Communicated on 7 January 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 35915/10
Tamara Adamovna DZEYTOVA against Russia
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
The applicants are five Russian nationals listed in the appendix. They live in various settlements in the Chechen Republic, the Republic of Ingushetia and Dagestan. The applicants are close relatives of five men listed as “abducted persons” in the appendix.
The circumstances of the applications as presented by the applicants can be summarised as follows.
A. General information pertaining to all of the applications
The applicants are close relatives of five men who disappeared after having been allegedly abducted by servicemen or unidentified persons from their homes and public places in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since then.
All the applicants complained about the abductions to law-enforcement bodies and official investigations were instituted. In each case the proceedings have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results, after having been suspended and resumed on several occasions.
All the applicants maintain that they have not been kept regularly informed of the progress in the criminal proceedings. Some of the applicants have been provided with partial access to the investigation files. In the applicants’ submissions, the authorities either failed to take the most important investigative steps, such as questioning of witnesses to the abductions, or only took those essential steps after significant and inexplicable delays.
B. Particulars of the individual applications
Summaries of facts for each of the applications and the most important investigative steps taken by the authorities are outlined below.
1. Application no. 35915/10 Dzeytova v. Russia
The applicant, Ms Tamara Dzeytova, was born in 1960 and lives in Assinovskaya vilage, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre, an NGO with offices in Moscow and London.
The applicant is the mother of Mr Khamzat Dzeytov, who was born in 1977.
(a) Disappearance of Mr Khamzat Dzeytov and surrounding events
(i) Events of October 2008
In October 2008 the applicant’s husband and Mr Khamzat Dzeytov were detained by the Operative-Search Bureau no. 2 of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (known as ORB-2). The next day the applicant’s husband was released. A few days later the applicant learned from a defense counsel that her son had allegedly been detained by way of retaliation against his sister and brother-in-law, both of whom were on the authorities’ wanted list. Mr Khamzat Dzeytov was subsequently convicted of joining an illegal armed group and given a conditional sentence imprisonment.
(ii) Disappearance of Mr Khamzat Dzeytov
On several occasions between 5 and 7 July 2009 the applicant saw a grey VAZ-2114 car driven by police officer K. parked next to the grain store where she worked. On 7 July 2009 the applicant’s husband saw four policemen waiting for someone in a blue VAZ-2107 car parked next to their house.
Sometimes Mr Khamzat Dzeytov replaced his mother, the applicant, at the grain store in Assinovskaya. At 11 a.m. on 7 July 2009 the applicant asked her son to replace her at work and went to the nearby village of Bamut to collect her pension. At 2 p. m. on the same day when Mr Khamzat Dzeytov called the applicant from home, she asked him to return to the grain store as she was still in Bamut. At 3.00 p.m. when the applicant returned to the store, her son was not there. According to another of the applicant’s sons, Mr Sh. D., Mr Khamzat Dzeytov had left the house for the grain store at 2.30 p.m. Mr Sh. D. tried to call Mr Khamzat Dzeytov eight minutes later, but the latter’s phone was switched off.
According to the applicant, Mr Khamzat Dzeytov was abducted by State agents on the way to the grain store between 2.30 and 2.40 p.m. on 7 July 2009.
(iii) Subsequent events
In the evening of 7 July 2009 a policeman from the Sunzhenskiy district police department (hereinafter “the Sunzhenskiy ROVD”) (Сунженский районный отдел внутренних дел (РОВД)) told the applicant that Mr Khamzat Dzeytov was detained on the premises of their police station and gave her the phone number of a certain Mr A., the policeman allegedly responsible for Mr Khamzat Dzeytov’s detention. On the following day when the applicant asked Mr A. about her son’s detention, he denied any knowledge of it.
On or about 23 July 2009 the head of the criminal search department of “the Sunzhenskiy ROVD”, Mr T. M., told the applicant that her son had been arrested by them because of his brother-in-law, who was wanted by the authorities for involvement in illegal armed groups.
In April 2010 the applicant went to see the investigator, Mr M., at the police station. The investigator told her that he knew the place of her son’s detention and that Mr Khamzat Dzeytov would be released if the applicant would inform him of her daughter’s whereabouts.
(b) Official investigation of the incident
On 8 July 2009 the applicant went to “the Sunzhenskiy ROVD” to lodge a complaint in respect of her son’s alleged abduction, but the police officers refused to officially register it.
On 9 July 2009 the applicant complained of the police officers’ refusal to the Achkhoy-Martan district investigative committee (“the investigative committee”), which on 7 October 2009 opened criminal case no. 85012 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 15 December 2009 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On 14 February 2010 the criminal investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
On 22 June 2010 the applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the investigation file. Her request was refused on the grounds that access to the file was allowed only upon the completion of the investigation.
The investigation is still pending.
2. Application no. 46206/10 Kabilov v. Russia
The applicant, Mr Abu Kabilov, was born in 1957, and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. He is not legally represented.
The applicant is the father of Mr Magomed Kabilov, who was born in 1984.
(a) Disappearance of Mr Magomed Kabilov
At about 5.10 p.m. on 25 August 2009 next to building no. 2 of the Federal Fire Service in Krasnoyarskaya street in Grozny, Mr Magomed Kabilov got into a grey VAZ- 2110 car and it drove off. Mr Magomed Kabilov has not been seen since.
(b) Official investigation of the incident
On the same day, on 25 August 2009, the applicant lodged a complaint in respect of Mr Magomed Kabilov’s disappearance with the Zavodskoy district police department and the Zavodskoy district investigative committee (Заводской районный отдел внутренних дел) in Grozny.
On 14 September 2009 the Zavodskoy district investigative committee opened criminal case no. 67057 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). On the same day the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On 20 December 2009 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
On 18 February 2010 and 4 June 2010 the investigation was resumed and on 28 February 2010 and 14 June 2010 it was again suspended. It is still pending.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
On 1 June 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny concerning the investigator’s decision of 28 February 2010 to suspend the investigation. On 4 June 2010 the court rejected the complaint as the investigation had been resumed earlier the same day.
3. Application no. 46142/11 Gazdiyev v. Russia
The applicant, Mr Mukhmed Gazdiyev, was born in 1943, and lives in Karabulak, the Republic of Ingushetia. He is not legally represented.
The applicant is the father of Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev, who was born in 1978.
(a) Background events
In 2004 Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev was asked by his friend Mr. K. if he would take him and his wife by a car to the local hospital. On the way there they were stopped by the officers from the Federal Security Service (hereinafter “the FSB”) (Федеральная Служба Безопасности (ФСБ)) who opened fire, killing Mr. K. Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev was taken to the Karabulak district police department and released after interrogation.
On 31 May 2007 a group of Ingushetia FSB officers arrived at the applicant’s house to search it. One of them, officer A., showed the applicant the search warrant. When the applicant pointed out to the officer that the name in the document was not his, officer A. proceeded with the search anyway. As a result of the search, nothing of interest was found and the officers left.
(b) Disappearance of Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev and subsequent events
(i) Disappearance of Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev
At about 1 p. m. on 8 August 2007 the applicant’s neighbour, Mr A. Ye., was driving through the settlement of Karabulak. At the junction of Ryumakova and Dzhabagiyeva Streets, he saw five or six armed men in camouflage uniforms wearing balaclavas and khaki helmets standing by a white Gazel minivan. Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev was standing next to his car, a silver VAZ‑2110, which was parked next to the minivan and was talking to a man with Slavic features in civilian clothing. Mr A. Ye. stopped his car further down the street and phoned Mr A. O., Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev’s cousin to explain the situation. A few minutes later, when Mr A. Ye. returned to the place where he had just seen the applicant’s son, no one was there. Mr A.O. attempted to call Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev several times, but the latter did not pick up. About half hour later his phone was switched off. Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev has not been seen since.
(ii) Subsequent events
On 9 August 2007 the applicant complained of the alleged abduction to Mr B. M., a deputy of the Parliament of Ingushetia. According to the latter, on 10 August 2007, he was told by the Prosecutor of Ingushetia, Mr T., that the law-enforcement agents had stopped Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev’s car for a random check. When they had realised that the passenger in the car had been a member of an illegal armed group, they had shot that person dead on the spot. Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev had been taken for an identity check and then released.
On 11 August 2007 the applicant and a relative of his, Mr M. U., had a meeting with the President of Ingushetia, Mr M. Zyazikov. The President told the applicant that Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev had been arrested by the State security service and that there was no evidence of Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev’s involvement in any crime. He reassured the applicant that his son would not go missing.
On 15 August 2007 a staff member of the Representation of the Russian President in Ingushetia, Mr A. T., informed Mr B. M., the deputy, that Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev had allegedly been arrested by the security service on the suspicion of involvement in illegal armed groups and that he had received this information from the prosecutor Mr T. When the deputy asked the prosecutor about it, the latter denied having any information concerning Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev’s whereabouts.
(c) Official investigation of the incident
On 8 August 2007 the applicant complained to the Karabulak Prosecutor’s Office of his son’s alleged abduction by unidentified security service agents of Slavic appearance.
On the same day the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.
On 9 August 2007 the applicant complained of the alleged abduction to a number of other law-enforcement agencies.
On 10 August 2007 the Karabulak prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 27520024 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On the next day the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On 10 November 2007 the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators.
On 30 November 2007 the proceedings were resumed for the investigators’ failure to question a number of witnesses.
On 30 December 2007 the criminal case was once again suspended.
Between 23 July 2008 and 15 July 2009 the criminal proceedings were suspended and resumed on five occasions. They are still pending.
(d) Proceedings against the investigators
On 27 August 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 15 July 2009 to suspend the proceedings before the Karabulak District Court (the District Court) in Ingushetia. On 30 September 2009 the District Court ordered that the investigation be resumed. On 7 October 2009 the criminal proceedings were resumed and then once again suspended on 7 November 2009.
The applicant challenged the decision of 7 November 2009 to suspend the proceedings and on 15 March 2010 the District Court dismissed the complaint. On 24 March 2010 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of Ingushetia (the Supreme Court) and on 27 April 2010 the Supreme Court granted the appeal and ordered that the investigation be resumed. On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings were resumed and then once again suspended on 15 September 2010.
In November 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 15 September 2010 to suspend the investigation before the Magas District Court in Ingushetia. On 15 November 2010 the court dismissed the complaint. On 11 January 2010 the Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.
4. Application no. 65489/12 Zaurayeva v. Russia
The applicant, Ms Eyza Zaurayeva, was born in 1966, and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is not legally represented.
The applicant is the wife of Mr Lema Zaurayev, who was born in 1964.
(a) Disappearance of Mr Lema Zaurayev and subsequent events
(i) Disappearance of Mr Lema Zaurayev
At 4.30 p. m. on 23 December 2006 Mr Lema Zaurayev left his home in his VAZ-2107 car with the official registration number В075УН 95 and never returned. A few days later Mr Lema Zaurayev’s car was found next to the central market in Bogdana Khmelnitskogo Street in Grozny.
(ii) Subsequent events
In 2015 the applicant identified one eyewitness, Mr A. P., who on the evening of 23 December 2006 had seen servicemen putting Mr Lema Zaurayev into an armoured personnel carrier (hereinafter the APC) (бронетранспортёр (БТР)). Twenty minutes later they had driven off towards the Grozny airport through the check-point manned by Russian servicemen (see below).
(b) Official investigation of the incident
On 24 December 2006 the applicant complained of her husband’s disappearance to the Leninskiy district police department in Grozny.
On 9 January 2007 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 10000 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 15 September 2007 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On 18 February 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny declared Mr Lema Zaurayev a missing person in response to a corresponding request from the applicant. In her request to the District Court the applicant alleged that her husband had gone missing after having been abducted by State agents.
On 25 December 2008 the criminal investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
On 3 September 2012 the criminal proceedings were resumed and subsequently suspended.
On an unspecified date in May 2015, upon the applicant’s request, the investigators resumed the criminal proceedings and questioned Mr A.P., who stated that he had seen Mr Lema Zaurayev being taken away by the servicemen in the APC.
On 6 June 2015 the criminal investigation was suspended again.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators
On an unspecified date in 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 25 December 2008 to suspend the investigation before the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny.
On 4 September 2012 the applicant’s complaint was dismissed as the investigators had resumed the proceedings a day earlier.
5. Application no. 66876/12 Dibirova v. Russia
The applicant, Ms Shakrazada Dibirova, was born in 1951 and lives in Makhachkala, Dagestan. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya).
The applicant is the mother of Mr Ramaz Dibirov, who was born in 1981.
(a) Background information
On 23 April 2006 Mr Ramaz Dibirov went to the shop next to his house and did not return.
On the same date the police officers from the 6th department of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior (“the 6th department”) searched the applicant’s house and barn. According to the applicant, the police officers planted explosives in the barn, which they later claimed to have found during the search.
