UMAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 61555/13
Zulay Toguzovna UMAYEVA and Others against Russia
and 15 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 September 2019 as a committee composed of:

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

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1.  The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details, as well as the application numbers, appear in the appended tables.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

A.  The circumstances of the cases

3.  The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4.  At the material time, the applicants lived in the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being detained by State agents between 2000 and 2006. In application no. 71398/14 (Israilovy v Russia) the applicants’ relative, Mr Bekkhan Israilov, was shot dead by his father’s abductors. The whereabouts of the applicants’ abducted relatives remain unknown.

5.  The applicants reported the incidents in question to the authorities, and official investigations were opened. In each of the cases, the proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and they have been ongoing for years without achieving any tangible results. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that in each of the cases the proceedings are still ongoing.

6.  Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities.

1.  Umayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 61555/13)

7.  The applicants are close relatives of two brothers: Mr Vesmirt Eskiyev, who was born in 1957, and Mr Visait Eskiyev, who was born in 1955 (see Appendix no. 1).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Vesmirt Eskiyev and Mr Visait Eskiyev

8.  At about 11 a.m. on 26 December 2000 the applicants’ relatives were abducted from their house by a group of twenty-five to thirty armed men in military uniforms. The abductors started to beat Mr Visait Eskiyev, and when Mr Vesmirt Eskiyev tried to help his brother the servicemen beat him too. Both of them were then forced into the abductors’ armoured personnel carrier (APC) and taken to an unknown destination. Allegedly, the abduction was carried out under the orders of Lieutenant Colonel S.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

9.  On 16 January 2001 the first applicant applied to the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor’s office, asking it to assist in the search for her missing relatives.

10.  On 17 January 2001 the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor informed the commander of the military unit based in Khankala that, according to operational information, two abducted persons were being kept on their premises in Khankala. He asked that this information be verified.

11.  On 18 January 2001, the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 35004 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction) and questioned the first applicant. She reiterated the account of events described above.

12.  On 30 January 2001 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

13.  On 31 January 2001 the second applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She stated that her husband had never been a member of an illegal armed group.

14.  On 10 February 2001 the mother of the abducted persons was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

15.  On 18 March 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

16.  On 19 March 2001 the head of the administration of the village of Nozhay-Yurt and the first applicant were questioned. They reiterated the account of events submitted to the Court.

17.  Between February and March 2001 the first and the second applicants lodged several requests with the law-enforcement authorities, asking them to assist in the search for their missing relatives.

18.  On 17 February 2004 the proceedings were resumed and then suspended on the same day.

19.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the law‑enforcement authorities. The responses received contained statements to the effect that no information about the applicants’ relatives was available.

20.  On 30 December 2004 the investigation was resumed and criminal case no. 35004 was joined to another criminal case (no. 35005) instituted in respect of the abduction of two other men, the Eldarov brothers, who had allegedly been taken away by the same group of armed men on the same day as the applicants’ relatives.

21.  On 12 September 2005 the first applicant wrote to the investigators, asking them to assist in the search for her missing sons. On 20 February 2006 the investigators informed her that the investigation had been suspended.

22.  On 16 February 2009 the investigation was resumed. On 4 March 2009 the second applicant was questioned. She reiterated her earlier statements. On 23 March 2009 the proceedings were suspended, then resumed on 25 May 2012 and suspended again on 5 June 2012. The second applicant was informed of this.

23.  On 25 June 2013 the investigation was resumed and the first applicant’s representative was granted access to the case file. Subsequently, the proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions without any tangible results being achieved. The proceedings were last resumed in November 2014. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

24.  On 2 February 2012 the first and the second applicants appealed to the Nozhay-Yurt District Court against the decision of 23 March 2009 to suspend the investigation. Their appeal was left unexamined, owing to procedural shortcomings.

25.  On 23 May 2012 the first and the second applicants lodged another appeal against the decision to suspend the investigation and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps.

26.  On 31 May 2012 the Gudermes Town Court allowed their appeal in part, having found, inter alia, that the investigation had already been resumed on 25 May 2012.

27.  On 11 June 2013 the first and the second applicants lodged another appeal against the investigator’s decision of 5 June 2012 to suspend the proceedings.

28.  On 31 May 2012 the Gudermes Town Court rejected the appeal, as the investigation had already been resumed on 18 June 2013. That decision was upheld on 17 July 2013 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.

2.  Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32771/14)

29.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Isa Kalayev, who was born in 1975 (see Appendix no. 2).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Isa Kalayev

30.  At about midnight on 5 April 2003 Mr Isa Kalayev, along with two other persons, was abducted from the house of his friend, Mr H.A., in Michurino, in the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic, and taken to an unknown destination. Allegedly, the abductors were a group of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

31.  According to the applicants, after the abduction they contacted various authorities, trying to find Mr Isa Kalayev, but to no avail.

32.  On 8 April 2003 a relative of one of the abducted persons applied to the head of the Urus-Martan Department of the Interior, asking for assistance in the search for his missing relative.

33.  On 24 April 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 34048) in respect of one of the two other abducted men under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

34.  On 31 May 2003 the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. Between 30 April and 24 June 2003 the investigators questioned a number of Mr Isa Kalayev’s relatives and examined the crime scene.

35.  On 24 June 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

36.  It appears that between 24 June 2003 and 13 July 2012 the investigation was suspended and there was no official communication between the applicants and the authorities.

37.  On 13 July 2012 the investigation was resumed, following the investigators’ superiors giving orders to this effect.

38.  Between 20 July and 7 August 2012 three relatives of the two other abducted men were questioned. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended on several occasions.

39.  On 5 October 2012 the fourth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 6 October 2012 the investigators suspended the proceedings again. It appears that the proceedings are still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

40.  On 17 December 2013 the second applicant appealed against the investigator’s decision of 6 October 2012 to suspend the criminal proceedings.

41.  On 24 December 2013 the Urus-Martan Town Court dismissed her appeal. On 5 February 2014 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld that decision on appeal.

3.  Saydayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 46403/14)

42.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Beslan Saydayev, who was born in 1978 (see Appendix no. 3).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Beslan Saydayev

43.  On 14 July 2001 a group of military servicemen broke into the applicants’ house in Serzhen-Yurt. Mr Beslan Saydayev was forced onto the floor and his T-shirt was pulled over his head. The applicants were forced out of their house and locked in their neighbour’s bathroom. When they managed to get free, Mr Beslan Saydayev had already been taken away.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

44.  On 16 July 2001 the first applicant applied to the head of the Human Rights Defender’s Committee of Grozny, asking it to assist in the search for her missing son.

45.  On 12 August 2001 the Shali district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 23175) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

46.  On 12 October 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

47.  On 20 May 2002 the first applicant asked the military commander of the United Group Alignment to assist her in the search for her missing son. Then, on an unspecified date in 2008 she sent the same request to the investigators’ superiors, who on 2 April 2008 forwarded it to the investigators.

48.  On 5 May 2008 the Military Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended on 6 December 2006 for failure to identify the perpetrators.

49.  On 15 February 2013 the investigators joined the investigation in case no. 23178 with one in case no. 23175 concerning another abduction in Serzhen-Yurt.

50.  On 22 March 2013 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events described above.

51.  On 7 September 2013 the investigation was suspended again.

52.  On 8 October 2013 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her access to the case file and allow her to make copies of some documents. On 29 November 2013 the investigators granted her request in part, but refused to allow her to copy the documents.

53.  On 31 January 2014 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 17 February 2014.

54.  On 20 February 2014 the first applicant appealed against the investigators’ refusal to allow her to make copies of the case documents. It appears that during the proceedings before the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny the applicant received copies of all the documents.

55.  On 11 March 2014 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

56.  On 18 March 2014 the first applicant asked the investigators to allow her to make copies of some documents, including the decision of 11 March 2014 to suspend the investigation. On 19 March 2014 the investigators granted her request in part as regards the decision to suspend the investigation, and refused the rest.

57.  On 28 March 2014 the investigation was resumed. It appears that the proceedings are still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

58.  On 21 March 2014 the first applicant challenged the suspension decision of 11 March 2014 before the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny.

59.  On 1 April 2014 the Leninskiy District Court terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the decision of 11 March 2014 had been quashed by the investigators’ superiors on 28 March 2014.

60.  On 7 May 2014 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the decision on appeal.

4.  Magomadova and Others v. Russia (no. 67207/14)

61.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Aslan Magomadov, who was born in 1977 (see Appendix no. 4).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Aslan Magomadov

62.  On 21 March 2000 Mr Aslan Magomadov went to Grozny on an errand and did not return. At the time military clashes between illegal armed groups and federal military forces were taking place in the area. Mr Aslan Magomadov was later seen in Goy-Chu, and he appeared in television footage as one of the members of the illegal armed groups who had been arrested.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

63.  On 26 July 2000 the first applicant applied to the President of Russia’s Special Envoy for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, asking for assistance in the search for her missing brother.

64.  On 25 December 2000 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 24101) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

65.  Between 18 February 2001 and 20 July 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. No tangible investigative measures were taken after the resumption of the proceedings.

66.  On 20 August 2001 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 5 July 2007. During that period Mr Aslan Magomadov’s mother contacted the authorities on four occasions (on 21 September 2001, 29 September 2002, 17 September 2003 and 17 June 2007), either seeking information on the progress of the investigation or asking them to assist in the search for her missing son.

67.  On 9 July 2007 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. On the same day Mr M.I., the brother of the abducted person, was questioned. Their statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

68.  On 26 July 2007 Mr Kh.A. – who had allegedly been in the area where military clashes had been taking place and had subsequently been detained by the federal military forces – was questioned and gave an account of events similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court.

69.  In July and August 2007 the investigators sent several requests to the law‑enforcement authorities, asking them to inform them about which units of the federal military forces had taken part in the counter-terrorist operation which had taken place in the Chechen Republic in March 2000. In reply, they were informed that no information on those units was available.

70.  On 5 August 2007 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 15 August 2007.

71.  In August 2007 the investigators requested information on Mr Aslan Magomadov from local law‑enforcement authorities. The replies received stated that those authorities had no information about him.

72.  On 17 August 2007 the investigators examined a compact disc containing video footage of the members of the illegal armed groups who had been arrested, and included that in the case material.

73.  On 15 September 2007 the investigators suspended the proceedings again. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. It was last resumed on 14 December 2007.

74.  On 25 December 2007 Mr Aslan Magomedov’s mother was questioned.

75.  On 28 December 2007 Mr T.M. was questioned; his statement was similar to the account of events described above.

76.  On 14 January 2008 the investigators obtained video footage from 24 March 2000 from a federal television channel. The footage depicted members of the illegal armed groups who had been arrested. On the same day the investigation was suspended.

77.  On 20 February 2008 the investigators questioned three reporters from the federal television channel, all of whom stated that the footage from 24 March 2000 had not been filmed by them, but by the special military services, and then transferred to their channel to be used in a news broadcast.

78.  On 6 April 2009 the first applicant wrote to the Parliament of the Chechen Republic, asking for assistance in the search for her missing brother. Her request was forwarded to the investigating authorities.

79.  On 16 August 2011 the supervising prosecutor quashed the suspension decision of 14 January 2008 and resumed the investigation.

80.  On 25 and 29 August and 8 September 2011 Mr Aslan Magomadov’s mother, his brother and the first applicant were questioned again; they reiterated their previous statements.

81.  On 22 September 2011 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 2 June 2014. Meanwhile, on 28 March 2013 the first applicant had asked the investigators to grant her access to the investigation file and allow her to make copies of documents. On 12 April 2013 her request was granted.

82.  On 3 and 4 June 2014 the first applicant and her mother were questioned again. They reiterated their earlier statements.

83.  On 3 June 2014 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of DNA obtained from Mr Aslan Magomadov’s mother.

84.  On 9 July 2014 the investigation was suspended. It appears that it is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

85.  The first applicant challenged the suspension decision of 22 September 2011 before the Urus-Martan Town Court in the Chechen Republic.

86.  On 3 June 2014 the court terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the investigation had been resumed on 2 June 2014. That decision was upheld on 1 July 2017 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.

5.  Israilovy v. Russia (no. 71398/14)

87.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Nurdi Israilov, who was born in 1953, and Mr Bekkhan Israilov, who was born in 1978 (see Appendix no. 5).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Nurdi Israilov and the killing of Mr Bekkhan Israilov

88.  At about 3 a.m. on 10 November 2002 Mr Nurdi (also spelt Nuri) Israilov was abducted from his home in Noviy Tsentaroy in the Grozny District. His son, Mr Bekkhan (also spelt Bekhan) Israilov, was shot dead by the perpetrators during the abduction. The group of armed men who abducted Mr Nurdi Israilov were in military uniforms and balaclavas. They spoke unaccented Russian and arrived at the applicants’ house in a UAZ military-type van.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

89.  On 10 November 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 24101) under Articles 105 (murder) and 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code. On the same day the investigators examined the crime scene and the dead body of Mr Bekkhan Israilov, and questioned two brothers of the abducted person. Their statements were similar to the account of events described above.

90.  On 11 November 2002 a sergeant from the OMON police (a special task force unit) was questioned. He stated that he had heard a machine gun being shot 700-800 metres away from the place where he had been on patrol duty (the town of Argun), near to Noviy Tsentaroy.

91.  On 12 November 2002 Mr Nurdi Israilov’s brother was questioned, as were his neighbours, Ms G. M. and Ms T. A. All of them affirmed that the circumstances of the events were as described above.

92.  On 23 October 2003 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the body of Mr Bekkhan Israilov. On 31 October 2003 the experts replied that they could not answer the investigators’ questions, as the documents which the investigators had submitted were insufficient.

93.  On 5 December 2002 the investigators ordered a ballistic examination of a bullet cartridge found at the crime scene.

94.  On 10 January 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

95.  On 22 December 2003 and 23 February 2004 the tenth applicant complained to a number of Chechen authorities about the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. Her complaints were forwarded to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office and she was informed of this.

96.  On 12 March and 15 October 2012 the tenth applicant requested information on the progress in the criminal proceedings and permission to study the case file.

97.  On 26 December 2012 the supervising prosecutor quashed the suspension decision of 10 January 2003.

98.  On 29 December 2012 the tenth applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

99.  On 30 December 2012 the investigation was suspended, then resumed on 27 June 2013 and suspended again on 7 July 2013. The applicants were informed of this.

100.  On 4 June 2014 the investigators resumed the proceedings. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

101.  The first applicant challenged the suspension decision of 7 July 2013 before the Grozny District Court.

102.  On 5 June 2014 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 4 June 2014. That decision was upheld on 25 June 2014 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.

6.  Gereykhanova v. Russia (no. 13653/15)

103.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Nogi Inderbayev, who was born in 1965 (see Appendix no. 6).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Nogi Inderbayev

104.  On 3 July 2003 Mr Nogi Inderbayev, who was a cowherd, disappeared from the pasture where his herd of cattle was grazing, approximately one kilometre away from the village of Koshkeldy, in the Gudermes District. According to locals, a military UAZ vehicle was driving around in the vicinity on the date of the abduction.

(b)  Official investigation into the disappearance

105.  On 7 July 2003 the father of Nogi Inderbayev complained of the disappearance to the head of the Gudermes district police, and asked them to assist in the search for his missing son.

106.  On 9 July 2003, following a complaint by the applicant, the Gudermes district police opened search file no. 063032. On the same day the investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds of absence of corpus delicti. Mr Nogi Inderbayev’s father was informed of this.

107.  On 28 October 2004 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that it had refused to open a criminal case because of the absence of corpus delicti.

108.  Between September 2004 and February 2005 the applicant wrote to various authorities, asking them to assist in the search for her abducted husband.

109.  On 5 October 2005 the supervising prosecutor quashed the refusal of 9 July 2003 to open a criminal case.

110.  On 15 October 2005 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 45117) under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).

111.  On 24 October 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements concerning the circumstances of the disappearance were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

112.  On 24 and 25 October 2005 the investigators sent several information requests to law‑enforcement agencies. The replies received stated that those agencies had no information.

113.  On 25 October 2005 the investigators questioned the father and the mother of Mr Nogi Inderbayev, whose account of events was similar to the applicant’s submissions before the Court.

114.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant’s neighbour, Mr B.R., was questioned. His statement was similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

115.  On 15 December 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was notified of this.

116.  On 7 July 2008 the Investigative Committee of the Chechen Republic provided the applicant with a statement on the progress in the criminal case, at her request.

117.  On 19 August 2008 Mr Nogi Indrbayev’s death certificate was issued following a request by the applicant in this regard.

118.  On 14 July 2009 the applicant complained of her husband’s disappearance to the head of the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons, and asked for help in the search for him.

119.  From 2009 to 2015 there was no official communication between the applicant and the authorities.

120.  On 24 February 2015 the applicant wrote to the investigators, seeking information on the progress of the case.

121.  On 27 February 2015 the investigators resumed the proceedings. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

7.  Midayevy and Others v. Russia (no. 26220/15)

122.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Idris Midayev, who was born in 1976 (see Appendix no. 7).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Idris Midayev

123.  At 5 p.m. on 26 July 2002 two UAZ cars, two armoured personnel carriers (APC) and about fifteen to twenty armed military men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas cordoned off Mr Idris Midayev’s house in Gudermes and stormed inside. They blindfolded Mr Idris Midayev, bound his hands and then took him away. Mr Midayev’s whereabouts have remained unknown ever since.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

124.  On 29 July 2002 the first applicant complained of the abduction to the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office.

125.  On 2, 3 and 4 of August 2002 the first applicant, a neighbour, and the sister-in-law of the abducted person were interviewed by the police and subsequently also questioned by the investigators in the criminal case. Their statements were similar to the account of events described above.

126.  On 6 August 2002 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office instituted proceedings (case no. 57061) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On the same date the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

127.  In August 2002 the investigators sent several requests for information on Mr Idris Midayev’s whereabouts to law‑enforcement authorities. The replies received stated that those authorities had no information about his whereabouts.

128.  On 6 October 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

129.  On 5 October 2010 the wife of Mr Idris Midayev requested that the investigators grant her victim status and inform her about the progress in the case.

130.  On 7 October 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings. On the same day Mr Idris Midayev’s wife was granted victim status and was questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

131.  On 8 October 2010 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 11 November 2010. The first applicant and Mr Idris Midayev’s wife were informed of this.

132.  On 11 November 2010 Mr Idris Midayev’s wife was granted civil-claimant status. Subsequently, on 12 November 2010 the proceedings were suspended again. The first applicant was informed of this.

133.  On 10 February 2011 the Gudermes Town Court declared Mr Idris Midayev dead, at the request of his wife. On 17 June 2011 his death certificate was issued.

134.  On 3 March 2011 Mr Idris Midayev’s wife requested information on the progress in the criminal case. She was provided with summary information on 9 March 2011.

135.  On 22 July 2011 the second applicant and two other persons were questioned, and they reiterated their earlier statements.

136.  On 11 November 2013 the second applicant requested permission to access the case documents and make copies of those documents. On 21 November 2013 the investigators refused her request.

137.  On 19 December 2013 and 7 April 2014 the second applicant asked to be granted victim status. Both requests were refused on 20 December 2013 and 17 April 2014 respectively.

138.  On 8 April 2014 the second applicant wrote to the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, asking for assistance in the search for her missing son. Then on 12 April 2014 she lodged yet another request for access to the criminal case file. It is unclear whether any reply was given.

139.  Between March 2014 and November 2014 the investigation was resumed and suspended on several occasions. It was last suspended on 29 November 2014. The first applicant was informed about the suspensions.

140.  It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

141.  The first applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 5 August 2014 before the Gudermes Town Court.

142.  On 12 November 2014 the Gudermes Town Court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 11 November 2014. That decision was upheld on 17 December 2014 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.

8.  Kanayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 37575/15)

143.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Daud Dashayev, who was born in 1956 (see Appendix no. 8).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Daud Dashayev

144.  On 4 December 2003 Mr Daud Dashayev picked up two passengers as a taxi driver. Later all three of them disappeared from a taxi rank near the central market in Grozny. They were allegedly abducted by military men driving two UAZ cars with the registration plates 469 and 452 and one VAZ-21099 car, who forced them into one of their cars and then transferred them into an APC.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

145.  On 10 December 2003 the applicants’ relatives complained of Mr Daud Dashayev’s abduction to the Government of the Chechen Republic, asking them to assist in the search for him. In December 2003 and January 2004 that request was forwarded to various law-enforcement authorities.

146.  On 28 March 2004 Mr Daud Dashayev’s brother, Mr I.A., complained to the police. On the same day he was interviewed. His statement did not provide new information on the account of events described above.

147.  On 24 April 2004 three persons who worked and lived near the central market in Grozny were interviewed. To their knowledge, there had been no abduction in the vicinity in December 2003.

148.  On 11 May 2004 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office instituted proceedings (case no. 31043) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

149.  On 14 May 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the accounts of events mentioned above.

150.  On 18, 27 and 28 May 2004 the brother and two neighbours of Mr Daud Dashayev were questioned. According to their statements, Mr Dashayev was not affiliated with any illegal armed groups, nor had he been involved in any financial disputes.

151.  On 18 and 20 May 2004 the investigators sent several requests for information on Mr Daud Dashayev’s possible whereabouts to the law‑enforcement authorities. The replies received stated that those authorities had no information about his whereabouts.

152.  On 11 July 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant was informed of this.

153.  Upon the orders of the supervising prosecutor, the investigation was resumed on 22 July 2005 and suspended again on 22 August 2005.

154.  On 16 February 2006 the first applicant requested the assistance of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic in the search for her missing husband.

155.  On 22 April 2006 the first applicant was questioned again.

156.  On 10 May 2006 the proceedings were resumed. Subsequently, they were suspended again on 10 June 2006. On 26 July 2006 the first applicant requested a copy of the decision to suspend the proceedings, but to no avail.

157.  On 19 September 2006 the investigation was resumed. Subsequently, the first applicant was questioned again on 25 September 2006. This time her statements differed. In particular, she stated that her husband had not been abducted from the taxi rank at the market in Grozny. He had been driving towards the village of Michurina when his car had been stopped at the federal forces checkpoint in Khankalskiy Street, and he and his two passengers had been abducted from there.

158.  On 27 September 2006 two brothers of Mr Daud Dashayev were questioned. Their statements were similar to that of the first applicant of 25 September 2006. In addition, they both indicated that relatives of Mr Daud Dashayev’s previous wife could have carried out the abduction.

159.  On 19 October 2006 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 2 May 2007.

160.  On 17 May 2007 the first applicant was questioned. On the same day, at her request, she was granted civil-claimant status in the criminal proceedings.

161.  On 5 June 2007 the investigation was suspended and the first applicant was informed of this. On 20 October 2011 the proceedings were resumed again and Mr Daud Dashayev’s son was granted victim status and questioned.

162.  On 25 October 2011 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 25 November 2014. After a witness was questioned, the proceedings were suspended again on 28 November 2014 and then resumed yet again on 6 March 2015.

163.  On 7 March 2015 the investigators ordered a search of the applicants’ relative’s car, and on 16 March 2015 they suspended the proceedings. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

164.  The first applicant challenged the investigator’s decision of 28 November 2014 to suspend the investigation before the Zavodskoy District Court.

165.  On 10 March 2015 the Zavodskoy District Court allowed the challenge and quashed the above-mentioned decision.

166.  On 15 April 2015 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic terminated the proceedings, as by the time the judgment of 10 March 2015 had been delivered, the investigation had already been resumed on 3 March 2015.

(d)  Civil proceedings concerning non-pecuniary damage

167.  On 4 February 2015 the Leninskiy District Court granted the first applicant’s claim and awarded her 1,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB – approximately 13,017 euros (EUR)) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the disappearance of her husband.

9.  Magomadov and Others v. Russia (no. 53158/15)

168.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Lechi Magomadov, who was born in 1964 (see Appendix no. 9).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Lechi Magomadov

169.  On 2 April 2004 Mr Lechi Magomadov went to visit a friend in another neighbourhood known as Poselok Michurina in the vicinity of Grozny. He never returned home. That evening people in the neighbourhood saw a small UAZ vehicle driving around in the vicinity. Mr Lechi Magomadov was allegedly abducted and then detained on the premises of the Ministry of the Interior’s Unit for Combating Organised Crime no. 6 (RUBOP).

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

170.  On 5 July 2005 the second applicant complained of his son’s abduction to the President of the Chechen Republic and asked for assistance in the search for him. That request was forwarded to a police department on 16 July 2005.

171.  On 19 July 2005 the police refused to open a criminal case for absence of corpus delicti.

172.  On 10 August 2005 the deputy public prosecutor of the Chechen Republic overruled the refusal of 19 July 2006 and instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 42102) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

173.  On 17 August 2005 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

174.  On 24, 26 and 27 August 2005 the second, the third and the fifth applicants were questioned. Their statements were similar to the account of events described above.

175.  On 30 October 2005 two of the applicant’s neighbours were questioned.

176.  On 10, 12 and 14 November 2005 three officers from the Operational Search Department of the Ministry of the Interior were questioned about the measures taken in relation to the search for Mr Lechi Magomadov.

177.  On 15 November 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.

178.  On 20, 21 and 22 November 2005 three other officers from the Operational Search Department of the Ministry of the Interior were questioned. No new information was obtained.

179.  On 10 December 2005 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 6 January 2006 in accordance with the supervising prosecutor’s order. On the same day the applicants’ neighbour was questioned.

180.  On 8, 9 and 10 January 2006 the third and the fourth applicant and their neighbour were questioned. They gave an account of events similar to the one described above.

181.  On 6 February 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The investigation was then resumed on 13 March 2006.

182.  On 13 April 2006 the fifth applicant was questioned. On the same day the investigation was suspended again.

183.  Between April 2006 and September 2007 the proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions.

184.  On 30 October 2014 the first applicant asked to be granted victim status and access to the case file. She also asked to be informed about the progress in the criminal case.

185.  On 23 December 2014 the investigation was resumed and the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

186.  On 28 December 2014 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 12 March 2015. It appears that it is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

187.  The first applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 28 December 2014 before the Oktyabrskiy District Court.

188.  On 26 March 2015 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 12 March 2015. That decision was upheld on 28 April 2015 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.

10.  Bugayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 3779/16)

189.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev, who was born in 1971 (see Appendix no. 10).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev

190.  At around 3 a.m. on 23 February 2003 Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev was abducted from his house with his nephew by a group of about ten armed military servicemen. The abductors drove off in two UAZ cars in the direction of Gudermes.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

191.  On 7 March 2005 the first applicant complained of the abduction to the Gudermes police. On the same day the brother and the brother-in-law of Mr Shakhmurzayev and his nephew were interviewed and the relevant crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected.

192.  On 17 March 2005 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 45007) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

193.  On 23 March 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status. On 24 March 2005 she, her neighbour and the mother of the applicants’ relative’s nephew were questioned. Their statements were similar to the applicants’ account of events submitted to the Court. In addition, they informed the investigators that for a short period of time in the past Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev had been affiliated with illegal armed groups.

194.  On 25 March 2005 another of the applicants’ neighbours was questioned.

195.  Between May and July 2005 the proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions.

196.  On 12 July 2005 Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev’s brother was questioned, as were the applicants’ nephew and one of their neighbours. Their statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

197.  On 12 June 2006 Mr Salambek Shakhmurzayev’s sister was questioned.

198.  Between July 2006 and May 2008 the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. There was no official communication between the applicants and the authorities.

199.  On 28 August 2008 the Gudermes prosecutor’s office forwarded to the investigators a request by the first applicant for the proceedings to be resumed. No reply was given.

200.  On 12 February 2009, at the first applicant’s request, the investigators provided her with copies of some of the documents from the case file.

201.  On 20 May 2009 the investigators informed the applicants about the progress in the criminal case.

202.  On 10 September 2013 the investigation was resumed and then it was suspended again on 20 September 2013.

203.  On 10 July 2014 the first applicant requested a copy of the last decision to suspend the proceedings.

204.  On 16 February 2015 the proceedings were resumed. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

205.  On 10 February 2015 the first applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 20 September 2013 before the Gudermes Town Court.

206.  On 27 February 2015 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 16 February 2015. That decision was upheld on 29 July 2015 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.

11.  Yandarbiyeva v. Russia (no. 28770/16)

207.  The applicant is the sister of Mr Magomed Muzayev, who was born in 1986 (see Appendix no. 11).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Magomed Muzayev

208.  On 2 November 2004 a group of armed men in uniform, some of them in balaclavas, arrived at the applicant’s house in Noviye Atagi in a Niva car, a car with licence plate no. 850, and an UAZ car. One of the men grabbed Mr Magomed Muzayev and forced him into one of the cars. Mr Magomed Muzayev’s wife tried to stop the abductor by getting in the car, but another abductor forced her out. There were four to five abductors in that car.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

209.  On 3 November 2004 the police interviewed a number of Mr Magomed Muzayev’s relatives. Subsequently, the police interviewed his friends and neighbours.

210.  On 5 November 2004 the head of the administration of Noviye Atagi informed the law-enforcement authorities, including the Shali district prosecutor, about Mr Magomed Muzayev’s abduction.

211.  On 30 November 2004 the Shali district prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 36138) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

212.  On 16 December 2004 Mr Magomed Muzayev’s wife was granted victim status and questioned.

213.  On 29 December 2004 the applicant and her sister were questioned.

214.  On 30 January 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators, and then resumed on 6 May 2005.

215.  On 21 May, 1 and 8 June 2005 several neighbours and Mr Magomed Muzayev’s wife were questioned again.

216.  On 12 June 2005 the proceedings were suspended again. The applicant’s relatives were informed of this.

217.  On 21 January 2008 the proceedings were resumed, upon an order of the supervising prosecutor. The applicant’s relatives were informed of this.

218.  On 28 January 2008 the applicant and Mr Magomed Muzayev’s mother and father were questioned.

219.  On 21 February 2008 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed at a later date and then suspended again on 28 May 2008. The applicant’s relatives were informed of this.

220.  On 29 May 2008 the Federal Security Service informed the investigators that Mr Magomed Muzayev had been an active member of an illegal armed group headed by the late Mr. A.T., and had had a pistol.

221.  Between July 2008 and December 2008 the investigation was resumed and suspended on several occasions. The applicant’s relatives were informed of this.

222.  On 11 January 2009 the investigation was resumed. Several witnesses, including three police officers, were questioned.

223.  On 22 January 2009 the police confirmed the information on Mr Magomed Muzayev’s affiliation with the illegal armed group (see paragraph 220 above).

224.  Between February 2009 and February 2010 the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. The applicant’s relatives were informed of this.

225.  In March 2010 several neighbours and two friends of Mr Magomed Muzayev were questioned. No new information was obtained.

226.  On 18 March 2010 the investigators ordered that a sample of the applicant’s DNA should be obtained so that it could be compared with samples in the database of unidentified bodies.

227.  On 24 March 2010 the investigation was suspended again and the applicant’s relatives were informed of this.

228.  On 10 September 2011 the proceedings were resumed and the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. On the following day, 11 September 2011, the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed of this.

229.  On 17 June 2015 the applicant asked that the investigators grant her access to the investigation file. On 19 June 2015 her request was granted.

230.  On 25 January 2016 the proceedings were resumed and several neighbours were questioned.

231.  On 4 February 2016 the investigators examined the crime scene a second time.

232.  On 9 February 2016 the applicant’s sister was questioned. On the same day the applicant requested copies of some of the documents from the case file.

233.  On 25 February 2016 the investigation was suspended and the applicant was informed of this. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

234.  On 19 January 2016 the applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 11 September 2011 before the Shali Town Court.

235.  On 25 January 2016 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 25 January 2016. That decision was upheld on 10 March 2016 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.

12.  Yeseyeva v. Russia (no. 35838/16)

236.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Badruddin Yeseyev, who was born in 1986 (see Appendix no. 12).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Badruddin Yeseyev

237.  On 29 March 2004 a group of armed men in uniform and balaclavas grabbed Mr Badruddin Yeseyev and his acquaintance, Mr Yusup Dautmerzayev, in the vicinity of Pobeda Avenue and Mira Street in Grozny, and forced them into a khaki-coloured UAZ car. Sacks were pulled over their heads. According to Mr Dautmerzayev, he was placed in a cellar, where he was beaten unconscious. He was then left in a street near the central market in Grozny.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

238.  On 4 September 2004 the brother of Mr Badruddin Yeseyev complained of the abduction to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic.

239.  On 9 September 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. On the same day the father and the brother of Mr Badruddin Yeseyev were interviewed.

240.  On 19 September 2004 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 31080) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

241.  On 16 November 2004 the brother of Mr Badruddin Yeseyev was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned.

242.  On 19 November 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Mr Badruddin Yeseyev’s brother was notified of this.

243.  On 6 June 2006 Mr Badruddin Yeseyev’s sister complained of the lack of progress in the investigation to the Chechen Government. On 3 July 2006 that request was forwarded to the investigators.

244.  On 23 April 2009 the investigation was resumed. Subsequently, Mr Badruddin Yeseyev’s three siblings were questioned. Their statements were similar to the accounts of events submitted to the Court.

245.  On 5 May 2009 Mr Yusup Dautmerzayev, who was abducted with Mr Badruddin Yeseyev, was questioned and provided an account similar to the applicant’s account before the Court. On 8 May 2009 he was granted victim status and was questioned again. Subsequently, two other witnesses were questioned, but they provided no new information.

246.  On 23 May 2009 the proceedings were suspended. The applicant’s relatives were informed of this.

247.  On 1 April 2010 the applicant requested an update from the investigators, and on 23 September 2010 she asked to be granted victim status in the criminal case.

248.  On 1 November 2010 the investigation was resumed. On 5 November 2010 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

249.  On 21 November 2010 the investigation was suspended. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

250.  On 6 May 2013 the Urus-Martanov Town Court of the Chechen Republic declared Mr Badruddin Yeseyev dead, at the applicant’s request.

(c)  Civil proceedings concerning non-pecuniary damage

251.  On 4 February 2015 the Leninskiy District Court rejected a claim by the applicant against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by her husband’s disappearance. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic on 8 December 2015.

13.  Mukhayeva and Taysumova v. Russia (no. 37221/16)

252.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Adam Taysumov, who was born in 1980 (see Appendix no. 13).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Adam Taysumov

253.  At about 7 p.m. on 27 September 2004 a group of armed men in uniform and balaclavas arrived at Mr Adam Taysumov’s home in a KAVZ‑model bus with a blue stripe (its registration number contained the digits 448, and was for region number 95). After taking Mr Adam Taysumov from his home, which was in Novyye Atagi, in the Shali District, they drove off in the direction of Grozny. On the way to Grozny, they passed two checkpoints unhindered.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

254.  On 28 September 2004 the head of the administration of Novyye Atagi complained of Mr Adam Taysumov’s abduction to the Shali district prosecutor’s office. On 30 September 2004 a number of the abducted person’s relatives were interviewed.

255.  On 1 December 2004 the Shali district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 36140) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

256.  On 5 December 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.

257.  On 7 December 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. On 8 December 2004 Mr Adam Taysumov’s mother was questioned. Their statements were similar to the account of events provided to the Court by the applicants.

258.  On 9 January 2005 two of Mr Adam Taysumov’s relatives and two neighbours were questioned. Their statements were similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court.

259.  On 1 February 2005 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 25 May 2005 and then suspended again on 2 July 2005.

260.  On 2 May 2006 the first applicant complained to the Chechen National Assembly, asking for assistance in the search for her missing husband. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who on 17 August 2006 informed her that the investigation had been suspended.

261.  On 9 January 2007 the proceedings were resumed.

262.  On 19 and 20 January 2007 several of Mr Adam Taysumov’s relatives were questioned. No new information was obtained.

263.  On 10 February 2007 the proceedings were suspended. They were resumed on 15 May 2007 and suspended again on 19 June 2007. The first applicant was informed of this.

264.  On 27 April 2010 the first applicant again complained to the Chechen National Assembly, asking for help in the search for her missing husband. Around the same time, the first applicant asked for the investigators’ permission to access the investigation file. On 4 May 2010 the request was granted.

265.  On 24 November 2014 the first applicant again requested the investigators’ permission to access the investigation file, and also asked for an update on the progress in the investigation. Her request was granted in part, and she was informed about the progress in the investigation.

266.  On 24 November 2014 the investigation was resumed, and on 26 November 2014 Mr Adam Taysumov’s sister was granted victim status and questioned. On 27 and 28 November 2014 the investigators questioned two of his neighbours, and then they suspended the proceedings on 29 November 2014. The first applicant was informed of this.

267.  On 16 December 2014 and 4 March 2015 the first applicant and her relative again asked to be allowed to access certain documents from the investigation case file. Their requests were granted.

268.  On 9 April 2015 the investigation was resumed and the first applicant was questioned.

269.  Between 15 April and 9 May 2015 the investigators questioned several other witnesses.

270.  On 15 April 2015 the first applicant asked the investigators to take additional investigative steps.

271.  On 9 May 2015 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant was informed of this.

272.  On 23 December 2015 the first applicant asked for information on the investigation’s progress. Her request was granted.

273.  On 14 March 2017 the investigation was resumed and the first applicant was informed of this.

274.  On 6 April 2017 the first applicant was questioned again, and then on 14 April 2017 the proceedings were suspended. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

275.  On 20 February 2015, before the Shali Town Court, the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 29 November 2014, among other things.

276.  On 10 April 2015 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 9 April 2015. That decision was upheld on 10 March 2016 by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.

14.  Tasukhanov v. Russia (no. 64246/16)

277.  The applicant is the brother of Mr Shamu Tasukhanov, who was born in 1977 (see Appendix no. 14).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Shamu Tasukhanov

278.  At around 4 a.m. on 24 November 2002 a group of armed military servicemen in balaclavas and uniforms arrived at Mr Shamu Tasukhanov’s house in the village of Pravoberezhnoye in an APC and an Ural lorry. They took him away, along with his identity documents.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

279.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant’s mother complained of the abduction to the local police. On the same day she and a neighbour were interviewed.

280.  On 10 December 2002 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 56188) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

281.  On 10 February 2003 the investigation was suspended.

282.  On 24 August and 30 September 2004 the applicant’s mother requested assistance in the search for Mr Shamu Tasukhanov.

283.  On 19 November 2004 the proceedings were resumed. On 14 December 2004 the applicant’s mother was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events provided to the Court by the applicant.

284.  On 19 December 2004 the investigation was suspended. The applicant’s mother was informed of this.

285.  On 20 October 2008 the applicant requested that the investigators grant him victim status in the criminal case. On 6 November 2008 the investigation was resumed and on 20 November 2008 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

286.  On 25 November 2008 the applicant’s neighbour was questioned.

287.  On 1 December 2008 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.

288.  On 6 December 2008 a new tenant who was living in the house from which the applicant’s brother had been abducted was questioned. No new information was obtained.

289.  On 7 December 2008 the investigation was suspended.

290.  On 12 July 2012 the applicant requested the investigators’ permission to access the investigation file, and asked that the proceedings be resumed.

291.  On 20 July 2012 the investigators rejected the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be resumed, but allowed him to access the case file.

292.  On 6 November 2012 the applicant requested that the investigators question three witnesses. His request was granted. On 16 November 2012 the proceedings were resumed. After questioning one of the witnesses, the investigators suspended the proceedings on 21 November 2012. The applicant was informed of this.

293.  On 20 February 2013 the investigation was resumed and the applicant’s three neighbours were questioned. No new information was obtained.

294.  On 25 February 2013 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was informed of this.

295.  On 13 March and 10 April 2013 the applicant requested access to the case file. His requests were granted in part.

296.  On 7 May 2015 the applicant asked the investigators’ superiors to grant him access to the entire case file. His request was granted on 19 May 2015.

297.  Between August 2015 and April 2016 the investigation was resumed and suspended on several occasions. The applicant was informed of this.

298.  On 5 November 2015 the applicant lodged another request similar to that of 7 May 2015. His request was granted.

299.  On 23 May 2016 the investigation was resumed. After questioning two witnesses, the investigators suspended the proceedings on 2 June 2016 and then resumed them again on 1 September 2016. The applicant was informed of this.

300.  On 2 September 2016 the applicant was questioned. He reiterated his earlier statements.

301.  On 15 September 2016 the proceedings were suspended. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

302.  On 17 August 2015 the applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 25 February 2013 before the Grozny District Court.

303.  On 21 August 2015 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 18 August 2015.

304.  On 8 April 2016 the applicant challenged the investigators’ inaction before the Grozny District Court. On 22 April 2016 it terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 21 April 2016. The applicant appealed against the court’s decision.

305.  On 1 June 2016 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of the first-instance court and found the investigators’ inaction unlawful.

(d)  Civil proceedings concerning non-pecuniary damage

306.  On 23 December 2013 the Grozny District Court granted a claim by the applicant and awarded him RUB 5,000,000 (about EUR 69,600) as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the disappearance of his brother. That judgment was quashed on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic on 25 February 2014. The applicant’s claims were dismissed.

15.  Mamakayevy v. Russia (no. 66638/16)

307.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Adam Mamakayev, who was born in 1978 (see Appendix no. 15).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Adam Mamakayev

308.  On 25 October 2002 a police unit from the Mineralnyye Vody police station detained Mr Adam Mamakayev at a traffic checkpoint. According to the police detention register, he was released later on the same day. There has been no news of Mr Adam Mamakayev since he left the police station.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

309.  On 25 October 2002 police officers from the Mineralnyye Vody police station informed the head of the regional police about Mr Adam Mamakayev’s arrest.

310.  On 31 October 2002 the Mineralnyye Vody Department of the Interior refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the disappearance of Mr Adam Mamakayev.

311.  On 16 June 2006, after the first applicant had lodged requests to institute criminal proceedings on 11, 15, 27 November 2002, 15 May 2003 and 4 May 2006 and those requests had been rejected by the investigators, the Mineralnye Vody inter-district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 63081) under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).

312.  On 17 June 2006 Officer I.A., a police officer from the Mineralnyye Vody police station, was questioned. He stated that after Mr Adam Mamakayev’s arrest he had left him with Officer S.Y., the police officer on duty. Officer S.Y. had then informed him that two officers from the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) had arrived at the station and left after interviewing Mr Adam Mamakayev.

313.  On 23 June 2006 the fifth applicant was questioned. On the same day the investigators also questioned former police officers from the Mineralnyye Vody police station, who stated that after Mr Adam Mamakayev had been questioned by the FSB officers he had been released and had left with Officer T.I. The latter had returned to the station about forty minutes later, alone.

314.  On the same day another police officer, Officer M.A., was questioned. His statement was similar to those of the police officers questioned earlier. In addition, he stated that Mr Adam Mamakhayev had left his passport at the police station.

315.  On 29 June and 3 July 2006 a police officer and one of the FSB officers who had interviewed Mr Adam Mamakhayev were questioned. No new information was obtained.

316.  On 4 July 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.

317.  On 5 July 2006 Officer M.N., a police officer at the Mineralnyye Vody police station, was questioned. No new information was obtained.

318.  On 19 July 2006 the first applicant was given victim status and was questioned.

319.  On 27 July 2006 Officer V.A., an FSB officer, was questioned. No new information was obtained.

320.  On 4 and 6 August 2006 the first applicant and the head of the Mineralnyye Vody police station were questioned. No new facts were established.

321.  On 16 August 2006 the proceedings were suspended, and then they were resumed on 22 August 2006.

322.  On 31 August 2006 Officer T.I., another police officer from the Mineralnyye Vody police station, was questioned. No new information was obtained.

323.  On 21 September 2006 the investigation was suspended, and then it was resumed on 20 November 2006.

324.  On 9 December 2006 Officer S.G., another police officer from the Mineralnyye Vody police station, was questioned. No new information was obtained.

325.  On 20 December 2006 the investigation was suspended. Subsequently, it was resumed and suspended on several occasions. It was last suspended on 15 June 2007.

326.  On 18 March and 16 October 2014 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her victim status and inform her about the progress in the investigation. On 8 May 2014 her request for victim status was rejected, but on 14 November 2014 she was allowed to access the investigation file.

327.  On 8 June 2015 and 13 April 2016 the first applicant asked the investigators to take additional steps. Both requests were rejected. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

328.  On 1 April 2015 the first applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 15 June 2007 before the Mineralnyye Vody Town Court.

329.  On 22 May 2015 the court rejected the challenge as unsubstantiated.

330.  On 8 June 2016 the court rejected yet another application lodged by the first applicant against the investigator’s decision rejecting her request of 13 April 2016. That judgment was upheld by the Stavropol Regional Court on 3 August 2016.

16.  Dadayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 3634/17)

331.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev (also known as Saidkhasan/Akhmed Dudurkhayev), who was born in 1977 (see Appendix no. 16).

(a)  Disappearance of Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev

332.  At about 6 p.m. on 22 October 2003 Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev and his brother Mr Said-Rakhmad (also spelt Said-Rakhman and Said Rakhim) Dudarkhayev were abducted from their house in the village of Pobedinskoye, in the Grozny District, by a group of armed men in uniform. The armed men broke in and took them away. According to Said-Rakhmad Dudarkhayev, they were taken to a location in the vicinity of Grozny and made to take part in an identification parade. After that, Said-Khasan was taken away in a vehicle, whereas Said-Rakhmad Dudarkhayev was released and returned home.

(b)  Official investigation into the abduction

333.  On 29 and 31 October 2003 Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev’s mother complained of her son’s abduction to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office and the police.

334.  On 31 October 2003 Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev’s mother was interviewed by the police.

335.  On 13 November 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 42193) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

336.  On 14 November 2003 Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev’s mother was granted victim status and questioned. On the same day the investigators also questioned the first applicant. Their statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

337.  On 13 February 2004 the investigation was suspended.

338.  On 18 December 2004 the investigators resumed the proceedings, at the request of the first applicant.

339.  On 13 January 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.

340.  Between 15 and 28 January 2005 a number of Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev’s relatives and neighbours were questioned. One of the neighbours stated that Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev had been a member of an illegal armed group.

341.  On 21 February 2005 the investigation was suspended. It was then resumed on 27 December 2007.

342.  On 21 January 2008 Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev’s mother and brother were questioned.

343.  On 24 January 2008 the investigation was suspended. Mr Said‑Khasan Dudarkhayev’s mother was notified of this.

344.  It appears that in October 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigators inform her of the progress in the proceedings. In reply, she was informed that the proceedings had been suspended.

345.  On 17 May 2011 the proceedings were resumed. On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She also requested access to the investigation file, but to no avail.

346.  On 18 May 2011 the investigation was suspended. It was then resumed on 11 October 2011. However, after questioning Mr Said‑Rakhmad Dudarkhayev and Mr Yu.U., the investigators suspended the proceedings again on 31 October 2011. The first applicant was informed of this.

347.  On 5 February 2014 the investigation was resumed. Several witnesses were questioned. No new information was obtained.

348.  Between February 2014 and August 2014 the proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions.

349.  On 20 June 2014 Mr Said-Rakhmad Dudarkhayev informed the investigators that he had received a call from the head of the police in Lyskovo, who had stated that in 2013 a dead body had been found whose DNA matched his. In reply, the investigators told him that they would check that information.

350.  On 4 August 2014 the investigators questioned Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev’s mother and brother.

351.  On 6 August 2014 the investigation was suspended and the applicants were informed of this. On 10 October 2014 the first applicant asked the investigators to allow her to study the investigation file and make copies of the documents in that file. On 15 October 2014 the investigators granted her request.

352.  On 19 March 2015 the investigation was resumed, and it was suspended again on 24 March 2015. The first applicant was informed of this.

353.  On 29 April 2015 the first applicant applied to the investigators, seeking to obtain a copy of the decision of 24 March 2015.

354.  On 3 September 2015 the first applicant asked the investigators to take additional steps to expedite the investigation.

355.  On 26 May 2016 the investigation was resumed. The investigators questioned the first applicant and her neighbour. On 6 June 2016 the proceedings were suspended. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

(c)  Proceedings against the investigators

(i)  First set of proceedings

356.  On 30 January 2014 the first applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 18 May 2011 before the Grozny District Court.

357.  On 7 February 2014 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 5 February 2014.

(ii)  Second set of proceedings

358.  On 13 March 2015 the first applicant lodged yet another complaint with the Grozny District Court, this time challenging the investigator’s suspension decision of 6 August 2014.

359.  On 20 March 2015 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 19 March 2015.

(iii)  Third set of proceedings

360.  On 17 May 2016 the first applicant challenged the investigator’s suspension decision of 24 March 2015.

361.  On 27 May 2016 the court terminated the proceedings, as the investigation had been resumed on 26 May 2016. The applicant appealed against the court’s decision.

362.  On 28 June 2016 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the decision of 27 May 2016 on appeal.

B.  Relevant domestic law

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

COMPLAINTS

364.  Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relatives had been abducted or killed by State agents (in Israilovy v. Russia (no. 71398/14), Mr Bekkhan Israilov had been shot dead) and that the authorities had failed to investigate those matters effectively.

365.  Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had endured mental suffering as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the authorities’ reaction in that regard, and that the authorities had failed to conduct effective investigations into the disappearances.

366.  Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention by State agents.

367.  The applicants further argued that contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

A.  Locus standi as regards applications nos. 67207/14 and 71398/14

368.  On 14 June 2016, 23 April 2017 and 24 November 2018 the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that Ms Paladi Magomadova, in Magomadova and Others (application no. 67207/14), Ms Hava Israilova and Ms Gulu Izrailova in Israilovy (application no 71398/14) had passed away on 2 January 2015, 18 April 2017 and 11 August 2018 respectively.

369.  The Court observes that in various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of Convention proceedings, it has taken into account statements of the applicant’s heirs or close family members expressing their wish to pursue the application (see, among other authorities, Sultygov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, § 385, 9 October 2014).

370.  The Court notes that, in the instant case, none of the applicants, who were close relatives of Ms Paladi Magomadova, Ms Hava Israilova and Ms Gulu Izrailova, expressed a wish to pursue the application on behalf of the deceased applicants. In these circumstances, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in respect of those applicants, and concludes under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention that the application in respect of Ms Paladi Magomadova, Ms Hava Israilova and Ms Gulu Izrailova should be struck out of its list of cases.

B.  Joinder of the applications

371.  In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background.

C.  Admissibility of the applications

1.  The parties’ submissions

(a)  The Government

372.  In their observations, the Government argued that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court more than six months after the date on which they should have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the relevant investigations. They also pointed out that the applicants had remained passive and had not maintained contact with the investigating authorities for significant periods of time. They argued that the applications should therefore be declared inadmissible as lodged “out of time”.

373.  The Government also argued that the first applicant in Kanayeva and Others (no. 37575/15) had lost her victim status because she had been awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage by the domestic courts, and the rest of the applicants in that case had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

(b)  The applicants

374.  The applicants in all the applications submitted that they had lodged their applications with the Court as soon as they had considered the domestic investigations to be ineffective. The armed conflict which had been taking place in the Chechen Republic at the material time had led them to believe that delays in the investigation were inevitable. It had also made them fear for their lives, and had caused them to feel confused and uncertain. Owing to their lack of legal knowledge and lack of financial means to hire a lawyer, they had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the investigations. Only the passage of time and the lack of information from the investigating authorities had made them begin to doubt the effectiveness of the investigations. Lastly, they pointed out that throughout the criminal proceedings they had maintained regular contact with the investigators, and had not ceased in their attempts to find their missing relatives by themselves.

375.  The applicants in Kanayeva and Others (no. 37575/15) also contested the Government’s non-exhaustion plea, stating that they had had no effective remedy to exhaust. The first applicant in that case argued that the award from the domestic courts had not deprived her of her victim status, because it had been insufficient and the investigators had failed to identify the perpetrators of the abduction.

2.  The Court’s assessment

(a)  General principles

376.  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 State servicemen may be found in Sultygov and Others, cited above, §§ 369-74, and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, §§ 34-40.

377.  The Court reiterates that applicants who lodge their applications more than ten years after the disappearance of their relatives and the initiation of the respective criminal investigation should provide convincing justification for the delay in bringing their complaints before the Court (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, 31 July 2012).

(b)  Application of the principles to the present case

378.  The Court considers that it is not necessary to decide whether the applicants in Kanayeva and Others (no. 37575/15) can be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies or been deprived of their victim status, because their application and the remainder of the applications under examination are inadmissible for the following reasons.

379.  The Court observes that in all of the above-mentioned applications the applicants lodged their complaints between eleven and fourteen years after the relevant incidents. Accordingly, to comply with the six-month rule, they should provide convincing justification for the delays in initiating the proceedings before the Court (see Varnava and Others, cited above, § 166).

380.  The applicants had direct access to the authorities both during and after the counter-terrorist operation in the region, and could have freely communicated with the investigators regarding the crimes perpetrated against their family members (see, amongst many other authorities, Aslakhanova and Others, cited above; Kaykharova and Others v. Russia, nos. 11554/07 and 3 others, 1 August 2013; Gakayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 51534/08 and 9 others, 10 October 2013; Dovletukayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 7821/07 and 3 others, 24 October 2013; Tovbulatova and Others v. Russia, nos. 26960/06 and 3 others, 31 October 2013; and Akhmatov and Others v. Russia, nos. 38828/10 and 6 others, 16 January 2014).

381.  The Court observes that in each case the relevant investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions; neither the perpetrators nor any suspects have been identified, and the whereabouts of the applicants’ abducted relatives have not been established. The Court notes the following as regards the applicants’ communication with the investigating authorities, their stance in the relevant criminal proceedings, and the corresponding explanations given for the delays.

382.  In Umayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 61555/13) the Court observes that the application was lodged within twelve years and eight months of the date of the alleged abduction. From the very beginning of the criminal proceedings, there was a significant lull in the investigation, and the applicants did not contact the authorities between March 2001 and December 2004, and then between March 2009 and February 2012 (see paragraphs 17-18 and 22 above).

383.  The Court notes that in Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32771/14), an application lodged eleven years after the abduction of the applicants’ relative, the applicants’ relative was abducted with two other persons. The applicants did not officially ask the authorities to open a criminal case concerning the abduction of their relative (see paragraph 32 above), and for more than nine years they failed to communicate with the investigators (see paragraphs 35-36 above).

384.  The Court observes that the applicants in Saydayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 46403/14) lodged their complaints with the Court more than twelve years and ten months after the abduction in question. Furthermore, there were two significant lulls in the investigation which lasted almost six and five years respectively (see paragraphs 47-49 above). Even after they had been notified in 2008 about the suspension of the investigation, it took the applicants another five years to contact the investigators.

385.  As regards Magomadova and Others v. Russia (no. 67207/14), where the application was lodged more than fourteen years after the alleged abduction, the Court notes that the applicants remained passive between 2003 and 2007. They also maintained no contact with the investigating authorities after January 2008, when the investigation had been suspended and the subsequent occasional steps taken by the investigators amounted to a mere formality (see paragraphs 77-81 above).

386.  The Court observes that the applicants in Israilovy v. Russia (no. 71398/14) lodged their application almost twelve years after the abduction of Mr Nurdi Israilov and the death of Mr Bekkhan Israilov. The case file indicates that the investigation was suspended between January 2003 and December 2012. During that period, the applicants contacted the investigators sporadically between December 2003 and February 2004, and then they resumed contact in March 2012. No explanation was provided for the lack of communication during those eight years.

387.  As regards Gereykhanova v. Russia (no. 13653/15), the Court observes that the applicant lodged her application almost twelve years after the disappearance in question, and nine years and eight months after the opening of the relevant criminal case (see paragraphs 104 and 110 above). The Court notes that between 2003 and 2005 the applicant was in contact the authorities; however, subsequently there was no contact between her and the investigators between December 2005 and July 2008, and then between 2009 and 2015 (see paragraphs 115-116 and 119 above).

388.  Turning to Midayevy and Others v. Russia (no. 26220/15), the Court observes that the applicants lodged their application more than twelve years after the abduction in question, and that there was no communication between them and the investigators for more than ten years (see paragraphs 128-129, and 136 above).

389.  As regards Kanayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 37575/15), the application was lodged more than eleven and a half years after the relevant abduction. The Court notes that there were two significant lulls in the proceedings which lasted more than four and three years respectively (see paragraphs 161‑162 above). The applicants had no contact with the investigating authorities during those periods.

390.  The Court notes that in Magomadov and Others v. Russia (no. 53158/15) the applicants complained of the abduction in question one year and three months after Mr Lechi Magomadov’s disappearance. It further observes that they lodged their application with the Court more than eleven and a half years after the incident, and from September 2007 to October 2014 there was no communication between them and the investigators (see paragraphs 183-184 above).

391.  The applicants in Bugayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 3779/16) lodged their application almost thirteen years after the abduction in question. Although the relevant incident took place in February 2003, the documents submitted show that the applicants lodged an official abduction complaint two years later, in March 2005 (see paragraph 191 above). Furthermore, there were two lulls in the investigation which lasted more than two and four years respectively (see paragraphs 198 and 201-202 above), during which time the applicants did not contact the authorities.

392.  Turning to Yandarbiyeva v. Russia (no. 28770/16), the Court observes that the application was lodged almost eleven and a half years after the abduction in question. The documents submitted indicate that the applicant obtained victim status in the criminal case in 2011, that is almost seven years after the commencement of the proceedings. She was then questioned, and was informed on the day after she had been questioned that the investigation had been suspended yet again. After that, she only contacted the investigators again four years later, in June 2015, when the relevant proceedings had been ongoing for more than ten years in total (see paragraphs 228-229 above).

393.  As regards Yeseyeva v. Russia (no. 35838/16), an application lodged with the Court more than twelve years after the relevant abduction, the Court observes that the applicant had no contact with the investigators between the time when the investigation was suspended in November 2010 and the time when she lodged her compensation claim with the local courts in May 2015 (see paragraphs 242 and 249-250 above). It further notes that in May 2013 the applicant’s husband was declared dead, at her request, but following that it took her another three years to lodge her application with the Court.

394.  The Court observes that in Mukhayeva and Taysumova v. Russia (no. 37221/16) the applicants lodged their application more than eleven and a half years after the relevant abduction, and for significant periods of time they remained passive vis-à-vis the investigation. In particular, the documents submitted show that the applicants had no contact with the authorities from June 2007 to April 2010, and then from May 2010 to November 2014 (see paragraphs 263-265 above).

395.  The applicant in Tasukhanov v. Russia (no. 64246/16) lodged his application almost fourteen years after his brother’s abduction. There were three significant lulls in the investigation: from December 2004 to October 2008, from December 2008 to July 2012, and from April 2013 to May 2015. Neither the applicant’s late mother, who had victim status in the criminal case, nor the applicant contacted the authorities during those periods (see paragraphs 284-285, 289-290 and 295-296 above).

396.  The Court observes that in Mamakayevy v. Russia (no. 66638/16), an application lodged with the Court fourteen years after the relevant abduction, the criminal case was only opened three and a half years after the abduction, and only following the applicants’ consistent complaints in this regard (see paragraph 311 above). However, despite their initially active stance in the proceedings, the documents submitted show that subsequently, between 2007 and 2014, the applicants did not contact the authorities (see paragraphs 325-326 above).

397.  Turning to Dadayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 3634/17), the Court observes that the application was lodged more than thirteen years after the abduction in question. The documents submitted show that the applicants were informed of the suspensions and other steps taken in the criminal proceedings. However, considering the overall duration of the investigation, all of the following factors should have prompted the applicants to realise that the steps being taken by the investigating authorities were a mere formality and would not lead to establishing Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkhayev’s whereabouts eleven years after his disappearance: the investigators’ failure to take basic steps, such as verifying the eyewitness account of the other man who had been abducted (see paragraph 342 above); the last gap in the proceedings which lasted more than two and a half years (see paragraphs 343-344 above); and the lack of a prompt reaction to the applicants’ information concerning the possible DNA match (see paragraph 349 above).

398.  In sum, the Court observes that the applicants occasionally contacted the investigators. However, taking into account the fact that they were close relatives of the abducted individuals, they should have demonstrated diligence by having more regular contact with the investigating authorities and adopting a more active stance in the criminal proceedings. In the absence of information from the investigations which would have given them the hope as regards the investigations’ ability to achieve a tangible result, they should have drawn appropriate conclusions concerning the lack of real progress in the proceedings long before lodging their applications with the Court (compare Sultygov and Others, cited above; Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 53036/08 and 19 others, 9 January 2014; and Yandiyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 34541/06 and 2 others, 10 October 2013).

399.  Furthermore, the Court is not convinced that the applicants had any grounds to believe that there was a realistic prospect that the perpetrators would be identified or eventually prosecuted, given the total time which had elapsed since the incidents, the lengthy periods of the suspensions in the proceedings, and the lack of meaningful communication with the authorities. The investigators’ activity, particularly in the later periods, amounted to no more than a mere formality, and did not provide realistic possibilities for progress in the proceedings (compare Doshuyeva and Yusupov, cited above, § 47; Dzhabrailova and Others (dec.) [Committee], nos. 3752/13 and 9 others, 7 May 2019; and Ismailova and Others v. Russia, (dec.) [Committee], nos. 2664/12 and 5 others, March 2019, where the Court dismissed ten applications concerning alleged abductions in the Chechen Republic owing to the applicants’ failure to comply with the six‑month rule).

400.  Accordingly, the Court finds that all the applications must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 §§ 1 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike Magomadova and Others (application no. 67207/14) out of its list of cases in respect of the complaints by Ms Paladi Magomadova;

Decides to strike Israilova and Others (application no. 71398/14) out of its list of cases in respect of the complaints by Ms Hava Israilova and Ms Gulu Izrailova;

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 October 2019.

              Stephen PhillipsGeorgios A. Serghides
RegistrarPresident

APPENDIX No. 1

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

61555/13

11/09/2013

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Zulay UMAYEVA

02/07/1962

Zamay-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Ms Aza TARAMOVA

Wife of Vesmirt Eskiyev

Ms Masa SAYKHANOVA

31/01/1957

Zamay-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Wife of Visait Eskiyev

Ms Zaira ESKIYEVA

14/02/2000

Grozny, Russian

Daughter of Vesmirt Eskiyev

Ms Mesira ESKIYEVA

25/09/1979

Zamay-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter of Visait Eskiyev

Ms Kameta ESKIYEVA

11/06/1983

Zamay-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter of Visait Eskiyev

Ms Zabura ESKIYEVA

07/11/1988

Zamay-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter of Visait Eskiyev

Mr Magomed SAYKHANOV

12/01/1999

Zamay-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Son of Visait Eskiyev

APPENDIX No. 2

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

32771/14

08/04/2014

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Yakha EDILSULTANOVA (ELISULTANOVA)

04/12/1964

Staryye Atagi, Chechen Republic, Russian

MATERI CHECHNI

Sister

Ms Tamara KALAYEVA

28/10/1958

Staryye Atagi, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

Ms Eyza KALAYEVA

1940

Staryye Atagi, Chechen Republic, Russian

Mother

Ms Roza KALAYEVA

03/03/1967

Staryye Atagi, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

Ms Razet KALAYEVA

23/06/1969

Staryye Atagi, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

APPENDIX No. 3

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

46403/14

10/06/2014

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Liliya SAYDAYEVA

08/09/1946

Serzhen-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

MATERI CHECHNI

Mother

Mr Mata SAYDAYEV

03/11/1968

Serzhen-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Brother

Ms Tumisha SAYDAYEVA

22/04/1970

Serzhen-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

Ms Dzhulyeta SAYDAYEVA

25/05/1980

Serzhen-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

Ms Asmalika MUSAYEVA

02/03/1984

Serzhen-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

APPENDIX No. 4

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

67207/14

09/09/2014

Applicant

Date of birth

(demise)

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Zara MAGOMADOVA

30/12/1961

Shali, Chechen Republic, Russian

MATERI CHECHNI 

Sister

Mr Zhamil MAGOMADOV

13/09/1963

Shali, Chechen Republic, Russian

Brother

Mr Dzhamlayla MAGOMADOV

09/06/1967

Shali, Chechen Republic, Russian

Brother

Mr Movladi MAGOMADOV

07/11/1979

Shali, Chechen Republic, Russian

Brother

Ms Paladi MAGOMADOVA

09/05/1939

(02/01/2015)

Shali, Chechen Republic, Russian

Mother

APPENDIX No. 5

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

71398/14

21/10/2014

Applicant

Date of birth (demise)

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Ruket ISRAILOVA

06/01/1982

Tsentora-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

MATERI CHECHNI 

Daughter

Mr Zelimkhan ISRAILOV

24/03/1980

Novyy Tsentaroy, Chechen Republic, Russian

Son

Ms Gulu IZRAILOVA

08/03/1930

(11/08/2018)

Tsentora-Yurt, Chechen Republic, Russian

Mother

Ms Zarema ISRAILOVA

10/10/1977

Novyy Tsentaroy, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter-in-law

Ms Mata ISRAILOVA

01/08/2007

Novyy Tsentaroy, Chechen Republic, Russian

Grandaughter

Mr Yakub ISRAILOV

01/07/2008

Novyy Tsentaroy, Chechen Republic, Russian

Grandson

Ms Maryam ISRAILOVA

12/12/2009

Novyy Tsentaroy, Chechen Republic, Russian

Grandaughter

Mr Yusup ISRAILOV

16/03/2011

Novyy Tsentaroy, Chechen Republic, Russian

Grandson

Ms Manassa ISRAILOVA

21/12/2013

Novyy Tsentaroy, Chechen Republic, Russian

Grandaughter

Ms Hava ISRAILOVA

22/08/1957

(18/04/2017)

Novyy Tsentaroy, Chechen Republic, Russian

Wife

APPENDIX No. 6

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

13653/15

15/06/2015

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Yakhita GEREYKHANOVA

14/08/1969

Koshkeldy, Chechen Republic, Russian

Dokka ITSLAYEV

Wife

APPENDIX No. 7

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

26220/15

12/05/2015

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Mr Sheykha MIDAYEV

02/07/1949

Gudermes, Chechen Republic, Russian

MATERI CHECHNI

Father

Ms Nagapu MIDAYEVA

20/06/1954

Gudermes, Chechen Republic, Russian

Mother

Mr Bek-Khan MIDAYEV

01/05/1972

Gudermes, Chechen Republic, Russian

Brother

Ms Rodimkhan MUSAYEVA

25/01/1974

Kurchaloy, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

Ms Anzhela DZHAMALUYEVA

20/05/1987

Zimovniki, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

APPENDIX No. 8

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

37575/15

12/07/2015

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Khakimat KANAYEVA

31/05/1963

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

Dokka ITSLAYEV

Wife

Ms Lalita DASHAYEVA
(on 3 June 2017 the applicant changed her name to Berner Lolita Dan)

05/09/1995

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter

Ms Marina DASHAYEVA

27/05/2002

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter

APPENDIX No. 9

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

53158/15

12/10/2015

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Mr Lema MAGOMADOV

07/12/1965

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

MATERI CHECHNI 

Brother

Mr Abu MAGOMADOV

25/12/1938

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

Father

Ms Sovdat MAGOMADOVA

(MAGAMADOVA)

16/02/1940

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

Mother

Ms Ayshat MAGOMADOVA

14/04/1981

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

Mr Umar MAGOMADOV

01/11/1970

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

Brother

APPENDIX No. 10

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

3779/16

08/12/2015

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Raisa BUGAYEVA

01/05/1974

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

MATERI CHECHNI

Wife

Ms Khava SHAKHMURZAYEVA

02/11/1998

Oyskhar, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter

Ms Fatima SHAKHMURZAYEVA

10/11/1999

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter

Mr Dzhabrail SHAKHMURZAYEV

18/08/2003

Oyskhar, Chechen Republic, Russian

Son

Ms Ayshat SHAKHMURZAYEVA

07/05/2001

Oyskhar, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter

APPENDIX No. 11

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

28770/16

27/04/2016

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Zargan YANDARBIYEVA

17/10/1969

Staryye - Atagi, Chechen Republic, Russian

Tagir SHAMSUDINOV

Sister

APPENDIX No. 12

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

35838/16

06/06/2016

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Petimat YESEYEVA

11/01/1982

Urus-Martan, Chechen Republic, Russian

Yuriy LATYSHOV

Wife

APPENDIX No. 13

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

37221/16

11/06/2016

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Ashati MUKHAYEVA

30/01/1982

Novyye Atagi, Chechen Republic, Russian

Dokka ITSLAYEV

Wife

Ms Rayana TAYSUMOVA

17/04/2005

Novyye Atagi, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter

APPENDIX No. 14

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

64246/16

26/10/2016

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Mr Rustam TASUKHANOV

24/11/1974

Pravoberezhnoye, Chechen Republic, Russian

 MATERI CHECHNI 

Brother

APPENDIX No. 15

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

66638/16

01/11/2016

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Lemka MAMAKAYEVA

10/08/1950

Alkhan-Kala, Chechen Republic, Russian

MATERI CHECHNI 

Mother

Ms Markha MAMAKAYEVA

14/01/1998

Alkhan-Kala, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter

Ms Khava MAMAKAYEVA

06/02/1973

Sernovodskoye, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

Ms Makka MAMAKAYEVA

30/11/1976

Alkhan-Kala, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

Mr Kharon MAMAKAYEV

09/10/1979

Alkhan-Kala, Chechen Republic, Russian

Brother

Ms Kheda MAMAKAYEVA

13/09/1982

Sernovodskoye, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

Ms Marem MAMAKAYEVA

02/04/1985

Alkhan-Kala, Chechen Republic, Russian

Sister

APPENDIX No. 16

Application no.

Lodged on

Information about the applicant(s)

3634/17

27/12/2016

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence, nationality

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Ms Razeta DADAYEVA

26/10/1977

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

MATERI CHECHNI 

Wife

Mr Mokhammad DUDARKAYEV

28/09/2002

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

Son

Ms Ayshat DUDARKAYEVA

27/07/2003

Grozny, Chechen Republic, Russian

Daughter

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy