CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 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 } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9FB98CC4 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; 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 } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 2 March 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 59117/11 Zimalu OZDAMIROVA and Yakhita BAKRIYEVA against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A.     General information pertaining to all of the applications The applicants in the present applications are Russian nationals, the majority of whom are residing in different areas of 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, an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with Astreya, an NGO), or Materi Chechni an NGO based in Chechnya. The applicants in two of the ten applications are not legally represented (see the attached 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 neighbouring Republic of Ingushetia after their alleged abduction from various public places between 2000 and 2005 by groups of State servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants had no news of their missing relatives after their disappearance. C.     Main features of the investigations into the abductions In each of the cases the applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies about the abduction in question and an official investigation was instituted. In each case the proceedings, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. The investigation has been repeatedly stayed by the investigators, owing to their inability to identify the culprits, and resumed by the supervisory authorities, citing a number of flaws in the proceedings, such as the failure to question witnesses or carry out basic expert evaluations. Some applicants were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. It is unclear whether all of the applicants were questioned by the investigating authorities. As can be seen from the documents submitted, no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal requests for information to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. In response to such requests, the authorities generally reported that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction in question had not been established and that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time. In all of the cases the applicants requested information about the progress of the proceedings from the investigative authorities; in response they received formal letters, usually stating that an investigation was in progress and that their requests had been forwarded to 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 they took those essential steps only after significant and inexplicable delays. D.     Particulars of the individual applications A summary of the facts in respect of each of the applications and the main investigative steps taken by the authorities are outlined below. 1.     Application no. 59117/11 (Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia) The applicants are Ms Zimalu Ozdamirova and Ms Yakhita Bakriyeva, who were born in 1933 and 1960 respectively and live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Umar Ozdamirov, who was born in 1962. The second applicant is his sister. (a)     Abduction of Mr Umar Ozdamirov and subsequent events On 30 July 2002 Russian federal forces in Chechnya conducted a special sweeping-up operation in Grozny. Certain city districts were cordoned off by military vehicles. At about 2 p.m. on that day (in the documents submitted the date was also stated as 29 July 2002) Mr Ozdamirov was at the bus stop located at the crossroads of Chernyshevskogo Street and Revolutsii Avenue in the centre of Grozny when a group of armed military servicemen in two Gazel minivans without registration numbers forced him into one of the minivans and took him to the premises of a State agency in Grozny. The servicemen wore balaclavas and camouflage military uniforms; they spoke unaccented Russian. On 12 August 2002 the commander of the United Group Alignment (hereinafter “the UGA”) ( Объединенная группировка войск на Северном Кавказе ), General Makarov, and the Chechnya military commander, Mr   S.   Kisyun, showed journalists passports of several Chechen men who, according to the officers, had recently been “liquidated” as members of illegal armed groups. One of those passports belonged to Mr Ozdamirov. The whereabouts of Mr Umar Ozdamirov have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. His abduction was witnessed by several passers ‑ by. Several other men were abducted on 30 July 2002 in Grozny under similar circumstances (see Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12) and Magomadova v. Russia (no. 67274/13) below). (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 1 August 2002 the applicants complained to the authorities about the abduction and requested that a criminal investigation be opened. On 8 August 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office ( Прокуратура г.   Грозный ) opened criminal case no. 50116 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 3 October 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 8 October 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, on several occasions, it was resumed on the supervisors’ orders and after criticism from them and again suspended. Specifically, the investigation was resumed on 1 September 2004, 30   August, 29 October and 27 May 2011, and suspended on 1   October 2004, 30   September 2007 and 1 December 2007. On 29 September 2004 the investigators questioned Mr V.B., who had witnessed the abduction and whose statement was similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     The proceedings against the investigators On 6 May 2011 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny regarding the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 27 May 2011 the court dismissed the applicants’ complaint, having found that earlier on the same day the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 29 June 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. 2.     Application no. 66832/11 (Murdalova and Elmurzayev v. Russia) The applicants are Ms Zulay Murdalova and Mr Sait-Khasen (also spelled as Said-Khasen) Elmurzayev, who were born in 1946 and 1947 respectively and live in Duba-Yurt, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, in partnership with the Astreya NGO (SRJI/Astreya). The applicants are the parents of Mr Alash Elmurzayev, who was born in 1978. (a)     Abduction of Mr Alash Elmurzayev and subsequent events At the material time Mr Elmurzayev worked as an electrician for military unit no. 44822, stationed in the village of Borzoy, Chechnya. He wanted to secure a job at the Vostok battalion of the Russian Ministry of Defence, which was stationed on the same premises. In the morning of 23 May 2005 Mr M.T., the acting commander of Vostok battalion, ordered Mr Elmurzayev to report to the battalion’s main headquarters in Gudermes to apply for a job. Mr Elmurzayev, accompanied by Mr R.B., a serviceman in the battalion, immediately went to Gudermes in a military UAZ vehicle and did not return. On an unspecified date at the beginning of July 2005 an unidentified woman came to the applicants’ house and handed over a note, allegedly handwritten by Mr Elmurzayev. The note stated that Mr Elmurzayev had been apprehended by servicemen from the Vostok battalion and detained in a basement on the premises of the battalion’s headquarters. On an unspecified date in August 2005 two men visited the applicants’ house and told them that they had been detained with their son in the same basement at the Vostok battalion’s premises. They had seen Mr Elmurzayev writing the above-mentioned note to his parents. On an unspecified date the applicants went to the Vostok battalion headquarters in Gudermes, where one of the servicemen confirmed that their son was detained there. However, the applicants’ attempts to see their son were to no avail. The applicants have not seen their son, Mr Alash Elmurzayev, since 22   May 2005, when he last went to work in Borzoy. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction According to the applicants, they learned about their son’s disappearance on 24 May 2005 and then tried to search for him on their own. For a certain period of time they abstained from lodging any official complaints, fearing for their lives and the life of their son. However, on several occasions subsequently they requested the authorities to assist them in their search. On 4 July 2008 the Gudermes inter-district investigative department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation ( Гудермесский межрайонный следственный отдел следственного управления Следственного комитета при прокуратуре РФ по Чеченской Республике ) opened criminal case no. 44028 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). On the same date the first applicant was questioned by the investigators. Her statement was similar to her account submitted to the Court. On 7 July 2008 the second applicant was granted victim status and questioned. He confirmed the circumstances of the case, as described above. On 8 July 2008 the investigators seized the note allegedly handwritten by Mr   Elmurzayev (see above). On 6 October 2008 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 19 October 2008 that decision was overruled by the supervisors as premature and unlawful and the proceedings were resumed. Subsequently, the investigation was on several occasions suspended (including on 20 November 2008, 26 January 2009, 4 May and 18 June 2009, and on an unspecified date in 2010 (the date is illegible)) and again resumed. On 23 October 2008 the criminal investigation department of the Gudermes district department of the interior ( Отдел уголовного розыска ОВД Гудермесского района Чеченской Республики ) reported to the investigators that operational search measures had indicated the involvement of Mr R.B., the Vostok battalion serviceman, in the abduction of Mr   Alash Elmurzayev. On 9 November 2008 the investigators questioned Mr R.B., who stated, in particular, that on 23 May 2005 he had driven Mr Elmurzayev to the Vostok battalion headquarters in Gudermes and left him there for the meeting with the acting commander, Mr M.T. He had not seen him since. On 26 November 2008 the criminal case was transferred to the UGA’s military investigation department for further investigation. On 15 December 2008 the criminal case file was returned to the investigators with a note stating that there was no evidence of involvement of any military servicemen in the abduction. On 27 May 2009 Mr M.T., the acting commander of the Vostok battalion at the material time (see above), was placed on a wanted list as a suspect in the criminal case. On 10 June 2009, and 21 January and 25 March 2010, the first applicant requested the investigators to grant her access to the criminal case file. The requests were refused. On 17 March 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 22 April 2011 the first applicant was granted access to the contents of the investigation file. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 1 March 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Gudermes Town Court regarding the investigators’ failure to take basic steps and her lack of access to the investigation file. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown. 3.     Application no. 2664/12 (Ismailovy v. Russia) The applicants are: 1)     Ms Razet Ismailova, who was born in 1964; 2)     Ms Maynat Ismailova, who was born in 1989; and 3)     Mr Eliskhan Ismailov, who was born in 1990. The first and second applicants live in Herzogenrath, Germany; the third applicant lives in Grozny, Chechnya. They are not legally represented before the Court. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ruslan Ismailov, who was born in 1954. The first applicant is his wife; the second and third applicants are his children. (a)     Abduction of Mr Ruslan Ismailov On 30 July 2002 Mr Ismailov was at work at a car repair garage located at the crossroads of Chernyshevskogo Street and Revolutsii Avenue in the centre of Grozny. At about 12.00 noon on that date (in the documents submitted the time was also stated as 6 p.m.) a group of ten to fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a white Gazel minivan with the registration numbers C 671 XH 95 and a blue Gazel lorry and a white VAZ-2107 car with registration plates containing the digits   Ю 971 95 and 194 95 respectively. The servicemen cordoned off the area, then broke into the garage, forced Mr Ismailov into the minivan and took him away to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of Mr Ruslan Ismailov have been unknown ever since. According to the applicants, several other residents of Grozny were abducted on the same date at the crossroads of Chernyshevskogo Street and Revolutsii Avenue under similar circumstances. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 1 August 2002 the applicants complained about the abduction to the authorities and requested that a criminal investigation be opened. On 8 August 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 50121 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 8 October 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was then resumed on 27 July 2010 and suspended on 1   August 2010, again resumed on 2 September 2010 and suspended on 17   September 2010, and again resumed on 1 November 2010 and suspended on 1 December 2010. On 19 October 2002 the investigators informed the applicants that operational search measures were in progress to establish their relative’s whereabouts. On 13 July 2010 the second applicant requested that the investigators grant her victim status in the criminal case. The outcome of this request is unknown. On 27 July 2010 the third applicant was granted victim status. On 19 November 2010 the investigators inspected the crime scene. No evidence was collected. On 16 May 2012, at the second applicant’s request, the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny declared Mr   Ruslan Ismailov dead. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 23 August 2010 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny regarding the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 2   September 2010 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that earlier on the same date the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 15 June 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. 4.     Application no. (13916/12 Mukhtarova and Others v. Russia) The applicants are: 1)     Ms Umidat Mukhtarova, who was born in 1942; 2)     Ms Manash Mukhtarova, who was born in 1965; 3)     Ms Mariya Umarova, who was born in 1950; 4)     Mr Lechi Umarov, who was born in 1942; and 5)     Ms Zara Umarova, who was born in 1977. The second and third applicants live in Grozny. The other three applicants live in the village of Kharsenoy, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. The first and second applicants respectively are the mother and sister of Mr Sharpudi Mukhtarov, who was born in 1975. The third and fourth applicants are the parents of Mr Zaurbek (also spelled as Zurab) Umarov, who was born in 1975 (in the documents submitted the year was also stated as 1981). The fourth applicant is his sister. (a)     Abduction of Mr Sharpudi Mukhtarov and Mr Zaurbek Umarov At about 3.30 p.m. on 1 November 2003 Mr Umarov and his friend, Mr   Mukhtarov, were at the outskirts of the village of Nesterovskaya, Ingushetia, where the latter was temporarily living with his family, when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in UAZ and VAZ-2101 vehicles with no registration numbers. The servicemen were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. They forced Mr   Mukhtarov and Mr Umarov into the vehicles and drove off, passing without hindrance through military checkpoints. On an unspecified date in May 2008, the fifth applicant saw her brother, Mr Umarov, on a television programme broadcast by the Russian television news channel NTV. From the programme she learned that he had been sentenced to twenty-four years of imprisonment. The applicants provided this information to the investigators (see below). The whereabouts of Mr Sharpudi Mukhtarov and Mr Zaurbek Umarov have been unknown since the date of their abduction. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction Immediately after the abduction some of the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 18 November 2003 the Sunzhenskiy prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 23600076 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 18 March 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. This decision was overruled on 14   August 2008 by the supervisors and the proceedings were resumed. They were again suspended on 24 December 2008. On 15 August 2008 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 12 November 2008 the second applicant informed the investigators of the television programme on which Mr Zaurbek Umarov had appeared. On 19 November 2008 the investigators questioned Ms E.E., the wife of Mr   Umarov, who stated, in particular, that she had seen her husband interviewed by a journalist on a television programme broadcast on 16   May 2008 by the Russian television channel NTV. On 29 November 2008 Ms E.E. was granted victim status. On 30 April 2009 the investigators requested NTV for a copy of the television programme broadcast on 16 May 2008. NTV replied that the original had been destroyed due to the expiration of the relevant storage period. 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 relatives. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their relatives’ whereabouts. On 27 August 2011 the second applicant requested information about progress in the proceedings and to be granted victim status. The outcome of this request is unknown. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 5.     Application no. (17499/12 Tasuyev and Others v. Russia) The applicants are: 1)     Mr Khamzat Tasuyev, who was born in 1961; 2)     Mr Saykhan Tasuyev, who was born in 1979; 3)     Mr Salambek Tasuyev, who was born in 1985; and 4)     Ms Khadizhat Dzhamaldinova, who was born in 1957. The first and fourth applicants live in the village of Shalazhi and the city of Grozny, Chechnya, respectively. They are the brother and sister of Mr   Lechi Tasuyev, who was born in 1955. The second and third applicants live in Moscow; they are his children. The applicants are not legally represented before the Court. (a)     Abduction and ill-treatment of the first applicant At about 6.30 p.m. on 29 May 2003 the first applicant was in the courtyard of his house at 13 Mazayeva Street in Shalazhi when a group of ten to twelve armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in two UAZ (“tabletka”) minivans. The servicemen blindfolded the first applicant, forced him into one of the vehicles and took him away to an unknown destination. Having arrived at that unknown destination, the servicemen took the first applicant to a basement and placed him on his own in a cell that had a floor and walls made of concrete. There were pools of blood and shell casings everywhere. The cell had a heavy iron door and no windows. The servicemen handcuffed the first applicant, blindfolded him, plugged his ears, put adhesive tape over his eyes and beat him. He was detained in the cell for eleven days and subjected to regular beatings. For the entire period he was not given any food. On the twelfth day of his detention, the servicemen took the first applicant outside, put him in the boot of a vehicle and drove to Grozny, where they released him somewhere in the town. The first applicant asked passers-by to take him to his relatives, who, shortly after his arrival, called an ambulance to provide medical assistance to him. Subsequently, the applicant complained of the ill-treatment to the domestic authorities (see below). (b)     Abduction of Mr Lechi Tasuyev At about 7 p.m. on the same date, 29 May 2003, Mr Tasuyev, together with the fourth applicant and their relative, Ms P.T., was driving through the crossroads of Nuradilova and Mazayeva Streets in the village of Shalazhi when the same group of armed military servicemen stopped his car. The servicemen opened fire and wounded Mr Tasuyev. Then they forced him into one of the UAZ minivans and drove off in the direction of Grozny taking his car with them. The whereabouts of Mr Lechi Tasuyev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. (c)     Official investigation into the abductions On 30 May 2003 the applicants’ relative, Ms P.T., informed the authorities of the abductions and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 2 June 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office ( Прокуратура Урус-Мартановского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 34063 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 2 August 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. That decision was overruled by the supervisors as premature and unlawful, and on 24 October 2003 the proceedings were resumed. They were again suspended on 28 November 2003, resumed on 15   June 2009 and then suspended on several occasions, including on 17 July 2009 and 9 November 2011. On 29 October 2003 the investigators questioned Mr Kh.G., a witness to the abduction. His statements concerning the circumstances of Mr   Tasuyev’s abduction were similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. On 5 November 2003 the investigators inspected the scenes of the alleged crimes. No evidence was collected. On the same date the fourth applicant was questioned. On 19 November 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. His statements about the circumstances of his abduction and ill ‑ treatment were similar to his account submitted to the Court. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (d)     Proceedings against the investigators On 24 October 2011 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Urus ‑ Martan District Court regarding the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 1 November 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that a day earlier, on 31   October 2011, the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. 6.     Application no. (20191/12 Tayubova v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Kuza Tayubova, who was born in 1961 and lives in Gudermes, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by Mr Ramil Khusnutdinov. The applicant is the mother of Mr Makhran Tayubov, who was born in 1982. (a)     Abduction of Mr Makhran Tayubov At about 4 p.m. on 8 August 2002 Mr Tayubov, the applicant, and his acquaintances, Mr M.Ch. and Mr A.D., were driving on the Rostov-Baku motorway when a group of about ten armed servicemen in military uniforms and balaclavas stopped their car near a mobile checkpoint located before Gudermes. The servicemen were in an armoured personnel carrier (hereinafter “APC”) and an UAZ (“ tabletka ”) minivan without registration plates; one of them was of Slavic appearance, spoke unaccented Russian and was equipped with a portable radio set. The servicemen checked the identity documents of the occupants of the car, then forced Mr Tayubov into the UAZ vehicle and drove off to an unknown destination. On 10 August 2002 the local police identified and stopped the UAZ minivan in which Mr Tayubov had been taken away two days earlier. The vehicle belonged to officers from the Federal Security Service (hereinafter “the FSS”) ( Федеральная служба безопасности РФ ( ФСБ )) who showed their military service cards to the police. The FSS officers insisted that the police release them. After a phone conversation with the Gudermes district military commander, who ordered their immediate release, the police allowed the FSS officers to leave. The whereabouts of Mr Makhan Tayubov have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction Immediately after the abduction the applicant informed the authorities thereof and asked for criminal proceedings to be instituted. On 9 August 2002 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office ( Прокуратура Гудермесского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 57063 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 9 October 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the applicant was not informed about that decision. On 3 August 2007 the investigation was resumed; it was again suspended on 3 September 2007. It was resumed on an unspecified date, suspended on 9 March 2011 and again resumed on 7 June 2011. On 16 August 2007 the applicant was granted victim status. On 10 September 2007 the crime scene was inspected. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gudermes Town Court regarding the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 1 March 2010 the court allowed the complaint and ordered that the investigation be resumed. (d)     Civil proceedings for compensation On 7 July 2010 the applicant lodged a civil claim seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage incurred in connection with the alleged failure by the authorities to effectively investigate her son’s abduction. On 10 June 2011 the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny dismissed the claim as unfounded. On 13 February 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court confirmed the above decision on appeal. 7.     Application no. 40161/12 (Metsoyeva and Others v. Russia) The applicants are: 1)     Ms Raisa Metsoyeva, who was born in 1967; 2)     Ms Iman Garbulatova, who was born in 2000; and 3)     Mr Islam Garbulatov, who was born in 2004. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Sayd-Eli (also spelled as Said-Eli) Garbulatov, who was born in 1960. The second and third applicants are his children. (a)     Abduction of Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov and subsequent events At about 1 p.m. on 10 August 2005 Mr Garbulatov, a former member of illegal armed groups in Chechnya, was leaving the office of the Grozny Technical Inventory Bureau ( Бюро технической инвентаризации г.   Грозного ( БТИ )) at 2 Pobedy Avenue in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny, when about twenty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms surrounded him, forced him into an UAZ vehicle with no registration numbers and drove off to an unknown destination. On 18 August 2005 the applicants’ relative, Mr V.G., went to the Katayama police station in Grozny’s Staropromyslovskiy district. In one of the corridors of the police station he saw Mr Garbulatov sitting on a chair under armed guard. Mr V.G. managed to approach and have a brief conversation with Mr Garbulatov, who told him that since his arrest on 10   August 2005 he had been detained in the basement of the police station. The whereabouts of Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 19 January 2006 the first applicant officially requested that criminal proceedings into the abduction of her husband be opened. On unspecified dates the first applicant and Mr V.G. were questioned. Their statements to the investigators were similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. On 3 February 2006 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny ( Прокуратура Заводского района г. Грозный ) refused to institute criminal proceedings into the abduction, citing the absence of any criminal act. On 8 May 2006 the supervising prosecutor overruled the above decision and opened criminal case no. 51072 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). The first applicant was granted victim status. On the same date the investigators inspected the crime scene. No evidence was collected. On 25 June 2006 and 1 July 2006 several police officers from the Staropromyslovskiy district police station in Grozny were questioned. All of them denied any involvement in Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov’s abduction. On 8 July 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed on numerous occasions on the supervisors’ orders and after criticism from them and then again suspended. Thus, the investigation was resumed on 18 July 2006, 3 May, 26 July and 15   November 2007, and 20 May 2008 and suspended on 18 August 2006, 7   June, 3 September and 15 December 2007, and 29 June 2008. On 13 April 2007 the first applicant requested the investigators to resume the proceedings and to grant her access to the criminal case file. Her request for access to the case file was refused. On 19 May 2011 the first applicant again requested the investigators to resume the proceedings and to inform her about their progress. In reply, she received a letter stating that operational search measures were in progress in order to establish her husband’s whereabouts. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny regarding her lack of access to the investigation file. On 9 November 2007 the court allowed her complaint. On 18 February 2012 the first applicant lodged another complaint regarding the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 27 February 2012 the court dismissed her complaint. 8.     Application no. 77701/12 (Golbatsova v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Ayzan Golbatsova, who was born in 1953. She is the mother of Mr Alikhan Golbatsov, who was born in 1979. The applicant died on 17 August 2013. Her daughter, Ms Elina Golbatsova, who lives in Avtury, Chechnya, and who is also the sister of the disappeared Mr Golbatsov, expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in her mother’s stead. On 9 August 2015 the applicant informed the Court that she wished to be represented by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov, a lawyer practicing in Grozny. (a)     Abduction of Mr Alikhan Golbatsov At about 9 p.m. on 25 November 2004 Mr Golbatsov and his acquaintance Mr   S.K. were driving in Avtury in the direction of the village centre when a group of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms stopped their car. The servicemen were of Slavic appearance and spoke Russian without an accent; they were in two UAZ (“ tabletka ”) minivans and three URAL lorries. Having forced Mr Golbatsov and Mr   S.K. into one of the vehicles, the servicemen drove off to an unknown destination. The whereabouts of Mr Alikhan Golbatsov have remained unknown ever since. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction Immediately after the abduction the applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. On 10 January 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office ( Прокуратура Шалинского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no.   46002 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). On an unspecified date the applicant was granted victim status. On 17 March 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on several occasions, including on 17   June 2005 and 12 November 2007, and again suspended on 17 July 2005 and 11   December 2007. On 17 June 2009 the applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings, to inform her about the progress of the investigation, and to grant her access to the criminal case file. The investigators did not respond to this request. On 28 March 2011 the applicant again requested that the investigators inform her about the progress of the investigation and to allow her to consult the material in the criminal case file. Her request was granted. On several occasions between 2007 and 2012 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for Mr Golbatsov. In reply she received letters stating that the investigation had been suspended and that the authorities were taking measures to establish her relative’s whereabouts. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 9.     Application no. 3765/13 (Chatuyeva and Others v. Russia) The applicants are: 1)     Ms Farzhat Chatuyeva, who was born in 1942; 2)     Ms Milana Dzeytova, who was born in 1968; 3)     Mr Magomed Chatuyev, who was born in 1993; 4)     Mr Anarbek Chatuyev, who was born in 1997; 5)     Mr Radzhap (also spelled as Radzhab Chatuyev), who was born in 1999; 6)     Mr Mayrbek Chatuyev, who was born in 1969; 7)     Mr Zaurbek Chatuyev, who was born in 1971; 8)     Mr Nazarbek Chatuyev, who was born in 1974; and 9)     Mr Zelimkhan Chatuyev, who was born in 1982. The sixth applicant lives in the village of Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya. The other eight applicants live in Grozny. They are represented before the Court by Mr Makhmut Magomadov and Ms Karina Moskalenko, lawyers practising in Chechnya and Moscow. The first and second applicants respectively are the mother and the wife of Mr Aslanbek Chatuyev, who was born in 1963. The third, fourth and fifth applicants are his sons. And the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants are his brothers. (a)     Abduction of Mr Aslanbek Chatuyev At about 11 a.m. on 11 December 2000 a group of military servicemen in camouflage uniforms detained Mr Chatuyev in Sovetskaya Street in Zakan ‑ Yurt, Chechnya. They forced him into a military Kamaz lorry without registration numbers and drove off in the direction of Achkhoy ‑ Martan, having taken away his Volga car. The first and second applicants and their neighbour, Mr S.Ch., immediately followed the abductors in the latter’s car. At a checkpoint before Shaami-Yurt manned by federal forces, the lorry and the Volga stopped. The first applicant left Mr S.Ch.’s car, approached the Volga, got into the vehicle and suddenly lost consciousness. The servicemen asked medical personnel at the checkpoint to provide her with first aid and then drove off in the direction of Urus-Martan. The second applicant and Mr   S.Ch. followed them. In Urus-Martan, the servicemen stopped next to the military commander’s office. Two of them got out of the Volga and approached the second applicant and Mr S.Ch. Having introduced themselves as servicemen from the Urus-Martan military commander’s office, they ordered them to stop following them and to return home. Meanwhile, a man who introduced himself as the deputy head of the Urus-Martan local administration arrived and demanded that Mr Chatuyev be brought to the Urus-Martan military commander’s office. The servicemen objected and told him that they had been ordered to take Mr   Aslanbek Chatuyev to their military unit. Then they went back to the vehicles and drove off to the village of Tangi-Chu, in the Urus-Martan district, where a military unit of the Russian federal forces was stationed. The second applicant and Mr S.Ch. continued to follow them. In Tangi-Chu, the Kamaz lorry containing Mr Chatuyev went to the premises of the military unit, passing unhindered through its entrance gates. Meanwhile, the second applicant spoke to one of the servicemen, who introduced himself as Mr S.G. and told her that her husband would be detained on the premises of the military unit. On the following day the second applicant arrived at the military unit and again spoke to Mr S.G. He told her that her husband was being treated well but would not be released yet. Several days later, the second applicant again spoke to Mr S.G. He told her that Mr Chatuyev had been taken somewhere by helicopter. The whereabouts of Mr Aslanbek Chatuyev have remained unknown ever since. (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 23 February 2001 the Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 27007 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). On 22 March 2001 the criminal case was transferred to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 ( Военная прокуратура в/ч 20102 ) for further investigation. The case was assigned the number 34/33/0210-01 Д (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 34/33/0210-01, 14/33/0210-01 Д and 34/33/0210-03 Д ). On 23 May 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed and again suspended, including on unspecified dates in 2001 and 2002, and 26 July 2003, 27 January and on 6   April 2006, 6 January and 25 July 2007, 6   August 2009 and 11 May 2010. On 10 July 2009 the first and second applicants were granted victim status. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 19 April 2010 and 7 December 2011 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Grozny Garrison Military Court regarding the decisions of 6 August 2009 and 11 May 2010 to suspend the investigation. On 23 April 2010 in their submissions before the court the investigators stated, in particular, that on 11 December 2000 Mr Chatuyev had been detained by unidentified servicemen, who had taken him to the premises of military unit no. 62892. On 30 April 2010 and 12 December 2011 the court dismissed the complaints, having found that the investigators had already resumed the proceedings in the criminal case. On 17 May 2012 the Military Court of the North Caucasian Command upheld the decision of 12   December 2011 on appeal. 10.     Application no. 67274/13 (Magomadova v. Russia) The applicant is Ms Mikhazha (also spelled as Mikhazhi) Magomadova, who was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Nikolayevskaya, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers of the NGO Materi Chechni. The applicant is the mother of Mr Abu-Bakar (also spelled as Abubakar) Magomadov, who was born in 1971. (a)     Abduction of Mr Abu-Bakar Magomadov On 30 July 2002 Mr Magomadov was on his way to visit his mother – the applicant – in Grozny when at the crossroads of Chernyshevskogo Street and Revolutsii Avenue a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas apprehended him and took him away to an unknown destination. The men were in a white Gazel minivan with the registration numbers C671XH and a Gazel minivan and a Zhiguli car with a registration number containing the digits   “971” and “194” respectively. The whereabouts of Mr Abu-Bakar Magomadov have remained unknown ever since. According to the applicant, ten other men were abducted in Grozny on the same day under similar circumstances (see Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia (no. 59117/11) and Ismailovy (no.   2664/12). (b)     Official investigation into the abduction On 10 April 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 30057. It is unclear what steps were taken by the authorities between 2003 and 2011. On 17 November 2011 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statement to the investigation was similar to her account submitted to the Court. On 4 December 2011 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 11 April 2013. It appears that the investigation is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 14 March 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny regarding the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 11 April 2013 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that earlier on the same day the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 8 May 2013 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants in all the applications complain – invoking expressly or in substance Article 2 of the Convention – 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 indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. Those applicants further complain that no effective investigation was conducted into the matter. 2.     The applicants in all the applications, save for those in Ismailovy v.   Russia (no. 2664/12), Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) and Tayubova v.   Russia (no.   20191/12), complain, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that they are suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relatives and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incidents. 3.     The applicants in all the applications, save for the applicant in Tayubova v.   Russia (no.   20191/12), submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the appendix violates all of the guarantees of Article   5 of the Convention. 4.     The applicants in all the applications complain, in essence, 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 Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia (no. 59117/11) and Magomadova v.   Russia (no. 67274/13) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention; the applicants in Mukhtarova and Others v. Russia (no. 13916/12) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article   3 of the Convention; and the applicants in Tasuyev and Others (no.   17499/12) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article 5 of the Convention. 5.     The first applicant in Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) complains under Articles 3, 5 and 13, in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, that State agents tortured him and unlawfully deprived him of liberty for the period of time stated in the Appendix and that no effective investigation into the matter was carried out. 6.     The applicants in Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) complain of a violation of their right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to the unlawful seizure of the car by the abductors. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of the applications Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12) , Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12), Chatuyeva and Others v.   Russia (no. 3765/13) and Magomadova v. Russia (67274/13), have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on the part of the applicants “excessive or unexplained delays” in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives, have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity, which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis ,