CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB50A8BE { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; line-height:115% } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s2278F906 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s3F5B1265 { 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; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s5BE6FEBE { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; 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 } .s3594C865 { margin-left:13.34pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s8E8B00CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .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 10 February 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 16319/10 Lyudmila Ivanovna VASILKOVA against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are the ten Russian nationals listed in the Appendix. They live in various villages and towns in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia, Russia. The applicants are close relatives of eight men who were allegedly abducted by servicemen between 2000 and 2005 from various places in the two neighbouring regions. The circumstances of the applications as presented by the applicants can be summarised as follows. A.     General information pertaining to all the applications The applicants are close relatives of men who disappeared after having been abducted by servicemen from their homes and public places in Chechnya and Ingushetia. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under full control of the military forces. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since then, with the exception of Mr   Vakha Dadakhayev, whose body was discovered four days later on the outskirts of Gekhi, a village near the “Kavkaz” highway, in Chechnya. All the applicants complained about the respective abductions to 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 several occasions. All the applicants maintain that they have not been kept regularly informed of the progress in the criminal proceedings. Some of the applicants have been provided with partial access to the investigation files. In all of the cases the applicants have requested information about the progress of the proceedings from the investigative authorities; in response they received formal letters stating either that the investigation was in progress or that their requests had been forwarded to another law-enforcement agency for examination. No active investigative steps were taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions in Chechnya and the North Caucasus. According to the applicants, the authorities either failed to take the most important investigative steps, such as questioning witnesses to the abductions, or only took those essential steps after significant and inexplicable delays. B.     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. 16319/10 Vasilkova v. Russia The applicant is Ms Lyudmila Vasilkova, who was born on 1954 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is not legally represented. The applicant is the wife of Mr Sergey Vasilkov, who was born in 1953. (a)     Abduction of Mr Sergey Vasilkov On 17 January 2000 Mr Sergey Vasilkov and Mr Pasha Dedishev (see Dedishev v. Russia , no. 46624/11 below) were taken away from their houses by armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms driving Ural military lorries. The servicemen, who had Slavic features, took them to the checkpoint in Mramornaya Street in Grozny. Mr Vasilkov and Mr   Dedishev have not been seen since. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 15 April 2001 and again on 11 July 2001, the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal cases nos. 13064 and 13103 into Mr   Vasilkov’s abduction under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 17 January, 15 June and 11 September 2001 the investigation in both criminal cases was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 6 November 2003 the criminal proceedings were resumed and cases nos. 13064, 13103 and 12284 were joined under the joint number   12284. The proceedings in the joint case were subsequently suspended on 27   February 2005, 31 December 2009 and 5 February 2013 and resumed on 1   December 2009 and in July 2011. The investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 25 November 2009 the applicant complained to the Zavodskoy District Court about the decision of 27   February 2005 to suspend the criminal proceedings. On 2 December 2009 the latter dismissed the applicant’s complaint as the investigators had resumed the investigation the day before. 2.     Application no. 12377/11 Khatayeva v. Russia The applicant in this case is Ms Luiza Khatayeva, who was born in 1983 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by Mr   Dokka Itslayev, a lawyer practicing in Grozny. The applicant is the wife of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev, who was born in 1979. (a)     Abduction and murder of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev At 6 a.m. on 2 April 2005 a group of seven or eight armed men in camouflage uniforms and black bulletproof vests broke into the applicant’s house at 26 Gvardeyskaya street in Gekhi. They appeared to be of Russian and Chechen origin as they had distinct Slavic and Chechen features and spoke Russian and Chechen. The men had portable radios. One of them grabbed the applicant by the throat and threatened to kill her if she moved. The others forced Mr Dadakhayev outside, saying that they were taking him for interrogation to the Urus-Martan district police department. After the intruders left, the applicant went outside and saw several cars without registration numbers parked near the house: one khaki UAZ minivan ( таблетка ) and four VAZ vehicles, two of which were of the type 2107. The applicant opened the door of one of VAZ-2107 cars and saw her husband on the back seat between two men. When she asked where they were taking him, the men replied that they were going to the Urus ‑ Martan district police department. They then drove off towards the checkpoint in Gekhi, which was situated on the road to Urus-Martan. One of the applicant’s neighbours, Mr A.-Kh. B., followed the convoy and saw that there were two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) parked on Gagarin street, along which the convoy with Mr Dadakhayev passed. On 6 April 2005 the body of Mr Dadakhayev, displaying numerous bruises, was found on the outskirts of Gekhi near the “Kavkaz” highway. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 7 April 2005 the Groznenskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44024 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). Between 2005 and 2010, the applicant requested information, in person, on the progress of the investigation. She was told that the investigation was pending. On 29 March 2010 the applicant applied to the Groznenskiy district investigative committee for access to the criminal case file. On 23 August 2010 her request was granted by the investigators and the applicant copied the contents of the entire case file. From the documents submitted it transpires that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 26 January 2011 the applicant complained to the Groznensky District Court of Chechnya of the investigative authorities’ failure to act. The applicant complained that the crime scene inspection (of both the applicant’s house and the place where the body was discovered) had been superficial, that no forensic examination of Mr Dadakhayev’s body had been conducted, that the important question of whether Mr   Dadakhayev had been killed at the place where he was found or at another place had not been established and that the investigative authorities had not even considered the possible involvement of the State agents in the murder. On 4 February 2011 the Groznensky District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as the investigators had resumed the investigation a day earlier. On 22 February 2011 the applicant appealed. On an unspecified date the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 4 February 2011 and remitted the case for fresh examination to the same court. The outcome of this examination is unknown. 3.     Application no. 46624/11 Dedishev v. Russia The applicant is Mr Musait Dedishev, who was born in 1952 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. He is not legally represented. The applicant is the brother of Mr Pasha Dedishev, who was born in 1948. (a)     Abduction of Mr Pasha Dedishev The circumstances of the abduction are the same as described above in Vasilkova v. Russia ( no. 16319/10). (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 17 November 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 12284 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 8 July 2011 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. The remaining investigation steps are the same as those described above in relation to Vasilkova v. Russia (no. 16319/10) due to the joint investigation into the abduction of the two men. 4.     Application no. 55050/11 Khasulbekova and Others v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed Ibayev, who was born in 1970: 1)   Ms Fariza Khasulbekova, who was born in 1975, his wife; 2)   Mr Mansur Ibayev, who was born in 1998, his son; 3)   Ms Aminat Ibayeva, who was born in 1999, his daughter; 4)   Mr Karim Ibayev, who was born in 2002, his son. The applicants live in Grozny. They are not legally represented. (a)     Disappearance of Mr Magomed Ibayev On 24 July 2002 Mr Ibayev left his flat to go to the central market in Grozny and disappeared. The next day the first applicant went to the market along with her relatives and learned from stallholders whose identities the applicants did not disclose before the Court that her husband had been arrested and taken away by servicemen. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 17 July 2003 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office of Grozny opened criminal case no. 30116 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 28 July 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 17 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 27 September 2010 the applicant asked the investigators to provide her with copies of documents from the criminal case file. On 30 September 2010 the applicant asked the police to take steps to establish her husband’s whereabouts. On 30 September 2010 the applicant requested that the investigators resume criminal proceedings and grant her access to the case file. On 25 November 2010 the applicant again requested that the proceedings be resumed. On 27 December 2010 the investigation was resumed and on 26 January 2011 it was suspended. On 12 April 2011 the applicant again asked the police to establish her husband’s whereabouts. On 18 May 2011 she was informed that her request had been noted and incorporated into the case file. On 25 July 2011 the criminal proceedings were resumed and then suspended again on 5 August 2011. They are still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 30 March 2011 the applicant appealed to the Zavodskoy District Court against the decision of 26 January 2011 to suspend the investigation. On 7   April 2011 the latter quashed the decision of 26 January 2011. 5.     Application no. 56577/11 Makayeva v. Russia The applicant, Ms Zaynep (also spelled as Zeinep) Makayeva, was born in 1966 and lives in in the village of Goy-Chu, Chechnya. She is not legally represented. The applicant is the sister of Mr Mokhadi Makayev, who was born in 1970. (a)     Abduction of Mr Mokhadi Makayev At the material time Mr Makayev, whose house had been destroyed as a result of military operations in Chechnya, was living on a temporary basis in the house of an acquaintance, Mr Isa Dzhabrailov (see below, Dzhabrailov v. Russia , no. 4363/12), at 16 Kluchevaya Street in the village of Goy-Chu. At about 3 a.m. on 25 January 2003 a group of armed men in camouflage military uniforms and masks broke into the house and took Mr Makayev and Mr Dzhabrailov to an unknown destination. Their whereabouts have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 20 March 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 34031 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 18 April 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 20 May 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 21 February 2011 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 3 March 2011. It is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the investigators’ inaction before the Urus-Martan Town Court. On 22 February 2011 the latter allowed the applicant’s complaint in part and ordered that a thorough investigation be carried out. 6.     Application no. 4363/12 Dzhabrailov v. Russia The applicant, Mr Arbi Dzhabrailov, was born in 1954 and lives in the village of Goy ‑ Chu. He is represented before the Court by Mr Dokka Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny. The applicant is the brother of Mr Isa Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1969. (a)     Background events In 2002 the servicemen often conducted special operations in relation to identity checks in Goy-Chu, the village where Mr Dzhabrailov lived. During one of the operations, officer A. from the Federal Security Service ( Федеральная Служба Безопасности (ФСБ )) (hereinafter “the FSB”), saw a gold-coloured VAZ-21099 car with identification plates no. x968x 95, which belonged to Mr Dzhabrailov. The officer liked the vehicle and asked Mr Dzhabrailov to sell him the car. Mr Dzhabrailov refused. Thereafter, the officer visited   Mr Dzhabrailov on several occasions and unsuccessfully asked him to sell the car to him. (b)     Abduction of Mr Isa Dzhabrailov In addition to the circumstances described above in Makayeva v. Russia (no. 56577/11), the applicant submitted that on 25   January 2003 Mr Dzhabrailov’s VAZ-21099 car had been seen following the abductors’ UAZ vehicles with Mr Dzhabrailov and Mr   Makayev inside them. According to the applicant, one of his neighbours saw officer A., who had visited Mr Dzhabrailov on several occasions prior to the incident, driving around the village during the day in one of two UAZ vehicles. The following night Mr Dzhabrailov and Mr   Makayev were abducted by servicemen in the same UAZ vehicles. (c)     Subsequent events On 25 January 2003 the applicant arrived at his brother’s house. He found in the snow in the courtyard footprints made by military boots and in the house indications of a fight along with traces of blood. On the same day the applicant went to the Urus-Martan military commander’s office and the district police department (“the ROVD”) to ask about his brother’s possible arrest and detention by their officers. The officials denied arresting or detaining Mr Dzhabrailov. On 10 May 2003 and then again on an unspecified date in June 2003, the applicant saw Mr Dzhabrailov’s car with its official number plates driving out of the premises of the Urus-Martan military commander’s office. At some point later in June 2003 the applicant’s other brother Mr M. Dzh. saw the official number plates from Mr Dzhabrailov’s car on another vehicle, a VAZ-2107, which was also driving out of the premises of the Urus ‑ Martan military commander’s office. The applicant informed the investigators accordingly. (d)     Official investigation of the abduction On 28 January 2003 the applicant requested that the Urus-Martan military commander’s office and the Special Representative of the Russian President on Human Rights and Freedoms in Chechnya (the "Envoy”) take steps to establish Mr Dzhabrailov’s whereabouts. On 18 February 2003 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 34024 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 15 April 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 15 October 2003 the applicant requested that the investigators expedite the search for his brother’s whereabouts. Between 2003 and 2007 the applicant requested information about the investigation on several occasions. In reply he was informed that the proceedings were in progress. In 2007 the criminal case was transferred to the Achkhoy-Martan investigative committee for further investigation. On 20 April 2010 the applicant asked the investigators to grant him access to the case file and resume the proceedings. In reply, on 30   April 2010 he was informed that the case file had been forwarded for examination to a supervising body and that his request would be granted shortly after the completion of the examination. On 28 September 2010 the applicant reiterated his request for access to the case file and the resumption of the criminal proceedings. In reply, on 20   October 2010 he was informed that his request had been rejected. From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending. (e)     Proceedings against the investigators On 3 November 2010 the first applicant appealed to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court against the refusal of his request on 20 October 2010. On 18   November 2010 the latter ordered that the applicant be allowed access to the case file but stated that the proceedings had been suspended lawfully. On 22 December 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal. On 18 August 2011 the applicant appealed against the investigator’s decision of 13 July 2006 to suspend the investigation. On 24 August 2011 the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court dismissed his complaint because the investigation had been resumed the day before. On 12 October 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. 7.     Application no. 5552/12 Makhiyeva and Shoipova v. Russia This application was lodged by two applicants who complain about the abduction of their sons. The first applicant, Ms Asmart Makhiyeva, who was born in 1957, is the mother of Mr Rasmbek Saydulayev, who was born in 1984. The second applicant, Ms Galina Shoipova, who was born in 1965, is the mother of Mr Lom-Ali (also spelled as Lomali) Shoipov, who was born in 1982. The applicants, who live in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya, are represented before the Court by Mr Dokka Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny. (a)     Abduction of Mr Rasmbek Saydulayev and Mr Lom-Ali Shoipov On 21 August 2003 Mr Rasmbek Saydulayev and Mr Lom-Ali Shoipov were visiting the hospital in the settlement of Ordzhonikidzevskaya in Ingushetia. Whilst both men were in the building a group of armed servicemen in masks and camouflage uniforms with shields arrived at the hospital in several vehicles with tinted windows and number plates indicating that they were from region “95”. They surrounded the hospital, entered its courtyard and started firing gunshots. Six servicemen broke into the surgical wing and hit Mr   Saydulayev over the head with a gun, rendering him unconscious. They then ordered the nurses to tie his legs together. Meanwhile, other servicemen severely beat Mr Shoipov, breaking his arm. They then took both Mr Saydulayev and Mr   Shoipov out of the hospital. Mr   I. I. was in the room next to the room where Mr Saydulayev was subjected to a beating and witnessed it. The servicemen handcuffed Mr Saydulayev, Mr   Shoipov and Mr I. I., forced them in a white Gazel minivan with number plates including “A632...95” and drove away. The applicants have not seen Mr Saydulayev or Mr   Shoipov since the abduction. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 21 August 2003 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 23600052 under Articles 222 (illegal use of weapons) and 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code. On 21 August 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene at the hospital and found one of abductors’ armoured shields bearing the initials Ch. On 15 March 2004 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 10 March 2011 the second applicant asked the investigators to grant her access to the criminal case file. On 16 March 2011 her request was granted in part and she was allowed to access the decisions concerning suspension of the investigation. From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 21 March 2011 the second applicant appealed to the Sunzhenskiy District Court in Ingushetia against the refusal issued on 16 March 2011. On 26   April 2011 the latter dismissed her complaint. On 19 June 2011 the Supreme Court of Ingushetia upheld that decision on appeal. COMPLAINTS 1.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain of the violation of the right to life of those of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the appendix and submit that the circumstances of their abduction and ensuing disappearance or death indicate that they had been abducted by State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation was carried out into the incidents. 2.     The applicant in Khatayeva (no. 12377/11) complains under Article   3 of the Convention that her husband Mr Vakha Dadakhayev was subjected to ill-treatment by the abductors and that no effective investigation was carried out into the matter. 3.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in Khasulbekova and Others (no. 55050/11), Makayeva (no.   56577/11), Dzhabrailov (no. 4363/12) and Makhiyeva and Shoipova (no.   5552/12) complain that they are suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the national authorities in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation in that respect. 4.     The applicants in all the applications except for Dedishev (no.   46624/11) submit that the unacknowledged detention of those of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the appendix violates all of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention. 5.     The applicants in all the applications except for Dedishev (no.   46624/11) complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article   2 of the Convention. 6.     The applicant in Makayeva (no. 56577/11) complains under Article   13 of the Convention that she did not have an effective remedy in respect of her complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.   common QUESTIONS 1.     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 applicants’ part in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives, and 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 , Sultygov and Others v. Russia , nos. 42575/07, 53679/07, 311/08, 424/08, 3375/08, 4560/08, 35569/08, 62220/10, 3222/11, 22257/11, 24744/11 and 36897/11, §§369-380, 9 October 2014)? In Khatayeva v. Russia (no. 12377/11), has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit in view of the fact that the body of her relative was discovered after the abduction? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their respective applications with the Court and copies of documents recording their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction/disappearance and/or killing of their relatives.   2.     Having regard to: -     the Court’s numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article   2 of the Convention have been found not only in respect of disappearances of applicants’ relatives following detention by unidentified members of the security forces but also in relation to failures 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 seven 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)     Have the applicants made a prima facie case that their relatives (referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix) were detained by State servicemen in the course of security operations? (b)     If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in order to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ abductions and ensuing disappearances (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others, cited above, § 184)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abductions/killings, either 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 and/or death of the applicants’ 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, with the exception of Dedishev v.   Russia (no.   46624/11), were the applicants’ missing relatives deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on the dates or periods of time listed in the appendix? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?   4.     In respect of all the applications, except for Dedishev v. Russia (no.   46624/11), did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 2 as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 5.     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 were abducted or killed by State servicemen; as well as, 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 the dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings; and: (c)     copies of documents from the investigation files in the respective criminal cases, including case files nos. 13064, 13103, 12284, 44024, 30116, 34031, 34024, 23600052, which are relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the allegations and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations. CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     In Khatayeva v. Russia (no. 12377/11), was the applicant’s relative, Mr   Vakha Dadakhayev subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, was this treatment attributable to State agents? Was the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment “thorough and effective” as required by the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convnetion?   2.     In respect of the applications Khasulbekova and Others v.   Russia (no.   55050/11), Makayeva v. Russia (no. 56577/11), Dzhabrailov v.   Russia (no.   4363/12) and Makhiyeva and Shoipova v. Russia (no. 5552/12) has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives, and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect together with their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the matter 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?   3.     In respect of Makayeva v. Russia (no. 56577/11), did the applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 3 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Number, name of the application and date lodged The applicants’ details (name, year of birth, family relationship, place of residence)   Representative Name and year of birth of the abducted person/s   Brief description of the circumstances of the abduction Relevant details of the official investigation   16319/10   Vasilkova v.   Russia   17/02/2010 Ms Lyudmila Vasilkova (1954), his wife, Grozny, Chechnya   Not legally represented Mr   Sergey Vasilkov (1953)   On 17 January 2000 Mr   Sergey Vasilkov was taken away from his house in Grozny by armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms driving URAL vehicles. On 15 April 2001 and 11 July 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal cases nos. 13064 and 13103 into Mr   Sergey Vasilkov’s abduction. The investigation is still pending.     12377/11   Khatayeva v.   Russia   22/02/2011 Ms Luiza Khatayeva (1983), his wife, Grozny, Chechnya   Mr Dokka Itslayev Mr   Vakha Dadakhayev (1979) On 2 April 2005 a group of seven or eight armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicant’s house in Gekhi and took away Mr   Vakha Dadakhayev.   On 7 April 2005 the Groznenskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44024 under Article 105 (murder) of the Criminal Code. The investigation is still pending.     46624/11*   Dedishev v.   Russia   13/07/2011   Mr Musait Dedishev (1952), his brother, Grozny, Chechnya   Not legally represented Mr   Pasha Dedishev (1948)     The circumstances of the events are similar to those described in Vasilkova v.   Russia , no.   16319/10 (see above). On 17 November 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal cases no.   12284. The investigation is still pending.   55050/11   Khasulbekova and Others v.   Russia   13/08/2011 (1)   Ms   Fariza Khasulbekova (1975), his wife, Grozny, Chechnya   (2)   Mr Mansur Ibayev (1998), his son, Grozny, Chechnya   (3)   Ms Aminat Ibayeva (1999), his daughter, Grozny, Chechnya   ( 4)   Mr Karim Ibayev (2002), his son, Grozny, Chechnya   Not legally represented   Mr   Magomed Ibayev (1970) On 24 July 2002 Mr   Magomed Ibayev was abducted by armed servicemen at the central market in Grozny. On 17 July 2003 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office of Grozny opened criminal case no.   30116. The investigation is currently pending.   56577/11*   Makayeva v.   Russia   03/09/2011 Ms Zeynep Makayeva (1966), his sister, Goy ‑ Chu, Chechnya   Not legally represented Mr   Mokhadi Makayev (1970) At about 3 a.m. on 25   January 2003 a group of armed men in camouflage military uniforms and masks broke into the house at 16 Kluchevaya Street in Goy-Chu and took Mr   Mokhadi Makayev and Mr   Isa Dzhabrailov away to an unknown destination.   On 20 March 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no.   34031. The investigation is currently pending.   4363/12   Dzhabrailov v.   Russia   23/12/2011 Mr Arbi Dzhabrailov ( 1954), his brother, Goy ‑ Chu, Chechnya.   Mr   Dokka Itslayev Mr   Isa Dzhabrailov (1969) T he circumstances of the abduction are similar to those described above in Makayeva v. Russia (no.   56577/11). On 18 February 2003 the Urus ‑ Martan prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   34024. The investigation is currently pending.     5552/12   Makhiyeva and Shoipova v.   Russia   19/01/2012 (1)   Ms   Asmart Makhiyeva (1957), the mother of Mr   Rasmbek Saydulayev, Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya   (2)   Ms Galina Shoipova (1965), the mother of Mr   Lom-Ali Shoipov, Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya   Mr   Dokka Itslayev   (1)   Mr Rasmbek Saydulayev (1984)   (2)   Mr Lom-Ali Shoipov (1982) On 21 August 2003 a group of armed servicemen in masks and camouflage uniforms with armoured shields arrived at the hospital in Ordzhonikidzevskaya in Ingushetia. They beat up Mr   Rasmbek Saydulayev and Mr   Lom ‑ Ali Shoipov and took them away. On 21 August 2003 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no.   23600052. The investigation is currently pending.