From 23 April to 2 May 2006 Mr Ramaz Dibirov was detained in one of the offices on the premises of the 6th department. The police officers ill‑treated him in order to obtain his confession to the commission of terrorist acts.
On 2 May 2006 Mr Ramaz Dibirow was transferred to the temporary detention facility (hereinafter “the IVS”) (изолятор временного содержания (ИВС)) of the Makhachkala town police department.
On 2 May 2006 an investigator from the Sovetskiy district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that Mr Ramaz Dibirov had been detained in the IVS.
On 11 September 2006 Mr Ramaz Dibirov was found guilty under Articles 222 (illegal use of weapons) and 316 (concealment of crime) of the Russian Criminal Code and sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment, but was immediately released owing to the poor state of his health.
On 15 November 2007 the brother of Mr Ramaz Dibirov, Mr I.D., was allegedly also abducted by armed men wearing balaclavas. Five days later the relatives found out that he had been arrested by police officers from the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior and detained in the IVS. Mr I.D. was subsequently charged under Articles 222, 316 and 208 of the Russian Criminal Code (attempted murder of law-enforcement agents), but was acquitted by the Dagestan Supreme Court.
(b) Disappearance of Mr Ramaz Dibirov and subsequent events
(i) Disappearance of Mr Ramaz Dibirov
On the evening of 25 April 2007 Mr Ramaz Dibirov left cafe “Teremok” in Makhachkala where he had been having dinner with his fiancée Ms K.D., and went home. He has not been seen since.
On 26 April 2007 at 4 a.m. Ms K.D. received a phone call from Mr Ramaz Dibirov and could hear his screams and those of another person. A few minutes later the phone call was disconnected. At 1 p. m. on the same day Ms K.D. received second call from Mr Ramaz Dibirov’s phone and heard two men discussing what they should do with the phone and the SIM card.
According to the applicant, on 26 April 2007 about twenty other persons were abducted in Makhachkala. Some of them were arrested, while the others were subsequently killed.
(ii) Subsequent events
On 5 June and 9 June 2007 the applicant had a meeting with the Deputy Minister of the Interior, who told her that they had not established her son’s whereabouts and that Mr I. T., the head of the 6th department, would be assisting in the search for her son.
On 10 June 2007 the applicant had a meeting Mr I.T. and parents of other abducted persons on the premises of the 6th department. Mr I. T. told the applicant that there was a unit within the 6th department which reported directly to the Dagestan Minister of the Interior and that that unit had been involved in the recent abductions in Dagestan. On the photographs shown by the applicant and other parents to Mr I. T., the latter identified Mr Ramaz Dibirov and three other abducted persons and said that they were all detained in one of their offices.
A few months later, during the applicant’s meeting with officials and law-enforcement agents concerning the abduction, Mr I. T. denied ever having seen the abducted persons.
On 7 July 2007 Mr G. G., the head of the department of the Dagestan Security Council, told the applicant that her son was allegedly detained in the Operative Search Bureau no. 2 in Khankala, Chechnya.
(c) Official investigation of the incident
On 26 April 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Makhachkala prosecutor’s office concerning her son’s alleged abduction by law-enforcement agents.
On 14 May 2007 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Makhachkala opened criminal case no. 701605 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 16 May 2007 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
Between 15 October 2007 and 5 December 2011 the criminal proceedings were suspended and resumed on ten occasions. They are still pending.
(d) Proceedings against the investigators
On 24 August 2010 the applicant complained to the Leninskiy District Court in Makhachkala of the investigators’ failure to inform her of the progress in the investigation and provide copies of the documents from the investigation file.
On 6 September 2010 the Leninskiy District Court found unlawful the investigators’ failure to inform the applicant.
On 6 September 2012 the applicant complained to the Leninskiy District Court that the investigation was ineffective and that the investigators had unlawfully suspended the criminal proceedings.
On 13 September 2012 the District Court dismissed the complaint as the investigators had resumed the investigation three days earlier.
COMPLAINTS
1. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications, except for Kabilov v. Russia (no. 46206/10), complain of the violation of the right to life of those of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the appendix and submit that the circumstances of their abduction and ensuing disappearance indicate that they had been abducted by State agents. The applicants in all of the applications further complain that no effective investigation was carried out into the incidents.
2. Relying to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in Gazdiyev v. Russia (no. 46142/11) and Dibirova v. Russia (no. 66876/12) complain that they are suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the national authorities in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation in that respect.
3. The applicants in all the applications, except for Kabilov v. Russia (no. 46206/10), submit that the unacknowledged detention of those of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the appendix violates all of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.
4. The applicants in all the applications complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention.
common QUESTIONS
1. Having regard to:
- the Court’s numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 of the Convention have been found not only in respect of disappearances of applicants’ relatives following detention by unidentified members of the security forces but also in relation to failures to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014), and;
- the similarity of the present five applications both to each other and to the cases cited above, as can be seen from the applicants’ submissions and the interim results of the respective investigations:
(a) In respect of all the applications except for Kabilov v. Russia (no. 46206/10), have the applicants made a prima facie case that their relatives (referred to as “abducted persons” in the appendix) were detained by State servicemen in the course of security operations?
(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in order to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ abductions and ensuing disappearances (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 184, ECHR 2009)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abductions, by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events by other means?
(c) Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants’ missing relatives, except for Kabilov v. Russia no. 46206/10?
(d) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearances and/or death of the applicants’ relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?
2. Were the applicants’ relatives, referred to as “abducted persons”, except for the applicant’s relative in Kabilov v. Russia (no. 46206/10), in the appendix deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If such detention took place, was it in compliance with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?
3. In respect of all the applications did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 2 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
4. Further to the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information in respect of each of the applications:
(a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants’ allegations that their missing relatives had been abducted by State servicemen;
as well as, in any event,
(b) a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants’ complaints about disappearance of their missing relatives, in the chronological order, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings;
and:
(c) copies of documents from the investigation files in respective criminal cases, including the case-files nos. 85012, 67057, 27520024, 10000, 701605, which are relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the allegations and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations.
CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
In respect of the applications Gazdiyev v. Russia (no. 46142/11) and Dibirova v. Russia (no. 66876/12), has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives, the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants?
APPENDIX
No.
Number, name of the application and date lodged
The applicants’ details (name, year of birth, family relationship, place of residence)
Representative
Name and year of birth of the abducted person/s
Brief description of the circumstances of the abduction
Relevant details of the official investigation
35915/10
Dzeytova v. Russia
29/06/2010
Ms Tamara Dzeytova (1960), the mother,
Assinovskaya, Chechnya
EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre
Mr Khamzat Dzeytov (1977)
On 7 July 2009 Mr Khamzat Dzeytov was allegedly abducted by State agents on his way to work.
On 7 October 2009 the Achkhoy-Martan district investigative committee opened criminal case no. 85012. The investigation is currently pending.
46206/10
Kabilov v. Russia
20/07/2010
Mr Abu Kabilov (1957), the father, Grozny, Chechnya
Not legally represented
Mr Magomed Kabilov (1984)
On 25 August 2009 Mr Magomed Kabilov disappeared after having got into a grey VAZ-2110 car.
On 14 September 2009 the Zavodskoy district investigative committee opened criminal case no. 67057 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). The investigation is currently pending.
46142/11
Gazdiyev v. Russia
10/07/2011
Mr Mukhmed Gazdiyev (1943), the father, Karabulak, Ingushetia
Not legally represented
Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev (1978)
On 8 August 2007 Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev’s car was stopped in Karabulak by five or six armed men in camouflage uniforms, balaclavas and khaki helmets. Mr Ibragim Gazdiyev has not been seen since.
On 10 August 2007 the Karabulak prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 27520024. The investigation is currently pending.
65489/12
Zaurayeva v. Russia
25/09/2012
Ms Eyza Zaurayeva (1966), the wife, Grozny, Chechnya
Not legally represented
Mr Lema Zaurayev (1964)
On 23 December 2006 Mr Lema Zaurayev was stopped at the market in Grozny, in his VAZ-2107 car with registration numbers V075UN 95 (“В075УН 95”), and taken away by servicemen in an APC.
On 9 January 2007 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 10000. The investigation is currently pending.
66876/12
Dibirova v. Russia
10/10/2012
Ms Shakhrazada Dibirova (1951), the mother, Makhachkala, Dagestan
Stichting Russian Justice Initiative / Astreya
Mr Ramaz Dibirov (1981)
On 25 April 2007 Mr Ramaz Dibirov disappeared in Makhachkala on the way home from a cafe.
On 14 May 2007 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Makhachkala opened criminal case no. 701605. The investigation is currently pending.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy