CASE OF ALIKHANOVY v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ALIKHANOVY v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 17054/06)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

28 August 2018

FINAL

28/11/2018

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Alikhanovy v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Helena Jäderblom, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Helen Keller,
Dmitry Dedov,
Georgios A. Serghides,
Jolien Schukking,
María Elósegui, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on10 July 2018,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 17054/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Russian nationals, (“the applicants”), on 5 April 2006.

2. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr A. Misrikhanov, a lawyer practising in Makhachkala. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

3. The applicants alleged, in particular, that in December 2004 their relative, Mr Amirkhan Alikhanov, had been abducted by State agents in Dagestan and subsequently killed and that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate the matter.

4. On 1 April 2009 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5. The applicants are:

(1) Mr Ibragim Alikhanov, who was born in 1930,

(2) Ms Muslimat Alikhanova, who was born in 1936 and

(3) Ms Tamara Alikhanova, who was born in 1976.

The first and second applicants live in the village of Ruguzh and the third applicant in the village of Gurik, Republic of Dagestan, a region neighbouring the Chechen Republic. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Amirkhan Alikhanov, who was born in 1974; the third applicant is his wife.

6. The circumstances of the case can be summarised as follows.

A. Mr Amirkhan Alikhanov’s abduction and discovery of his body

1. The applicants’ version

(a) Mr Amirkhan Alikhanov’s arrest at the checkpoint

7. On 23 December 2004 Mr Alikhanov was driving on an errand on the road between Khasavyurt and Makhachkala, Dagestan. During the ride he twice called his brother, Mr A. When he called the second time, he said that he was approaching the stationary traffic police checkpoint near Makhachkala and that he would soon arrive at his brother’s place. However, he never arrived.

8. Early on the following day, 24 December 2004, Mr A. went to the “Mars-20” traffic checkpoint on the northern outskirts of Makhachkala to find out whether the traffic police officers had information about either his brother, Amirkhan Alikhanov, or his dark-red VAZ 2108 car with registration number B 235 CC 05 РУС. The police officers who had been on duty on the night of 23 December 2004 told him that during the evening of 23 December 2004 several men in police uniforms and balaclavas had arrived at the checkpoint in three VAZ cars (the 2107, 21099 and 2121 models). The men, who had introduced themselves as officers of the Dagestan Organised Crime Unit (УБОП – “the Organised Crime Unit”) had apparently been waiting for someone to go through the checkpoint. The staff of the checkpoint did not note their cars’ registration numbers. As Amirkhan Alikhanov had been passing through the checkpoint, the officers from the Organised Crime Unit had stopped him and asked to open his car boot. Then they had grabbed him and forced into one of their vehicles. One of the officers had got in Amirkhan Alikhanov’s car and they had all driven off with him and his car to Makhachkala, the capital city of Dagestan.

(b) Subsequent developments

9. At 3.21 p.m. on 26 December 2004 Mr A. received a phone call from an unidentified person who said that if he wanted to see his brother alive he should bring 25,000 United States dollars (USD) at 10 p.m. on 28 December 2004 to Khasavyurt bus station.

10. At 12.59 p.m. on 28 December 2004 the same person called Mr A. and told him that he should now add a zero to the amount – meaning that Mr A. would have to pay USD 250,000. Both phone calls were made from the same telephone number, which the applicants noted down. On the following day they informed the law-enforcement authorities about the phone calls (see paragraphs 18-20 below).

11. In April 2005 the first applicant and Mr A. received information from an unspecified source about six bodies found in the forest near the village of Zamay-Yurt, in the Chechen Republic, and immediately went there. According to the locals and certain police officers from Zamay-Yurt, the bodies had been buried in the village cemetery in accordance with Muslim traditions. In a shed at the cemetery, the applicants found Amirkhan Alikhanov’s clothes, which were covered in blood and pierced with bullet holes. Mr A. collected them and took them to the authorities for DNA testing (see paragraphs 46, 49-50 and 53-54 below).

12. According to the applicants, residents of Zamay-Yurt told them that on 25 January 2005 the federal forces had staged a mock fight in the forest: they had shot at dead bodies that they had brought with them. The locals, who had subsequently buried the bodies at the cemetery, said that the bodies had had traces of torture: cigarette and soldering iron burns, pulled out nails, cut off or shot off fingers and noses, kneecaps shot through, and ears. From the state of the corpses, it was evident that all of the six persons had been starved. Furthermore, each body had had a broken right collarbone and traces of a single, execution-style shot to the head.

13. An article about the discovery of the bodies was published in the Novoye Delo newspaper on 29 April 2005.

14. On 11 January 2006 the Dagestan Civil Registry issued a death certificate in respect of Amirkhan Alikhanov, stating that he had died on 23 December 2004 in Zamay-Yurt.

2. The Government’s version

15. The Government submitted that on 23 December 2004 Amirkhan Alikhanov had been abducted from the traffic police checkpoint by unidentified persons, as described by the applicants. However, contrary to the applicants’ submissions, his body had never been found. The conclusions of the forensic expert examination referred to by the applicants concerning the identity of the body found next to Zamay-Yurt had been indecisive, as there had not been enough DNA material on the clothing found at the cemetery. The Government did not submit any information or theories concerning the possible whereabouts of Amirkhan Alikhanov after the abduction. At the same time, they stated that the domestic authorities had looked into the possibility of Amirkhan Alikhanov’s involvement with illegal armed groups in the Chechen Republic.

16. In their submission on the admissibility and merits of the application, the Government confirmed that a report on the discovery of six bodies next to Zamay-Yurt had been broadcast on a federal television channel. The report had shown bodies of bearded men in camouflage uniforms and military boots, with firearms and ammunition next to them. It had been impossible to identify the corpses by their faces owing to bullet wounds to their heads. The broadcast had demonstrated the willingness of the local authorities not to cover up the incident in Zamay-Yurt and had proved that State agents could not have been involved in the alleged abduction.

B. Official investigation into events

17. In reply to the Court’s request for a copy of the investigation file in respect of criminal case no. 55826, which had been opened into the abduction of Amirkhan Alikhanov, the Government furnished its contents, which ran to 266 pages. Some of the documents were either missing or partially illegible; most of the documents bore double numbering (that is to say each page bore its original number and also a number ascribed to it when it had been added to the case file). The information contained in the documents submitted can be summarised as follows.

1. Witness statements taken by the investigation

18. On 29 December 2004 the investigators from the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office in Makhachkala (“the investigators”) questioned Amirkhan Alikhanov’s brother, Mr A., who stated that on 23 December 2004 his brother, Amirkhan Alikhanov, had been abducted at the “Mars-20” traffic police checkpoint “by servicemen from the Organised Crime Unit”. B.P., a police officer known by the nickname “Stariy”, who had been on duty at the checkpoint at the time, had related the incident’s details to him. On 26 December 2004 he had received a phone call during which the caller suggested to him that he pay USD 25,000 in exchange for his brother. Then on 28 December 2004 the same person had called him again from the telephone number 8-906-447-6785 and had told him that the amount of the demanded ransom had gone up by ten times because Mr A. had complained to the police about the abduction.

19. On 14 January 2005 the investigators again questioned Mr A., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the statement given on 29 December 2004. In addition, he stated that Mr B.P., who had been on duty at the traffic police checkpoint, had told him that the abductors had introduced themselves as officers from the Organised Crime Unit and that two traffic police officers from Makhachkala had been with them. The abductors from the Organised Crime Unit had taken Amirkhan Alikhanov away, while one of the traffic police officers had taken his car. After that, he and his relatives had searched for Amirkhan Alikhanov at various police stations and remand prisons, but to no avail. On 26 December 2004, he had received a phone call from the number 8-906-447-6785 during which the caller had made a ransom demand of USD 25,000. On 28 December 2004, the same person had called again from the same number and had requested a ransom, the amount of which had gone up ten times after Amirkhan Alikhanov’s relatives had failed to cooperate. Mr A. stressed that his brother, Amirkhan Alikhanov, had been abducted by servicemen from the Organised Crime Unit.

20. On 15 January 2005 the investigators questioned another relative of Amirkhan Alikhanov, Mr Al., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to those of Mr A. According to Mr Al., Amirkhan Alikhanov had been abducted by police officers from the Organised Crime Unit, with the assistance of two traffic police officers.

21. On an unspecified date in January or February 2005 the investigators questioned Mr Dzh.G., the owner of telephone number 8-906-447-6785, who stated that he had not used that number and had no information about the abduction as in December 2004 he had lent his passport to a stranger at the mobile telephone shop for the purchase of a SIM card with that telephone number.

22. On 1 February 2005 the investigators questioned the neighbourhood police officer, Mr R.Sh., who stated that the area of Amirkhan Alikhanov’s residence was under his supervision and that he had known Amirkhan Alikhanov since childhood. To his knowledge in December 2004 Amirkhan Alikhanov had been arrested by the police for unknown reasons.

23. On 22 February 2005 the investigators questioned Mr N., another brother of Amirkhan Alikhanov, who stated that as he resided in another region of the Russian Federation, he had learned of the abduction from his relatives.

24. On 27 February 2005 the investigators questioned the third applicant, who stated that she had learnt of her husband’s abduction from her relatives. According to rumours in their village, Amirkhan Alikhanov had been arrested for causing someone’s death in a traffic accident.

25. On 28 March 2005 the investigators questioned a police officer, A.Kh., who stated that at about 6 p.m. on 23 December 2004 he had been on duty at the “Mars-20” traffic checkpoint when two traffic police officers in a red and white police VAZ 2107 car with the beacon light (that is to say flashing roof lights) and the blue registration plate of the Makhachkala traffic police department had arrived at the checkpoint. The witness had no recollection of the events afterwards and stated that he had already been interviewed about the incident during the internal inquiry carried out by the internal security department of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior.

26. On 28 March 2005 the investigators also questioned another traffic police officer, Mr A.Kh., whose statement concerning the abduction was not furnished to the Court.

27. On 29 March 2005 the investigators again questioned Mr A., who stated that on 25 March 2005 he had learned that in Zamay-Yurt in Chechnya, at some point in January or February 2005, federal servicemen had conducted a special operation and killed six persons. This information had been broadcast during the news programme of one of the federal television channels. On the same date he and his relative, Mr A.G., had gone to that village, where in a shed next to the cemetery they had found various pieces of clothing. Among them he had identified and collected those of his brother, Amirkhan Alikhanov. Then a local resident had shown to them the three graves where the six bodies had been buried. According to the village residents, 28‑29 January 2005, they had heard intensive shooting during a special operation conducted by the federal forces in the vicinity; the servicemen had allegedly brought with them the six persons whom they had allegedly shot there during the special operation and had then buried their bodies. A local hunter had seen the servicemen burying the bodies and informed the local law enforcement authorities of this. Then those bodies had been exhumed and examined by the local prosecutor’s office; subsequently, they had been given to the locals for burial. The local residents had buried the bodies but had kept the clothing for identification.

28. On 5 April 2005 the investigators again questioned Mr A., who, inter alia, again described the circumstances of the discovery of the clothes of his abducted brother in Zamay-Yurt and stated that according to the local residents, a special operation had been conducted there at the end of January 2005 during which six people had been killed and then buried by federal servicemen. One of the local residents, whose identity Mr A. would not provide out of fear for this person’s safety, had told them that at the end of December 2004, two of his relatives had been abducted by servicemen next to the local mosque and that both bodies had subsequently been found among the six corpses at the cemetery.

29. On 11 April 2005 the investigators questioned Mr S.Sh., who stated that his wife, Ms P.N., had assisted the brothers of the abducted Amirkhan Alikhanov in their search for him. On 4 February 2005 she had left the house with a large amount of cash to continue searching for Amirkhan Alikhanov and had not returned. All his attempts to contact her on her mobile telephone had been to no avail. However, on 7 March 2005 a relative of his, Ms A., had managed to have Ms P.N. answer her telephone for a few seconds; behind his wife she had heard a man asking who was calling – then the connection had been cut off. According to Mr S.Sh., his wife’s disappearance was directly related to that of Amirkhan Alikhanov, and both of them had been abducted by the same persons.

30. On an unspecified date in April 2005 the investigators again questioned Mr A., whose statement was similar to the ones he had given before.

31. On 18 May 2005 the investigators questioned A.A., a police officer, who stated that he worked for the Organised Crime Unit in Makhachkala. He denied having any information about the abduction of Amirkhan Alikhanov and stated that the allegations of his participation in Mr Alikhanov’s abduction were unsubstantiated.

32. On 20 May 2005 the investigators questioned another police officer from the Organised Crime Unit, A.M., who also stated that he had no information concerning Amirkhan Alikhanov’s abduction. At the same time, he stated that at the end of December 2004 he had met Mr A. and Mr Al., who had told him about the abduction and had asked him – in return for money – to assist them in their search for their relative, Mr Alikhanov. He had refused and had simply informed them (free of charge) that Amirkhan Alikhanov had not been detained on the premises of their unit.

33. On 5 July 2005 the investigators questioned forensic expert Ms T.I., who stated that her findings, as stated in the forensic report (see paragraph 53 below), had not with absolute certainty established that the blood on the clothes found in Zamay-Yurt had been related to that of the first applicant; their facilities had been limited in their capacity to establish such conclusions. A generic expert evaluation would have helped to draw more certain conclusions.

34. On 7 July 2005 Mr A. requested that the investigators question five police officers concerning their possible involvement in Amirkhan Alikhanov’s abduction. The investigators agreed on 14 July 2005 to grant his request. However, from the documents submitted it does not appear that any of those officers were subsequently questioned.

35. On various dates in July and then in September 2005 the investigators questioned five of the police officers listed as drivers of the police cars in December 2004 (see paragraph 51 below). All of them denied having any information about the abduction.

36. On 8 August 2005 the investigators questioned a traffic police officer, A., who, according to Mr A., had been present at the traffic police checkpoint during his brother’s abduction. The officer confirmed his presence on 23 December 2004 at the checkpoint but denied having any information about the incident.

37. On 15 August 2005 the investigators questioned V.M., the police officer, who stated that he had assisted the applicants in their search for Amirkhan Alikhanov. According to the witness, he had accompanied Mr A. on 24 December 2004 when the latter had gone to various law-enforcement agencies looking for his brother. A few days after the abduction, they had received information that A.A. had participated in the abduction. Then, the witness had spoken with A.A.; the latter, having confirmed that he had been at the “Mars-20” checkpoint on the date of the abduction, had denied his involvement in the incident.

2. Other steps taken by the investigation

38. On 28 December 2004 the first applicant complained to the Dagestan Prosecutor, requesting that an investigation into the circumstances of Amirkhan Alikhanov’s abduction be opened and that the traffic police officers who had been manning the checkpoint at the time of the events be questioned.

39. On 30 December 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene at the checkpoint. No evidence was collected.

40. On 7 January 2005 the investigators sent a number of requests for information to various police stations and remand prisons in Dagestan, asking whether they were holding Amirkhan Alikhanov in detention.

41. On 8 January 2005 the investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of Amirkhan Alikhanov’s abduction.

42. On 11 January 2005 the investigators wrote to the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior asking for assistance in establishing the circumstances of Amirkhan Alikhanov’s abduction. The request stated, inter alia, the following:

“The [preliminary] investigation file containing material collected in connection with the abduction of Amirkhan Alikhanov at the traffic police checkpoint ... has been forwarded to you for the organisation of an inquiry.

Mr B.P., who is a traffic police officer, claimed that at about 6.30 p.m. on 23 December 2004 Amirkhan Alikhanov had been detained by servicemen of the Organised Crime Unit at the “Mars-20” traffic checkpoint and taken in the direction of Makhachkala, while the police officers of the traffic police unit from Makhachkala had taken away his VAZ 2108 car ...

However, senior officials of the Organised Crime Unit and of the Makhachkala Department of the Interior denied that Amirkhan Alikhanov had been taken to their [respective] premises. Meanwhile, officer B.P. (“Stariy”) claimed that he knew one of the officers[that is to say abductors], and that he would be able to identify him.

Given the circumstances, it is necessary to conduct an inquiry into the officers of the Organised Crime Unit and the Makhachkala Department of the Interior and to facilitate the identification by Mr B.P. of their personnel – [firstly] from photographs and then from a line-up ...”

