CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 16 March 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 75973/12 BISULTANOVY against Russia lodged on 1 November 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Ms Beniset Bisultanova and Ms Kamila Bisultanova, who were born in 1949 and 2003 respectively and live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are not legally represented before the Court. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Timur Bisultanov who was born in 1972, and the second applicant is his daughter. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Abduction of Mr Timur Bisultanov At the material time, Mr Bisultanov was a resident of Grozny. However, on account of the ongoing military operation in the Chechen Republic, he and his family moved to the neighbouring Stavropol Region, where they settled temporarily in the village of Nadezhda, in the Shpakovskiy district, situated about eleven kilometres from the city of Stavropol. At about 7.30 a.m. on 21 May 2004 (the date was also referred to as 22   May 2004 in the documents submitted), Mr Bisultanov, his wife Ms   P.S. and their daughter, the second applicant, were at home when a group of about twenty armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house at 15 Ponizovskaya Street (also spelled as Ponizovskogo and Ponazovskaya Street in the case file) in Nadezhda. The servicemen were in a PAZ bus and a Niva car without registration numbers. They were wearing balaclavas and military helmets. Having broken into the house, they conducted an unauthorised search of the premises and then forced Mr   Bisultanov outside. Meanwhile, Ms   P.S. asked one of the servicemen where her husband was being taken. The servicemen replied that, she would be able to find her husband at the Shpakovskiy district department of the interior ( Отдел внутренних дел Шпаковского района Ставропольского края ) as soon as certain questions had been clarified. Thereafter, the servicemen put Mr   Bisultanov into the PAZ bus and drove off to an unidentified destination. The whereabouts of Mr Bisultanov have remained unknown since then. 2.     Official investigation into the abduction Immediately after these events, Ms P.S. informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her husband. The first applicant also complained on several occasions to the authorities about the unauthorised search of her son’s house and his abduction. On 16 June 2004 the Shpakovskiy district prosecutor’s office of the Stavropol Region ( Шпаковская районная прокуратура Ставропольского края ) opened criminal case no. 26034 under Article 285 of the Criminal Code (abuse of office), having concluded that the search of Mr   Bisultanov’s house and his abduction were presumably the result of a special operation conducted by unidentified law-enforcement officers. On 16 July 2004 the investigators opened another criminal case, under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). The case was given the number 10074. On 23 July 2004 the first applicant and Ms P.S. were granted victim status in case no. 26034. On 30 September 2004 the investigation in case no. 26034 was suspended owing to a failure to identify any perpetrators. It was resumed on 20 January and 22 June 2005 following an order from supervisors in the case, who had criticised its suspension. It was again suspended on 20   February and 22 July 2005 and again resumed on 23 June 2009. On 8 August 2011 the first applicant asked the investigators to resume proceedings in the case and grant her access to the case file. No response was given to that request. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 3.     Proceedings against the investigators On 19 July 2012 the first applicant challenged her lack of access to the case file and the failure of the investigators to take basic procedural steps before the Shpakovskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region (hereinafter “the court”). On 15 August 2012 the court dismissed the complaint as the applicant’s request of 8 August 2011 (see above) had not reached the investigators. The first applicant did not appeal against that decision. COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of the right to life of Mr Bisultanov and submit that the circumstances of his abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted. The applicants submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relative violates all the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention. The applicants complain in essence that the unauthorised intrusion into and search of their house amounted to a violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of Mr Timur Bisultanov? 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 disappearance of the applicants’ missing relative sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? 2.     Was the applicants’ missing relative deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention? 3.     Did the search conducted in Mr Timur Bisultanov’s house amount to a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their home guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention? 4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 5.     The Government are invited to submit copies of the entire investigation file in criminal cases nos. 26034 and 10074 instituted in relation to Mr Timur Bisultanov’s abduction.