CASE OF ISAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ISAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 53075/08 and 9 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

28 May 2019

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Isayeva and Others v. Russia,

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

Branko Lubarda, President,
Georgios A. Serghides,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2019,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in ten applications 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”). The application numbers and the dates on which they were lodged with the Court as well as the applicants’ personal details are listed in the appended table.

2.  The applicants were represented by various NGOs and lawyers indicated in the appended table. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially 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.  Between 15 April 2015 and 10 February 2016 notice of the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and Article 13 in conjunction with these provisions was given to the Government and the remainder of the applications nos. 53075/08 and 62160/11 was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

4.  The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who at the material time lived in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia, a region neighbouring Chechnya. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in these regions in 2000-05 after allegedly having been unlawfully detained by service personnel. In each of the applications the events took place in the areas under full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants had no news of their missing relatives thereafter.

6.  In each of the cases the applicants complained in respect of the abduction to law-enforcement bodies and official investigations were instituted. In every case the proceedings, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. It follows from the documents submitted that no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. Following such requests, the authorities generally reported that service personnel’s involvement in the abduction had not been established and that no special operations had been ongoing at the relevant time. The applicants also lodged requests for information and assistance in the search of their missing relatives to various authorities but received only formulaic responses, if any. The perpetrators have never been established by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending.

7.  Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account of events is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases as presented by the applicants, but contested the involvement of service personnel in these events.

A.  Isayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 53075/08)

8.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Suliman (also spelled as Suleyman) Isayev, who was born in 1966, Mr Rumid Isayev, who was born in 1969, and Mr Ramzan Isayev, who was born in 1973. The second applicant is the wife of Mr Suliman Isayev and the third applicant is the wife of Mr Ramzan Isayev.

1.  Disappearance of Mr Rumid Isayev and subsequent events

9.  On 7 April 2001 Mr Rumid Isayev went to the village of Lermontovo in Chechnya to visit his relatives. At about 8 p.m. he was detained by Russian service personnel at the checkpoint on the road between the villages of Kulary and Lermontovo.

10.  The whereabouts of Mr Rumid Isayev remain unknown ever since.

11.  Immediately after the disappearance the first applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested assistance in the search for Mr Rumid Isayev.

12.  On 10 June 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 19079 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty).

13.  On 10 August 2001 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

14.  On 7 April 2008 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case.

15.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

16.  During her questioning as a victim in the proceedings concerning the abduction of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev, the first applicant also described the circumstances of the disappearance of Mr Rumid Isayev (see paragraphs 26, 40 and 42 below).

2.  Abduction of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev and subsequent events

17.  At the material time, Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev lived with their families in the village of Kulary, Chechnya. The two families occupied neighbouring houses at nos. 66 and 68 Pervomayskaya Street.

18.  On 5 October 2003 the presidential elections were due to take place in the Chechen Republic. Enhanced security measures were taken on account of this event; the village of Kulary was patrolled by armed service personnel.

19.  At about 6 a.m. on 4 October 2003 a group of around twenty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a UAZ-469 vehicle (таблетка) and three VAZ vehicles without registration numbers. The service personnel, who spoke unaccented Russian, broke into the applicants’ houses and searched the premises. At some point they fired a gun. Then they forced Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev into one of the vehicles and drove away with them in the direction of the Baku to Rostov-on-Don highway. The vehicles passed the roadblock unhindered. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants’ neighbours.

20.  Immediately after the abduction the applicants complained to the head of the Federal Migration Service’s Office in Kulary, Mr I., about the abduction of their relatives. Mr I. informed them that Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev were detained in the building of the Urus-Martan District police station.

21.  The whereabouts of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev remain unknown ever since.

3.  Official investigation into the abduction of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev

22.  On 4 October 2003 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal investigation be opened into the incident.

23.  On 4 October 2003 the investigators from the Grozny district prosecutor’s office examined the crime scene and found a bullet casing.

24.  On 3 November 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 42190 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

25.  On the same date the second and the third applicants were granted victim status and questioned. They gave a detailed account of the circumstances of the abduction of their husbands, similar to that before the Court.

26.  On 28 November 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction of her three sons as described above.

27.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the law‑enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements that no information about Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev was available.

28.  On 1 December 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant’s eldest son, Mr Kh.I. He stated that on 10 October 2003 he had gone together with Mr I. to the police station. Only Mr I. had been allowed to enter it. Mr. I. had informed him that his brothers had been detained there and that they would be transferred to the village of Tolstoy-Yurt the next day. Mr Kh.I. also told the investigators that the ex-wife of his disappeared brother Mr Rumid Isayev, Ms. G., had complained to the law-enforcement authorities of the alleged involvement of his brothers in the abduction of people. According to him, she had sought revenge against his family because they had asked her to leave after the disappearance of Mr Rumid Isayev.

29.  On 3 December 2003 the investigators questioned Mr I. He confirmed that he had learnt about the detention of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev in the police station from a police officer. When he had visited it on 10 October 2003 together with Mr Kh.I., he had been informed that Isayev brothers had not been detained there. Then Mr. I. and Mr. Kh.I. had visited the premises of the 6th division of the Anti-Organised Crime Department (Региональное управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью – hereinafter “the RUBOP”) in Urus-Martan but the Isayev brothers had not been detained there either. Mr I. denied that he had had any information about where the Isayev brothers had been detained.

30.  On 20 December 2003 the investigators ordered a ballistic expert examination of the bullet casing found at the crime scene.

31.  The ballistic expert examination established that the casing had been part of the cartridge of a bullet for a Kalashnikov machine gun of 5.45 mm calibre.

32.  On 18 January 2004, during a confrontation with Mr Kh.I., Mr. I. repeated his previous statements.

33.  On 3 February 2004 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof.

34.  On 6 April 2006 the first applicant lodged a request with the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic asking for the search of her sons to be intensified. In reply the Grozny district prosecutor’s office informed her that the operational search activities aimed at establishing her sons’ whereabouts were in progress.

35.  On numerous occasions between 2004 and 2006 the first applicant complained to high-ranking officials of the Chechen Republic in respect of the disappearance of her sons and requested assistance in the search for them.

36.  On 8 May 2007 the NGO Memorial, acting on the first applicant’s behalf, asked the Grozny district prosecutor’s office for information about any progress in the investigation.

37.  On 17 May 2007 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant and the NGO Memorial that the investigation had been suspended and that the operational search activities were in progress in order to establish the whereabouts of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev.

38.  On 26 December 2007 the investigation was resumed. The applicants were informed thereof.

39.  In January 2008 the investigators questioned several witnesses who knew about the circumstances of the abduction of the Isayev brothers from others.

40.  On 27 January 2008 the first applicant was questioned again. She confirmed that she suspected Ms. G. of organising the abduction of her sons.

41.  On 27 January 2008 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof.

42.  On 20 March 2008 the investigation was resumed. The investigators questioned the first applicant with the participation of the interpreter. She additionally stated that four days after the abduction together with Mr. Kh.I. she had visited the 6th division of the RUBOP in Urus-Martan where they had learnt that her sons had been detained in that division. The first applicant had also reiterated the circumstances of the abduction of her son Mr Rumid Isayev.

43.  On 24 March and 18 April 2008 the investigators questioned Ms G., who denied that she had complained to the law-enforcement authorities about the alleged involvement of the Isayev brothers into the abduction of people.

44.  On 31 March 2008 the Grozy District Court ordered the phone tapping of two mobile numbers belonging to Ms G.

45.  On 8 April 2008 the Zavodskoy District police station in Grozny informed the investigators that no complaints concerning the alleged involvement of the Isayev brothers into the abduction of people lodged by Ms. G. were registered in the station’s logbooks.

46.  On 20 April 2008 the investigation was suspended. The first applicant was informed thereof.

47.  On 14 March 2013 the second applicant asked the investigators’ permission to make copies of the criminal case file. In reply the investigators informed her that copying of the case-file material was impossible owing to the need to keep the investigation secret. The second applicant was allowed however to familiarise herself with the case file.

48.  On 27 March 2013 the second and the third applicants asked the investigators give them copies of the case-file documents that they were entitled to have.

49.  On 22 April 2013 the second and the third applicants familiarised themselves with the criminal case file. The next day they asked to resume the proceedings and take additional steps to establish their husbands’ whereabouts.

50.  On 6 May 2013 the investigation was resumed; it was suspended on 11 May 2013.

51.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

4.  Proceedings against the investigators

52.  On 30 January 2008 the first applicant complained of the inaction on the part of the investigators’ to the Grozny District Court. On 22 February 2008 the court rejected her complaint as unsubstantiated having found that all the necessary steps had been taken by the authorities. On 19 March 2008 the applicant appealed against that decision. The outcome of the appeal is unknown.

B.  Vasilkova v. Russia (no. 16319/10)

53.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Sergey Vasilkov, who was born in 1953.

1.  Abduction of Mr Sergey Vasilkov

54.  In January 2000 the Russian federal forces conducted an extensive military operation against members of illegal armed groups (незаконные вооруженные формирования) in Grozny. The town was subjected to shellings and sweep operations. By the end of January 2000 the central parts of the city were under the Russian forces’ control (see Umayeva v. Russia, no. 1200/03, § 79, 4 December 2008, and Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 16 and 41, 24 February 2005).

55.  At about 11 a.m. on 17 January 2000 a group of armed service personnel, wearing camouflage uniforms and equipped with portable radio sets, arrived in a Ural lorry at the applicant’s house at number 16 1st Poltavskaya Street in Grozny. They were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. The service personnel detained Mr Sergey Vasilkov for the purposes of an identity check, put him in the lorry and drove off to an unknown destination. Three other people, the applicant’s relative Mr. G., as well as Mr S.Ch. and Mr A.D. were also detained and taken away together with the applicant’s husband. The abductions took place in the course of the sweep operation in the Karpinskiy Kurgan settlement of Grozny.

56.  The whereabouts of Mr Sergey Vasilkov remain unknown.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

57. On 21 March 2001 the applicant informed the authorities of the abduction of her husband. On the same day she was interviewed by a police officer. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above and stated that five days later she had seen in the street one of the service personnel who had participated in her husband’s abduction. In her opinion, the abductors were from a special division of a military unit.

58.  On 25 March 2001 the same police officer interviewed the applicant’s niece, Ms S. who confirmed the applicant’s statements.

59.  On 15 April 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 13064 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code into the abduction of Mr Sergey Vasilkov and Mr G.

60.  On 15 June 2001 the investigation was suspended.

61.  On 27 June 2001 the applicant complained to the Zavodskoy District police station about the abduction of her husband and requested assistance in the search for him.

62.  On 11 July 2001 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened a new criminal case no. 13103 into the abduction of Mr Sergey Vasilkov.

63.  On 17 July 2001 Ms S. was questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction of Mr S.Ch. and Mr A.D. which she had eyewitnessed. Referring to the service personnel, she stated that Mr S.Ch. and Mr A.D. had been taken for an identity check to the checkpoint at Karpinskiy Kurgan and that they would have been released in one day.

64.  On an unspecified date the applicant was questioned.

65.  On 11 September 2001 the investigation in the case no. 13103 was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the applicant was not informed of this decision.

66.  On 6 November 2003 the investigation was resumed and cases nos. 13064, 13103 and 12284 (opened into the abduction of Mr S.Ch. and Mr A.D.) were joined under the joint number 12284.

67.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant was granted victim status.

68.  On 9 December 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene.

69.  On 6 January 2004 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was informed thereof.

70.  On 26 January 2005 the investigation was resumed.

71.  On 10 February 2005 the investigators questioned Mr U. who stated that Mr S.Ch. had allegedly been found half a year after his abduction in a prison in Volgograd. However, he had never returned home.

72.  The investigation was subsequently suspended on 27 February 2005, then resumed on 1 December 2009, suspended again on 31 December 2009 and resumed on 8 July 2011, then suspended on 13 July 2011 and resumed on 25 December 2012.

73.  On 25 January 2013 the applicant was questioned again.

74.  On 4 February 2013 the investigators questioned Ms N.S. who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction of the four men as described above.

75.  On 5 February 2013 the investigation was suspended.

76.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

77.  On 25 November 2009 the applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 27 February 2005 before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny. On 2 December 2009 the court terminated the proceedings having found that the investigation had been resumed the day before.

4.  Civil proceedings

78.  On 27 July 2009 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage caused by the abduction of her husband by State service personnel because their involvement in this incident had not been proven.

C.  Khatayeva v. Russia (no. 12377/11)

79.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev, who was born in 1979.

1.  Abduction and murder of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev

80.  At 6 a.m. on 2 April 2005 a group of seven or eight armed men in camouflage uniforms and black bulletproof vests broke into the applicant’s house at 26 Gvardeyskaya Street in Gekhi. They were of Slavic and Chechen appearance and spoke Russian and Chechen. The men were equipped with portable radio sets. One of them grabbed the applicant by the throat and threatened to kill her if she moved. The others forced Mr Vakha Dadakhayev outside, saying that they were taking him for interrogation to the Urus-Martan District police station. After the intruders left, the applicant went outside and saw several cars without registration numbers parked near the house: one khaki UAZ minivan and three VAZ-2115 and VAZ-2107 vehicles. The applicant opened the door of one of VAZ-2107 cars and saw her husband on the back seat with three men. When she asked where they were taking him, the men replied that they were going to the police station. Then they drove off towards the checkpoint in Gekhi, which was situated on the road to Urus‑Martan.

81.  One of the applicant’s neighbours, Mr A.-Kh. B., followed the convoy and saw that there were two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) parked in Gagarin Street, where the convoy with Mr Vakha Dadakhayev passed through.

82.  On 6 April 2005 the body of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev, with numerous bruises and thermal injuries, was found on the outskirts of Gekhi near the Baku – Rostov-on-Don highway.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

83.  On 2 April 2005 the applicant complained to the police about the abduction of her husband and requested assistance in the search for him. The investigators interviewed her and examined the crime scene.

84.  On 7 April 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44024 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder), after the discovery of the body of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev.

85.  On 10 April 2005 the investigators ordered a forensic medical examination of the corpse.

86.  The forensic medical examination established that death of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev could have been caused by multiple rib fractures accompanied by injury of internal organs.

87.  On unidentified dates in April-May 2005 the investigators questioned the applicant and her relatives who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above.

88.  On 1 June 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

89.  On 7 August 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was not informed of this decision.

90.  According to the applicant, between 2005 and 2010 she applied to various law-enforcement authorities in person and requested information on the progress in the investigation. In reply she was told that the investigation was pending.

91.  On 29 March 2010 the applicant applied to the Grozny district investigative committee for access to the criminal case file.

92.  On 23 August 2010 her request was granted by the investigators and the applicant copied the entire case file.

93.  On 3 February 2011 the investigation was resumed. The applicant was informed thereof.

94.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the law‑enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements that no information about Mr Vakha Dadakhayev was available and that no security operations in his respect had been carried out.

95.  On 10 February 2011 the applicant was allowed to read the forensic medical examination report. On the same date she was questioned again.

96.  On 14 February 2011 the investigators questioned Ms S.D, a relative of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev, who lived in the same street as the applicant at the time. She stated that after the abduction she had seen traces left by military footwear in her courtyard.

97.  On 17 February 2011 the investigators questioned Ms A., the applicant’s neighbour, who confirmed having heard the cars leaving the applicant’s house after the abduction. Then she had entered the house and had noticed the traces left by military footwear on the floor.

98.  On 3 March 2011 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 21 June 2011. The applicant was informed thereof.

99.  On 24 June 2011 the investigation was suspended; it was resumed again on 19 December 2011 and then suspended on the next day.

100.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

101.  On 26 January 2011 the applicant complained to the Grozny District Court in Chechnya of the investigators’ inaction and pointed out numerous defects of the investigation. On 4 February 2011 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as the investigators had already resumed the investigation a day before. On 22 February 2011 the applicant appealed against this decision.

102.  On an unspecified date the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 4 February 2011 and remitted the case for fresh examination to the same court. On 25 April 2011 the Groznenskiy District Court granted the applicant’s complaint and found that the decision of 3 March 2011 suspending the investigation was premature. The court obliged the investigators to resume the proceedings and to take investigative steps aimed at identifying the perpetrators.

D.  Satovkhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 29844/11)

103.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev, who was born in 1954. The second and the third applicants are his children.

1.  Abduction of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev and subsequent events

104.  At the material time Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev and his family lived at Tridtsatiy Uchastok Street in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny. A special anti-terrorist unit of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior was located nearby.

105.  On 15 November 2004 Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev’s brother was abducted by service personnel. During the night after his abduction a group of armed service personnel in masks broke into the applicants’ home and searched the premises. Having found that Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev was not at home, they left.

106.  At about 7 p.m. on 15 March 2005 Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev left home to visit his neighbour, who lived in a nearby building, when a group of armed men in black camouflage uniforms seized him on the street, forced him into a “Zhiguli” car without registration numbers and drove off in the direction of Grozny city centre, passing without restriction through checkpoints on the way.

107.  According to the applicants, Mr Kh.M., who was allegedly an agent of a law-enforcement agency, participated in the abduction. The applicants provided this information to the investigators.

108.  On 23 July 2005 a relative of the applicants, Ms T.N., received a telephone call from an unidentified person who offered information about Mr Bamatgiriyev’s whereabouts in exchange for 5,000 United States dollars (USD). According to the applicants, the caller’s telephone number belonged to the office of the Shali District police station in Chechnya. The applicants also gave that information to the investigators.

109.  In October 2006 two men arrived at the first applicant’s house and told her that Mr Bamatgiriyev had been abducted by law-enforcement agents. The men suggested that she pay them USD 10,000 for information concerning his whereabouts. They visited the first applicant at least three times afterwards and promised to give information in exchange for money. One of the men also told the applicant that Mr Kh.M. had known about the abduction of her husband beforehand. The first applicant subsequently informed the investigators about these developments.

110.  The whereabouts of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev have remained unknown ever since.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

111.  After the abduction of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev, Ms Z.I. informed the authorities thereof and requested assistance in the search for him. On 30 May 2005 the first applicant complained about the authorities’ inaction to the President of Chechen Republic.

112.  On 9 August 2005 the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 42095 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).

113.  On 19 August 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

114.  The investigators also questioned several witnesses who stated that on the day of the abduction a VAZ-21099 vehicle with people in camouflage uniforms inside had been parked all day near Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev’s house.

115.  On 9 November 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 18 December 2005 it was resumed, then suspended again on 18 January 2006 and resumed on 30 April 2007.

116.  On several occasions the prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny ordered the investigators to identify and question the eyewitnesses of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev’s abduction. It appears that the investigators failed to follow this order.

117.  On 7 June 2007 the investigators questioned Mr Kh.M. who stated that he had been in the Kostroma Region when Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev had been abducted. He also stated that he had heard about the membership of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev in illegal armed groups.

118.  On 30 June 2007 the investigation was suspended. It was subsequently resumed on 23 August 2007, suspended on 23 September 2007, then resumed on 30 October 2007 and suspended on 1 December 2007, resumed again on 11 March 2008 and suspended on 11 April 2008, resumed on 18 June 2008 and then suspended on 18 July 2008.

119.  On 22 September 2008 the deputy prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny pointed out several defects of the investigation and ordered that the investigators took remedial measures. Subsequently, on 30 September 2008 the investigation was resumed, then suspended again on 6 November 2008 and resumed on 15 December 2010, then suspended on 30 December 2010.

120.  On 5 March 2012 the investigation was resumed following the supervisor’s criticism. Subsequently it was suspended on 10 April 2012, resumed on 1 July 2013 and suspended on 8 July 2013, then resumed on 31 July 2014 and suspended on 24 August 2014, resumed again on 28 September 2014 and suspended on 2 November 2014.

121.  On numerous occasions between 2005 and 2013 the first applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her husband. She consistently insisted on the involvement of Mr Kh.M. in the abduction. In reply she received letters stating that operational search activities were in progress to establish Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev’s whereabouts.

122.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

123.  On 12 June 2008 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny. On 19 June 2008 the court dismissed her complaint having found that the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 4 February 2009 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal.

124.  On 14 September 2010 the first applicant lodged another complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court challenging the investigators’ inaction. On 11 October 2010 the court allowed her complaint and ordered that the investigation be resumed.

E.  Tembulatovy v. Russia (no. 38134/11)

125.  The applicants are the relatives of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn (also spelled Said Khuseyn) Tembulatov, who was born in 1972. The first applicant is his mother, the second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his sister.