43. On 12 January 2005 the investigators requested that the Khasavyurt prosecutor’s office assisted them in establishing the circumstances of the abduction by sending an officer to various law-enforcement agencies in that town to enquire whether Amirkhan Alikhanov had been arrested, detained or taken through local checkpoints by their agents.

44. On 14 January 2005 the investigators quashed the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings as unlawful and opened criminal case no. 55826 to investigate the abduction of Amirkhan Alikhanov.

45. On 27 February and 11 March 2005 the third and first applicants respectively were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

46. On 29 March 2005 the investigators collected from Mr A. the clothes found by him next to Zamay-Yurt.

47. On 1 April 2005 the investigators sent an assistance request to the Khasavyurt department of the Organised Crime Unit. The request stated, inter alia, the following:

“According to the contents of the criminal case file, on 23 December 2004, on his way from Khasavyurt to Makhachkala, Amirkhan Alikhanov was stopped at the “Mars-20” traffic police checkpoint by traffic policemen from Makhachkala ... . During the check of his identity documents a VAZ-2107 pulled over... [and] three unidentified men in balaclavas got out of it, grabbed Amirkhan Alikhanov, forced him into their car and drove off to Makhachkala. One of the traffic police officers from Makhachkala followed them in Amirkhan Alikhanov’s car ...

On 29 March 2005 the brother of the abducted person, Mr A., informed the investigators that he had received a phone call from a man who had seen a television programme about a special operation conducted by the federal forces in the Nozhay‑Yurt district [in the Chechen Republic], during which six persons had been killed and that two of the six bodies had been identified by relatives ... .

Mr A. had found [there] and brought to us the clothes of the abducted Amirkhan Alikhanov.

It is necessary to establish whether Amirkhan Alikhanov’s body was among the six bodies ... .”

48. On 11 April 2005 criminal case no. 55826 (opened in connection with the abduction of Amirkhan Alikhanov) was joined with criminal case no. 558270 (opened in connection with the disappearance of Ms P.N.). The relevant decision stated, among other things, the following:

“... The investigation established that the crimes committed against Amirkhan Alikhanov and Ms P.N. were interconnected.

The husband of the disappeared Ms P.N., Mr S.Sh., stated that after the disappearance of Amirkhan Alikhanov, his wife (Ms P.N.) and the brothers of Amirkhan Alikhanov (Mr A. and Mr Al.) had been actively involved in the search for him; on several occasions she had visited the Dagestan Organised Crime Unit, where she had had meetings with their operational search officers. On the date of her disappearance she had been expecting a phone call from the head of the anti-kidnapping unit, Mr Gerey; for that meeting she had had a large amount of money in cash on her.

Mr S.Sh. believes that his wife’s disappearance [is connected] with officers of the Dagestan Organised Crime Unit and Amirkhan Alikhanov’s abduction.

As far as Amirkhan Alikhanov’s abduction is concerned, [the investigation] established that an officer from that department, A.A., had participated in the abduction. The investigators had issued an arrest warrant against him, but superiors at the Organised Crime Unit had obstructed A.A.’s meetings with the investigators.

Therefore, there are sufficient grounds to believe that both crimes were committed by the same group of persons ... .”

49. On 11 April 2005 the investigators ordered an expert examination of the clothes found by Mr A. in Zamay-Yurt, and on 27 April 2005 they ordered their forensic expert examination (see paragraph 54 below).

50. On various dates in April and May 2005 the investigators obtained saliva and blood samples from Mr A. and the first applicant for genetic expert evaluation and a DNA comparison with the blood on the clothes found in Zamay-Yurt.

51. On 30 May 2005 the traffic police unit of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior replied to a request for information from the investigators dated 26 April 2005 and provided them with a list of eight service vehicles used by the traffic police officers in December 2004.

52. On 3 June 2005 the Russian Prosecutor General replied to the applicants’ request for information, stating that the Nozhay-Yurt District Prosecutor’s Office in Chechnya had opened a criminal case in connection with the discovery of unidentified bodies at the Zamay-Yurt cemetery. The brother of Amirkhan Alikhanov, Mr A., had identified the clothes on one of the bodies as those that had been worn by Amirkhan Alikhanov on the day of his abduction. A DNA test of the clothes had been commissioned. The Nozhay-Yurt District Prosecutor’s Office had also been instructed to identify the bodies with the aid of photographs.

53. On 20 June 2005 the expert examination of the clothes found in Zamay-Yurt issued a report, according to which the first applicant’s equilocal genes were similar to those found on the clothes. On the same date, 20 June 2005, the investigators ordered a genetic expert evaluation to establish that the blood on the clothes was that of the first applicant’s relative. The results of this examination were not furnished to the Court.

54. On 31 August 2005 the investigators ordered a forensic expert examination of the comparison of the clothes found in Zamay-Yurt with the description thereof contained in Amirkhan Alikhanov’s medical record kept in the local hospital. On 29 September 2005 the results of the examination were issued, the contents of which were not furnished to the Court.

55. On 14 September 2005 the Dagestan Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation for failure to identify the culprits.

56. Between 7 and 29 September 2005 an expert evaluation of the clothes found in Zamay-Yurt was conducted. According to the report of that examination, dated 29 September 2005, the clothes belonged to Amirkhan Alikhanov.

57. On an unspecified date in September 2005 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation had been suspended. The relevant parts of the letter read as follows:

“... Criminal case no. 55826 into the abduction of [Mr Amirkhan] Alikhanov ... was opened on 14 January 2005 ...

