Communicated on 29 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 48608/19 Seda Anabiyevna BISULTANOVA and Fatima Ayubovna BISULTANOVA against Russia lodged on 29 August 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Seda Bisultanova and Ms Fatima Bisultanova , are Russian nationals, who were born in 1956 and 1983 respectively and live in Argun and Grozny, Chechnya. They are represe nted before the Court by Ms A. Khatsiyeva , a lawyer from the NGO “ Materi Chechni ” .

The first applicant is the mother and the second applicant is the wife of Mr Abu Bisultanov , who was born in 1982. He and the second applicant had two children.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

A. The circumstances of the case

At about 7.30 p.m. on 1 September 2009 in Kirova Street in Khasavyurt , Dagestan, a group of armed men who drove around in two VAZ-2010 cars forced the applicant ’ s relative Mr Abu Bisultanov and his acquaintance Mr T.Ch. into their vehicles and drove off.

From the documents submitted it follows that in 2014 unidentified persons contacted Mr T. Ch . ’ s wife Ms R.D. suggesting that her husband T.Ch. could be returned in exchange for money. Ms R.D. informed the investigators in the criminal case about that demand. It is unclear whether the applicants were aware of those developments.

On an unspecified date between 1 and 3 September 2009 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Khasavyurt interdistrict investigations department (the investigators).

On 8 September 2009 the investigators opened criminal case no. 910347 into the disappearance under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction).

On 23 October 2013 the first applicant complained to the head of the Chechnya investigations department describing the circumstances of the abduction, stating that the investigators from Khasavyurt were not “finding” the abducted men and asking for assistance in the search for them. It is unclear whether any reply was given.

On 29 July 2014 the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case.

On 17 August 2014 the investigation was suspended and the first applicant was informed thereof.

On 17 June 2015 a local NGO wrote to the Russian Prosecutor General and the Chief Military Prosecutor on behalf of the applicants asking for assistance in the investigation of Abu Bisultanov ’ s abduction. No reply was given.

On 19 June 2015 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on 10 June 2015. Then on 10 July 2015 the investigation was suspended again.

On 4 February 2016 the first applicant complained to the head of the investigators stating, among other things, that the investigation was protracted and requested to be informed of steps taken by the investigators. No reply was given. Then, on 19 March 2016 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof.

On 11 August 2016 the interim Khasavyurt prosecutor overruled the suspension of 19 March 2016 as unlawful and premature and ordered that the investigation be resumed. He pointed out that the investigators had failed to request information on the mobile phone connections made from the abducted men ’ s mobile telephones after their disappearance. Furthermore, the investigators had failed to follow up on the ransom remand made in 2014 in respect of Mr T.Ch. despite the fact that his wife Ms R.D. had informed them about it.

On 19 February 2018 the investigation was resumed again and then on 19 March 2018 it was suspended yet again.

On 19 June 2019 the first applicant complained to the head of the investigators stating that the investigation into her son ’ s disappearance was protracted and that she was not duly informed of its progress. She asked to be informed of the steps taken and be provided with a copy of the last decision to suspend the proceedings. Then, on 20 June 2019 the investigation was resumed. It appears that it is still pending.

It appears that between September 2009 and June 2019 neither of the applicants was questioned by the investigators.

On 27 May 2015 the first applicant complained to the Khasavyurt Town Court (the Town Court) that the investigation was ineffective and that it had been unlawfully and prematurely suspended on 17 August 2015, without all of the possible steps having been taken.

On 11 June 2015 the court left the complaint without examination as on 10 June 2015 the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed.

On 17 May 2016 the first applicant again complained to the Town Court that the investigation into her son ’ s disappearance was ineffective and requested that the decision to suspend the proceedings of 19 March 2016 be overruled. No reply was given.

On 1 March 2017 the first applicant again wrote to the Town Court and asked about the progress in the examination of her complaint of 17 May 2016. No reply was given to that request.

On an unspecified date in March 2018 the first applicant again complained to the Town Court requesting that the court overruled the suspension of 19 March 2016 and ordered that the investigation in the criminal case be resumed.

On 13 April 2018 the court again left the complaint without examination as on 19 February 2018 the investigation had been resumed.

On 20 June 2019 the first applicant lodged fourth complaint with the Town Court stating that the investigation was ineffective and requesting that the suspension of the proceedings of 19 March 2018 be overruled as unlawful.

On 4 July 2019 the court rejected that complaint as manifestly ill ‑ founded. It stated, in particular, that no meaningful evidence capable of identifying the perpetrators had been found and, therefore, the suspension of the proceedings was substantiated.

On 8 July 2019 the first applicant appealed against the above decision to the Dagestan Supreme Court. On 6 August 2019 the latter left the appeal without examination, having stated that the investigation had been resumed on 20 June 2019.

B. Relevant domestic law

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Turluyeva v. Russia , no. 63638/09, §§ 56-64, 20 June 2013.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that State agents abducted their relative Mr Abu Bisultanov , who has gone missing since and that the domestic authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter.

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they suffer severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of Mr Abu Bisultanov and the failure to conduct an effective investigation into his disappearance.

Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complain that Mr Abu Bisultanov was subjected to unacknowledged detention by his abductors.

Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain that no effective remedy was available in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants complied with the six ‑ month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on behalf of the applicants “excessive or unexplained delays” ( Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 165, ECHR 2009) in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relative Mr Abu Bisultanov , have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity, which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit?

2. Have the applicants made out a prima facie case that Mr Abu Bisultanov disappeared as a result of State servicemen ’ s actions? If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in respect of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants ’ relative ’ s abduction and ensuing disappearance ( Varnava and Others , cited above , §§ 181-84 and Tanış and Others v. Turkey , no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005 ‑ VIII)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants ’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abduction and subsequent disappearance by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the event? Has there been a violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention?

3. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), has the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities been sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

4. Has the applicants ’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their relative and the authorities ’ alleged indifference in that respect and alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants?

5. Was the applicants ’ relative Mr Abu Bisultanov deprived of his liberty, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was this in compliance with the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention?

6. Have the applicants had at their disposal effective domestic remedies in relation to the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of their relative Mr Abu Bisultanov , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

7. The Government are requested to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in criminal case no. 910347 instituted in relation to the abduction of Mr Abu Bisultanov . They are also requested to include a list of steps, in chronological order, reflecting the actions taken by the authorities in the criminal proceedings to date.