1.  Abduction of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov

126.  According to the applicants, on 2 April 2001 the Russian military forces in Chechnya conducted a special sweep operation in Argun and cordoned off certain town districts with military vehicles.

127.  At around 7.30 p.m. that day a group of about twenty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in two APCs with identification numbers “A 631” and “813” at the first applicant’s house at 12 Solnechnaya Street in Argun. The men, who spoke unaccented Russian, broke into the house and searched the premises. Having seized Mr Sayd‑Khuseyn Tembulatov’s passport, the servicemen forced him into one of the APCs and drove off to the outskirts of Argun where they joined a larger group of servicemen and then left in the direction of Khankala. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the first applicant and the neighbours.

128.  On the same day a resident of the neighbouring house at 8 Solnechnaya Street in Argun, Mr T.A., was abducted under similar circumstances.

129.  After the abduction the applicants complained to the Argun military commander’s office, where they were informed that Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov had been detained by “a special group from Khankala” which had not coordinated its operation with the local commander.

130.  On 31 May 2001 the local radio station Chechnya Svobodnaya broadcast an interview with an officer of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) named “Vadim”. He stated that Mr Sayd Khuseyn Tembulatov and Mr T.A. had been detained among other members of illegal armed groups by the FSB.

131.  The whereabouts of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov have remained unknown since.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

132.  On 3 April 2001 the first applicant together with the mother of Mr T.A. complained to the head of Argun Administration about the abduction of their sons and requested assistance in the search for them.

133.  On 4 April 2001 Mr Kh.T., the father of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov, complained to the Argun inter-district prosecutors’ office in respect of the abduction of his son and asked that a criminal case be opened into the incident.

134.  On 11 April 2001 the first applicant was interviewed by a police officer. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above.

135.  On 13 April 2001 the Argun inter-district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 45038 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

136.  On 23 April 2001 Mr Kh.T. was granted victim status and questioned.

137.  On 1 June 2001 the first applicant informed the investigators about the interview with an officer of the FSB which had been broadcast over the radio the day before (see paragraph 130 above), and asked for the search for her son to be intensified.

138.  The investigators sent several requests for information to various authorities and law-enforcement bodies. On 1 May 2001 the Argun military commander’s office informed them that no special operations had been carried out by his troops on 2 April 2001.

139.  On 13 June 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the culprits.

140.  In 2001-02 the first applicant and her husband Mr Kh.T. complained to various authorities of the abduction of their son and requested assistance in the search for him.

141.  On 2 October 2002 the investigation was resumed. The investigators sent several requests for information to various military units about any special operations in Argun on 2 April 2001 and the two APCs involved in the abduction. The replies contained statements that no special operations had been carried out on these dates, and that an APC with the registration number “A 631” was listed as belonging to military unit no. 3179 deployed in Reutovo-3 in Moscow Region.

142.  On 2 November 2002 the investigation was suspended and resumed again on 7 August 2003. Mr Kh.T. was informed of both decisions.

143.  On 8 September 2003 the investigation was suspended. Mr Kh.T. was informed thereof.

144.  On 25 March 2005 the Argun deputy prosecutor gave written instructions to the head of the Argun Town police station in which he indicated further investigative steps to be taken in the investigation into the abduction of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov.

145.  On numerous occasions between 2004 and 2010 the first applicant complained to the main Military prosecutor’s office and various authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her son. In reply she received letters stating that the authorities were taking measures to establish Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov’s whereabouts. The military prosecutor’s office replied that no State service personnel had been involved in the abduction.

146.  On 4 March 2010 the investigators dismissed the first applicant’s request to allow her to read the case file and make copies of the documents.

147.  On 30 July 2010 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her victim status in the criminal case because her husband, Mr Kh.T., had died in September 2009.

148.  On 5 August 2010 the investigation was resumed and the first applicant was granted victim status. On the same day she was questioned.

149.  On August 2010 the investigation was suspended. The first applicant was informed thereof.

150.  On 16 February 2011 the investigation was resumed. The investigators questioned several neighbours of the first applicant whose statements about the abduction of Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov were similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court.

151.  On 14 March 2011 the investigators ordered a forensic DNA examination.

152.  On 16 March 2001 the investigation was suspended. It was subsequently resumed on 2 August 2011 and suspended again on 12 August 2011.

153.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

154.  On 18 October 2010 and on an unspecified date in 2011 the first applicant challenged the decision to suspend the investigation of 8 September 2003 and the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court. On 29 October 2010 and 17 February 2011 respectively the court rejected her complaints having found that the investigators had earlier quashed the decision to suspend the investigation and resumed the proceedings.

F.  Shavanova and Others v. Russia (no. 44296/11)

155.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov, who was born in 1966, and Mr Lema (also spelled as Lema) Shavanov, who was born in 1986 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 1981). The first applicant was their mother; she died on 27 July 2018. The second applicant was their father; he died on 22 April 2016. The third applicant is the wife of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov and the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are his children. The eighth applicant is the wife of Mr Lema Shavanov. The ninth and tenth applicants are his children.

1.  Abduction of the Shavanov brothers

156.  At about 7 a.m. on 18 February 2001 Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov, Mr Lema Shavanov and their acquaintance Mr Sh.U. drove two UAZ-469 vehicles from Staryye Atagi to Grozny to buy fuel. They were stopped by a large group of armed military service personnel in camouflage uniforms at a roadblock next to the Prigorodnoye village, on the tenth kilometre of the Grozny-Shatoy motorway. The service personnel spoke unaccented Russian; they were in three armoured infantry vehicles (боевая машина пехоты) with the registration numbers 318, 341 and 356. Having checked the identity documents, the service personnel pulled bags over the Shavanov brothers’ heads, forced them into one of the armoured infantry vehicles and drove off in the direction of Grozny.

157.  Mr Sh.U. asked one of the service personnel where the brothers were being taken to. The serviceman replied that they were taken to Khankala.

158.  The whereabouts of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov and Mr Lema Shavanov have remained unknown ever since.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

159.  On 18 February 2001 some of the applicants went in person to the Grozny District police station and the Grozny district prosecutors’ office and reported the incident, requesting that the authorities open a criminal case into the abduction.

160.  On 20 February 2001 the brother of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov and Mr Lema Shavanov, Mr L.Sh. complained to the Grozny prosecutor of their abduction.

161.  On 1 April 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 19044 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). The decision to open the criminal case stated that the Shavanov brothers had been detained by federal military service personnel.

162.  On 2 April 2001 the investigators interviewed Mr Sh.U., who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above.

163.  On 10 April 2001 Mr S.Sh., the cousin of the Shavanov brothers, was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. He stated that on 26 February 2001 he had met a Chechen man called “Khamzat”. He offered to pick up Mr S.Sh.’s brothers who had been detained by the reconnaissance unit of motorised rifle battalion no. 71 (разведывательный батальон 71 мотострелкового полка) in exchange for money. They had agreed to meet, but Khamzat had not come to the meeting.

164.  On 19 April 2001 the first and the second applicants were granted victim status and questioned.

165.  On 11 May 2001 the second applicant was questioned again. He stated additionally that he had visited the roadblock at the entrance to Khankala. There an officer had told him that on 18 February 2001 he had seen the armoured infantry vehicles with the registration numbers 318, 341 and 356 entering Khankala; they had been followed by two UAZ-469 vehicles.

166.  On 14 May 2001 Mr Sh.U. was questioned again. He had found out that three armoured infantry vehicles with the registration numbers 318, 341 and 356 had been stationed in Prigorodnoye village in the morning of 18 February 2001.

167.  On 26 May 2001 the investigators questioned Mr S.U. who had seen in the morning on 18 February 2001 at the roadblock in Prigorodnoye village two UAZ vehicles which had belonged to Shavanov brothers. A group of military service personnel with their commander had been standing next to the vehicles.

168.  On 1 June 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It is unclear whether the applicants were informed of this decision.

169.  On 15 August 2001 the investigation was resumed. On 15 September 2001 the investigation was suspended again. It was subsequently resumed on 29 August 2002, then suspended on 15 September 2002, resumed on 20 November 2002, suspended on 20 December 2002 and resumed again on 16 May 2003.

170.  On 18 June 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the investigators that the armoured infantry vehicles with the registration numbers 318, 341 and 356 were listed as belonging to the military unit no. 23132 deployed in Shali.

171.  On 20 June 2003 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 18 December 2003, then suspended on 22 January 2004, resumed on 14 March 2004 and suspended again on 30 May 2004.

172.  On 21 October 2006 the investigation was resumed.

173.  On 10 November 2006 the investigators questioned the first and the second applicants and Mr S.U. All of them reiterated their earlier statements. The first applicant additionally stated that in May 2002 she had met a woman at the central market in Grozny whose son had been detained in Khankala together with the Shavanov brothers.

174.  On 17 November 2006 the investigators questioned Ms Z.D., whose son had been detained together with the Shavanov brothers, held in a pit, in Khankala.

175.  On 23 and 29 November 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene.

176.  On 21 November 2006 the investigation was suspended again. It was resumed on 15 April 2008 and then suspended on 15 May 2008.

177.  On numerous occasions between 2001 and 2006 the first and the second applicants as well as Mr L.Sh. complained to various military and law-enforcement authorities of the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for their relatives. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish the whereabouts of the Shavanov brothers.

178.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

179.  On 10 April 2008 the applicants challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the Grozny District Court. On 18 April 2008 the court dismissed her complaint having found that several days earlier the investigators had already resumed the proceedings.

G.  Umarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62160/11)

180.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Arbi Umarov and Mr Aslanbek (also spelled as Aslambek) Umarov, who were born in 1957 and 1969 respectively. The second applicant is the mother of Mr Andarbek Abubakarov, who was born in 1975. The third applicant is the mother of Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev, who was born in 1979; the fourth applicant is his wife and the fifth and sixth applicants are his children.

1.  Abduction of the applicants’ relatives

181.  The circumstances of the abductions of local residents in the course of the special military operation conducted in Novyye Atagi on 24 April 2001 have already been examined by the Court in Ibragimova v. Russia (no. 30592/10) as regards the abduction of Mr Masud Khakimov (see Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 53036/08 and 19 others, §§ 248-49, 9 January 2014).

182.  At the material time the applicants and their families lived in a Red Cross refugee camp situated in the building of a former school in Novyye Atagi in the Shali district.

183.  Between 2 and 3 p.m. on 24 April 2001 a large group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the camp in four APCs, several UAZ vehicles. They broke in and abducted Mr Arbi Umarov, Mr Aslanbek Umarov, Mr Andarbek Abubakarov, Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev and Mr Masoud Khakimov (with regards to the abduction of Mr Masoud Khakimov, see Pitsayeva and Others, cited above).

184.  Immediately after the abduction the applicants complained thereof to the Shali district military commander’s office. The commander, Officer N., confirmed to the applicants that their relatives had been detained by military service personnel and that the detainees would return home the following day.

185.  The applicants have not seen their relatives since their abduction.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

186.  The Government did not submit the criminal case file concerning the abduction of the applicants’ relatives on the grounds that it was classified. For the main information and witness statements concerning the military operation in Novyye Atagi on 24 April 2001 see Pitsayeva and Others (cited above, §§ 251-56).

187.  On 12 July 2001 the Shali district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 23131 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives and Mr Masud Khakimov.

188.  On 10 and 15 August 2001 the first and the second applicants respectively were granted victim status in the criminal case.

189.  On 12 September 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed and again suspended on numerous occasions. Thus, the investigation was resumed on 1 May and 1 July 2002, 13 June 2008, 15 May 2009 and suspended on 1 June and 26 September 2002, 11 June 2007 and 14 June 2009.

190.  Meanwhile, on 7 August 2002 the criminal case was transferred to the military prosecutors’ office of military unit no. 20116 (later – no. 68798) for further investigation, where it was given the number 34/35/0173-02.

191.  On a number of occasions between 2001 and 2011 the first, second and third applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities and NGOs in respect of the abductions of their sons and requested assistance in the search for them.

192.  On 27 November 2008 the Naurskiy District Court of the Chechen Republic declared Mr Arbi Umarov and Mr Aslanbek Umarov missing persons following a request by the first applicant.

193.  On 27 March 2011 the first applicant was informed that the investigation had been suspended. On 12 April 2011 it was resumed; the first, second and third applicants were informed thereof.

194.  The investigation was subsequently resumed and suspended on numerous occasions. In particular, it was suspended on 27 May 2011, then on 12 July 2011 this decision was annulled by the investigators’ superior; on 12 August 2011 the investigation was suspended again and resumed on 12 October 2011, then suspended on 11 November 2011. On 12 November 2013 the investigation was resumed, then suspended on 12 December 2013, resumed again on 9 October 2014 and suspended on 29 December 2014.

195.  It appears that the result of the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

196.  On an unspecified date in 2008 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision of 11 June 2007 to suspend the proceedings before the Military Court of the Grozny Garrison. On 6 October 2008 the court rejected the complaint having found that on 13 June 2008 the investigators had resumed the proceedings.

H.  Inalkayeva v. Russia (no. 64272/11)

197.  The applicant is the mother of Mr Imran Inalkayev, who was born in 1980.

1.  Abduction of Mr Imran Inalkayev

198.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of February 2000 (in certain documents submitted the date was referred to as 2 February 2000) Mr Imran Inalkayev was going from the settlement (поселок) of Sleptsovskaya to the town of Urus-Martan in a regular local bus. At the checkpoint located at the crossroad next to the villages of Valerik, Shalazhi and Gekhi a group of armed military service personnel in camouflage uniforms stopped the bus to check the passengers’ identity. Having checked his documents, the service personnel detained Mr Imran Inalkayev and took him into the checkpoint building. There were an APC and a Ural lorry parked near the building. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

199.  The whereabouts of Mr Imran Inalkayev have remained unknown since.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

200.  On an unspecified date in February 2000 and subsequently on several occasions in 2001-03 the applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her son.

201.  On 14 April 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal case into the incident.

202.  On 28 August 2003 the supervising prosecutor annulled the above decision following the applicant’s complaint and opened criminal case no. 34089 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

203.  On 6 September 2003 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

204.  On various dates the investigators sent several requests for information to the law-enforcement authorities. Most of the responses contained statements that no information about Mr Imran Inalkayev was available.

205.  On 28 October 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators; the applicant was informed thereof. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on 7 October 2004 following the applicant’s complaints to the supervising prosecutors, who criticised the investigation and ordered that steps be taken. Then the proceedings were suspended on 15 November 2004, again resumed on 16 May 2011 and suspended again on 26 May 2011.

206.  On 9 June 2007 the investigators instructed the Urus-Martan police to undertake measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Mr Imran Inalkayev. In particular, they ordered to interview relatives and neighbours, to examine cemeteries and to obtain copies of documents about his activities. It appears that some measures were taken but brought no tangible results.

207.  On 20 May 2011 and 24 May 2011 the investigators questioned the eyewitnesses of the events. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above.

208.  On several occasions between 2006 and 2011 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities of the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for her son. The authorities forwarded her requests to the prosecutor’s office. In reply she received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish Mr Imran Inalkayev’s whereabouts.

209.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

210.  On 5 May 2011 the applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings of 15 November 2004 and their failure to take basic steps before the Urus-Martan District Court. On 16 May 2011 the court terminated the proceedings having found that earlier on the same day the investigation had been resumed.

I.  Sugatiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 13874/12)

211.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, who was born in 1965. The second applicant is his mother, the third and the fourth applicants are his children. The fifth applicant is the mother of Mr Beslan Yusupov, who was born in 1971. The sixth and the seventh applicants are his wife and daughter respectively. The eighth applicant is the father of Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev, who was born in 1975. The ninth applicant is his wife, the tenth applicant is his daughter and the eleventh applicant is his mother.

1.  Abduction of Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, Mr Beslan Yusupov and Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev

212.  In the morning on 8 February 2002 Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, Mr Beslan Yusupov and Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev were driving from Dzhalka village to Grozny in two UAZ vehicles. At about 7 a.m. on the same day they reached checkpoint no. 111, known as Otvaga, where a group of military service personnel in camouflage uniforms and masks stopped their cars and ordered them to get out. The service personnel allegedly belonged to a military unit called 34 ObrON (34 ОбрОН) stationed nearby; they were armed with machineguns and grenade launchers, and they were in three APCs and a Ural lorry. Having searched Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, Mr Beslan Yusupov and Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev, they forced them into the Ural lorry and drove off in the direction of Argun. The abduction took place in the presence of several police officers manning the checkpoint who subsequently gave their statements to the investigators (see paragraph 218 below).

213.  Several days after the abduction the applicants received a handwritten note from the abducted men stating that they had been detained at a checkpoint and taken to the base of the 34 ObrON military unit in Argun.

214.  According to the applicants, after the abduction the commander of the first special task battalion of the military unit no. 3671 Officer N.Sh. sought a ransom from them in exchange for information about their relatives.

215.  The whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives have remained unknown ever since.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

216.  Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.

217.  On 18 February 2002 the Argun inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 78021 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

218.  On the same day the investigators questioned seven police officers who had manned the checkpoint on the day of the events and witnessed the abduction. Their statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court.

219.  On 18 April 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

220.  On an unspecified date in 2002 the office of the Chechen Government informed the investigators that Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, Mr Beslan Yusupov and Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev were detained in a military unit in Argun near elevator no. 34.

221.  On 8 May 2003 the sixth applicant requested that proceedings be resumed because she had information about her husband’s whereabouts. On the same day the investigation was resumed.

222.  On 10 May 2003 the sixth applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She told the investigators about the handwritten note received from the abducted men (see paragraph 213 above).

223.  On 13 May 2003 the investigators questioned Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev’s brother, Mr S.S. He confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above and additionally stated that the Ural lorry, in which his brother had been taken away from the checkpoint on 8 February 2002, had been seen on several occasions entering the base of the 34 ObrON military unit. He also added that Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev’s and Mr Said‑Magomed Abzayev’s UAZ vehicles had been taken away by military service personnel on the day of the abduction and had been subsequently parked on the unit’s premises.

224.  On 14 May 2003 the investigators questioned the first and the eighth applicants, who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above.

225.  On 30 May 2003 the forensic examination established that the note received by the applicants (see paragraph 213 above) could have been partially written by Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev.

226.  On 13 June 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene.

227.  On 8 July 2003 the investigation was suspended. Subsequently, it was resumed on 14 November 2003, suspended on 14 December 2003, then resumed on 15 December 2004 and suspended again on 15 January 2005, resumed on 17 January 2005 and then suspended on 18 February 2005.

228.  On 13 November 2003 the sixth applicant asked the investigators to resume the proceedings. On 1 December 2003 she was questioned; she informed the investigators where Officer N.Sh. had been serving.

229.  On 5 January 2004 the eighth applicant was granted victim status.

230.  On 27 January 2004 Officer N.Sh. was questioned. He denied demanding a ransom from the applicants and stated that Mr S.S. had suggested that he pay him USD 10,000 for any information about his brother. Officer N.Sh. stated that he had no information about the detention of the applicants’ relatives.

231.  On 25 June 2008 the eighth applicant challenged the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the Shali Town Court. On 7 July 2008 the court allowed his complaint.

232.  On 21 February 2011 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her victim status and to allow her to make copies of the criminal case file.

233.  On 7 March 2011 the investigation was resumed. On the same day the first applicant’s request was granted.

234.  On 12 March 2011 the investigation was suspended again.

235.  On 1 July 2011 the fifth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case upon her request.

236.  On 29 December 2011 the investigation was resumed. It was suspended on 30 January 2012.

237.  On numerous occasions between 2002 and 2011 the first, sixth and eighth applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance of their relatives and requested assistance in the search for them. In reply the applicants received letters stating that operational search activities were undertaken to establish their relatives’ whereabouts.

238.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

J.  Kakhiyevy v. Russia (no. 77706/12)

239.  The first applicant was the mother of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev, who was born in 1968. She died on 26 August 2016. The second applicant is the brother of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev.

1.  Abduction of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev and subsequent events

240.  The present application concerns the abduction of the applicants’ relative in the course of the same special operation carried out by the Russian federal forces in Avtury in May 2002 as in the case of Mezhidovy v. Russia (see Mezhidovy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50606/08 and 9 others, § 8, 23 October 2018).

241.  At about 1 p.m. on 14 May 2002 a large group of armed military service personnel arrived in an APC and an armoured infantry vehicle at the applicants’ house at 25 Kooperativnaya Street in Avtury. The service personnel were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. Having searched the premises, they detained Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev, put him into the APC and drove off to an unknown destination. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the first applicant and her daughter, Ms K.Kh. The arrest was filmed by the service personnel; later the applicants managed to obtain a copy of the video recording and to provide it to the investigators.

242.  On 20 April 2010 two sets of human remains were found in a forest near Avtury. One set was identified by the applicants as belonging to Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev (see paragraph 252 below). The other set belonged to Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov, who had been abducted on 15 May 2002 in the course of the special operation in Avtury (see Mezhidovy and Others, cited above, §§ 11 and 17).

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

243.  Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities and requested that a criminal investigation into the incident be opened.

244.  On 28 September 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59240 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

245.  The investigators sent several requests for information to various law-enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements that no information about Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev was available.

246.  On 28 November 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof.

247.  In the beginning of 2004 the second applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic of the disappearance of his brother and asked for assistance in the search for him. In reply he was informed that operational search activities aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev were under way.

248.  In July 2006 the first applicant asked the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic for assistance in the search for her son. In reply she was informed that on 17 July 2006 the investigation in the case was resumed.

249.  On an unspecified date a police officer from the Shali District police station reported that he had visited several neighbours of the applicants. Although they had eyewitnessed the abduction of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev, they had refused to give written statements about it.

250.  On 15 August 2006 the second applicant was questioned. His statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction of his brother were similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court.

251.  On 17 August 2006 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed of this decision.

252.  On 22 April 2010 the investigators found the skeletal remains of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev and Mr Magomed-Emin Mizhidov, as identified by their relatives, with bullet holes in their heads (see paragraph 242 above). On the same day, the investigators resumed the proceedings and ordered a forensic medical examination of the remains.

253.  The forensic medical examination established that Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev’s death could have been caused by the skull bone fracture.

254.  On 23 April 2010 the investigators ordered a ballistic expert examination of the bullet found at the burial site.

255.  The ballistic expert examination established that the bullet was part of the cartridge for a Makarov handgun of 9 mm calibre, a Stechkin pistol, or another gun of 9 mm calibre.

256.  On 23 April 2010 the investigators ordered a biological expert examination of the clothes of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev found at the site.

257.  The biological expert examination discovered no blood or other biological substances on the clothes.

258.  On 22 May 2010 the investigation was suspended; it was resumed on 27 December 2010.

259.  On 29 December 2010 the investigators examined the site.

260.  In January 2011 the investigators questioned several witnesses who confirmed that a special operation had been carried out in Avtury in May 2002, during which around seventy individuals had been detained by service personnel. Almost all of them had been released except for Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev and Mr Magomed-Emin Mizhidov. Some witnesses confirmed that they had heard from other individuals detained together with Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev that he had been severely beaten and could hardly move because his hands and legs had been shot.

261.  On 23 January 2011 the investigators obtained the video recording of the abduction from the second applicant and included it into the case file.

262.  On 18 September 2012 the first applicant asked the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to inform her about the progress in the criminal proceedings and to resume the investigation if it had been suspended. It is unclear whether any reply was given to that request.

263.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS

264.  For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice and for international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012).

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

265.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH RULE

A.  The parties’ submissions

1.  The Government

266.  The Government submitted that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court several years after the abduction of their relatives and more than six months after the date when they ought to have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the pending investigations. They pointed out that the applicants had remained passive and had not been interested in finding their missing relatives. The applicants had therefore failed to comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging their respective complaints with the Court.

2.  The applicants

267.  The applicants in all applications submitted that they had complied with the six-month rule. They had taken all possible steps within a reasonable time to initiate the search for their missing relatives and assist the authorities in the proceedings. They alleged that there had been no excessive or unexplained delays in lodging their applications with the Court, which had been brought as soon as they considered the domestic investigation to be ineffective.

268.  The applicants further submitted that they had complained to the authorities shortly after the incidents and had hoped that the criminal investigation initiated after that would produce results. Throughout the proceedings they maintained regular contact with the authorities and actively cooperated with the investigation. The applicants further maintained that the armed conflict in Chechnya had led them to believe that investigative delays were inevitable and it had been only with the passage of time and a lack of information from the domestic authorities that they had begun to doubt the effectiveness of the investigation. They lodged their applications with the Court after realising that the domestic investigations had been ineffective. Some applicants also referred to their legal illiteracy and lack of financial means to retain a lawyer (Isayeva and Others (no. 53075/08) and Kakhiyevy (no. 77706/12)).

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  General principles

269.  A summary of the principles concerning compliance with the six‑month rule in cases involving violations of Article 2 of the Convention allegedly perpetrated by military service personnel may be found in Sultygov and Others v. Russia (nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 369-74, 9 October 2014) and Dudayeva v. Russia (no. 67437/09, § 71, 8 December 2015).

2.  Application of the principles to the present case

270.  Turning to the circumstances of the applications before it, the Court notes that in seven of the cases at hand the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court within a period ranging from four and a half years to up to ten years and six months after the incidents, and that the authorities became aware of the abductions without undue delay. In each of these cases the investigations were formally pending at the time when the applications were lodged with the Court. The criminal proceedings in all the cases were suspended and resumed on several occasions throughout the periods concerned. The applicants maintained reasonable contact with the authorities, cooperated with the investigation, and, where appropriate, took steps to inform themselves of the progress of the proceedings and to speed them up, in the hope of a more effective outcome (see paragraphs 34, 36, 90, 121, 145, 177, 191, 237, 247, 248 and 262 above). Given the overall time frame which passed since the abductions and the initiation of the relevant criminal proceedings, as well as the applicants’ active stance in the proceedings and the lack of significant periods of inactivity on their part, the Court is satisfied that the applicants in the above seven cases lodged their applications within reasonable time (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR 2009).

271.  As for the Isayeva and Others application (no. 53075/08), the Court notes that it was lodged seven years and a half after the disappearance of Mr Rumid Isayev. The first applicant informed the authorities immediately after the events in question and requested assistance in the search for her son. However, from the documents submitted by the applicants it appears that between August 2001 and April 2008, that is to say for more than six years, the investigation was dormant. The Court further notes that the Government did not submit the criminal-investigation-file documents in that case which could have allowed the Court to assess the first applicant’s stance in those proceedings. No explanation was provided for the failure to produce these documents, and their contents were not specified. Therefore, taking into account that the first applicant lodged an official complaint without undue delay and that she consistently gave statements about the abduction of Mr Rumid Isayev during her questioning by the investigators in criminal proceedings concerning the abduction of her two other sons (see paragraph 16 above), the Court considers that the first applicant complied with the six-month requirement.

272.  Turning to the application Khatayeva (no. 12377/11) lodged almost six years after the discovery of the remains of the applicant’s husband, the Court reiterates that the finding of the bodies in a particular location, bearing signs from which the cause of death may be ascertained and those responsible for the killings may possibly be identified, must be regarded as crucial evidence casting new light on the case (see Charalambous and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 46744/07 et al., § 58, 1 June 2010). However, in the present case the circumstances in which the applicant’s husband was abducted and then disappeared, were never elucidated and the finding of the body was preceded by a period of four days during which he had been considered missing. The applicant maintained active contact with the investigators throughout the period in question and the investigation and cooperated with them by giving timely and sufficiently detailed account of her husband’s abduction. It appears that she did not perceive this remedy as ineffective but rather expected that the authorities would, of their own motion, provide her with an adequate answer to her serious complaints. It could not be said therefore that the applicant failed to show the requisite diligence by waiting for the pending investigation to yield results (see, for similar reasoning, Dovletukayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 7821/07 and 3 others, §§ 179-81, 24 October 2013).

273.  As for the application Inalkayeva (no. 64272/11) lodged eleven years and seven months after the abduction, the Court notes that the applicant took an active stance from the beginning; she informed the authorities of the abduction and continuously complained to them, insisting on a criminal case being opened. Following her persistent complaints, a criminal case was opened three years and six months after the abduction (see paragraph 202 above). There was a discernible lull in the investigation comprising more than six years. Such a long period of inactivity on the part of the authorities could have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the pending investigation. The Court notes however that during that period operational search activities were undertaken (see paragraph 206 above) and that the applicant remained active in trying to establish the whereabouts of her son and to resume the proceedings (see paragraphs 208 and 210 above). It also notes that only in 2011, that is to say eleven years after the abduction, did the investigators question more witnesses to the events (see paragraph 207 above). The Court therefore considers that it was reasonable for the applicant to wait for developments that could have resolved crucial factual or legal issues (see El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 142, ECHR 2012). The delay in the opening of the criminal case, or the lull in the proceedings, therefore, cannot be interpreted as her failure to comply with the six-month requirement (contrast Utsmiyeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 31179/11, §§ 34-40, 26 August 2014).

274.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit.

III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXHAUSTION RULE

A.  The parties’ submissions

1.  The Government

275.  In respect of the applications Isayeva and Others (no. 53075/08), Shavanova and Others (no. 44296/11), Inalkayeva (no. 64272/11), Sugatiyeva and Others (no. 13874/12) and Kakhiyevy (no. 77706/12), the Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In their view, it had been open to the applicants to appeal against the investigators’ decisions before the domestic courts or challenge the alleged inactivity of the investigating authorities, but they had failed to do so.

2.  The applicants

276.  The applicants, referring to the Court’s case-law, submitted that lodging complaints against the investigators would not have remedied the shortcomings of the investigations. They further argued that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective.

B.  The Court’s assessment

277.  The Court has previously concluded that the ineffective investigation of disappearances that occurred in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006 constituted a systemic problem and that criminal investigations were not an effective remedy in this respect (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 217). In such circumstances, and noting the absence over the years of any tangible progress in the criminal investigations into the abductions of the applicants’ relatives, the Court concludes that this objection must be dismissed since the remedy relied on by the Government would not have been effective in the circumstances (see, for similar reasoning, Khachukayevy v. Russia, no. 34576/08, § 60, 9 February 2016).

IV.  THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A.  The parties’ submissions

1.  The Government

278.  The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application, but submitted that there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions of the applicants’ relatives.

2.  The applicants

279.  The applicants submitted that it had been established “beyond reasonable doubt” that the men who had taken their relatives had been State agents. In support of that assertion, they referred to evidence contained in their submissions and to documents from the criminal-investigation files submitted by the Government. They also stated that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by military service personnel, and that the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government. Given the lack of any news about their relatives for a long time and the life-threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in Chechnya at the relevant time, they asked the Court to consider their relatives dead.

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  General principles

280.  A summary of the principles concerning assessment of evidence and establishment of facts in disappearance cases and the life-threatening nature of such incidents can be found in Sultygov and Others (cited above, §§ 393-96).

2.  Application of the above principles to the present case

281.  Turning to the circumstances of the applications before it, and in view of all the material, including the documents from the criminal‑investigation files provided by the Government in most cases, the Court finds that the applicants have presented prima facie cases that their relatives were abducted by State agents in the circumstances described above.

282.  In respect of the Isayeva and Others application (no. 53075/08) the Court notes that Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev were abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas who arrived in UAZ military vehicles without registration numbers, and VAZ-2106 vehicles. The armed men spoke unaccented Russian and perpetrated the abductions openly, without any fear of attracting the authorities’ attention (see paragraph 19 above). The vehicles passed military roadblocks freely despite the enhanced security measures were taken at that time in Kulary (see paragraph 18 above). The Court further notes that the Government did not submit a copy of the complete investigation file in the case concerning the disappearance of Mr Rumid Isayev. Drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit documents which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court considers that Mr Rumid Isayev was abducted by State service personnel after his arrest at the checkpoint (see, for similar reasoning, Israilova and Others v. Russia, no. 4571/04, § 117, 23 April 2009).

283.  The Court further notes that in the Vasilkova application (no. 16319/10) Mr Sergey Vasilkov was abducted in the course of the sweep operation in the Karpinskiy Kurgan settlement of Grozny (see paragraph 55 above). This incident happened in the context of an extensive military operation against members of illegal armed groups conducted by the Russian federal forces in Grozny in January 2000 (see paragraph 54 above).

284.  Turning to the Khatayeva application (no. 12377/11), the Court observes that the alleged abductors stated themselves that they had been taking Mr Vakha Dadakhayev to the police station (see paragraph 80 above). Besides, they were equipped with portable radio sets. Such special means of communication were available only to military or security personnel at the time (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 99).

285.  As to the Satovkhanova and Others application (no. 29844/11), the Court notes that four months before the disappearance of Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev a group of armed service personnel had broken into the applicants’ home searching for him (see paragraph 105 above) and that the Government did not dispute this information. The Court further notes that the account of events submitted by the first applicant was based partially on witness statements (see paragraph 114 above), and that the eyewitnesses to the incident had not been questioned despite the prosecutor’s explicit orders to this end (see paragraph 116 above). The first applicant kept the authorities abreast of developments, in particular concerning calls from unknown men who offered information about her husband in exchange for money (see paragraph 109 above). Having found that Mr Kh.M., allegedly an agent of a law-enforcement authority, had been involved in the abduction the first applicant consistently maintained his involvement in the abduction before the authorities and then in her statements to the Court (contrast Tovsultanova v. Russia, no. 26974/06, § 77, 17 June 2010). However, Mr Kh.M. was questioned only once and he denied his involvement in the incident; no confrontation was organised between him and the first applicant to address the discrepancies in their statements (see paragraph 117 above). Neither had it been established whether Mr Kh.M. had actually worked for a law-enforcement agency. Therefore, in the absence of another plausible explanation of the events on the part of the Government, the Court considers that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev had been abducted by State agents in the circumstances as set out by them.

286.  In the Tembulatovy application (no. 38134/11) it is undisputed by the parties that Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov was arrested and then detained by a special unit of the FSB on the suspicion of his membership of an illegal armed group (see paragraphs 129-130 above). The Court also notes the involvement of an APC which belonged to a military unit stationed in the Moscow Region (see paragraph 141 above).

287.  The Court further observes that in the Shavanova and Others application (no. 44296/11) the fact of the arrest of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov and Mr Lema Shavanov by military service personnel and their consequent detention in Khankala was confirmed by a number of witness statements (see paragraphs 162-163, 165 and 173-174 above). Moreover, it is undisputed that the armoured infantry vehicles, which had been involved in the abduction, belonged to the military unit no. 23132 deployed in Shali (see paragraph 170 above).

288.  As to the Umarova and Others application (no. 62160/11), the Court notes that Mr Arbi Umarov, Mr Aslanbek Umarov, Mr Andarbek Abubakarov and Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev were abducted together with Mr Masud Khakimov (see paragraphs 181-183 above). In view of its findings in Ibragimova (application no. 30592/10) and given common circumstances of the abductions of these men, the Court considers that they were taken into custody by State agents on 24 April 2001 (see Pitsayeva and Others, cited above, §§ 442-44).

289.  Turning to the Inalkayeva application (no. 64272/11), the Court observes that the applicant’s son disappeared after having been taken by service personnel to a checkpoint located near the villages of Valerik, Shalazhi and Gekhi (see paragraphs 198 and 207 above). The Court also notes that on the morning of 3 February 2000 the Russian security forces started a special operation in Valerik (see Sultygov and Others, cited above, § 83), which confirms their presence at the place of the abduction at the time of the events.

290.  In the Sugatiyeva and Others application (no. 13874/12) the fact of the detention of Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, Mr Beslan Yusupov and Mr Said‑Magomed Abzayev by military service personnel from the 34 ObrON military unit was confirmed by a number of witness statements (see paragraphs 212-213 and 218 above) and other evidence (see paragraph 220 above).

291.  Turning to the Kakhiyevy application (no. 77706/12), the Court observes that the abduction of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev took place in the course of a special operation carried out by Russian federal forces in Avtury in May 2002 (see paragraph 240 above). The Court also takes note of the involvement of special military vehicles, namely an APC and an armoured infantry vehicle, in his abduction (see paragraph 241 above), and of witness statements confirming the detention of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev by service personnel (see paragraph 260 above).

292.  Having regard to the numerous previous cases concerning disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia which have come before it, the Court has found that in the particular context of the conflict, when a person was detained by unidentified State agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this could be regarded as life‑threatening (see, among many others, Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 101).

293.  Lastly, the Court observes that the Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof (see, among many authorities, Avşar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 392, ECHR 2001‑VII (extracts)).

294.  In summary, the facts of all the applications contain sufficient evidence to enable the Court to make findings that the applicants’ relatives were taken into custody by State agents during security operations and remained under the State’s exclusive control. Given the lack of any reliable news about them since their detention and its life-threatening nature, as well as the subsequent discovery of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev’s and Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev’s bodies (see paragraphs 82 and 242 above), the Court finds that Mr Vakha Dadakhayev and Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev were killed following their unacknowledged detention by State agents, and that Mr Rumid Isayev, Mr Suliman Isayev, Mr Ramzan Isayev, Mr Sergey Vasilkov, Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev, Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov, Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov, Mr Lema Shavanov, Mr Arbi Umarov, Mr Aslanbek Umarov, Mr Andarbek Abubakarov, Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev, Mr Imran Inalkayev, Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, Mr Beslan Yusupov and Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention.

V.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

295.  The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives had disappeared after being detained by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 reads as follows:

“1.  Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided 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

1.  The Government

296.  In the cases of Isayeva and Others (no. 53075/08), Tembulatovy (no. 38134/11) and Umarova and Others (no. 62160/11) the Government contended that Article 2 of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants’ complaints of abduction, which should be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. They referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, §§ 101-09, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑III) in that regard.

297.  The Government submitted that in any case the complaints should be rejected because the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations of enforced disappearances.

298.  The Government further argued that no evidence had been obtained in the domestic investigations to suggest that the applicants’ relatives had been held under State control or that they had been killed (except for Mr Vakha Dadakhayev in Khatayeva (no. 12377/11) and Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev in Kakhiyevy (no. 77706/12)).

299.  Lastly, the Government submitted that the mere fact that the investigations had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that they had been ineffective. All necessary steps had been taken to comply with the positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention.

2.  The applicants

300.  The applicants maintained their complaints, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and deprived of their lives in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. They further argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set out in the Convention.

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  Admissibility

301.  The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2.  Merits

(a)  Alleged violation of the right to life of the applicants’ relatives

302.  It is undisputed by the parties that the whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives have been unaccounted for from the time of their abduction to the lodging of the applications with the Court. The question arises as to whether, as the Government submit, Article 2 of the Convention is applicable to the applicants’ situations.

303.  The Court has previously held that Article 5 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the State to account for the whereabouts of any person who has been taken into detention and who has thus been placed under the control of the authorities (see Kurt, cited above, § 124). Whether a failure on the part of the authorities to provide a plausible explanation as to a detainee’s fate, in the absence of a body, might also raise issues under Article 2 of the Convention will depend on all the circumstances of the case, and in particular on the existence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, based on specific evidence, from which it may be concluded to the requisite standard of proof that the detainee must be presumed to have died in custody (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV, and Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, § 131, ECHR 2000-V).

304.  In this connection, the Court notes that the Government denied that the applicants’ relatives had been detained by State agents or had been under the control of the authorities after abduction. Therefore, the Government’s argument concerning the applicability of Article 5 of the Convention instead of Article 2 is inconsistent. However, leaving aside the contradictory nature of the Government’s position in this regard and assuming that the applicants’ abducted relatives were under the control of State agents after abduction, then the period of time which has elapsed since each person was placed in detention, although not decisive in itself, is a relevant factor to be taken into account. It must be accepted that the more time that goes by without any news of the detained person, the greater the likelihood that he or she has died. The passage of time may, along with other elements of circumstantial evidence before the Court, provide grounds to conclude that the person concerned is to be presumed dead. The Court considers that such a situation gives rise to issues which go beyond a mere “irregular detention” in violation of Article 5. Such an interpretation is in keeping with the effective protection of the right to life as afforded by Article 2, which ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention (see, among other authorities, Çakıcı, cited above, § 86, and Timurtaş v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 83, ECHR 2000 VI). Accordingly, the Court finds that Article 2 of the Convention applies and that the Government’s objection in that connection should be rejected.

305.  Based on the above considerations and noting that it has already been found that the applicants’ relatives may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by State agents, and that Mr Vakha Dadakhayev and Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev had been killed by them (see paragraph 294 above), the Court finds, in the absence of any justification put forward by the Government, that the deaths of the applicants’ relatives can be attributed to the State. It concludes that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Rumid Isayev, Mr Suliman Isayev, Mr Ramzan Isayev, Mr Sergey Vasilkov, Mr Vakha Dadakhayev, Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev, Mr Sayd‑Khuseyn Tembulatov, Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov, Mr Lema Shavanov, Mr Arbi Umarov, Mr Aslanbek Umarov, Mr Andarbek Abubakarov, Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev, Mr Imran Inalkayev, Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, Mr Beslan Yusupov, Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev and Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev.

(b)  Alleged inadequacy of the investigations into the abductions

306.  The Court considers that the alleged failure of the Government to submit certain documents from the investigation files does not preclude it from examining the effectiveness of the relevant criminal proceedings.

307.  The Court has already found that a criminal investigation does not constitute an effective remedy in respect of disappearances which occurred, in particular, in Chechnya between 1999 and 2006, and that such a situation constitutes a systemic problem under the Convention (see paragraph 277 above). In the cases at hand, as in many previous similar cases examined by the Court, the investigations have been pending for many years without bringing about any significant developments as to the identities of the perpetrators or the fate of the applicants’ missing relatives.

308.  The Court observes that each set of criminal proceedings has been plagued by a combination of the defects similar to those enumerated in the Aslakhanova and Others judgment (cited above, §§ 123-25). They have been subjected to several decisions to suspend the investigation, followed by periods of inactivity, which have further diminished the prospects of solving the crimes. No meaningful steps have been taken to identify and question the service personnel who could have witnessed, registered or participated in the operations.

309.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances of the disappearance and death of Mr Rumid Isayev, Mr Suliman Isayev, Mr Ramzan Isayev, Mr Sergey Vasilkov, Mr Vakha Dadakhayev, Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev, Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov, Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov, Mr Lema Shavanov, Mr Arbi Umarov, Mr Aslanbek Umarov, Mr Andarbek Abubakarov, Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev, Mr Imran Inalkayev, Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, Mr Beslan Yusupov, Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev and Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

VI.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3, 5 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

310.  The applicants in all applications, except for Isayeva and Others (no. 53075/08), Vasilkova (no. 16319/10) and Khatayeva (no. 12377/11) complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives.

311.  The applicant in Khatayeva (no. 12377/11) alleged that Mr Vakha Dadakhayev had been subjected to ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. She further submitted that the authorities had failed to investigate effectively the allegation of ill-treatment in breach of their obligations under Article 3.

312.  All of the applicants complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention.

313.  All of the applicants also alleged that they had no domestic remedies against the alleged violations in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention.

314.  The applicants in Satovkhanova and Others (no. 29844/11), Tembulatovy (no. 38134/11), Shavanova and Others (no. 44296/11) and Sugatiyeva and Others (no. 13874/12) additionally complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies against the alleged violation of Article 3. The applicants in Satovkhanova and Others (no. 29844/11) and Tembulatovy (no. 38134/11) also complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies against the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention. The relevant Articles read, in so far as relevant, as follows:

Article 3

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

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.”

A.  The parties’ submissions

315.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims, arguing in particular that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. They also argued that domestic legislation provided the applicants with effective remedies in respect of their complaints.

316.  The applicants reiterated their complaints.

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  Admissibility

317.  The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2.  Merits

(a)  Alleged violation of the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment

318.  The Court has found on many occasions that a situation of enforced disappearance gives rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the close relatives of the victim. The essence of such a violation lies not so much in the fact of the “disappearance” of the family member, but rather in the authorities’ reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)). Where the news about a missing person’s death has been preceded by a sufficiently long period when he or she has been deemed to have disappeared, there exists a distinct period during which the applicants have sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic of the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)).

319.  The Court reiterates its findings regarding the State’s responsibility for the abductions of Mr Rumid Isayev, Mr Suliman Isayev, Mr Ramzan Isayev, Mr Sergey Vasilkov, Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev, Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov, Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov, Mr Lema Shavanov, Mr Arbi Umarov, Mr Aslanbek Umarov, Mr Andarbek Abubakarov, Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev, Mr Imran Inalkayev, Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, Mr Beslan Yusupov and Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev, and the abduction and subsequent killing of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev and Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev, as well as the authorities’ failure to carry out meaningful investigations into the incidents. It finds that the applicants, who are close relatives of the abducted men, must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish they have suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of their inability to ascertain the fate of their missing family members and of the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with. The Court therefore finds a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on this count in respect of all applicants, except for Ms Buka Isayeva, Ms Satsita Didiyeva and Ms Tamara Khutiyeva (application no. 53075/08), Ms Lyudmila Vasilkova (application no. 16319/10) and Ms Luiza Khatayeva (application no. 12377/11).

(b)  Alleged ill-treatment of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev (Khatayeva (no. 12377/11))

320.  As regards the complaint of Ms Luiza Khatayeva concerning the alleged ill-treatment of her husband, 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, pp. 64-65, § 161 in fine, Series A no. 25).

321.  It is undisputed that Mr Vakha Dadakhayev’s death was of a violent nature. However, the description of the injuries found on his body by the forensic experts does not permit the Court to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that he was tortured or otherwise ill-treated by State service personnel prior to his death. It therefore sees no basis for finding a violation of Article 3 in this context (see, for similar reasoning, Luluyev and Others, cited above, § 106, and Shokkarov and Others v. Russia, no. 41009/04, § 114, 3 May 2011).

322.  As to the alleged violation of procedural guarantees of Article 3, the Court considers that in the absence of any reliable information about the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev this complaint raises no separate issue from that examined under Article 2 (above) and to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention (below).

(c)  Alleged violation of the right to liberty and security

323.  The Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly serious violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others, cited above, § 122).

324.  Since it has been established that the applicant’s relatives were detained by State agents, apparently without any legal grounds or acknowledgment of such detention (see paragraph 294 above), this constitutes a particularly serious violation of the right to liberty and security of person enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention. The Court accordingly finds a violation of this provision in respect of the applicants’ relatives on account of their unlawful detention in all applications.

(d)  Alleged violation of the right to an effective remedy

325.  The Court reiterates its findings regarding the general ineffectiveness of the criminal investigations in cases such as those under examination. In the absence of the results of a criminal investigation, any other possible remedy becomes inaccessible in practice. The Court thus finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Satovkhanova and Others (no. 29844/11), Tembulatovy (no. 38134/11), Shavanova and Others (no. 44296/11) and Sugatiyeva and Others (no. 13874/12) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their grievance under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

326.  The Court further notes that in accordance with 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 of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention (see paragraph 324 above), the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case (see Bantayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 20727/04, § 121, 12 February 2009, and Zhebrailova and Others v. Russia, no. 40166/07, § 84, 26 March 2015).

VII.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

327.  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

328.  The applicants in all applications claimed compensation for loss of financial support from the breadwinners in their families.

329.  The applicants in Shavanova and Others (no. 44296/11), Umarova and Others (no. 62160/11), Inalkayeva (no. 64272/11), Sugatiyeva and Others (no. 13874/12) and Kakhiyevy (no. 77706/12) made their calculations on the basis of the UK Ogden Actuary Tables using domestic subsistence levels and inflation rates. Other applicants based their calculations on the level of the minimum wage in Russia and its expected growth in the future.

330.  The Government submitted that the applicants in Isayeva and Others (no. 53075/08) and Vasilkova (no. 16319/10) had failed to prove that their disappeared relatives had been the family breadwinners. The Government also contested the applicants’ calculation of their financial losses and pointed out that it was open to them to apply for social allowances for the loss of breadwinners. In respect of the remainder of the applications, the Government left the matter of the award to the Court’s discretion.

2.  Non-pecuniary damage

331.  The amounts claimed by the applicants under that head are indicated in the appended table.

332.  The Government left the issue to the Court’s discretion.

B.  Costs and expenses

333.  The amounts claimed by all applicants are indicated in the appended table. They asked that the awards be transferred into the bank accounts of their representatives.

334.  The Government argued that in Isayeva and Others (no. 53075/08), Vasilkova (no. 16319/10) and Satovkhanova and Others (no. 29844/11) the compensation sought by the applicants was excessive. They pointed out that some of the administrative expenses in Isayeva and Others (no. 53075/08) were not supported by any documents. In respect of the remainder of the applications, the Government left the matter of the award to the Court’s discretion.

C.  The Court’s assessment

335.  The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damages claimed by the applicants and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, where appropriate, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. The Court further finds that loss of earnings applies to close relatives of the disappeared persons, including spouses, elderly parents and minor children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 213).

336.  Wherever the Court finds a violation of the Convention, it may accept that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of violations, and make a financial award.

337.  As to the costs and expenses, the Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants’ representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).

338.  Having regard to its conclusions, the principles enumerated above and the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the applicants the amounts set out in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on those amounts. The awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts, as indicated by the applicants.

D.  Default interest

339.  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.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the applications admissible;

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of the applicants’ relatives Mr Rumid Isayev, Mr Suliman Isayev, Mr Ramzan Isayev, Mr Sergey Vasilkov, Mr Vakha Dadakhayev, Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev, Mr Sayd‑Khuseyn Tembulatov, Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov, Mr Lema Shavanov, Mr Arbi Umarov, Mr Aslanbek Umarov, Mr Andarbek Abubakarov, Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev, Mr Imran Inalkayev, Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev, Mr Beslan Yusupov, Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev and Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev;

4.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives disappeared;

5.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants, except for Isayeva and Others (application no. 53075/08), Vasilkova (application no. 16319/10) and Khatayeva (no. 12377/11), on account of their relatives’ disappearance and the authorities’ response to their suffering;

6.  Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev;

7.  Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Vakha Dadakhayev;

8.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives on account of their unlawful detention;

9.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of all applicants;

10.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in Satovkhanova and Others (application no. 29844/11), Tembulatovy (application no. 38134/11), Shavanova and Others (application no. 44296/11) and Sugatiyeva and Others (application no. 13874/12);

11.  Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Satovkhanova and Others (application no. 29844/11) and Tembulatovy (application no. 38134/11);

12.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the representatives’ bank accounts as indicated by the applicants;

(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;

13.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 May 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Stephen Phillips Branko Lubarda
RegistrarPresident

Appendix

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Kinship with the abducted person(s)

Abducted person(s)

Represented

by

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

1.

53075/08

08/10/2008

1) Ms Buka ISAYEVA

01/05/1936

Kulary

Mother

2) Ms Satsita DIDIYEVA

12/01/1974

Grozny

Wife of Mr Suliman Isayev

3) Ms Tamara KHUTIYEVA

05/09/1963

Grozny

Wife of Mr Ramzan Isayev

1) Mr Rumid Isayev

Disappeared on 07/04/2001

2) Mr Suliman Isayev

Disappeared on 04/10/2003

3) Mr Ramzan Isayev Disappeared on 04/10/2003

Mr Dokka ITSLAYEV

Claimed by the applicants

EUR 70,200 to the first applicant

EUR 36,200 to the second applicant

EUR 113,500 to the third applicant

EUR 3,000,000 to the applicants jointly (EUR 1,000,000 for every disappeared relative)

EUR 3,626

Awarded by the Court

EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) to the first applicant

EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to the third applicant

EUR 240,000 (two hundred and forty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)

2.

16319/10

17/02/2010

Ms Lyudmila VASILKOVA

04/02/1954

Grozny

Wife

Mr Sergey Vasilkov

Disappeared on

17/01/2000

MATERI CHECHNI

Claimed by the applicant

EUR 20,873

EUR 80,000

EUR 4,210

Awarded by the Court

EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros)

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros)

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

3.

12377/11

22/02/2011

Ms Luiza KHATAYEVA

04/11/1983

Grozny

Wife

Mr Vakha Dadakhayev Disappeared on 02/04/2005

Mr Dokka ITSLAYEV

Claimed by the applicant

EUR 44,951

EUR 1,000,000

EUR 4,936

Awarded by the Court

EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros)

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros)

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)

4.

29844/11

26/04/2011

1) Ms Aset SATOVKHANOVA

18/12/1957

Tsa-Vedeno

Wife

2) Ms Rukiyat BAMATGIRIYEVA

11/02/1977

Grozny

Daughter

3) Ms Baret BAMATGIRIYEVA

02/10/1984

Tsa-Vedeno

Daughter

Mr Musa Bamatgiriyev

Disappeared on 15/03/2005

MATERI CHECHNI

Claimed by the applicants

EUR 21,413 to the applicants jointly

EUR 80,000 to the applicants jointly

EUR 10,023

Awarded by the Court

EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

5.

38134/11

06/06/2011

1) Ms Petimat TEMBULATOVA

15/02/1944

Argun

Mother

2) Mr Saidakhmed TEMBULATOV

24/08/1964

Argun

Brother

3) Ms Medina TEMBULATOVA

16/09/1966

Grozny

Sister

Mr Sayd-Khuseyn Tembulatov

Disappeared on 02/04/2001

MATERI CHECHNI

Claimed by the applicants

EUR 24,046 to the applicants jointly

EUR 70,000 to the applicants jointly

EUR 8,811

Awarded by the Court

EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 70,000 (seventy thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

6.

44296/11

14/07/2011

1) Ms Birlant SHAVANOVA

Born in 1940

Staryye Atagi

Mother

Passed away

2) Mr Ismail SHAVANOV

08/03/1942

Staryye Atagi

Father

Passed away

3) Ms Zhanati ZAKRAILOVA

12/05/1972

Staryye Atagi

Wife of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov

4) Ms Markha SHAVANOVA

01/01/1998

Novyye Atagi

Daughter of Mr Mayr‑Ali Shavanov

5) Ms Malika SHAVANOVA

03/08/1989

Staryye Atagi

Daughter of Mr Mayr‑Ali Shavanov

6) Mr Ovkhan SHAVANOV

12/04/1992

Staryye Atagi

Son of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov

7) Mr Zelimkhan SHAVANOV

30/06/1996

Staryye Atagi

Son of Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov

8) Ms Luiza TAIPOVA

23/12/1981

Staryye Atagi

Wife of Mr Lema Shavanov

9) Ms Diana SHAVANOVA

18/04/2000

Staryye Atagi

Daughter of Mr Lema Shavanov

10) Mr Askhab SHAVANOV

02/11/2001

Staryye Atagi

Son of Mr Lema Shavanov

1) Mr Mayr-Ali Shavanov

2) Mr Lema Shavanov

Disappeared on 18/02/ 2001

SRJI/ ASTREYA

Claimed by the applicants

RUB 1,162,821 (EUR 15,864) to the first applicant

RUB 1,144,902 (EUR 15,619) to the second applicant

RUB 814,789 (EUR 11,116) to the third applicant

RUB 2,444,365 (EUR 33,347) to the fourth applicant

RUB 2,444,365 (EUR 33,347) to the fifth applicant

RUB 2,444,365 (EUR 33,347) to the sixth applicant

RUB 2,444,365 (EUR 33,347) to the seventh applicant

RUB 1,129,664 (EUR 15,411) to the eighth applicant

RUB 416,266 (EUR 5,679) to the ninth applicant

RUB 476,896 (EUR 6,506) to the tenth applicant

In the amount to be determined by the Court

EUR 2,729

Awarded by the Court

EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the third applicant

EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to the fourth applicant

EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to the fifth applicant

EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to the sixth applicant

EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to the seventh applicant

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the eighth applicant

EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to the ninth applicant

EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to the tenth applicant

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants jointly

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the eighth, ninth and tenth applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)

7.

62160/11

27/09/2011

1) Ms Sina UMAROVA

01/01/1940

Shikaroy

Mother of Mr Arbi Umarov and Mr Aslanbek Umarov

2) Ms Chekhag BIZAYEVA

29/06/1955

Novyye Atagi

Mother of Mr Andarbek Abubakarov

3) Ms Khadi NURGALIYEVA

28/09/1952

Shikaroy

Mother of Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev

4) Ms Petamat MURTAZALIYEVA

03/01/1982

Borozdinovskaya

Wife of Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev

5) Mr Turpal MURTAZALIYEV

02/12/1999

Borozdinovskaya

Son of Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev

6) Mr Turpal-Ali MURTAZALIYEV

14/11/2000

Borozdinovskaya

Son of Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev

1) Mr Arbi Umarov

2) Mr Aslanbek Umarov

3) Mr Andarbek Abubakarov

4) Mr Mayrbek Murtazaliyev

Disappeared on 24/04/2001

SRJI/ ASTREYA

Claimed by the applicants

RUB 1,304,207 (EUR 16,376) to the first applicant

RUB 1,141,232 (EUR 14,330) to the second applicant

RUB 1,322,970 (EUR 16,612) to the third applicant

RUB 1,322,970 (EUR 16,612) to the fourth applicant

RUB 162,983 (EUR 2,046) to the fifth applicant

RUB 186,223 (EUR 2,238) to the sixth applicant

In the amount to be determined by the Court

EUR 2,280

Awarded by the Court

EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to the first applicant

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the third applicant

EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros) to the fourth applicant

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to the fifth applicant

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to the sixth applicant

EUR 160,000 (one hundred and sixty thousand euros) to the first applicant

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)

8.

64272/11

23/09/2011

Ms Kazban INALKAYEVA

02/08/1957

Grozny

Mother

Mr Imran Inalkayev

Disappeared in the beginning of February 2000

SRJI/ ASTREYA

Claimed by the applicant

RUB 1,094,146 (EUR 14,927)

In the amount to be determined by the Court

EUR 2,586

Awarded by the Court

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros)

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros)

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)

9.

13874/12

27/02/2012

1) Ms Balkan SUGATIYEVA

15/04/1968

Dzhalka

Wife of Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev

2) Markha SUGATIYEVA

Born in 1923

Dzhalka

Mother of Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev

3) Ms Khava SUGATIYEVA

20/12/1990

Dzhalka

Daughter of Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev

4) Mr Nasrudi SUGATIYEV

25/03/1989

Dzhalka

Son of Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev

5) Ms Zulay YUSUPOVA

12/04/1949

Shali

Mother of Mr Beslan Yusupov

6) Ms Yakha DZHURGAYEVA

08/11/1977

Grozny

Wife of Mr Beslan Yusupov

7) Ms Eliza YUSUPOVA

15/10/1997

Grozny

Daughter of Mr Beslan Yusupov

8) Mr Umar ABZAYEV

10/08/1938

Dzhalka

Father of Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev

9) Ms Zalpa GILYAYEVA

14/12/1981

Dzhalka

Wife of Mr Said‑Magomed Abzayev

10) Ms Khava ABZAYEVA

12/11/2001

Dzhalka

Daughter of Mr Said‑Magomed Abzayev

11) Ms Rayzan ABZAYEVA

08/03/1942

Dzhalka

Mother of Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev

1) Mr Ruslan Sugatiyev

2) Mr Beslan Yusupov

3) Mr Said-Magomed Abzayev

Disappeared on 08/02/2002

SRJI/ ASTREYA

Claimed by the applicants

RUB 605,905 (EUR 8,250) to the first applicant

RUB 387,336 (EUR 5,274) to the second applicant

RUB 605,905 (EUR 8,250) to the third applicant

RUB 605,905 (EUR 8,250) to the fourth applicant

RUB 1,059,949 (EUR 14,433) to the fifth applicant

RUB 1,059,949 (EUR 14,433) to the sixth applicant

RUB 1,059,949 (EUR 14,433) to the seventh applicant

RUB 862,739 (EUR 11,748) to the eighth applicant

RUB 1,267,259 (EUR 17,256) to the ninth applicant

RUB 1,267,259 (EUR 17,256) to the tenth applicant

In the amount to be determined by the Court

EUR 3,189

Awarded by the Court

EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to the first applicant

EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to the third applicant

EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to the fourth applicant

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the fifth applicant

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the sixth applicant

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the seventh applicant

EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the eighth applicant

EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros) to the ninth applicant

EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros) to the tenth applicant

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the first, second, third and fourth applicants jointly

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the fifth, sixth and seventh applicants jointly

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)

10.

77706/12

27/11/2012

1) Ms Tamara KAKHIYEVA

Born in 1935

Avtury

Mother

Passed away

2) Mr Musa KAKHIYEV

30/08/1960

Avtury

Brother

Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev

Disappeared on 14/05/2002

SRJI/ ASTREYA

Claimed by the applicants

RUB 679,264 (EUR 9,642) to the first applicant

In the amount to be determined by the Court

EUR 4,935

Awarded by the Court

-

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy