THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2664/12 Raset ISMAILOVA and O thers against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 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 are listed in the appended table.

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

A. The circumstances of the case

3. At the material time the applicants lived in the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. The events concerned took place between 2000 and 2002 in areas under full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants received no news of their missing relatives thereafter.

4. In each of the cases the applicants reported the abductions to the authorities and an official investigation was instituted. The proceedings in respect of each case, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without any tangible results having been attained. The identities of the perpetrators have never been established by the investigating authorities. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending.

5. Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account of events is based on statements provided to the Court and the domestic investigating authorities by the applicants, their relatives and/or neighbours, and other witnesses.

6. In each of the cases at hand the applicants lodged their applications with the Court from nine and a half years to twelve and a half years after the abductions and the opening of the respective investigation into the incidents.

1. Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12)

7. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ruslan Ismailov, who was born in 1954. The first applicant is his widow and the second applicant is his daughter. The third applicant was the son of Mr Ismailov; he died on 18 April 2016.

(a) Special operation in Grozny on 30 July 2002

8 . On 30 July 2002 the Russian Federal Forces in Chechnya conducted a special sweep operation in Grozny. Certain city districts were cordoned off with military vehicles (see Kukurkhoyeva and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50556/08 and 9 others, § 131, 22 January 2019).

9 . Eleven other men were abducted in Grozny on the same day under similar circumstances, including Mr Umar Ozdamirov (ibid., §§ 132-33) and Mr Abu-Bakar Magomadov (see below).

(b) Abduction of Mr Ruslan Ismailov

10. On 30 July 2002 Mr Ismailov was at work at a car-repair garage located at the crossroads of Chernyshevskogo Street and Revolutsii Avenue in the centre of Grozny. At about 1.30 p.m. on that date (in the documents submitted the time was also stated as 2 p.m. and 6 p.m.) a group of ten to fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in two white VAZ-2106 vehicles, one of which had a registration plate allegedly comprising the numbers 194 AA 95, and a white Gazel minivan with registration number C871 XH 95. The servicemen cordoned off the area, then broke into the garage, forced Mr Ismailov into the minivan and took him away to an unknown destination.

11. The whereabouts of Mr Ruslan Ismailov have been unknown since the date of his abduction. According to the applicants, several other residents of Grozny, including Mr R.S. and Mr I.-A.Ch., were abducted on the same date at the crossroads of Chernyshevskogo Street and Revolutsii Avenue under similar circumstances.

(c) Official investigation into the abduction

12. On 1 August 2002 Ms Zh.Ts., a relative of Mr Ismailov, complained about the abduction to the authorities and requested that a criminal investigation be opened.

13. On 8 August 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 50121 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code into the abduction of Mr Ismailov, Mr R.S. and Mr I.-A.Ch.

14. The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities and medical institutions. In reply they were informed that no pertinent information about Mr Ismailov was available.

15. On 13 September 2002 Ms Zh.Ts. again complained about the abduction of Mr Ruslan Ismailov to the authorities. Her complaint was forwarded to the Grozny prosecutor.

16. On 1 October 2002 Ms Zh.Ts. was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. According to her, Mr Ismailov was her husband.

17 . On 8 October 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 27 July 2010 and subsequently suspended and resumed on several occasions, most recently on 1 December 2010.

18. Meanwhile, on 19 October 2002 the investigators informed Ms Zh.Ts. that operational search measures were in progress in order to establish her husband ’ s whereabouts.

19. On 11 June 2003, in reply to the abduction complaint, the FSB informed the first applicant that they had not arrested or detained her husband.

20. On 18 August 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court of Chechnya declared Mr Ruslan Ismailov a missing person at the first applicant ’ s request.

21 . On 13 July 2010 the second applicant requested that the investigators grant her victim status in the criminal case. It appears that no reply was given to this request.

22. On 27 July 2010 the third applicant was granted victim status and questioned. He stated, in particular, that he had learnt about his father ’ s abduction from Ms Zh.Ts. She was his father ’ s “second wife” and had lived together with him in Grozny before the events in question.

23. On 6 September 2010 the second applicant was questioned. She gave statements similar to those of the third applicant.

24. On 17 November 2010 the investigators questioned Mr S.I., another relative of Mr Ismailov. According to him, after the abduction he and the father of Mr Ismailov had gone to an NGO in Ingushetia and asked its personnel to provide assistance in the search for their relative.

25. On 19 November 2010 the investigators examined the crime scene.

26. On 3 February and 30 June 2011 the third applicant asked the investigators to grant him access to the investigation file and to resume the proceedings. On 4 July 2011 the investigators allowed him to make copies of the investigation file.

27. On 3 October 2011 the suspension of 1 December 2010 was annulled and on 7 November 2011 the investigation was resumed. Between 2011 and 2015 it was suspended and resumed on several occasions, without any meaningful steps being taken or any tangible results being achieved.

28. On 15 November 2011 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the DNA obtained from the third applicant ’ s blood.

29. On 27 November 2011 the second applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She reiterated her earlier statements.

30. On 23 April 2015 Ms Zh.Ts. was questioned again.

31. It appears that the investigation is still pending. The perpetrators of the abduction have not been identified.

(d) Proceedings against the investigators

32. On 23 August 2010 the third applicant lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny, challenging the investigators ’ decision to suspend the proceedings of 2002 and their failure to take basic steps. On 2 September 2010 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that the investigators had already resumed the proceedings earlier that day. On 15 June 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.

33. On 28 May 2015 Ms Zh.Ts. lodged another complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny, challenging the decision to suspend the proceedings of 30 April 2015. On 11 June 2015 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that the investigation had been resumed on 5 June 2015.

2. Zaurbekova v. Russia (no. 2671/12)

34. The applicant is the widow of Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev, who was born in 1971.

(a) Abduction of Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev

35. At 11 a.m. on 5 February 2000 several armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”), a Ural lorry and a prisoner transport vehicle (“Avtozak”) arrived at the applicant ’ s house in Kirova street in Grozny. Several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and triangle headscarves covering their heads, ordered all the men to go outside with their identification documents. The servicemen then put Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev in the Avtozak. At about 4 p.m. the servicemen transferred Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev and his neighbour, Mr R., into another vehicle and drove off towards Grozny. The mother of Mr R. found out from one of the servicemen that they were from the Special Police Task Force Unit (“OMON”) from Saint Petersburg.

36. Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev and Mr R. have not been seen since the day of their abduction.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

37. On 26 July 2000 Ms S.Sh., the mother of Mr Dzhamaldayev, complained of the abduction to the Special Representative of the President of Russia in Chechnya.

38 . On 29 September 2000 the applicant lodged an abduction complaint with the Grozny prosecutor ’ s office.

39. On 30 September 2000 the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office requested the temporary police department of the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny (“the VOVD”) to assist in the search for Mr Dzhamaldayev.

40. On 24 October 2000 a police officer from the VOVD interviewed several relatives of Mr Dzhamaldayev. They stated that on the day after his abduction, they had gone to the commander ’ s office in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny where they had been told that Mr Dzhamaldayev had not been detained there.

41. On 25 October 2000 the VOVD refused to open a criminal case into the abduction for lack of elements of a crime.

42. On 12 November 2000 the Grozny prosecutor ’ s office overruled the above-mentioned decision and opened criminal case no. 12255 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

43. On 12 January 2001 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 19 November 2002, then suspended again on 19 March 2003. It was resumed again on 21 April 2003 and suspended on 28 June 2003.

44. On 29 April 2003 criminal case no. 12255 was joined with two other cases concerning the abduction of several men under joint case no. 15025.

45. On 6 June 2003 the mother of Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events provided by the applicants to the Court.

46. On an unspecified date in 2004 the investigation was resumed.

47. On 4 June 2004 the criminal case concerning the abduction of Mr Zelimkhan Dzhamaldayev and Mr R. was separated from criminal case no. 15025 and given the number 12255.

48. On 6 June 2004 the investigation was suspended again. It was resumed on 11 February 2005.

49. On 12 and 18 February 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene.

50 . On 16 March 2005 the investigation was suspended; it was then resumed on 15 June 2011.

51 . On 16 June 2011 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

52. On 25 June 2011 the investigation was suspended again; it was resumed on 17 July 2011, then suspended on 24 July 2011 and resumed on 14 September 2011.

53. From the documents submitted it follows that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against investigators

54. On 7 September 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny, challenging the investigators ’ decision of 24 July 2011 to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps. On 16 September 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that the investigation had been resumed two days earlier.

3. Kudusov and Others v. Russia (no. 1978/13)

55. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Alikhan Kudusov, who was born in 1982. The third applicant is his brother.

(a) Abduction of Mr Alikhan Kudusov

56 . At about 7 a.m. on 24 September 2001 Mr Alikhan Kudusov and his family members, including the applicants, were at home in Argun when a group of armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms arrived at his house at 3/2 Sovkhozniy Lane. The servicemen were in two APCs and spoke unaccented Russian. Having broken into the applicants ’ house, they forced Mr Kudusov into one of the APCs and drove off in the direction of Argun town centre.

57. The whereabouts of Mr Alikhan Kudusov have remained unknown ever since. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

58 . On 24 September 2001 the first applicant complained about the incident to the Argun town police and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.

59. On 25 September 2001 the police registered the complaint under no. 121 in the crime register ( книга учета заявлений и сообщений о преступлениях – КУЗиСП ). It was then forwarded to the Argun town prosecutor ’ s office.

60 . On 13 January 2004 the first applicant again complained about the abduction to the Argun prosecutor and requested that the search for his son be intensified.

61 . On 20 January 2004 the investigators interviewed the first applicant. His account of events was similar to the applicants ’ submissions before the Court. He stated that immediately after the abduction, he had reported the incident to the police. On the same day, that is 24 September 2001 , a team of police officers had arrived at his house, examined the crime scene and collected evidence. According to the applicant, a criminal case had been opened, but he had never been given permission to access the investigation file.

62. On 3 February 2004 the acting head of the criminal investigation department of Argun police submitted a report to the Argun prosecutor ’ s office. It stated, in particular, that the applicants ’ neighbours had been interviewed about the abduction of Mr Alikhan Kudusov.

63 . On 6 February 2004 the Argun town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 48003 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 37062 and 59185) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

64. On 11 February 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. His statements concerning the circumstances of his son ’ s abduction were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

65. On 14 February 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene.

66. The investigators sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Alikhan Kudusov was available.

67. On 27 February and 24 March 2004 the investigators questioned the second and the third applicants respectively. Their statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

68 . Between 27 February and 5 April 2004 several witnesses, namely Mr I.S., Ms Z.Sh., Ms A.B., Ms. M.G. and Ms Kh.A., were questioned. All of them affirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above.

69. On 6 April 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant was informed thereof.

70. On 20 April 2004 the police informed the investigators that they had a search file in respect of Mr Alikhan Kudusov.

71. On 2 May 2012 the proceedings were resumed, then suspended on 2 June 2012 and resumed again on 22 June 2012.

72. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

73. On 9 April 2012 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court, challenging the investigators ’ decision of 6 April 2004 and their failure to take basic steps. On 2 May 2012 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that earlier on the same day that decision had been overruled and the investigation had been resumed. On 6 June 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court quashed that decision and remitted the complaint for re-examination.

74. On 28 June 2012 the Shali Town Court terminated the proceedings, again on the grounds that the investigation had already been resumed by the investigators on 22 June 2012.

4. Dzhambekov v. Russia (no. 30709/13)

75. The applicant is the father of Mr Magomed Dzhambekov, who was born in 1976.

76. The facts of the present application have already been examined by the Court in Vakhayeva v. Russia (no. 27368/07, 10 July 2012) and may be summarised as follows.

(a) Abduction of Mr Magomed Dzhambekov and subsequent events

77. On 5 October 2001 Mr Magomed Dzhambekov and his friend, Mr Ruslanbek Vakhayev, were driving in a white VAZ-2106 car with registration number K674XT95 when they were stopped by military servicemen for an identity check at a checkpoint in Roshni-Chu. The servicemen forced the men out of the car, beat them, then forced Mr Magomed Dzhambekov into the boot of his VAZ-2106 car and Mr Vakhayev into their APC, and drove away in the direction of the town centre of Urus ‑ Martan.

78. Sometime after the abduction Mr Vakhayev ’ s sister saw the white VAZ-2106 with registration number K674XT95 on the premises of the Urus-Martan district military commander ’ s office. For about two months after the abduction she saw the car on numerous occasions in the town centre; men in military uniforms were driving in it.

79. There has been no news of Mr Magomed Dzhambekov and Mr Ruslanbek Vakhayev since their arrest.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

80. For the main witness statements and investigative steps taken by the authorities, see Vakhayeva (cited above, §§ 22-103).

81. On 10 June 2002 the applicant ’ s wife complained about the abduction to a number of military and law-enforcement authorities, stating that together with Ms Vakhayeva, she had complained to various authorities about the abduction of Mr Dzhambekov and Mr Vakhayev but had not received any reply.

82. On 3 November 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 61153 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code into the abduction of Mr Magomed Dzhambekov and Mr Ruslanbek Vakhayev.

83. On 2 January 2003 the investigators questioned the applicant. He stated that he had tried to find his son in various detention facilities but his unofficial search had brought no tangible results.

84. On 3 January 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

85. On the same date the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, between 2003 and 2004 the investigation was resumed and suspended on several occasions.

86. On 28 January 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant ’ s wife. She stated that she had learnt about the abduction from Mr Vakhayev ’ s sister.

87. On 27 August 2004 the investigation was resumed, following a complaint lodged by Ms Vakhayeva with the court, and on 27 September 2004 it was suspended again. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on 15 March 2005 and suspended on 15 April 2005, then resumed on 4 October 2005 and suspended again on 4 November 2005.

88. Meanwhile, on 5 April 2005 and 26 June 2007 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who stated that the military commander, Mr Gadzhiyev, had promised to assist him in obtaining the release of his son and Mr Vakhayev, but to no avail.

89. On 9 September 2010 the investigation was resumed.

90. On 25 April 2011 the investigators sent several requests for information to various authorities.

91. On 20 May 2011 the investigation was suspended, then resumed on 24 October 2012 and suspended again on 13 November 2012.

92. On 9 November 2012 the investigators questioned a witness to the abduction, Mr Kh.S., who stated that in autumn 2001 he had seen two men being arrested at the checkpoint in Urus-Martan.

93. On the same day, 9 November 2012, the investigators examined the crime scene.

94. On 15 April 2013 the applicant was allowed to study the case file.

95. On 27 January 2014 the investigation was resumed.

96. On 9 February 2014 the applicant was questioned again by the investigators. He stated that he had no information about the whereabouts of his son.

97. On 10 February 2014 the investigators questioned two more relatives of the applicant. Their statements were similar to those given by the applicant.

98. On 11 February 2014 the investigation was suspended.

99. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

100. On 22 October 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court, challenging the investigators ’ decision to suspend the proceedings of 20 May 2011. On 29 October 2012 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that the investigation had been resumed on 24 October 2012.

5. Magomadova v. Russia (no. 67274/13)

101. The applicant is the mother of Mr Abu-Bakar (also spelled as Abubakar) Magomadov, who was born in 1971.

(a) Abduction of Mr Abu-Bakar Magomadov

102. On 30 July 2002 Mr Magomadov went to visit the applicant in Grozny, where he was abducted at the crossroads of Chernyshevskogo Street and Revolutsii Avenue by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas (see paragraphs 8-9 above).

103. The applicant learnt about the abduction of her son from his friend, Mr U.M., who was subsequently abducted by unknown men in August 2002. The whereabouts of Mr Abu-Bakar Magomadov have remained unknown since the day of his abduction.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

104 . On 10 April 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 30057 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code into the abduction of a certain Mr A. Magomadov, who was not the applicant ’ s son but who had also been taken away from the central market in Grozny by armed men in camouflage uniforms on 30 July 2002.

105 . The investigation file contains no mention of the abduction of Mr Abu-Bakar Magomadov until 2007. On 12 November 2007 the NGO Memorial, acting on behalf of the applicant, wrote to the law ‑ enforcement authorities asking whether a criminal case had been opened into the abduction of the applicant ’ s son, Mr Abu-Bakar Magomadov. The enquiry contained the names of ten other men abducted on the same day, including Mr Umar Ozdamirov and Mr A. Magomadov. It was also stated in general terms that “... the relatives had complained [about the abduction] to the prosecutor ’ s office but had no information as to whether a criminal case had been opened”.

106. This request was forwarded to the investigators. On 1 August 2008 they replied that criminal case no. 30057 had been opened into the abduction of Mr A. Magomadov on 10 April 2003.

107. On 27 April 2009 the applicant complained of the abduction of her son to the head of the committee responsible for searching for people who had disappeared during the counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic. Her complaint was forwarded to the investigators.

108 . In January 2011 the applicant complained to the investigators about the abduction of her son and asked for assistance in the search for him.

109. On 14 November 2011 the investigation in criminal case no. 30057, which had been suspended on 1 December 2007, was resumed.

110 . On 17 November 2011 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the submissions before the Court.

111. On 4 December 2011 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof.

112. At the request of the applicant, on 8 June 2012 the Naurskiy District Court declared Mr Abu ‑ Bakar Magomadov dead.

113. In 2013 the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant ’ s son was resumed and suspended on several occasions. It is still pending. Neither the perpetrators of the abduction nor the possible whereabouts of the applicant ’ s son have been established.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

114. On 14 March 2013 the applicant challenged the investigators ’ decision to suspend the proceedings of 4 December 2011 before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny. On 11 April 2013 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that the impugned decision had been annulled earlier the same day. On 8 May 2013 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the lower court ’ s decision on appeal.

5. Temirsultanovy v. Russia (no. 70571/13)

115. The first applicant is the widow of Mr Khuseyn (also spelled as Khusayn) Temirsultanov, who was born in 1952. The second applicant is the widow of Mr Khasan (also spelled as Khaseyn) Temirsultanov and the mother of Mr Movldi Temirsultanov, who were born in 1956 and 1981 respectively.

(a) Abduction of the Temirsultanov brothers and Mr Movldi Temirsultanov

116. At about 12.15 a.m. on 5 March 2001 (in the criminal case file the date was also indicated as 4 April 2001) a group of about thirty armed servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms arrived in APCs at the applicants ’ houses at 50 Gagarina Street in Tsotsi-Yurt. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian and were wearing military helmets; some of them were wearing balaclavas. Having broken into the applicants ’ houses, which were located next to each other and shared the same courtyard, the servicemen forced Mr Khuseyn Temirsultanov, Mr Khasan Temirsultanov and Mr Movldi Temirsultanov outside, then put them into one of the APCs and drove off in the direction of Mesker-Yurt settlement.

117. The whereabouts of the applicants ’ relatives remain unknown. Their abduction took place in the presence of the applicants and their relatives.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

118. In the morning on 5 March 2001 the applicants went to the Kurchaloy district commander ’ s office and reported the incident.

119. On 11 July 2001 the second applicant complained to the Kurchaloy district police station of the abduction of three relatives and requested that a criminal investigation be opened.

120. On 14 August 2001 the Argun inter-district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 39058 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

121 . On 14 October 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 24 March 2005 the acting prosecutor of the Kurchaloy district annulled that decision and ordered the resumption of the proceedings.

122. On 27 March 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene at the applicants ’ houses. Acting on their instructions, a police officer interviewed several neighbours. Some of them gave statements similar to the applicants ’ submissions before the Court.

123. On the same date the police officer also interviewed the applicants ’ daughters, who were eyewitnesses to the abduction. They affirmed the circumstances of the events as described above.

124. Also on 27 March 2005, the first applicant was granted victim status and interviewed. Her statements were similar to the account of events provided to the Court.

125. On 28 March 2005 the second applicant was granted victim status and interviewed. Her statements were similar to the account of events provided to the Court.

126. The investigator sent several requests for information to the law ‑ enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements to the effect that no information about the abductions was available.

127 . On 24 April 2005 the investigation was suspended; the applicants were informed thereof.

128 . On 4 March 2010 the first applicant asked the investigators to inform her about the progress in the criminal proceedings and allow her to study the case file. On 9 March 2010 her request was granted.

129. On 15 March 2010 the investigation was resumed.

130. On 22 March 2010 the second applicant applied for the resumption of the proceedings and for victim status. In reply, she was informed that the investigation had already been resumed and that she had already been granted victim status.

131 . On 3 and 4 May 2010 the investigator interviewed the applicants and their daughters again. They reiterated their previous statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction.

132 . On 3 May 2010 the investigator seized from the first applicant several items of clothing belonging to her missing husband and an expert forensic biological examination of the items was carried out. The examination did not yield any genetic traces.

133. On 17 May 2010 the investigation was suspended.

134. On 16 May 2011 the first applicant studied the case file in the presence of her counsel.

135. On 29 July 2011 the prosecutor of the Kurchaloy district indicated a number of defects in the investigation and ordered that they be addressed. On 26 July 2011 the investigation was resumed.

136. On 8 August 2011 another on-site examination was carried out.

137 . On 24 and 25 August 2011 a police officer interviewed the second applicant, the applicants ’ neighbour and their daughters. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above.

138. Between 2011 and 2012 the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions.

139. On 28 January 2012 the investigator ordered a forensic examination of the DNA contained in the blood of the first applicant ’ s son.

140. On 16 February 2012 the investigator granted the first applicant ’ s request to study the criminal case file.

141. On 8 April 2013 the first applicant requested that the investigating authority inform her about progress in the proceedings. In reply she received a letter stating that she could study the case file and make copies of the documents during working hours.

142. On 11 June 2013 the first applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed. On the following day the investigating authority dismissed her request on the grounds that all necessary investigative measures had been undertaken.

143. On 19 March 2015 the first applicant again requested that the proceedings be resumed.

144. On 25 March 2015 the proceedings were resumed. The following day the applicants were granted victim status again.

145. On 30 March 2015 the proceedings were suspended.

146. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice and international materials

147. For a summary of the relevant law, see Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.) , no. 58055/10, 31 May 2016, and Utsmiyeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 31179/11, 26 August 2014 .

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relatives had disappeared after allegedly having been abducted by State agents, and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter effectively. Under Article 3, they complained that they had endured mental suffering as a result of their relatives ’ disappearance and the authority ’ s reaction thereto. Under Article 5, they complained of the unlawfulness of their relatives ’ detention by State agents, and under Article 13 of a lack of domestic remedies in respect of the violations alleged.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATIONS

A. The parties ’ submissions

1. The Government

149. In their observations, the Government argued that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court several years after the abduction of their relatives and more than six months after the date on which they ought to have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the pending investigations. They submitted that the applicants had remained passive and had not maintained contact with the investigating authorities during significant periods of time. The applicants had therefore failed to comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging their respective complaints with the Court.

150. The Government also argued that the application form in Temirsultanovy v. Russia (no. 70571/13) had been prepared and lodged by a lawyer. However, the applicants had not submitted the power of attorney until two years later.

2. The applicants

151. The applicants in all the applications submitted that they had complied with the six ‑ month rule. They had taken all possible steps within a reasonable time to initiate a search for their missing relatives and to assist the authorities in the proceedings. They denied that there had been excessive or unexplained delays in lodging their applications with the Court, which had been done as soon as they had considered the respective domestic investigation to have proved to be ineffective.

152. The applicants further submitted that they had complained to the authorities shortly after all of the incidents in question and had hoped that the criminal investigation opened thereafter would produce results. In respect of each case, throughout the proceedings they had maintained regular contact with the authorities and had actively cooperated with the respective investigation. The applicants maintained that the armed conflict in Chechnya had led them to believe that investigative delays were inevitable. It was only with the passage of time and the lack of information from the domestic authorities that they had begun to doubt the effectiveness of the respective investigations. They had lodged their applications with the Court after realising that the domestic investigations had proved to be ineffective. Some applicants also referred to their “legal illiteracy” and lack of financial means with which to appoint a lawyer ( Temirsultanovy v. Russia (no. 70571/13)). The applicants in Kudusov and Others v. Russia (no. 1978/13) submitted that they had not lodged any complaints about the alleged inactivity of the investigators between 2004 and 2012 because they had been afraid that it could affect their abducted relative.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

(a) General principles

153. A summary of the principles concerning compliance with the six ‑ month rule in cases involving violations of Article 2 of the Convention allegedly perpetrated by military servicemen may be found in Sultygov and Others v. Russia , nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 369-74, 9 October 2014, and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, §§ 34-40.

154. The Court reiterates that applicants who lodge their application more than ten years after the disappearance of their relative and the institution of the respective criminal investigation should provide a 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, ECHR 2009).

(b) Application of the principles to the present case

155. The Court notes that in each of the applications the domestic investigations were pending for years without any tangible results being attained. The investigators suspended and resumed the proceedings on numerous occasions following criticism from their superiors, but the resumption of the proceedings did not lead to any real progress in either the identification or the eventual prosecution of the perpetrators. The investigators ’ activity, particularly in the later periods, amounted to no more than a mere formality, and did not provide realistic possibilities for any progress in the investigations (compare with Doshuyeva and Yusupov , cited above, § 47, 31 May 2016; Utsmiyeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 31179/11, § 38; Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and, mutatis mutandis , Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).

156. The Court also notes that both during the counter-terrorist operation in the region and after its completion the applicants had direct access to the authorities and could have communicated freely with the investigators regarding the abduction of their family members (see, amongst many other authorities, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia , nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, 18 December 2012; 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). However, in each of the cases at hand, the applicants contacted the authorities sporadically and remained passive throughout significant periods of time when the investigation was dormant.

157. Turning to the applications Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12) and Zaurbekova v. Russia (no. 2671/12), the Court observes that they were lodged nine years and five months and eleven years and eleven months after the date of the alleged abductions respectively. In each case there was a significant lull in the investigation, comprising almost eight years in Ismailovy (see paragraph 17 above) and six years in Zaurbekova (see paragraph 50 above). The applicants in Ismailovy delayed their request to be granted victim status in the criminal case for eight years (see paragraph 21 above). As for Ms Zaurbekova, she lodged the abduction complaint eight months after the events in question and never contacted the authorities in order to enquire as to the progress of the investigation (see paragraph 38 above).

158. In the application Kudusov and Others (no. 1978/13) lodged eleven years and three months after the alleged abduction, the Court observes that the criminal case was opened two and a half years after the events in question (see paragraphs 58-60 and 63 above). Even if the applicants could have reasonably expected the authorities to take all necessary investigative steps to establish their relative ’ s whereabouts once they had been informed of the abduction, the applicants remained passive for two years and four months before lodging another abduction complaint with the prosecutor of Argun. Furthermore, from the documents submitted by the parties it does not transpire that the applicants maintained any contact with the authorities from 2004 to 2012.

159. As for the application Dzhambekov v. Russia (no. 30709/13) lodged eleven and a half years after the alleged abduction, the Court notes that the applicant ’ s relative was abducted together with Mr Vakhayev. The investigation into the abduction of the two men was carried out within the framework of the same criminal case, and it was suspended and resumed on several occasions after Ms Vakhayeva ’ s complaints to the domestic authorities. She lodged her application with the Court in June 2007, and the Government were given notice of it in July 2010 (see Vakhayeva v. Russia , no. 27368/07 , §§ 1 and 3, 10 July 2012). However, Mr Dzhambekov did not lodge his application concerning the same facts and containing identical complaints as to the ineffectiveness of the investigation until April 2013. In the Court ’ s view, the applicant ought to have concluded that the investigation had been ineffective at least by either July 2010 or July 2012 at the latest.

160. Turning to the application Magomadova v. Russia (no. 67274/13), the Court notes that the applicant lodged her complaints with the Court eleven years and two months after the date of the alleged abduction. From the documents submitted, she does not appear to have lodged an official abduction complaint with the authorities until January 2011 (see paragraph 108 above). Even assuming that she was indeed informed at the relevant time of the institution of a criminal investigation into the abduction of a certain Mr A. Magomadov, she did not contact the authorities for more than five years (see paragraphs 104-105 above). Nor did she take the initiative of providing the investigators with the necessary information regarding her son, which could have been helpful, especially at the initial stage of the investigation.

161. In Temirsultanovy v. Russia (application no. 70571/13) the Court takes note of the Government ’ s remark as to the delay in submitting a power of attorney. Given that the application form had been duly signed and dated by the applicants at the time of its lodging with the Court, it considers that there was no need to submit a power of attorney at that time. The Court further notes that the application at hand was lodged twelve and a half years after the abduction. There were two significant lulls in the investigation comprising three and a half years and almost five years respectively (see paragraphs 121, 127 and 128 above). Throughout those periods of time the applicants did not contact the authorities even though they had been informed of the respective decisions to suspend the proceedings.

162. The Court notes that in the above-mentioned cases the applicants occasionally contacted investigators to receive an update on the proceedings. However, taking into account that the applicants were close relatives of the abducted individuals, they should have demonstrated diligence by having more regular contact with the investigating authorities and taking a more active stance in the criminal proceedings, as did the applicants in many other disappearance cases. In the absence of information from the investigators, they should have drawn appropriate conclusions concerning the lack of real progress in the investigation long before the lodging of 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).

163. Lastly, in view of the time which elapsed since the incidents in question, the lengthy suspensions in the proceedings and the lack of meaningful communication with the authorities, the Court is not convinced that the applicants in the cases at hand had any grounds for hope or any realistic prospects that the search for their missing relatives would become effective and would attain a tangible result (see Açış v. Turkey , no. 7050/05, §§ 41-42, 1 February 2011). In the absence of any convincing explanation, the Court considers that the applicants failed to demonstrate due diligence and to comply with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Their complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 in conjunction with these provisions must therefore be rejected.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 17 October 2019 .

Stephen Phillips Georgios A. Serghides Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no. and date of introduction

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

1.

2664/12

20/12/2011

1) Ms Raset ISMAILOVA

22/10/1964

Herzogenrath

2) Ms Majnat ISMAILOVA

02/03/1989

Herzogenrath

3) Mr Eliskhan ISMAILOV

03/09/1990

Grozny

Passed away

Prof. Dr. Ulrich SOMMER

2.

2671/12

02/01/2012

Ms Zarina ZAURBEKOVA

21/08/1977

Podolsk

SRJI/ASTREYA

3.

1978/13

21/12/2012

1) Mr Khamid KUDUSOV

10/08/1954

Argun

2) Ms Kulsum AKSAKTEMIROVA

18/03/1956

Argun

3) Mr Rustam KUDUSOV

28/05/1978

Grozny

MATERI CHECHNI

4.

30709/13

29/04/2013

Mr Mamet DZHAMBEKOV

12/02/1956

Urus-Martan

Mr Tagir SHAMSUDINOV

5.

67274/13

08/10/2013

Ms Mikhazha MAGOMADOVA

08/06/1951

Nikolayevskaya

MATERI CHECHNI

6.

70571/13

15/10/2013

1) Ms Baret TEMIRSULTANOVA

22/04/1959

Tsotsin-Yurt

2) Ms Kiysa TEMIRSULTANOVA

24/06/1959

Tsotsin-Yurt

Mr Tagir SHAMSUDINOV