CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 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 } .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 } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sE1D6C25F { margin-left:17.85pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 25 January 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 5374/07 Luiza YANDAYEVA and Baudin KHAMAYEV against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals, the majority of whom live in various places in the Chechen Republic, as specified in the Appendix. They are close relatives of the men listed as “abducted/disappeared persons” in the Appendix. The circumstances of the incidents, as submitted by the applicants, can be summarised as follows. A.     General information pertaining to all of the applications The applicants are close relatives of men who disappeared after having been allegedly abducted by servicemen or unidentified persons from their homes or public places in Chechnya. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since then. In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abduction/disappearance to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In most of the cases, the proceedings, after having been suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without any tangible results. According to the applicants, they have not been kept regularly informed of the progress in the criminal proceedings. Some of the applicants have been provided with access to the investigation files. According to the applicants’ submissions, the authorities either failed to take important investigative steps, such as questioning witnesses to the abductions, or they took such steps after long and inexplicable delays. B.     Particulars of the individual applications A summary of the facts for each of the applications and the most important investigative steps taken by the authorities are outlined below. 1.     Application no. 5374/07 ( Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia) The applicants are Ms Luiza Yandayeva and Mr Baudin Khamayev, who were born in 1960 and 1949 respectively. The first applicant lives in Serzhen-Yurt. She is the mother of Mr Turpal-Ali Yandayev, who was born in 1982. The second applicant lives in Prigorodnoye, Chechnya. He is the father of Mr Said-Ali Khamayev, who was born in 1984. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (in partnership with the Astreya NGO), (SRJI/Astreya). (a)     The disappearance of Mr Turpal-Ali Yandayev and Mr Said-Ali Khamayev and subsequent events In the afternoon of 19 June 2003 Mr Turpal-Ali Yandayev, Mr Said-Ali Khamayev and Mr Z.I. were on the way from Tsa-Vedeno to Serzhen-Yurt, Chechnya, when military servicemen stopped their car at a checkpoint known as SSG-4, at the junction next to the village of Elistanzhi. The servicemen ordered the men to get out of the car and then searched the vehicle. The search took place in the presence of numerous witnesses who were passing through the checkpoint at the same time. It is unclear what happened after the search. The whereabouts of Mr   Yandayev, Mr   Khamayev and Mr Z.I. have remained unknown ever since. On the next day, 20 June 2003, the burnt wreck of the car of Mr   Yandayev, Mr   Khamayev and Mr Z.I. was found about 200 metres from the Benoy checkpoint, which is located next to Serzhen-Yurt. The checkpoint logbook had an entry which showed the passage of the car through the checkpoint at 8 p.m. on 19 June 2003. Subsequently, the time was changed to 7 p.m. Servicemen manning the checkpoint told the applicants that at about 9 p.m. on 19 June 2003 they had seen something burning not far from the checkpoint. On an unspecified date after the abduction, the second applicant learnt from Colonel B., an officer at the Grozny pre-trial detention centre, that Mr   Yandayev, Mr Khamayev and Mr   Z.I. had allegedly been detained at the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala for about six months, and then transferred to somewhere in the Mozdok district. It is unclear whether the applicants submitted this information to the investigators. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 23 June 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office in Chechnya ( Прокуратура Шалинского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 22096 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 15 August 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 23 August 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On numerous occasions between 2003 and 2006 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for their sons. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their sons’ whereabouts. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 2.     Application no. 37430/09 (Kulishova v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Valentina Kulishova, who was born in 1952 and lives in the village of Bogoroditskoye, in the Rostov Region of Russia. She is not legally represented before the Court. The applicant is the mother of Mr Dmitry Kulishov, who was born in 1980. (a)     Abduction of Mr Dmitry Kulishov At about 11 p.m. on 14 March 2005 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas made a forced entry into flat no. 52 at 4 Kosiora Street in Grozny, where Mr Dmitry Kulishov was temporarily residing, and took him away to an unidentified destination. The whereabouts of Mr Dmitry Kulishov have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 11 April 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny ( Прокуратура Ленинского района г. Грозный ) opened criminal case no.   40071 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 16 April 2005 the applicant was granted victim status. On 11 July 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 13 February 2006 that decision was overruled by the supervising prosecutor and the investigation was resumed. Subsequently, it was suspended on 13 March 2006, 30   September 2006, 16   March 2007 and 5 June 2009 and resumed on 21   August 2006 and 12   February 2007, 6   May 2009 and 9 July 2009 respectively. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On an unspecified date, the applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny ( Ленинский районный суд г. Грозный ) (hereinafter “the court”). On 6   December 2008 the court upheld the complaint, having ordered that the investigation be resumed and that all the necessary investigative measures be taken. 3.     Application no. 4310/10 (Khatuyeva v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Manzha Khatuyeva, who was born in 1963 and lives in Sernovodskaya (also known as Sernovodsk), Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. The applicant is the wife of Mr Khamzat Beldurov, who was born in 1963. (a)     Disappearance of Ms Khamzat Beldurov On 8 January 2002 Mr Beldurov left his home in Sernovodskaya for Nazran and never returned. The whereabouts of Mr Khamzat Beldurov have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the disappearance On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant informed the authorities of the disappearance and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 14 November 2002 the criminal search unit of the Sunzhenskiy district department of the interior in Chechnya ( Сунженский районный отдел внутренних дел Чеченской Республики ) opened operational search file no. 23005. On 26 December 2005 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office ( Ачхой-Мартановская межрайонная прокуратура Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 59023 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). On 3 January 2006 the applicant was granted victim status. On 26 April 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the decision of 26   April 2006 to suspend the investigation before the Achkhoy-Martan District Court ( Ачхой-Мартановский районный суд Чеченской Республики ) (hereinafter “the court”). On 24 August 2009 the court dismissed the complaint, finding that the suspension had been lawful. On 7   October 2009 the Chechnya Supreme Court ( Верховный Суд Чеченской Республики ) quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination. On 19   November 2009 the court dismissed the case in view of the applicant’s decision to discontinue the proceedings. 4.     Application no. 12926/10 ( Bashayeva v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Ayna Bashayeva (also spelled as Aina Bachaeva), who was born in 1967 and lives in Valence, France. She is not legally represented before the Court. The applicant is the wife of Mr Rizvan Bashayev, who was born in 1962. (a)     Disappearance of Mr Rizvan Bashayev On 20 December 2000 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 20 February 2001) Mr Bashayev left his sister’s house in Grozny and never returned. The whereabouts of Mr Rizvan Bashayev have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the disappearance On 31 October 2005 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny ( Прокуратура Заводского района г. Грозный ) opened criminal case no.   41209 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). On 29 November 2005 the applicant was granted victim status. On 31 December 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 5.     Application no. 29844/11 (Satovkhanova and Others v. Russia) The applicants are: (1)     Ms Aset Satovkhanova, who was born in 1957; (2)     Ms Rukiyat Bamatgiriyeva, who was born in 1977; and (3)     Ms Baret Bamatgiriyeva, who was born in 1984. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev, who was born in 1954. The second and third applicants are his children. (a)     Abduction of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev and subsequent events At the material time, Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev and his family lived at Tridtsatiy Uchastok Street in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny. A special anti-terrorist unit of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior was located nearby. At about 7 p.m. on 15 March 2005 Mr Bamatgiriyev left home to visit his neighbour, who lived in a nearby building, when a group of armed men in black camouflage uniforms seized him on the street, forced him into a Zhiguli car without any registration number and drove off in the direction of Grozny city centre, passing without restriction through checkpoints on the way. According to the applicants, Mr Arbi Berdukayev (also known as Mr   Khamzat Musligov), who was allegedly an agent of a law-enforcement agency, participated in the abduction. The applicants provided this information to the investigators. On 23 July 2005 a relative of the applicants, Ms T.N., received a telephone call from an unidentified person who offered information about Mr Bamatgiriyev’s whereabouts in exchange for 5,000 United States dollars (USD). The caller’s telephone number belonged to the office of the Shali district department of the interior in Chechnya ( Шалинский районный отдел внутренних дел Чеченской Республики ) . The applicants also gave that information to the investigators. On an unspecified date in 2006 two men arrived at the first applicant’s house and told her that Mr Bamatgiriyev had been abducted by law-enforcement agents. The men suggested that she pay them money to obtain further information concerning his whereabouts. The first applicant informed the investigators about these developments. The whereabouts of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev have remained unknown since 15   March 2005. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 9 August 2005 the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny ( Прокуратура Октябрьского района г. Грозный ) opened criminal case no. 42095 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). On 19 August 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 21 December 2005 the first applicant was informed that the investigation had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed and suspended on several occasions. Suspensions took place on 23 September 2007, 1   December   2007, 6 November 2008 and 30 December 2010. On numerous occasions between 2005 and 2011 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply, they received letters stating that operational search activities were in progress to establish Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev’s whereabouts. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 12 June 2008 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny ( Заводской районный суд г.   Грозный ) (hereinafter “the court”). On 19 June 2008 the court dismissed her complaint, finding that the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On   4   February 2009 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal. On 14 September 2010 the first applicant lodged another complaint with the court challenging the investigators’ inaction. On 11 October 2010 the court upheld her complaint and ordered that the investigation be resumed. 6.     Application no. 31143/11 ( Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia) The applicant is Mr Said-Emin Dzhamakhadzhiyev, who was born in 1940. He is the father of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov, who was born in 1970. The applicant died on 13 October 2014. His son, Mr Sayd-Khasan Dzhamakhadzhiyev, who was born in 1989 and lives in Novye Atagi, Chechnya, and who is also the brother of the disappeared person, Mr   Said ‑ Magomed Abdulazimov, has expressed a wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in his place. He is represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov, a lawyer practising in Grozny. (a)     Abduction of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov On 12 May 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 17 May 2002) a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms opened fire and wounded Mr Abdulazimov on a street in the centre of Chiri-Yurt, Chechnya. While he was unconscious, they put him in a Gazel minivan and drove off to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 1 August 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office ( Шалинская районная прокуратура Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no.   59177 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 1 October 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on 30   January 2004 following orders and criticism from supervisors. It was again suspended on 3 March 2004, then resumed on 18 April 2011 and suspended on 23 April 2011. On 25 February 2004 the applicant was granted victim status. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court ( Шалинский городской суд Чеченской Республики ) (hereinafter “the court”). On 19 April 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that a day earlier, on 18   April 2011, the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. 7.     Application no. 36875/11 (Khakimova and Others v. Russia) The applicants are: (1)     Ms Ayna Khakimova, who was born in 1953; (2)     Mr Sayd-Akhmed Umarov, who was born in 1982; and (3)     Ms Zarema Umarova, who was born in 1976. The applicants live in Duba-Yurt, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Saitaksi Umarov, who was born in 1953. The second and third applicants are his children. (a)     Disappearance of Mr Saitaksi Umarov At the material time, Mr Umarov worked as a night guard at a brick factory located on the outskirts of Duba-Yurt. In the evening of 15   February 2005 he went to work and never returned home. According to the applicants, on the night of 15 to 16 February 2005 other people in their village saw two UAZ minivans ( tabletka ) driving in the vicinity of the brick factory and passing without restriction through military checkpoints on the way. The whereabouts of Mr Saitaksi Umarov have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the disappearance Immediately after the disappearance, the first applicant informed the authorities and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 9 November 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 46151 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). On 14 November 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 9 February 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 8   September 2006 and 1 March 2010 and suspended on 11 October 2006 and 1 April 2010. On 24 March 2010 the second applicant was granted victim status. On 29 March 2010 the investigators collected blood samples from Ms   K.U., the daughter of Mr Umarov, for inclusion into the database of DNA samples of relatives of missing persons. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 17 February 2010 and 21 October 2010 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court (hereinafter “the court”). On 3 March 2010 and 17 February 2011 the court dismissed the complaints as unfounded. 8.     Application no. 41890/11 (Tovdayevy v. Russia) The applicants are Ms Khadizhat Tovdayeva and Mr Bislan (also spelled as Beslan) Tovdayev, who were born in 1954 and 1977 respectively and live in Grozny. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Isa (also spelled as Issa) Tovdayev, who was born in 1984. The second applicant is his brother. (a)     Disappearance of Mr Isa Tovdayev On 29 April 2000 Mr Isa Tovdayev and his friend Mr I.T. left their homes in Petropavlovskoye, Chechnya and went to a rubbish dump located on the outskirts of the village. At that time a convoy of military vehicles, including an APC (armoured personnel carrier), an Ural lorry and an UAZ van, was driving in the same direction. Mr Tovdayev and Mr I.T. never returned home. The applicants later learned from unidentified servicemen that Mr   Tovdayev had been detained at the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala. The whereabouts of Mr Isa Tovdayev have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the disappearance Immediately after the disappearance, the applicants informed the authorities and requested that an investigation be opened. On 16 June 2000 the temporary department of the interior in Grozny ( Временный отдел внутренних дел г. Грозный ) refused to institute a criminal investigation into the disappearance. On 12 February 2001 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office ( Прокуратура Чеченской Республики ) overruled that decision and opened criminal case no. 19016 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 13 April 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about that decision on 26   March 2002. On 25 October 2005 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. The investigation was resumed and then suspended on a number of occasions. The suspensions took place on 29 October 2005 and 9   October 2009, with the case being resumed on 11 February 2011. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 31 January 2011 the second applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Grozny District Court ( Грозненский районный суд Чеченской Республики ) (hereinafter “the court”). On 11   February 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that the investigators had already resumed the proceedings earlier on the same date. On 16   March 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. 9.     Application no. 67744/11 (Bakayevy v. Russia) The applicants are: (1)     Mr Mukhamet-Ali Bakayev, who was born in 1955; (2)     Ms Roza Bakayeva, who was born in 1958, and (3)     Mr Abumuslim Bakayev, who was born in 1984. The applicants live in Alkhasurovo, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. The first and the second applicants are the parents of Mr Akhmed Bakayev, who was born in 1978; the third applicant is his brother. (a)     Abduction of Mr Akhmed Bakayev At about 11 p.m. on 29 July 2002 Mr Bakayev and his acquaintance Mr   M.Kh. were at Uchenicheskaya Street in the Kirova area of the Zavodskoy district of Grozny, when a group of armed men detained them and took them away to an unidentified destination. The abductors were in military uniforms and balaclavas and spoke unaccented Russian. The whereabouts of Mr Akhmed Bakayev have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 27 June 2003 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 9 July 2003 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny ( Прокуратура Заводского района г. Грозный ) opened criminal case no.   30111 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 13 July 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. On 9 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on several occasions following orders and criticism from supervisors and then again suspended. In particular, the investigation was resumed on 28 October 2009, 30   June 2010 and 21 July 2011 and suspended on 12 November 2009, 2   August 2010 and 21 August 2011 respectively. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 23 June 2010 and 29 June 2011 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny ( Заводской районный суд г. Грозный ) (hereinafter “the court”). On 22 July 2010 and 21 July 2011 the court dismissed the complaints, finding that on 30   June 2010 and 21 July 2011 respectively the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. 10.     Application no. 75318/11 (Nurkayevy v. Russia) The applicants are: (1)     Ms Kulsun (also spelled as Kulsum) Nurkayeva, who was born in 1960; (2)     Mr Isa Nurkayev, who was born in 1955; and (3)     Mr Islam Nurkayev, who was born in 1981. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. The first and the second applicants are the parents of Mr Ibragim Nurkayev, who was born in 1978; the third applicant is his brother. (a)     Disappearance of Mr Ibragim Nurkayev In the evening of 14 July 2000 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 15 July 2000) Mr Nurkayev left his home at 2   Zenitnaya Street in Grozny and never returned. Shortly after he left the house, the first applicant heard gunfire and went outside to check what was going on. She saw some military vehicles, an APC and a UAZ minivan ( tabletka ), driving away from their house. The whereabouts of Mr Ibragim Nurkayev have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the disappearance According to the applicants, they did not have the opportunity to report the disappearance to the authorities for several months as the law ‑ enforcement agencies had stopped functioning owing to intensive military operations in Grozny. It was only in January 2001, when temporary departments of the interior started operating, that they managed to make a request that criminal proceedings be opened. On an unspecified date in January 2001 the Staropromyslovskiy district temporary department of the interior in Grozny ( Временный отдел внутренних дел Старопромысловского района г. Грозный ( РОВД )) (hereinafter “the ROVD”) refused to open a criminal case into Mr   Nurkayev’s disappearance. The applicants were informed of this decision on 17   January 2001. On 19 April 2006 the applicants again complained to the authorities, requesting that they institute proceedings in respect of their relative’s disappearance. On 4 April 2006 the ROVD again refused to open an investigation. On 4 September 2006 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny ( Прокуратура Старопромысловского района г. Грозный ) overruled that decision and opened criminal case no. 53121 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). On 11 September 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status. On an unspecified date the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on 20   February 2007, suspended on 8 November 2008, then again resumed on 26   May 2011 and suspended on 26 June 2011. On 5 April 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the investigation file and resume the proceedings. Her access to the criminal case file was granted; however, the remainder of the request was rejected. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators. On 17 May 2011 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny ( Старопромысловский районный суд г. Грозный ) (hereinafter “the court”). On 5   August 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, finding that on 26   May 2011 the investigators had already resumed the investigation. 11.     Application no. 6983/13 (Gaydakova v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Aset Gaydakova, who was born in 1959 and lives in Grozny. She is represented before the Court by Mr Rustam Gazaliyev, a lawyer practising in Chechnya. The applicant is the wife of Mr Isa Gaydakov, who was born in 1959. (a)     Abduction of Ms Isa Gaydakov Mr Isa Gaydakov was a cousin of Mr Shamil Basayev, the well-known leader and field commander of illegal armed groups in Chechnya. On 23 April 2004 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 23 March 2005) Mr Gaydakov was at the Zhaneta petrol station on Mayakovskogo Street in Grozny, when a group of about seven men in camouflage uniforms forced him out of his Volga car and took him to an unidentified destination. Mr Gaydakov’s car was subsequently seen in the courtyard of the house of the head of the passport and visa department of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior. It is unclear whether the applicant provided this information to the investigators. The whereabouts of Mr Isa Gaydakov have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction According to the applicant, she informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. Despite her requests, the authorities refused to officially register her complaints, thereby impeding the investigation. On 7 June 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny ( Прокуратура Ленинского района г. Грозный ) refused to open a criminal case into the abduction. On 1 August 2005 the supervising prosecutor overruled that decision and opened criminal case no. 40157 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 44064) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 23 August 2005 the applicant was granted victim status. On 15 November 2005 Mr V.M., the head of the provisional task force of the criminal police department of the Ministry of the Interior in Khankala ( КМ ВОГО и П МВД России ) provided information in a statement to the investigators to the effect that Mr Gaydakov was involved in the activities of illegal armed groups in Chechnya. On 1 October 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. That decision was overruled by the supervising prosecutor on 15 November 2005 and the investigation was resumed. It was again suspended on 15 February 2006. On 22 June 2011 the applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings, inform her about progress in the investigation and grant her access to the case file. Her request was granted in part: the investigators gave her permission to consult the contents of the case file and informed her about progress in the case. On 4 April 2012 the applicant again requested that the investigators resume the proceedings. Her request was rejected. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 28 May 2012 the applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny ( Ленинский районный суд г.   Грозный ) (hereinafter “the court”). On 16 July 2012 the court dismissed the complaint as unfounded, having established that all the necessary investigative steps had been taken. COMPLAINTS 1.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain of a violation of the right to life of their relatives, referred to as “abducted/disappeared persons” in the Appendix, and submit that the circumstances of their abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted. 2.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications, except for Kulishova v. Russia (no. 37430/09), Khatuyeva v.   Russia (no. 4310/10), Bashayeva v. Russia (no. 12926/10) and Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11), complain that they have suffered severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in connection with the abduction and/or 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, except for Bashayeva v.   Russia (no. 12926/10), submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives, referred to as “abducted/disappeared persons” in the Appendix, violates all of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention. 4.     The applicants in all the applications, except for Kulishova v. Russia (no. 37430/09), Khatuyeva v. Russia (no. 4310/10) and Bashayeva v. Russia (no. 12926/10), complain 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 Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no.   5374/07), Satovkhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 29844/11), Khakimova and Others v. Russia (no.   36875/11), Tovdayevy v. Russia (no.   41890/11), Bakayevy v. Russia (no. 67744/11) and Nurkayevy v. Russia (no. 75318/11), complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, while the applicants in Kulishova v.   Russia (no. 37430/09) and Khatuyeva v.   Russia (no. 4310/10) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of the applications Bashayeva v. Russia (no. 12926/10), Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11), Tovdayevy v.   Russia (no.   41890/11), Bakayevy v. Russia (no. 67744/11), Nurkayevy v.   Russia (no.   75318/11) and Gaydakova v. Russia (no. 6983/13), have the applicants complied with the six ‑ month time-limit laid down in Article 35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were there “excessive or unexplained delays” on the part of the applicants in submitting their complaints to the domestic authorities and/or the Court after the abduction of their relatives; have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity, which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their respective complaints with the domestic authorities and/or the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction and/or disappearance of their relatives.   2.     Having regard to: -     the Court’s many judgments finding violations of Article   2 of the Convention in respect of both the disappearance of applicants’ relatives as a result of detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v.   Russia , nos.   61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30   January 2014) ; and -     the similarity of the present applications, both to each other and to the cases cited above, as can be seen from the applicants’ submissions and the interim results of the respective investigations: (a)     In respect of all the applications, have the applicants made out a prima facie case that their relatives (referred to as “abducted/disappeared persons” in the appendix) were arrested by State servicemen in the course of security operations? (b)     If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in order to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the circumstances of the abductions/disappearance of the applicants’ relatives’ (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others , cited above, § 184)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abductions/disappearances, by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events by other means? (c)     Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants’ missing relatives? (d)     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearances of the applicants’ missing relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? 3.     In respect of all the applications, except for Kulishova v.   Russia (no.   37430/09), Khatuyeva v. Russia (no. 4310/10), Bashayeva v.   Russia (no.   12926/10) and Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11), has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives; the authorities’ alleged indifference in that connection; and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into their disappearance, been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants? 4.     In respect of all the applications, except for Bashayeva case, were the applicants’ missing relatives deprived of their liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on the dates or periods of time listed in the Appendix? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention? 5.     In respect of all the applications, did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 6.     Further to the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information in respect of each of the applications: (a)     any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants’ allegations that their missing relatives have been abducted by State servicemen; and, in any event, (b)     a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants’ complaints about the disappearance of their missing relatives in chronological order, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings; as well as: (c)     copies of documents from the investigation files in the respective criminal cases that are relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the allegations and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations. APPENDIX No. Number, name of application and date of application Applicants’ details (name, year of birth, family relationship, place of residence) Representative     Name and year of birth of abducted/disappeared persons Brief description of the circumstances of the abduction/disappearance   Relevant details about the official investigation   5374/07 Yandayeva and Khamayev v.   Russia   23/01/2007 (1) Ms Luiza Yandayeva (1960); Turpal-Ali Yandayev’s mother; Serzhen-Yurt, Chechnya;   (2) Mr Baudin Khamayev (1949); Said-Ali Khamayev’s father; Prigorodnoye, Chechnya.   SRJI/Astreya 1) Mr Turpal-Ali Yandayev (1982);   2) Mr Said-Ali Khamayev (1984). On 19 June 2003 Mr Turpal-Ali Yandayev and Mr Said-Ali Khamayev went from Tsa-Vedeno to Serzhen-Yurt, Chechnya, and did not come back. On 23 June 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   22096. The investigation is still pending.     37430/09 Kulishova v.   Russia   25/06/2009   Ms Valentina Kulishova (1952); Dmitry Kulishov’s mother; Bogoroditskoye, the Rostov Region.   Not legally represented Mr Dmitry Kulishov (1980)   On 14 March 2005 a group of armed men broke into the flat in Grozny, where Mr Dmitry Kulishov was temporarily residing, and took him away. On 11 April 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no.   40071. The investigation is still pending.     4310/10 Khatuyeva v.   Russia   28/12/2009 Ms Manzha Khatuyeva (1963); Khamzat Beldurov’s wife; Sernovodskaya, Chechnya.   Materi Chechni Mr Khamzat Beldurov (1963) On 8 January 2002 Mr Khamzat Beldurov left his home in Sernovodskaya, Chechnya, and did not come back.   On 14 November 2002 the Sunzhenskiy district department of the interior in Chechnya opened search file no. 23005. On 26 December 2005 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   59023. The investigation is still pending.   12926/10 Bashayeva v.   Russia   23/02/2010 Ms Ayna Bashayeva (also spelled as Aina Bachaeva) (1967); Rizvan Bashayev’s wife; Valence, France .   Not legally represented Mr Rizvan Bashayev (1962) On 20 December 2000 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 20 February 2001) Mr Rizvan Bashayev left his sister’s home in Grozny and never returned. On 31 October 2005 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no.   41209. The investigation is still pending.     29844/11 Satovkhanova and Others v.   Russia   26/04/2011 (1) Ms Aset Satovkhanova (1957); Musa Bamatgiriyev’s wife; Grozny, Chechnya;   (2) Ms Rukiyat Bamatgiriyeva ( 1977); Musa Bamatgiriyev’s daughter; Grozny, Chechnya;   (3) Ms Baret Bamatgiriyeva (1984); Musa Bamatgiriyev’s daughter; Grozny, Chechnya.   Materi Chechni Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev (1954) On 15 March 2005 a group of men seized Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev on a street in Grozny and took him away in a Zhiguli car. On 9 August 2005 the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no.   42095. The investigation is still pending.     31143/11 Dzhamakhadzhiyev v.   Russia   25/04/2011 (1) Mr Said-Emin Dzhamakhadzhiyev (1940); Said-Magomed Abdulazimov’s father; died on 13/10/2014;   (2) Mr Sayd-Khasan Dzhamakhadzhiyev (1989); Said-Magomed Abdulazimov’s brother; Novye Atagi, Chechnya. Mr Tagir Shamsudinov Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov (1970) On 12 May 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 17 May 2002) a group of men seized Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov in the centre of Chiri-Yurt, Chechnya, and took him away in a Gazel minivan.   On 1 August 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   59177. The investigation is still pending.     36875/11 Khakimova and Others v.   Russia 25/05/2011 (1) Ms Ayna Khakimova (1953); Saitaksi Umarov’s wife; Duba-Yurt, Chechnya;   (2) Mr Sayd-Akhmed Umarov (1982); Saitaksi Umarov’s son; Duba-Yurt, Chechnya;   (3) Ms Zarema Umarova (1976); Saitaksi Umarov’s daughter; Duba-Yurt, Chechnya.   Materi Chechni Mr Saitaksi Umarov (1953) On 15 February 2005 Mr Saitaksi Umarov went to work in Duba-Yurt, Chechnya, and never returned home. On 9 November 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   46151. The investigation is still pending.     41890/11 Tovdayevy v.   Russia   16/06/2011 (1) Ms Khadizhat Tovdayeva (1954); Isa Tovdayev’s mother; Grozny, Chechnya   (2) Mr Bislan (also spelled as Beslan) Tovdayev (1977); Isa Tovdayev’s brother; Grozny, Chechnya.   Materi Chechni Mr Isa (also spelled as Issa) Tovdayev (1984) On 29 April 2000 Mr Isa Tovdayev went to a rubbish dump in Petropavlovskaya, Chechnya, and never returned home. On 12 February 2001 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   19016. The investigation is still pending.     67744/11 Bakayevy v.   Russia   06/10/2011 (1) Mr Mukhamet-Ali Bakayev (1955); Akhmed Bakayev’s father; Alkhazurovo, Chechnya; (2) Ms Roza Bakayeva (1958); Akhmed Bakayev’s mother; Alkazurovo, Chechnya; (3) Mr Abumuslim Bakayev (1984); Akhmed Bakayev’s brother; Alkhazurovo, Chechnya.   Materi Chechni Mr Akhmed Bakayev (1978) On 29 July 2002 a group of men in military uniforms seized Mr Akhmed Bakayev on a street in Kirova settlement, Chechnya, and took him away. On 9 July 2003 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no.   30111. The investigation is still pending.     75318/11 Nurkayevy v.   Russia   15/11/2011 (1) Ms Kulsun (also spelled as Kulsum) Nurkayeva (1960); Ibragim Nurkayev’s mother; Grozny, Chechnya;   (2) Mr Isa Nurkayev (1955); Ibragim Nurkayev’s father; Grozny, Chechnya;   (3) Mr Islam Nurkayev (1981); Ibragim Nurkayev’s brother; Grozny, Chechnya.   Materi Chechni Mr Ibragim Nurkayev (1978) On 14 July 2000 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 15 July 2000) Mr Ibragim Nurkayev left his home in Grozny and never returned. On 4 September 2006 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no.   53121. The investigation is still pending.     6983/13 Gaydakova v.   Russia   09/01/2013 Ms Aset Gaydakova (1959); Isa Gaydakov’s wife; Grozny, Chechnya.   Mr Rustam Gazaliyev Mr Isa Gaydakov (1959) On 23 April 2004 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 23 March 2005) a group of men in camouflage uniforms seized Mr Isa Gaydakov on a street in Grozny and took him away. On 1 August 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no.   40157 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 44064). The investigation is still pending. &#