THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 29541/14 Kilsani YUSHAYEVA and O thers against Russia and 2 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 case originated in three applications (nos. 29541/14, 60905/14 and 27414/15) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). The application numbers and the dates on which they were lodged with the Court, as well as the applicants ’ personal details, are listed in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Materi Chechni, an NGO.

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

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

The circumstances of the case

4. 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 between 2002 and 2005. The applicants received no news of their missing relatives thereafter.

5. In each of the cases, the applicants reported the abductions to the authorities and an official investigation was instituted. The identities of the perpetrators have never been established by the investigating authorities. 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.

6. 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 other witnesses, as well as copies of the contents of the criminal investigation files submitted by the Government.

7. In the cases at hand, the applicants lodged their applications with the Court between ten and more than twelve years after the abductions.

1. Yushayeva and Others v Russia (no. 29541/14)

8. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Kazbek Yushayev, who was born in 1974. The first is his mother and the second and third applicants are his sisters.

(a) Abduction of Mr Kazbek Yushayev

9. At about 3 a.m. on 23 February 2003, when Mr Yushayev was sleeping at his uncle ’ s house at 21 Sovetskaya Street in the village of Oyskhar, Chechnya, a group of between ten to twenty armed servicemen in white camouflage uniforms arrived in two UAZ ( tabletka ) minivans without registration numbers. The servicemen, except for one, were of Asian appearance and spoke unaccented Russian; some of them were in balaclavas. They made a forced entry into the house, dragged Mr Yushayev and his uncle, Mr S.Sh., out of their beds, and then forced them into one of the vehicles and drove away to an unknown destination.

10. The whereabouts of Mr Yushayev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

11 . On 7 March 2005 the applicants ’ relative and the wife of Mr S.Sh., Ms R.B., lodged a complaint with the authorities regarding the abduction and lodged a request for a criminal case to be opened. As can be seen from the documents submitted, no explanation was given in respect of the fact that it took more than two-year delay to report the crime.

12. On the same date, 7 March 2005, the police inspected the crime scene and interviewed the wife of the abducted Mr S.Sh., Ms R.B. Her submission regarding the circumstances of the abduction was similar to the account of the event that the applicants provided to the Court. In addition, she stated that her husband, Mr S.Sh., had been a former member of illegal armed groups and that the police had placed him on a wanted list. She furthermore testified that Mr S.Sh. had already (in June 2002) been arrested by law-enforcement agencies but had been released. Two days before the abduction, officers from the Gudermes police had visited him at home.

13. A number of relatives and neighbours, who were interviewed on the same date and then questioned on 24 and 25 March 2005 and in July 2005, attested to the abduction of Mr Yushayev and Mr S.Sh. from the latter ’ s house.

14. On 8 March 2005 the Gudermes police forwarded the abduction complaint to the Gudermes district prosecutor ’ s office. The letter stated that Mr S.Sh. was suspected of membership in illegal armed groups and that he had been sought by the authorities in another region of Russia since March 1996.

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

16. On 24 March 2005 the investigators questioned Ms R.B., who affirmed her previous statement. She did not explain her reasons for not reporting the abduction earlier.

17 . On the same date, 24 March 2005, the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. In her opinion, the abductors must have been from a law-enforcement agency. She provided no reasons for not having reported the abduction earlier.

18. On 17 May 2005 the investigation in respect of the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant was informed thereof.

19. On 2 June 2005 the above decision was quashed by the supervising authorities and the investigation was resumed.

20. On various dates in June 2005 the investigators questioned a few neighbours of Mr S.Sh., whose statements did not yield any new information.

21. On 2 July 2005 the investigation was suspended again. On 29 May 2006 it was again resumed.

22. On 10 July 2006 the investigators again questioned Ms R.B. and the first applicant; their statements did not provide any new information.

23. On 10 July 2006 the investigation was suspended again. On 1 July 2007 it was again resumed and then again suspended on 1 August 2007. The first applicant was informed of the latter decision.

24. On 7 April 2008 the investigation was resumed and then again suspended on 15 May 2008. The first applicant was informed of the latter decision.

25. On 26 August 2008 Ms R.B. lodged a request for the investigation to be resumed. No reply was given to this request.

26. On 30 January 2009 Ms R.B. requested that the investigators provide her with copies of transcripts of the main procedural steps taken in the criminal case. On 2 February 2009 her request was granted.

27. On 20 May 2009 the investigators replied to an information request lodged by Ms R.B. that the proceedings had been suspended.

28. On 28 June 2012 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case at her request.

29 . On 10 September 2012 the second applicant lodged a request for access to the investigation file. On 12 September 2012 her request was granted.

30. On 10 September 2013 the investigation was resumed and suspended again on 20 September 2013, then resumed again on 16 February 2015 and suspended on 16 March 2016.

31. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

32. On an unspecified date in January or February 2010 Ms R.B. lodged a complaint with the Gudermes Town Court challenging the decision of 15 May 2008 to suspend the investigation. The outcome of those proceedings is unknown.

33 . On an unspecified date in 2013 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the same court challenging the decision of 15 May 2008 to suspend the proceedings.

34. On 11 September 2013 the court rejected the complaint, having found that on 10 September 2013 that the investigators had already resumed the investigation. On 22 October 2013 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.

2. Ibakov and Others v Russia (no. 60905/14)

35. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Bukhara (also spelled as Bukhar) Ibakov, who was born in 1944. The first applicant is his brother, the third applicant is his wife and the second, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are his children.

(a) Abduction of the second applicant and Mr Bukhara Ibakov

36. At about 2 a.m. on 23 July 2002 Mr Ibakov and members of his family, including the second applicant, were at home at 21 Komsomolskaya Street in Oktyabrskoye when a group of twenty to thirty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into their house. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian; those of them who were not wearing balaclavas were of Slavic appearance. They searched the premises, then forced Mr Ibakov and the second applicant, Mr Umar Ibakov, outside, put them into an UAZ minivan without registration numbers and drove off to an unknown destination.

37. On 26 July 2002 the second applicant was released on the outskirts of the village of Pravoberezhnoye, Chechnya, and he returned home. Only in 2007 was he questioned for the first time by the investigators about the circumstances of the abduction (see below).

38. The whereabouts of Mr Ibakov have remained unknown ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

39. On 29 July 2002 the head of the Oktyabrskoye local administration reported the abduction to the Chechnya prosecutor, having stated that the perpetrators had been from a law-enforcement agency.

40. On 5 August 2002 the third applicant lodged a complaint with the authorities about the abduction.

41. On 11 September 2002 the third applicant was interviewed.

42. On the same date the applicants ’ neighbour, Ms Z.A., was interviewed. She confirmed that on the night of the incident she had seen an UAZ minivan ( tabletka ) and a group of armed servicemen in the courtyard of the Ibakovs ’ family house.

43. On 23 September 2002 the Grozny district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 56145 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

44. On the same date, the investigators questioned the first applicant and the applicants ’ relative Mr G.I. The latter stated that shortly after the abduction he had gone to the Russian military base in Khankala and spoken to servicemen with whom he was acquainted. They had told him that Mr Ibakov and the second applicant had been arrested by agents of a military counterintelligence service who had subsequently transferred them either to the Grozny district prosecutor ’ s office or to the Grozny district department of the interior (the police).

45 . On 23 November 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators and then resumed on 18 December 2006. The documents submitted show that the applicants did not officially contact the authorities during that period.

46. On 5 January 2007 the investigators questioned the fifth applicant.

47. On 6 January 2007 the investigators questioned the second applicant. He submitted, amongst other things, that the abductors had forced him and his father into an UAZ vehicle, put plastic bags over their heads and driven off. The ride had lasted approximately two hours. After they had arrived at an unknown destination, the servicemen had separated him from his father and put him in a basement. On several occasions, he had been questioned about the whereabouts of his brother, Mr Y.I., who had been on a wanted list at that time. After three days, the servicemen had taken him out of the basement and released him somewhere on the outskirts of the village of Pravoberezhnoye.

48 . On 18 January 2007 the investigation was suspended again for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof.

49 . In April 2011 the NGO Materi Chechni lodged a request with a number of state officials and law enforcement agencies for assistance in the search for Mr Ibakov.

50 . On an unspecified date in May 2013 the investigators resumed the investigation. On 27 May 2013 they again questioned the first applicant, who submitted additionally that at the time of the abduction Mr Ibakov ’ s son, Mr Y.I., had been on a wanted list on account of his alleged involvement in illegal armed groups operating in Chechnya.

51. On 5 July 2013 the first applicant lodged a request with the investigators, asking them to grant him access to the investigation file.

52 . On 2 and 5 August 2013 the first and then the second applicant respectively were granted victim status.

53. On 5 August 2013 the second applicant was questioned. He affirmed his previously given statements.

54. On 7 August 2013 the investigators inspected the crime scene. No evidence was collected.

55. Between 7 and 12 August 2013 the investigators again questioned the second applicant and one of the applicants ’ relatives. No new information was obtained.

56. On 17 August 2013 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 3 April 2014.

57. On 9 April 2014 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who stated that in his opinion the perpetrators of the abduction had been State servicemen.

58. On 10 April 2014 the investigation was suspended again. It appears that it is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

59. On 17 April 2014 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Grozny District Court challenging the suspension of the investigation of 17 August 2013.

60. On 4 April 2014 the court rejected the complaint, having found that on 3 April 2014 the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 29 April 2014 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.

3. Madayeva and Others v Russia (no. 27414/15)

61. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Alikhan Mutalipov, who was born in 1979. The first and second applicants are his parents, the third fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are his brothers, the seventh applicant is his wife and the eighth and ninth applicants are his children.

(a) Abduction of Mr Alikhan Mutalipov

62. According to the applicants, in the early hours of 1 June 2005 Mr Alikhan Mutalipov and his wife (the seventh applicant) had been at home, at 9 Rabochaya Street in the village of Chervlennaya, Chechnya, when at about 2.30 a.m. a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at their house in an UAZ ( tabletka ) minivan, two UAZ cars and a VAZ 02199 car. The servicemen, who spoke unaccented Russian, broke into the house, arrested Mr Alikhan Mutalipov, forced him outside and took him away in one of the vehicles to an unknown destination.

63. According to the applicants, on the night of the abduction the servicemen seized Mr Alikhan Mutalipov ’ s mobile phone. Subsequently, information was obtained to the effect that the mobile phone was being used by servicemen from a military unit located in the vicinity of Khankala, Chechnya. It is unclear whether the applicants submitted this information to the investigators.

64. From the copies of the documents from the investigation file submitted by the Government it can be seen that during the evening of 1 June 2005 Mr Alikhan Mutalipov had attended a picnic with unidentified persons and consumed alcohol with them next to a lake in the vicinity of Chervlennaya. Later in the evening, those persons had taken him home. Then, at about 2.30 a.m. on the following morning the same persons had returned to his house and Mr Mutalipov had left with them.

65. The whereabouts of Mr Mutalipov have remained unknown ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

66 . On 20 November 2006 the first applicant lodged a complaint about the disappearance of Mr Alikhan Mutalipov with the authorities. In her complaint, she stated that her son Alikhan had left home on 1 June 2005 and gone missing. As can be seen from the documents submitted, no explanation was given for the almost one and half year delay in reporting the crime.

67. On 22 November 2006 the Shelkovskiy district prosecutor ’ s office in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 61047 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). The document stated, in particular, that Mr Alikhan Mutalipov had disappeared after leaving his home at about 2.30 a.m. on 2 June 2005 in the company of unidentified men with whom he had consumed alcohol in the preceding hours.

68. On the same date (that is to say 22 November 2006) the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She stated that in her opinion, the perpetrators of her son ’ s abduction had been representatives of a law-enforcement agency.

69 . On various dates between 22 November and 7 December 2006 the investigators questioned several of the applicants ’ neighbours and relatives. No new information was obtained.

70. On 5 December 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene at Mr Mutalipov ’ s house.

71. On 22 February 2007 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators

72 . On 26 April 2011 the first applicant lodged a request for an information update with the investigators, who replied to her that the investigation had been suspended.

73 . On 6 February and again on 19 May 2014 the first applicant lodged a request with the investigators for access to the criminal case file. No reply was given.

74. On various dates in March 2014 Materi Chechni and the applicants asked a number of State officials and law-enforcement agencies for assistance in the search for Mr Alikhan Mutalipov.

75. On 14 July 2014 the investigators ’ superiors ordered that the investigation be resumed on 1 August 2014. The investigation was again suspended on 1 September 2014, then resumed on 26 November 2014 and suspended again on 2 December 2014.

76. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

77. On 20 August 2014 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shelkovskiy District Court in Chechnya challenging her lack of access to the criminal case file. The outcome of those proceedings is unknown.

78. On 11 November 2014 the first applicant again lodged a complaint with the same court challenging the decision of 1 September 2014 to suspend the investigation and the investigators ’ failure to take basic steps.

79. On 27 November 2014 the court rejected the complaint, having found that the investigators had earlier resumed the investigation. On 28 January 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

80. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relatives had disappeared after allegedly being 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

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

II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH RULE

A. The parties ’ submissions

1. The Government

82. The Government submitted that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court several years after the abduction of their relatives and more than six months after the date on which they ought to have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the pending investigations. Referring to Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009, the Government submitted that the applicants had failed to explain the delay in the submission of their applications with the Court. They furthermore argued, referring to Utsmiyeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 31179/11, and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v Russia (dec.), 58055/10, that the applicants had remained passive in the domestic criminal proceedings. The applicants had therefore failed to show due diligence and comply with the six-month time limit for lodging their respective complaints with the Court.

83. In particular, as regards Yushayev and Others (no. 29541/14) and Madayeva and Others v Russia (no. 27414/15), the Government pointed out that the applications had been lodged eleven and ten years after the respective abductions, but that the applicants had failed to explain their delay in bringing the proceedings to the Court. Furthermore, the applicants had failed to show diligence in respect of the domestic investigation, reporting the respective abductions only after inexplicable delays, and failing to maintain contact with the investigators for significant periods, which indicated that the applicants had not expected any important developments in the proceedings. As for the complaints lodged with courts shortly before lodging of the applications with the Court, those had been lodged in order “to create an illusion of participation in the investigation” and should not be taken into account when assessing the applicants ’ compliance with the six-month rule.

84. As for Ibakovy v Russia (no. 60905/14), the Government pointed out that the application had been lodged more than twelve years after the abduction in question, but that the applicants had neither duly explained their delay, nor demonstrated due diligence in the domestic criminal proceedings. There had been significant lulls in the proceedings during which no communication between the applicants and the authorities had taken place. Furthermore, just as in the other two cases under examination, the applicants had lodged a court complaint shortly before their application to the Court in order “to create an illusion of participation in the investigation” and did not reflect the applicant ’ s compliance with the six ‑ month rule.

2. The applicants

85. The applicants in all the applications submitted that they had complied with the six-month rule. They submitted in general terms that 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 respective proceedings. The armed conflict in Chechnya had led them to believe that investigative delays were inevitable and that it had only been 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.

86. The applicants in Yushayev and Others (no. 29541/14) and Madayeva and Others v Russia (no. 27414/15) did not comment on their respective delays in lodging abduction complaints with the authorities.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

1. General principles

87. 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 , cited above, §§ 34-40.

88. The Court reiterates that applicants who lodge applications more than ten years after the disappearance of their relatives and the institution of the respective criminal investigation should provide convincing justification for the delay in bringing their complaints before the Court (see Varnava and Others , cited above, § 166).

2. Application of the principles to the present case

89. 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 respective proceedings on a number of occasions, but each time the resumption of the proceedings did not lead to any real advancement in respect of either the identification or 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 Doshuyeva and Yusupov , cited above, § 47, 31 May 2016; Utsmiyeva and Others, cited above, § 38; Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and, mutatis mutandis , Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).

90. Furthermore, at the material time the applicants had direct access to the authorities and could have freely communicated with the investigators regarding the abduction of their family members (see, among 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, the documents submitted show that in each of the cases at hand the applicants contacted the authorities only sporadically and remained passive throughout the significant periods of time during which the respective investigations were dormant.

91. Turning to the applications Yushayev and Others (no. 29541/14) and Madayeva and Others v Russia (no. 27414/15), the Court observes that in each case the applicants or their relatives complained of the abduction more than, respectively, two and one and half years after the events in question and that in neither application did they provide explanations for such a delay in reporting a life-threatening crime to the authorities (see paragraphs 11 and 66 above). Even if, despite the major delay, the applicants and their relatives could have genuinely expected that the authorities would take all necessary steps to establish their relatives ’ whereabouts once they had been informed of the abduction, their subsequent sporadic contact with the authorities, together with the overall timeframe of the proceedings in question, showed that they did not perceive the investigation as effective (see paragraphs 17, 33, 72 and 73 above).

92. As for the application Ibakovy v Russia (no. 60905/14), the Court observes that the application was lodged more than twelve years after the abduction in question and that the applicants failed to contact the authorities for several years following the launch of the criminal investigation (see paragraph 45 above). Furthermore, the documents submitted show that the applicants showed no genuine initiative in contacting the authorities in respect of the progress of the criminal proceedings, despite their having, according to them, very little information about developments in that respect (see paragraphs 48-50 and 52 above).

93. The Court notes that in the cases at hand, given that the applicants were close relatives of the abducted individuals, they should have demonstrated diligence by maintaining 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 the 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).

94. Lastly, the Court is not convinced that in view of the time that elapsed since the incidents in question, the lengthy periods of the suspensions in the respective proceedings, and the lack of any meaningful communication with the authorities, the applicants in the cases at hand had any grounds for hope or any realistic prospects that the search for their missing relatives would prove 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 10 October 2019 .

Stephen Phillips Georgios A. Serghides Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

1

29541/14

31/03/2014

Ms Kilsani YUSHAYEVA

01/04/1954

Oyskhar

Ms Luiza YUSHAYEVA

04/05/1978

Grozny

Ms Larisa YUSHAYEVA

25/10/1979

Ilskhan-Yurt

2

60905/14

18/08/2014

Mr Gazali IBAKOV

10/03/1952

Naurskaya

Mr Umar IBAKOV

18/08/1984

Oktyabrskoye

Ms Razyat IBAKOVA

10/01/1950

Oktyabrskoe

Mr Alikhan IBAKOV

14/04/1979

Oktybrskoe

Ms Aminat IBAKOVA

26/11/1987

Oktybrskoe

Ms Khulimat IBAKOVA

28/05/1993

Oktyabryskoe

3

27414/15

19/05/2015

Ms Tamara MADAYEVA

09/07/1956

Petropavlovskaya

Mr Eli MUTALIPOV

20/11/1956

Petropavlovskaya

Mr Saykhan MUTALIPOV

04/01/1982

Petropavlovskaya

Mr Amirkhan MUTALIPOV

10/10/1983

Petropavlovskaya

Mr Isa MUTALIPOV

26/04/1988

Petropavlovskaya

Mr Musa MUTALIPOV

12/07/1989

Petropavlovskaya

Mr Abdul-Vakhid MUTALIPOV

11/01/2004

Grozny

Mr Magomed-Salekh MUTALIPOV

07/06/2005

Grozny

Ms Milana UMAROVA

01/12/1982

Grozny