CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s117CFC02 { margin-left:14.17pt; padding-left:3.68pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sEBE38C34 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s493C1799 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 31 May 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 52056/11 Tamara Danilovna TAGIROVA and Others against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are ten Russian nationals listed in the Appendix. They live in various villages and towns in the Chechen Republic. The applicants are close relatives of six men who were allegedly abducted between 2000 and 2002 by servicemen in Chechnya. The circumstances of the applications as presented by the applicants can be summarised as follows. A.     General information pertaining to all of the applications The applicants are close relatives of men who disappeared after having been abducted by servicemen from their homes or public places in Chechnya. In each of the applications the material events took place in the areas under full control of the military. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives thereafter, except for Mr Akhmed Doshayev, whose body was discovered a month after the abduction in Shaami-Yurt, Chechnya, near the River Fortanga. In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abduction to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In each case the proceedings, after having been suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without tangible results. According to all of the applicants, they have not been regularly informed of the progress in the criminal proceedings. Some of the applicants have been provided with limited access to the investigation files. In all of the cases the applicants requested information about the progress of the proceedings from the investigating 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 areas of 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 they took those essential steps with significant and inexplicable delays. B.     Peculiarities 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. 52056/11 Tagirova and Others v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of brothers Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr   Apti Tagirov (both also spelled “Tigirov”), who were born in 1974 and 1968 respectively: 1)   Ms Tamara Tagirova, who was born in 1946, their mother; 2)   Ms Zulikhan Tagirova, who was born in 1981, their sister; 3)   Ms Khedi Daudova, who was born in 1977, their sister; The applicants live in Grozny and Chervlennaya in Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. (a)     Abduction of Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov At the material time the applicants and their relatives lived in the settlement of Yandare, Ingushetia, as temporarily displaced persons. On 4 June 2002 Mr Tapa Tagirov left his house on Shosseynaya Street, Yandare village, and disappeared. A few hours later Mr Apti Tagirov left in his GAZ-3210 car (registration number К111ХТ 95Rus ) to search for his brother and subsequently also disappeared. On 7 June 2002 fifteen armed men in civilian clothes (except for one who was in camouflage uniform) in two white GAZelle vehicles without registration numbers arrived at the applicants’ house and searched it. They arrived with Mr Tapa Tagirov and left with him. The men did not identify themselves and provided no documents authorising the search. The applicants have not seen their relatives since their disappearance. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On an unspecified date in June 2002, as submitted by the applicants, the first applicant (Ms Tamara Tagirova) complained of the abductions to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office. On 17 and then on 24 August 2004 the applicants again complained to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office alleging that their relatives had been abducted by State agents. On 3 October 2004 the Nazran district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 045000023 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 1 December 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 14 February 2005 the Nazran district prosecutor’s office received a reply to a prior information request from the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime in Ingushetia, according to which Mr   Tapa   Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov had been abducted by unidentified law-enforcement agents from the Chechen Republic. On 27 February 2005 the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators. In March 2005 the applicants requested that the Nazran investigative committee resume the criminal proceedings. No reply was given to this request. On 10 July 2009 the applicants again requested that the criminal proceedings be resumed and they be allowed to access the case file. On 12 August 2009 the applicant’s request to access the case file was granted but the request to resume the proceedings was rejected. On 31 August 2010 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation was in progress. From the documents submitted it appears that it is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 7 February 2011 the applicants complained to the Nazran District Court regarding the decision of 27 February 2005 to suspend the proceedings. On 18 February 2011 the court dismissed the complaint. On 29   March 2011 the Ingushetia Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. 2.     Application no. 8435/12 Gerimovy v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Akhyad Gerimov, who was born in 1961: 1)   Ms Khazhar Gerimova, who was born in 1956, his wife; 2)   Mr Ikhvan Gerimov, who was born in 1986, his son; 3)   Ms Marina Gerimova, who was born in 1993, his daughter. The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are not legally represented before the Court. (a)     Abduction of Mr Akhyad Gerimov At about 3 p.m. on 2 June 2000 Mr Akhyad Gerimov was driving to work at the Lenina factory in Grozny in a VAZ 2106 car with registration number AZ-05-VA-347. On the way he picked up an acquaintance, Ms R.I. In the Zavodskoy district in Grozny, at a checkpoint manned by Russian servicemen, several armed men in camouflage uniforms with bandanas covering their heads (typically worn by State servicemen) stopped the car, pointed their guns at Mr Akhyad Gerimov and Ms R.I. and ordered to get out. They then forced Mr Akhyad Gerimov into an armoured personnel carrier ( бронетранспортёр ( БТР )) (hereinafter the APC) waiting nearby and took him and his car away. Ms R.I. was taken behind the checkpoint and held there until 10 p.m. Then she was blindfolded, her hands were tied up and she was taken away in another APC; on arrival she was put in a tent. She saw tanks and helicopters around. A few minutes later she heard Mr Akhyad Gerimov from the neighbouring tent screaming and asking for help. Then Ms   R.I. was taken to that tent, interrogated and beaten up. The next day, at 9 a.m., Ms   R.I. was taken hooded and with hands tied in an APC to the centre of Grozny and released. The servicemen took all her jewellery and told her not to speak to anyone about the incident. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction In August 2000 (the exact date is unknown) the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 12073 under Articles 126 (abduction) and 162 (robbery) and took statements from the first applicant and Ms R.I. In 2001 the first applicant forwarded several requests to the Grozny prosecutor’s office and the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office asking for assistance in establishing Mr Akhyad Gerimov’s whereabouts. On 21 August 2001 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant that her request had been forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. On 13 February 2002, 27 March 2003 and 20 May 2004 the investigators of the Chechnya and the Leninskiy district prosecutors’ offices questioned the first applicant about the abduction. On 7 August 2006, in reply to the applicants’ request for information on the progress of the investigation into the abduction of Mr Akhyad Gerimov, they were informed by the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office that their office was not currently investigating this incident. On 6 October 2008 the investigator of the Chechnya investigative committee questioned Ms R.I. about the abduction. On 23 April 2010 the Leninskiy district investigative committee informed the applicants that the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office had not forwarded the criminal case concerning their relative’s abduction to them for investigation. On 4 May 2010 the Chechnya investigative committee separated several documents concerning Mr Akhyad Gerimov’s abduction from criminal case file no. 12073 and launched a new pre-investigation inquiry. On 7 June 2010 the Chechnya investigative committee opened a new criminal investigation, this time under case number 21027, into Mr   Akhyad Gerimov’s abduction and the theft of his car by the abductors. On 29 June 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no. 21027. On 7 August 2010 the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators. On 15 September 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators allowed her to access the investigation file. Her request was granted after she had lodged a complaint with a court (see below). On 21 November 2011 the investigation was resumed. On 20 December 2011 the investigation was again suspended. It is still pending. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 15 November 2011 the first applicant complained of the investigators’ failure to reply to her request concerning access to the criminal case file and of the decision to suspend the investigation before the Staropromyslovskiy District Court (hereinafter “the District Court”). On 25 November 2011 the District Court stated that the applicant was to be allowed access to the case file. As for the complaint against the decision to suspend the investigation, it was dismissed as four days prior to that the investigators had resumed the proceedings. 3.     Application no. 24737/13 Bachayeva and Others v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Muslim Bachayev, who was born in 1974: 1)   Ms Tuita Bachayeva, who was born in 1954, his mother; 2)   Mr Magomed Bachayev, who was born in 1988, his brother; 3)   Ms Madina Lagiyeva, who was born in 1976, his sister. They live in Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. (a)     Abduction of Mr Muslim Bachayev At about 7 a.m. on 11 January 2000 Mr Muslim Bachayev left his house in the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny to visit his aunt. Near the Tashkala bus stop several armed servicemen forced him into an APC and took him away to an unknown destination. His whereabouts have remained unknown since. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On an unspecified date in the beginning of 2000 the applicants complained to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office of Mr Muslim Bachayev’s abduction and requested assistance in establishing his whereabouts. On 19 April 2000 the applicants’ request was forwarded to the Grozny prosecutor’s office. From there, on 29 May 2000 the request was further forwarded to the Grozny temporary department of the interior ( Грозненский Временный отдел внутренних дел ). In September 2000 (the exact date is illegible) the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 12323 (in the documents submitted the number is also referred to as 12232) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On 2 February 2001 the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators. On 10 February 2005 the criminal proceedings were resumed. On 10 March 2005 the investigation was suspended again. On 6 November 2005 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened a new criminal case under number 48049 (in the documents submitted the number is also referred to as 48050) under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). On 23 November 2005 the first applicant (Ms Tuita Bachayeva) was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 21 June 2006 the investigations in criminal cases no. 48049 and no. 12323 were joined under the common number 12323. On the same day the investigation was resumed. On 2 July 2006 the criminal investigation was suspended. On 17 March 2011 the applicants requested that the investigators took all steps possible to establish their relative’s whereabouts. On 13 April 2011 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation and forwarded the criminal case to the Leninskiy district investigative committee for further investigation. On 20 May 2011 and 12 May 2012 the investigation was suspended and on 2 May 2012 and 10 October 2012 respectively it was resumed. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 23 April 2012 the applicants complained to the District Court of the investigators’ decision of 20 May 2011 to suspend the criminal investigation and the investigators’ failure to take the necessary investigative steps. On 2 May 2012 the District Court terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the applicants had withdrawn their complaint. On 1 October 2012 the applicants complained to the District Court of the investigators’ decision of 12 May 2012 to suspend the criminal investigation. On 12 October 2012 the court rejected the complaint as two days earlier the investigators had resumed the investigation. On 28   November 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya upheld this decision on appeal. 4.     Application no. 25506/13 Doshayev v. Russia The applicant in this case is Mr Arbi Doshayev, who was born in 1953, and lives in Shaami-Yurt, Chechnya. The applicant is the father of Mr Akhmed Doshayev and Mr   Alvi Doshayev, who were born in 1977 and 1979 respectively. The applicant is not legally represented before the Court. (a)     Abduction of Mr Akhmed Doshayev and Mr Alvi Doshayev On 4 February 2000 in the course of a “sweeping-up” operation in Shaami-Yurt, Mr Akhmed Doshayev and Mr Alvi Doshayev and a number of other residents of the village were detained by military servicemen (the factual circumstances of that “sweeping-up” operation were established by the Court in Gerasiyev and Others v. Russia , no. 28566/07, §§   15-16, 7   June   2011). On 6 March 2000 the body of Mr Akhmed Doshayev was discovered with a bullet wound and knife wounds in Shaami-Yurt near the river Fortanga. The whereabouts of his brother Mr Alvi Doshayev have not been established since. (b)     Official investigation of the abduction On 21 February 2000 the heads of the Achkoy-Martan and Shaami-Yurt local administrations complained to the law enforcement and military authorities of the abductions of 4 February 2000 including the abduction of Mr Akhmed Doshayev and Mr Alvi Doshayev. In 2000 the applicant submitted to a number of State bodies a number of requests for assistance in establishing Mr Alvi Doshayev’s whereabouts. On 14 March 2001 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 27010 under Articles 105 (murder) and 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful detention). On 14 April 2001 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. On 30 May 2007 the applicant asked the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office to inform him of the progress of investigation. No reply was given to that request. On 17 July 2008 the investigation was suspended. On 25 March 2011 the applicant requested that the Achkhoy-Martan investigative committee resume the investigation. On 21 October 2011 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr   Alvi Doshayev dead following an application by the applicant to that end. (c)     Proceedings against the investigators On 23 May 2011 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court of the investigators’ decision of 17 July 2008 to suspend the criminal investigation. On 15 July 2011 the court dismissed the complaint. On 10   August 2011 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya upheld this decision on appeal. On 5 November 2012 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court of the investigators’ decision of 24 July 2011 to suspend the proceedings. On 18 December 2012 his complaint was dismissed. (d)     Civil proceedings concerning non-pecuniary damage On 23 January 2012 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Leninskiy District Court, Grozny seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the disappearance and killing of his two sons. The amount claimed was 4,800,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 115,913   euros (EUR)). On 19 April 2012 the Leninskiy District Court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of RUB 2,000,000 (EUR 51,661). 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 their relatives (referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix) and submit that the circumstances of their abduction and ensuing disappearance and/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.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain that they have suffered 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 connection. 3.     The applicants in all the applications submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix violates all guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention. 4.     The applicants in all the applications 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. 5.     The applicants in Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11) and Doshayev v. Russia (no.   25506/13) complain, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 6.     The applicants in Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Bachayeva and Others v. Russia (no.   24737/13) and Doshayev v. Russia (no. 25506/13) complain, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. 7.     The applicants in Gerimovy v. Russia (no. 8435/12) allege that they were deprived of their possessions, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to 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 (referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix); 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 time-limit (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§   162, 165-66, ECHR 2009, and Gakayeva and Others v.   Russia , nos. 51534/08, 4401/10, 25518/10, 28779/10, 33175/10, 47393/10, 54753/10, 58131/10, 62207/10 and 73784/10, §§ 311-12, 314, 10   October 2013)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their respective applications with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction and/or disappearance of their relatives. 2.     Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants’ missing relatives? 3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearances of the applicants’ missing relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by said article? 4.     Has the applicants’ mental suffering resulting from the disappearance of their close relatives, the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect, and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into their disappearances, 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? 5.     In respect of all the applications, 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? 6.     In respect of all the applications, did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article   2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 7.     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 had been abducted by State servicemen; and, in any event, (b)     a complete list of all investigative steps taken in connection with the applicants’ complaints about disappearance of their missing relatives, in chronological order, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings; as well as, (c)     copies of documents from the investigation files in respect of the relevant criminal cases, including case-files nos. 045000023, 12073, 21027, 12323 (also referred to as no. 12232), 48049 (also referred to as no. 48050) and 27010, which are relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the incidents and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations. CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     In respect of application Tagirova and Others v.   Russia (no.   52056/11): (a)     Have the applicants made out a prima facie case that their relatives 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’ allegation that State agents were involved in the abductions, by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events by other means? 2.     In respect of applications Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no.   52056/11) and Doshayev v. Russia (no.25506/13) did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 3 as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 3.     In respect of applications Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Bachayeva and Others v. Russia (no.   24737/13) and Doshayev v.   Russia (no. 25506/13) did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 5 as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions in Gerimovy v. Russia (no. 8435/12), within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? APPENDIX No. Number, name of the application and the date of its introduction The applicants’ details (name, year of birth, family relation to the abducted person, 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   52056/11 Tagirova and Others v.   Russia   29/07/2011 (1)   Ms Tamara Tagirova (1946), the mother, Grozny, Chechnya   (2)   Ms Zulikhan Tagirova (1981), the sister, Chervlennaya, Chechnya   (3)   Ms Khedi Daudova (1977), the sister, Grozny, Chechnya   Materi Chechni   (1)   Mr   Tapa Tagirov (1974)   (2)   Mr   Apti Tagirov (1968)   (both also spelled as Tigirov) On 4 June 2002 Mr Tapa Tagirov left his home in Yandare and disappeared. A few hours later his brother Mr Apti Tagirov left to search for him and also disappeared. On 7 June 2002 fifteen armed men in two white GAZelle minivans without registration numbers arrived at the applicants’ house with Mr Tapa Tagirov, searched the premises and left with Mr Tapa Tagirov. On 3 October 2004 the Nazran district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 045000023. The investigation is still pending.   8435/12 Gerimovy v.   Russia   19/01/2012 (1)   Ms Khazhar Gerimova (1956), the wife, Grozny, Chechnya   (2)   Mr Ikhvan Gerimov (1986), the son, Grozny, Chechnya   (3)   Ms Marina Gerimova (1993), the daughter, Grozny, Chechnya   Not legally represented     Mr   Akhyad Gerimov (1961) On 2 June 2000 Mr Akhyad Gerimov was stopped on the way to his work at a military checkpoint in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny. The servicemen put him in an APC and took him away to an unknown destination.   On an unspecified date in August 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   12073. The investigation is still pending.   24737/13 Bachayeva and Others v.   Russia   21/03/2013 (1)   Ms Tuita Bachayeva (1954), the mother, Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya   (2)   Mr Magomed Bachayev (1988), the brother, Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya   (3)   Ms Madina Lagiyeva (1976), the sister, Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya   Materi Chechni   Mr   Muslim Bachayev (1974) On 11 January 2000 Mr Muslim Bachayev was forced by armed men in an APC at bus stop “Tashkala” in Grozny and taken away to an unknown destination.   On an unspecified date in September 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   12323. The investigation is still pending.   25506/13 Doshayev v.   Russia   18/03/2013 Mr Arbi Doshayev (1953), the father, Shaami-Yurt, Chechnya   Not legally represented (1)   Mr Akhmed Doshayev (1977) (2)   Mr   Alvi Doshayev (1979) On 4 February 2000 Mr Akhmed Doshayev and Mr Alvi Doshayev along with other residents of the village were detained by military servicemen in the course of a “sweeping-up” operation in Shaami-Yurt. On 6 March 2000 the body of Mr Akhmed Doshayev was found in Shaami-Yurtn whereas the whereabouts of Mr Alvi Doshayev have not been established since.   On 14 March 2001 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.   27010 under Article   127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful detention). The investigation is still pending.