documents submitted the house number was also referred to as 9) Molodezhnaya Street. At about 5 p.m. on 7 October 2003 Mr Pareulidze was in the courtyard of his aunt’s house when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in a military UAZ car, a Niva car and a Gazel minivan with the registration number O 182 MM 06. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian; those of them who were not wearing balaclavas were of Slavic appearance. Having forced Mr Pareulidze into the minivan, the servicemen drove off to an unknown destination. Over a period of five days following the abduction, a group of about two hundred servicemen arrived at Ms M.M.’s house in APCs, Ural lorries and UAZ minivans. They brought a man, presumably Mr Pareulidze, whose upper body and head were covered with a sack. The servicemen searched the premises and then drove off again with the man. The whereabouts of Mr Ruslan Pareulidze have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 8 October 2003 Ms M.M. informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 20 October 2003 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia ( Прокуратура Сунженского района Республики Ингушетия ) opened criminal case no. 23600067 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 036600067) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 25 October 2003 the applicant was granted victim status. On 20 March 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On numerous occasions between 2004 and 2012 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for her son. In reply she received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish her relative’s whereabouts. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 10.     Application no. 79940/12 (Askhabayeva v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Tamus (also spelled as Tamusa) Askhabayeva, who was born in 1957 and lives in Chechen-Aul village, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. The applicant is the mother of Mr Saykhan Isayev, who was born in 1984. (a)     Abduction of Mr Saykhan Isayev On the night of 17-18 January 2005 armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicant’s village of Chechen-Aul in an APC, two UAZ vehicles and a Niva car. The servicemen were armed with AK-74 and AKM machine guns and spoke unaccented Russian. At about 3 a.m. that night a group of about seventeen of them broke into the applicant’s house at 19 Kirova Street, searched the premises and took Mr   Isayev away to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of Mr Saykhan Isayev have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicant, her family members and neighbours. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 18 January 2005 the applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her son. On an unspecified date a decision was taken not to institute a criminal case. According to the applicant, shortly after the abduction several agents from the Grozny prosecutor’s office arrived at her house in Chechen-Aul. They advised the applicant and her family not to lodge any official complaints concerning the events. Therefore, for some time after the abduction, fearing for her life and the lives of her family members, the applicant refrained from again requesting that the authorities open a criminal case. On an unspecified date in May 2005 (the date is illegible) one of the witnesses to the abduction, Mr R.I., was questioned. Her statement was similar to the applicant’s account before the Court. On 8 June 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office ( Прокуратура Грозненского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no.   44048 (in the documents submitted the case number was also referred to as 44004) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 20 June 2005 the applicant was granted victim status. On 18 August 2005, 25 and 27 March 2007 and 23 October 2008 several other witnesses, in particular Mr M.I., Ms Z.I., Ms M.M. and Mr S.I., were questioned. Their statements were similar to the applicant’s account before the Court. On 8 October 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 2 March 2007 this decision was overruled as premature and the investigation was resumed. The proceedings were subsequently resumed and suspended on numerous occasions, including suspensions on 5   April 2007, 23 July 2007, 27 January 2008 and 4 November 2010. On 28 March 2007 two officials from the Chechen-Aul village administration, Mr Kh.A. and Mr V.A., were questioned. They stated, in particular, that prior to the abduction law-enforcement agencies had made inquiries about Mr Isayev’s home address. On 2 August 2010 and 24 October 2010 two of the witnesses to the abduction, Ms M.I. and Mr R.I., were questioned again. They confirmed the statements they had given previously. On 20 October 2010 the crime scene was inspected. No evidence was collected. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 11.     Application no. 1969/13 (Khamzatovy v. Russia) The applicants are: 1) Mr Saydamagomed (also spelled as Saydmagomed, Saidamagomed, Saidmagomed and Said-Magomed) Khamzatov, who was born in 1932; 2) Ms Luiza Khamzatova, who was born in 1963; 3) Ms Khava Khamzatova, who was born in 1993; 4) Ms Zulikhan Khamzatova, who was born in 1995; 5) Mr Magomed Khamzatov, who was born in 2001. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. The first applicant is the father of Mr Lema (also spelled as Lemma) Khamzatov, who was born in 1964. The second applicant is his wife and the third, fourth and fifth applicants are his children. (a)     Abduction of Mr Lema Khamzatov At about 3 a.m. on 4 May 2003 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 5 May 2003) Mr Khamzatov was at home at 78/15   Voronezhskaya Street in the Novyye Aldy settlement, Chechnya, (in the documents submitted the address was also referred to as 83   Voronezhskaya Street, Grozny) when a group of about thirty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house in APCs and UAZ minivans. The servicemen were wearing helmets; they spoke unaccented Russian. Having broken into the applicants’ house, they checked identity documents and then forced Mr Khamzatov outside, handcuffed him, put him into one of the APCs and drove off to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of Mr Lema Khamzatov have remained unknown ever 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 attempted to search for Mr Khamzatov on their own, but in vain. On 6 May 2003 the first applicant lodged an official complaint asking the authorities to assist in the search for his son. On 15 May 2003 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny ( Прокуратура Заводского района г. Грозный ) opened criminal case no. 30069 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 15 July 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 25 April 2006. On numerous occasions between 2003 and 2006 the applicants complained to various state authorities and law-enforcement agencies. In reply, they received letters stating that their requests had been forwarded to yet another authority or that operational search activities were in progress to establish their relative’s whereabouts. On 4 February 2010 the first applicant submitted a request to the investigators to be granted victim status and to be informed about the progress made in the proceedings. On 1 March 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 8 July 2010 the SRJI, on behalf of the first applicant, submitted a request to the investigators, in particular, to be provided with information about the progress made in the proceedings and to be granted access to the criminal case file. No reply was received in response to this request. On 14 December 2012 the first applicant again asked the investigators to allow him access to the criminal case file. The outcome of this request is unknown. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 12.     Application no. 1978/13 (Kudusov and Others v. Russia) The applicants are: 1) Mr Khamid Kudusov, who was born in 1954; 2) Ms Kulsum Aksaktemirova, who was born in 1956; 3) Mr Rustam Kudusov, who was born in 1978. The first and second applicants live in Argun, Chechnya, and are the parents of Mr Alikhan Kudusov, who was born in 1982. The third applicant lives in Grozny; he is his brother. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. (a)     Abduction of Mr Alikhan Kudusov At about 7 a.m. on 24 September 2001 Mr Kudusov and his family members, including the applicants, were at home in Argun when a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at his house at 3/2   Sovkhoznyy Lane. The servicemen were in two APCs; they wore balaclavas and spoke unaccented Russian. Having broken into the applicants’ house, the servicemen forced Mr Kudusov into one of the APCs and took him away to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of Mr Alikhan Kudusov have remained unknown ever since. The 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, on 24 September 2001, the applicants informed the authorities about the incident and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 20 January 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant. His account of the events was similar to the account before the Court. He stated that immediately after the abduction he had reported the incident to the Argun district temporary department of the interior ( Временный отдел внутренних дел Аргунского района ). On the same day, 24   September 2001, a team of investigators had arrived at his famil