The investigation has established that at approximately 6 p.m. on 23 December 2004, when [Mr Amirkhan] Alikhanov was driving his VAZ 2108 car from Khasavyurt to Makhachkala, he was stopped at the “Mars-20” ... checkpoint ... and taken to an unknown destination by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms.

The investigation has not established the involvement of any law-enforcement officers in the abduction.

From the [witnesses’] statements, the items seized, replies to requests, the report on DNA expert evaluation no. 18 of 20 June 2005 and the report on biological test no. 369 of 29 September 2005, it can be seen that [Amirkhan] Alikhanov was killed near the village of Zamay-Yurt ... when resisting the Chechen servicemen, who were conducting a special operation.

At present the criminal case is suspended on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators of [Amirkhan] Alikhanov’s abduction.”

58. On 8 November 2005 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicants that they had received for investigation from another prosecutor’s office the criminal case file concerning the discovery of six unidentified male bodies in the forest two kilometres to the east of the village of Zamay-Yurt. The case file contained no information on the identification of the bodies, which had been buried as unidentified. There was no information regarding whether the body of Amirkhan Alikhanov had been among them.

59. On 30 November and then on 12 December 2005 the applicants requested that the Dagestan Prosecutor exhume the bodies found in Zamay‑Yurt for post-mortem examination, including the establishment of the cause of Amirkhan Alikhanov’s death. No reply was given to those requests.

60. On 28 December 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that on 17 July 2005 the criminal case file concerning the discovery of Amirkhan Alikhanov’s body had been transferred to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (the UGA).

61. On 7 March 2006 the Russian Prosecutor General replied to the first applicant’s complaint regarding the investigators’ failure to effectively investigate the abduction. The letter stated, among other things, the following:

“ ... the contents of the criminal case file show that at about 6 p.m. on 23 December 2004, on his way from Khasavyurt to Makhachkala, Mr A. Alikhanov was stopped at the permanent “Mars-20” checkpoint for an identity check. At that moment, a VAZ 2107 vehicle pulled over, and the unidentified persons in balaclavas who had arrived in it detained Mr Alikhanov, took him into their vehicle and drove away in the direction of Makhachkala.

The traffic police officers who had been manning the checkpoint were questioned by the investigation and stated that the persons who had detained Mr Alikhanov had been, in their opinion, servicemen of the Organised Crime Unit, as they had had special service documents on them ... .

In the course of the proceedings, the investigators received information concerning Mr Alikhanov’s murder and the finding of his body among six corpses found on 28 January 2005 on the outskirts of Zamay-Yurt in the Nozhay-Yurt district in Chechnya.

In order to verify this information, a genetic expert evaluation was ordered; it concluded that there was a match of your genome with the one found on the clothes in the shed at the Zamay-Yurt cemetery – that is to say the possibility of it belonging to your son, Amirkhan Alikhanov, could not be excluded.

According to the information provided by the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA, the six corpses ... had belonged to members of illegal armed groups eliminated during clashes with the federal forces between 25 and 26 January 2005 ...

In order to verify the identity of one of those corpses as that of Amirkhan Alikhanov, the military prosecutor’s office is carrying out an additional check into the matter ... .”

62. On 8 June 2009 the investigation of the criminal case was resumed. It appears to be still pending.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS

63. For a summary of the relevant domestic law, see Turluyeva v. Russia, no. 63638/09, §§ 56-64, 20 June 2013.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

64. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative, Amirkhan Alikhanov, had been abducted and subsequently killed by State agents, that the authorities had failed to take effective measures to protect his life, and that the investigation into the incident had been ineffective. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:

“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law ... .

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

A. The parties’ submissions

65. The Government stated that the applicants’ allegations were unsubstantiated, as the body of Amirkhan Alikhanov had never been found. Furthermore, the allegations regarding the involvement of the police in the abduction were groundless and based only on supposition. The witnesses’ respective statements contained differences in the description of the perpetrators’ uniforms and firearms. The abductors’ vehicles could have been painted over with appropriate colours to make them resemble those of the police. The circumstances of the applicants’ alleged discovery of Amirkhan Alikhanov’s body near Zamay-Yurt remained unclear, as the applicants had refused to name the locals who had allegedly assisted them in that discovery. Besides, the names of the six persons whose bodies had been found had not been mentioned during the television news broadcasts; therefore, neither the applicants nor the persons who had found the corpses could have known their possible identities. The wording of the abductors’ ransom demand had shown that they were ordinary criminals. Lastly, the Government stated that Amirkhan Alikhanov could have been involved with illegal armed groups in Chechnya.

66. The Government furthermore stated that the ongoing investigation into the abduction had been effective and that all possible measures had been taken to have the crime solved. The applicants could have appealed against the investigators’ actions or petitioned them with requests for certain steps to be taken. The Government pointed out that the applicants had not implicitly requested the exhumation of the alleged body of Amirkhan Alikhanov – they had only stated that they wished to have a DNA expert examination conducted along with the bodies’ identification with the aid of photographs.

67. The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had abducted Amirkhan Alikhanov and subsequently killed him. In support of their allegation, they referred to the following facts. Amirkhan Alikhanov had been stopped by traffic police officers at the stationary traffic police checkpoint and his car had been taken away by the police after the abduction. It was impossible that any regular criminals could have committed the abduction so openly, given that the abductors had taken Mr Alikhanov at the police checkpoint, where a number of the police officers had seen them (see paragraphs 18-20, 22, 24, 37, 42, 47 and 48 above). If the abductors had been regular criminals, their vehicles would have been intercepted at the next checkpoint. Furthermore, in spite of the results of the expert examinations showing that the body found in Zamay‑Yurt had belonged to Amirkhan Alikhanov (see paragraphs 53, 56 and 57 above), the authorities had refused to acknowledge that fact and had taken no steps to confirm this information. According to the applicants, not only common criminals but also State agents could have demanded a ransom for their relative (see paragraphs 19 and 48 above).

68. The applicants further alleged that the official investigation into the abduction had proved to be ineffective and that their efforts to speed it up had not produced tangible results. As a result, the proceedings had been initiated almost three weeks after the incident had been reported to the authorities (see paragraphs 38, 41 and 44 above). The investigators had failed to question in a timely manner all of the police officers who had been on duty at the checkpoint and had witnessed the abduction or those who had driven the allegedly police-owned vehicles used by the abductors (see paragraphs 51, 25, 31-32, 35 and 36-37 above). The officers from the Dagestan Organised Crime Unit had been questioned several months after receipt of the information concerning their possible involvement in the crime. For instance, the witness statements concerning the involvement of A.A. in the incident had not been properly verified (see paragraphs 31 and 36 above).

B. The Court’s assessment

1. Admissibility

69. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. In so far as the Government’s objection that the investigation is still pending appears to raise issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation, the Court finds that they are closely linked to the substance of the complaints and should be joined to the merits of the case. It furthermore notes that the complaint is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) Alleged violation of the substantive aspect of the right to life

(i) The State’s responsibility for a violation of the right to life

70. A summary of general principles relating to the establishment of matters in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of violations of fundamental rights, can be found in El Masri v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 151-53, 13 December 2012.

71. More specifically, the Court has adjudicated a series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances in the Russian North Caucasus. Applying the above-mentioned principles, it has concluded that it would be sufficient for the applicants to make a prima facie case for the abduction of the missing persons by State agents, thus falling within the control of the authorities, and that it would then be for the Government to discharge their burden of proof, either by disclosing documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred (see, for example, concerning abductions in Dagestan, Umarovy v. Russia, no. 2546/08, 12 June 2012; Alpatu Israilova v. Russia, no. 15438/05, 14 March 2013; Abdurakhmanova and Abdulgamidova v. Russia, no. 41437/10, 22 September 2015; and Aliyev and Gadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 11059/12, 12 July 2016). If the Government failed to rebut this presumption, this would entail a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive part. Conversely, if the applicants failed to make a prima facie case, the burden of proof could not be reversed (see, for example, Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, § 71, 3 May 2012).

72. In view of the parties’ submissions concerning the circumstances of the abduction, the Court concludes that the material in its possession demonstrates the validity of the applicants’ allegation, for the following reasons. The abductors, who arrived at the police checkpoint in special police vehicles, acted as an organised group and did not hesitate to abduct Amirkhan Alikhanov in the presence of the on-duty traffic police officers (see paragraphs 18-20, 25, 37, 42, 47 and 48 above). Moreover, they were carrying special service documents of members of the Dagestan Organised Crime Unit, and at least two of them were wearing the traffic police uniform (see paragraph 61 above and, in respect of a similar situation, Kushtova and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 60806/08, §§ 8 and 29, 21 February 2017). Subsequently, in spite of the applicants’ urgent and consistent allegations that the abductors must have been police officers from the Dagestan Organised Crime Unit, it took the authorities almost six months to start taking some steps to verify this information (see paragraphs 18 and 31‑32 above). No steps were taken to verify whether the perpetrators could have been persons other than State agents (see, by contrast, Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 67797/01, § 81, 10 January 2008). Furthermore, upon the discovery of the six corpses near Zamay-Yurt, given the lack of material with which to conduct a more detailed DNA examination of the presumed body of Amirkhan Alikhanov (see paragraph 33 above), its exhumation (as requested by the applicants – see paragraph 59 above) would have helped to finalise its identification. However, the investigation failed to take the requested step, which was necessary not only for identification purposes but also for establishing the possible cause of death in respect of the six persons whose corpses had been found. This procrastination on the part of the investigators – along with the applicants’ consistent allegations of the law‑enforcement officers’ direct involvement in the abduction – provide the Court with grounds for concluding that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their relative, Amirkhan Alikhanov, was abducted by State agents. The Government’s statement that the investigators found no evidence proving the involvement of law-enforcement officers in the abduction of the applicants’ relative and his presumed death is insufficient to discharge them of the above-mentioned burden of proof. Having examined the documents submitted by the parties, and drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court finds that State agents abducted Amirkhan Alikhanov from the traffic police checkpoint on 23 December 2004.

73. The Court finds that, setting aside the issue of the disputed identity of the body found near Zamay-Yurt, in respect of a situation in which a person is detained by unidentified police officers without any subsequent acknowledgment of that detention and then remains missing for a number of years, that situation can be regarded as life-threatening. The lack of information concerning the fate of Amirkhan Alikhanov for a number of years after the abduction and the official establishment of the death by the domestic authorities confirming his death (see paragraph 14 above) support this assumption.

74. Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish to the requisite standard of proof that Amirkhan Alikhanov must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State agents.

75. This being so, in the absence of any justification put forward by the Government, the Court finds that his death can be attributed to the State and that there has thus been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.

(ii) Alleged failure to protect the right to life

76. The Court notes that the applicants’ complaint under Article 2 of the Convention also encompasses an allegation of failure to take measures to protect Amirkhan Alikhanov against a known risk to his life.

77. The Court finds that in the light of its above-mentioned conclusions concerning the State’s responsibility for the death of Amirkhan Alikhanov (see paragraph 75 above), there is no need to examine this complaint separately (see, for example, Aliyev and Gadzhiyeva, cited above, § 89).

(b) Alleged violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life

78. The applicants argued that the respondent State had also failed in its procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, as the investigation into the disappearance of Amirkhan Alikhanov had been ineffective. The Government disputed this allegation. The Court must assess whether that investigation met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.

79. A summary of the principles concerning the effectiveness of the investigation into an alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention may be found in McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 161, Series A no. 324, and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015.

80. The Court has already found that a criminal investigation does not constitute an effective remedy in respect of disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006, and that such a situation constitutes a systemic problem in Convention terms (see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, § 217, 18 December 2012). In the case at hand, even though the abduction of Amirkhan Alikhanov took place in Dagestan in 2004, the Court finds a number of similar defects rendering the criminal proceedings ineffective. The investigation has been ongoing for a number of years without attaining any tangible results, such as confirming the identity of the body found in Zamay-Yurt and questioning those police officers who – according to the witnesses – could have been implicated in the incident (see paragraph 34 above). The contents of that part of the investigation file that was submitted to the Court show that the investigators intended to take such steps as staging an identification line-up of those police officers who could have been implicated in the abduction (see paragraph 42 above) and that they even issued an arrest warrant against one of the possible perpetrators (see paragraph 48 above), but that they failed to carry out those steps, in spite of the crucial role they would have played in elucidating the circumstances of the crime. Furthermore, from the documents submitted it can be seen that the superior officers of the Dagestan Organised Crime Unit obstructed the investigators’ attempts to question the suspect (see paragraph 48 above), which raises an issue as to the practical independence of the investigators, who were as a result of that obstruction precluded from taking those important steps. In this connection, the Court notes that discord within the law‑enforcement agencies should not have precluded the domestic authorities from discharging their obligation to demonstrate diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious matter (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 94, ECHR 2004-XII) and notes that their reluctance to do so led to the loss of precious time and could not but have had a negative impact on the overall conduct of the criminal proceedings (see, for example, Askhabova v. Russia, no. 54765/09, § 153, 18 April 2013). It is also noteworthy that the investigation into the abduction and the discovery of the six corpses was conducted by several law-enforcement bodies without any apparent coordination of the steps they took to have the crime resolved (see paragraphs 47, 52, 58, 60 and 61 above). Given the circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to examine whether the investigation was sufficiently independent.

81. The material in the Court’s possession reveals that the failure of the investigators to act in a timely manner led to unnecessary delays and a loss of time, because steps which could have yielded results were either not taken or were only taken after significant delays. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that any appeals by the applicants against the investigators’ decisions would have had any prospects of spurring the progress of the investigation or effectively influencing its conduct. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy cited by the Government (see paragraph 66 above) was ineffective in the circumstances of the present case, and dismisses their objection as regards the applicants’ failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation.

82. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities have failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances of the abduction and death of Mr Amirkhan Alikhanov. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

83. The applicants complained that after the abduction their relative, Amirkhan Alikhanov, had been ill-treated by State agents and that the investigation thereof had not been effective. They further complained that because of the abduction and subsequent killing of their relative and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured profound mental suffering. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

A. The parties’ submissions

84. The Government contested the applicants’ complaints and submitted that the investigation had obtained no evidence of ill-treatment in respect of either Amirkhan Alikhanov or the applicants.

85. The applicants maintained their complaints.

B. The Court’s assessment

1. Admissibility

(a) Alleged ill-treatment of Amirkhan Alikhanov

86. The applicants alleged that, drawing inferences from the state of Amirkhan Alikhanov’s body found near Zamay-Yurt, they had reasonable grounds to conclude that he had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3. They furthermore pointed out that these allegations had not been investigated properly.

87. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, § 161 in fine).

88. The Court has found that Amirkhan Alikhanov must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention and that the responsibility for his death lies with the State authorities. However, in the absence of any relevant information or evidence the Court is unable to establish, to the necessary degree of proof, the exact way in which he died and whether he was subjected to ill-treatment by his abductors.

89. In these circumstances the evidence as it stands does not enable the Court to find beyond all reasonable doubt that Amirkhan Alikhanov was ill‑treated in detention. It thus finds that this part of the complaint has not been substantiated.

90. It follows that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

(b) Alleged lack of investigation of the ill-treatment and the applicants’ mental suffering

91. The Court notes that these complaints are linked to those examined above under Article 2 and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) Alleged lack of investigation of Amirkhan Alikhanov’s ill-treatment

92. As to the applicant’s complaint regarding the authorities’ alleged failure to investigate the alleged ill-treatment of Amirkhan Alikhanov properly, the Court notes that the substance of the applicants’ complaint to the authorities concerned the abduction of Amirkhan Alikhanov and that this matter has been examined by the Court above under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraph 82 above).

93. Therefore, the Court does not deem it necessary to make a separate finding under Article 3 in respect of the alleged deficiencies of the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment (see, for example, Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, § 138, 5 April 2007, and Alpatu Israilova, cited above, § 67).

(b) The applicants’ mental suffering

94. The Court notes that while a member of the family of a “disappeared person” can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 in view of the suffering endured as a result of uncertainty about the fate of their relatives and the authorities’ inadequate reaction (see Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, §§ 139-41, 27 July 2006), the same principle would not usually apply to cases where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III). In such cases the Court would limit its findings to Article 2. However, if a period of initial disappearance is long it may in certain circumstances give rise to a separate issue under Article 3 (see Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 184-86, ECHR 2005-XI, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, §§ 114-15, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)).

95. In the present case, given that the identity of the body found near Zamay-Yurt was disputed by the parties, Amirkhan Alikhanov was considered as missing by his relatives from 23 December 2004 until at least end of March or the beginning of April 2005 – that is to say for almost four months (see paragraphs 11 and 27 above). In the Court’s opinion, this period – during which the applicants suffered the kind of uncertainty, anguish and distress that is characteristic of the specific phenomenon of disappearances – was sufficiently long to give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, § 107, 15 November 2007, where almost five months passed between the abduction and the discovery of the body of the missing person in question). The applicants’ distress during that period is attested by their numerous efforts to prompt the authorities to act, as well as by their own attempts to search for their family member. The Court has to ascertain, therefore, whether the authorities’ conduct in this period amounted to a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants.

96. The Court refers in this connection to its above-mentioned findings regarding the shortcomings in the investigation. In particular, the Court considers that the authorities’ failure to take steps to finalise the identification of the body found near Zamay-Yurt and their failure to take urgent steps to verify the information given by the applicants concerning the abductors’ possible identities contributed to the applicants’ suffering.

97. The Court therefore finds that the applicants suffered distress and anguish because of the disappearance of their husband and son and of their inability to find out what had happened to him. The manner in which their complaints and requests have been dealt with by the authorities must be considered to constitute inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

98. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 5 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

99. The applicants alleged that the abductors had unlawfully deprived their relative, Amrikhan Alikhanov, of his liberty, in violation of Article 5 of the Convention. The applicants further alleged that they had had no effective domestic remedies against the violations alleged. The relevant provisions of the Convention read, in so far as relevant, as follows:

Article 5

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

...

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

100. The Government contested the applicants’ submission. They stated that State agents had not deprived Amirkhan Alikhanov of his liberty as he had neither been detained on State premises nor had arrest warrants been issued against him. The Government furthermore stated that the applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court.

101. The applicants reiterated their complaint.

A. Admissibility

102. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It furthermore notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

103. The Court confirms that since it has been established that Amirkhan Alikhanov was detained by State agents (apparently without any legal grounds or any acknowledgment of that detention), this constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security of person enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 134).

104. The Court reiterates its findings regarding the ineffectiveness of criminal investigations in the present case and notes that in the absence of results from a criminal investigation, any other possible remedy becomes inaccessible in practice.

105. The Court thus finds that the applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy at their disposal for their grievances under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 157).

106. The Court furthermore notes that according to its established case‑law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, absorb its requirements; in view of its finding above of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, given the circumstances of the present case (see, among many examples, Zhebrailova and Others v. Russia, no. 40166/07, § 84, 26 March 2015).

IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION

107. The applicants furthermore complained that they had been denied access to court owing to their inability before the conclusion of the criminal investigation to lodge a civil claim for compensation for their relative’s allegedly unlawful detention. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

A. The parties’ submissions

108. The Government disputed this allegation.

109. The applicants maintained their submissions.

B. The Court’s assessment

1. Admissibility

110. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It furthermore notes that the complaint is not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

111. The Court finds that the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 concerns essentially the same issues as those discussed under the procedural aspect of Article 2 and under Article 13. In these circumstances, the Court finds that no separate issues arise under Article 6 of the Convention (see Baysayeva, cited above, § 152, and Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, § 87, 22 January 2009).

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

112. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

1. Pecuniary damage

113. In respect of pecuniary damage, the third applicant claimed 90,000 Russian roubles (RUB) or payment in kind (that is to say the same model of automobile as Mr Amrikhan Alikhanov’s, which was taken by the abductors). She enclosed an expert report proving the cost of that model of vehicle.

114. The Government stated that the claim was completely unsubstantiated, as no documents showing Mr Amrikhan Alikhanov’s or the third applicant’s title to the vehicle were enclosed and that in any event, the third applicant had failed to raise this issue before the domestic authorities. Furthermore, the expert report submitted by the applicant did not take into account the condition of the vehicle, as the calculations therein were based on the relevant vehicle documents and not the actual state of the car.

115. Having regard to the parties’ submissions, the Court makes no award under this head.

2. Non-pecuniary damage

116. The applicants each claimed 60,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage: they each claimed EUR 50,000 for the suffering caused by the loss of their family member and EUR 10,000 for the authorities’ failure to investigate it properly.

117. The Government stated that as the abduction and possible death of Mr Amrikhan Alikhanov were not attributable to the State; the claim should be rejected as unsubstantiated and excessive; in any event, finding a violation would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.

118. Considering its findings in the present case, as well as the parties’ submissions, and acting on an equitable basis, the Court finds it appropriate to award the applicants EUR 20,000 each under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them.

B. Costs and expenses

119. The applicants did not make a claim under this head.

120. Since the applicants did not claim any costs and expenses, the Government did not comment on this part of the applicants’ submission.

121. In the absence of the parties’ submissions, the Court does not make any award under this head.

C. Default interest

122. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Joins to the merits the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;

2. Declares the application admissible, except for the complaint under Article 3 in respect of Mr Amrikhan Alikhanov’s alleged ill-treatment, which is inadmissible;

3. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Amirkhan Alikhanov;

4. Holds that there has been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to investigate the abduction and death of Mr Amirkhan Alikhanov;

5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering;

6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Mr Amirkhan Alikhanov on account of his unlawful detention;

7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention;

8. Holds there is no need to examine separately under Article 3 of the Convention the failure to investigate Mr Amirkhan Alikhanov’s alleged ill-treatment;

9. Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention;

10. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final, in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. Those amounts are to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points;

11. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 August 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

              Stephen PhillipsHelena Jäderblom
RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy