Communicated on 16 May 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 36963/09 Khatimat SAIDOVA against Russia and 7 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives ’ abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Besides, in application Valibagandov v. Russia , no. 67897/16 the applicant complained of the State ’ s failure to comply with the positive obligation to protect the right to life of his disappeared brother. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had suffered mentally on account of their relatives ’ disappearance and their inability to ascertain their faith as well as the authorities ’ indifference to their complaints and requests for assistance in elucidating the circumstances of the incidents. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relatives ’ unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

The relevant details regarding the applicants ’ allegations and their version of factual circumstances are reflected in the attached appendices.

The table of appendices:

Appendix

Application No.

Name of the case

1.

36963/09

Saidova v. Russia

2.

33731/14

Ugurchiyev and Others v. Russia

3.

2297/15

S.A. and Others v. Russia

4.

6594/15

Zhovbatyrov and Dorsigova v. Russia

5.

19/16

Indrisova v. Russia

6.

21260/16

Z.I. and Others v. Russia

7.

67897/16

Valigabandov v. Russia

8.

56941/17

Ausheva v. Russia

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to:

- previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 of the Convention were found in respect of both the disappearances of applicants ’ relatives as a result of abduction by members of the security forces, and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Ortsuyeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 3340/08 and 24689/10, 22 November 2016 and Kushtova and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 60806/08, 21 February 2017); and

- the similarity of the present applications to the cases cited above, as can be seen from the applicants ’ submissions and the interim results of the investigation:

(a) Have the applicants made out a prima facie case that their relatives were apprehended by State agents?

(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants ’ relatives ’ abduction and ensuing disappearance (see Varnava and Others , cited above, §§ 183-84)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants ’ allegations concerning the State agents ’ involvement in the abductions by submitting documents, which are in their exclusive possession, or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events?

2. Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants ’ missing relatives?

3. Has there been a violation of the positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, in respect of Mr Omar Valibagandov in application Valibagandov v Russia , no. 67897/16 (see, for example, Medova v. Russia , no. 25385/04, § 100, 15 January 2009 and Makayeva v. Russia , no. 37287/09, § 105, 18 September 2014)?

4. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII and Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia , nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, § 217, 18 December 2012), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearance of the applicants ’ relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

5. Has the applicants ’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives and the authorities ’ alleged indifference in that respect and alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation thereof 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?

6. Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Omar Valibagandov on account of his ill-treatment by the abductors in application Valibagandov v Russia , no. 67897/16?

7. Were the applicants ’ missing relatives deprived of their liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?

8. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

9. In accordance with the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information:

(a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants ’ allegations that their missing relatives were abducted by State agents;

and , in any event,

(b) a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants ’ complaints regarding the disappearance of their missing relatives, in chronological order, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings;

as well as:

(c) copies of those documents in the relevant preliminary inquiry and the investigation files that are necessary for establishing the factual circumstances of the allegations and evaluating the effectiveness of the criminal investigation.

Appendix No. 1

App No.

Case Title

Information about the applicant(s)

36963/09

Saidova

v. Russia

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Khatimat

SAIDOVA

F

1955Makhachkala, Dagestan, Russia

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Mother

Information about the abducted person(s)

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Suspected of terrorist activities

Criminal background

Official employment at the time of abduction

Salikh

SAIDOV

M

1979Suspected terrorist

N/A

N/A

Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of apprehension

Alleged reason thereof

Time and place of apprehension

Narrative of the facts

Information on abductors ’ identity

Places of detention

Any last known information about the abducted person(s)

17/07/2005

Suspected Terrorist

n/a, Moscow

Background information : In January 2005 the applicant ’ s son-in-law Mr Shamil DZHAMALUTDINOV was killed during a special operation carried out by the State authorities in Kizil-Yurt, Dagestan. Then in October 2005 the applicant ’ s son Mr Rustam SAIDOV was killed during a special operation carried out in Makhachkala, Dagestan. The applicant ’ s another son, Mr Abdurakhman SAIDOV and her daughter, Ms Sakinat SAIDOVA (the wife of Mr Shamil DZHAMALUTDINOV) were suspected by the authorities of involvement in illegal armed groups.

Abduction of the applicant ’ s son Mr Salikh SAIDOV: In 2004 Mr Salikh SAIDOV moved to Moscow. In July 2005 three friends of Mr Salikh SAIDOV from Dagestan informed the applicant that they had been arrested with her son Salikh in Moscow. They were released, whereas her son was not. The applicant found out that upon the request of investigator E.A. from the Dagestan Prosecutor ’ s office, on 17/07/2005 Mr Salikh had been arrested by the police in Moscow and taken for questioning to Makhachkala. According to the applicant, in Makhachkala her son was taken to the 6 th Department of Ministry of the Interior (the Organised Crime Unit) for 3 days and then transferred to ORB-2 (police operational –search bureau no. 2) in Grozny, Chechnya. Since his detention on 17/07/2005 Mr Salikh SAIDOV has gone missing.

The police officers in Moscow who, upon request of Mr E. A., an investigator in charge of murders and illegal armed groups in Makhachkala, arrested Mr Salikh SAIDOV and handed him over to the police in Dagestan.

During the first 3 days of detention: the 6 th Department of the Ministry of the Interior in Dagestan, then ORB-2 in Grozny in Chechnya.

In reply to the applicant ’ s request, on 18/07/2006 investigator E.A. informed her lawyer that no criminal cases had been opened against her son and that he had not been either arrested or detained by the Dagestan police. On 30/08/2006 the first deputy Dagestan Prosecutor informed the applicant that on 14/07/2005 a decision to question Salikh SAIDOV had been taken and a request for its execution forwarded to Moscow. However, that request remained unexecuted.

At the same time, in the letter of 03/04/2006 singed by the head of the Department of Organised Crime of East Administrative Circuit in Moscow Mr V. K. and also in the letter of 18/07/2006 signed by the deputy head of the Centre of Russian Ministry of the Interior Mr V. R. both officials admitted that the applicant ’ s son had been detained in Moscow by the police officers from “T” unit on 17/07/2005 upon the request of an investigator from Dagestan. According to their request, the proceedings in criminal case no. 558754 opened by the Dagestan Prosecutor ’ s office required questioning of Mr Salikh SAIDOV.

Information about the applicant ’ s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of introduction of criminal complaint

Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case

Date of the decision to open and the authority

Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code

Initial shortcomings in the investigation

Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)

Brief description of the criminal investigation

Other relevant domestic proceedings

On 21/01/2006 the applicant requested information from various authorities concerning her son ’ s whereabouts;

On 28/04/2008 the applicant yet again requested that a criminal case be opened into her son ’ s disappearance.

29/04/2008 the Dagestan Prosecutor ’ s office refused to open a criminal case into the disappearance; on 28/05/2008 the refusal was overruled and criminal case opened.

26/06/2008

No. 802476 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder)

Belated opening of the criminal case – in more than two and half years since the initial complaints; the applicant was not informed of the steps and decisions taken during the preliminary inquiry into her son ’ s disappearance and the investigation of the criminal case.

Repeated complaints to various human rights NGOs about her son ’ s abduction by the police, which were forwarded to law-enforcement agencies. As of 2006 the applicant lodged repeated complaints with various law-enforcement agencies.

The investigation is still pending

n/a

Appendix No. 2

App No.

Case Title

Information about the applicant(s)

33731/14

Ugurchiyev and Others v. Russia

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Salman

UGURCHIYEV

M

1956Ordzhenikidzevskaya, Sunzhenskiy District, Ingushetia

Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI/Astreya)

Father of Akroman UGURCHIYEV

Firdos

BOGATYREVA

F

1955Mother of Akroman UGURCHIYEV

Zalina

AZIKOVA

F

1984Nartan, Chegemskiy District, Kabardino-Balkaria

Wife of Akroman UGURCHIYEV

Abdulla

UGURCHIYEV

M

2009Son of Akroman UGURCHIYEV

Rabiya

UGURCHIYEVA

F

2012Daughter of Akroman UGURCHIYEV

Bashir

BERSANOV

M

1942Ordzhenikidzevskaya, Sunzhenskiy District, Ingushetia

Father of Umalat BERSANOV

Salakhaddin

BERSANOV

M

2010Son of Umalat BERSANOV

Suleyman

BERSANOV

M

2004Son of Umalat BERSANOV

Umar

BERSANOV

M

2008Son of Umalat BERSANOV

Rosa

ESMURZIYEVA

F

1954Mother of Umalat BERSANOV

Alla

AMIRKHANOVA

F

1980Wife of Umalat BERSANOV

Information about the abducted person(s)

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Suspected of terrorist activities

Criminal background

Official employment at the time of abduction

Akroman

UGURCHIYEV

M

1984Suspected terrorist

N/A

No

Umalat

BERSANOV

M

1978Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of apprehension

Alleged reason thereof

Time and place of apprehension

Narrative of the facts

Relevant circumstances

Alleged nature of operation

Information on abductors ’ identity

Places of detention

Any last known information about the abducted person(s)

23/08/2011

Suspected terrorist

At about 6 p.m. in front of the house (Sheripova Street 44, Sunzhenskiy District, Ingushetia)

Both men, Mr UGURCHIYEV and Mr BERSANOV, were abducted by a group of about ten armed men in black and camouflage uniforms and balaclavas who drove a white GAZEL-model minibus with tinted windows and a silver Lada - Priora model car. The registration number of the minibus contained digits 491 and that of the Lada-Priora started with digit 2.

Duration of less than 30 min

Unclear

N/A

N/A

On the day of the abduction, the abductors ’ vehicles were seen by the applicants near the premises of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) in Magas, Ingushetiya.

Information about the applicant ’ s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of introduction of criminal complaint

Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case

Date of the decision to open and the authority

Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code

Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)

Brief description of the criminal investigation

Other relevant domestic proceedings

On 23/08/2011 the complaint was lodged with a prosecutor ’ s office and on 29/08/2011 the investigation was initiated.

N/A

29/08/2011 the Sunzhenskiy District Investigative Committee in Ingushetia

No. 11600046 under Art.126 Criminal Code of Russia (abduction)

The incident was reported on the same day; Submission of evidence by the applicants (physical and witness statements); Maintained contact with the authorities; requested and obtained the victim status on 29/08/2011. The applicants lodged information requests with the investigation on 18/04/2012 and 21/05/2012.

Witnesses were questioned (relatives and the police), request for a search of the abductors ’ vehicles was forwarded to the police and local checkpoints. The investigation was repeatedly suspended (24/10/2011, 24/11/2011, 24/12/2011, 28 /01/2011) and then resumed for the investigators ’ failure to take basic steps (29/02/2012, 28/10/2012, 24/10/2013). The proceedings are still pending.

The applicants complained to local courts under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the investigators ’ inaction on 21/05/2012 and then on 23/08/2013. The complaints were rejected as the suspended proceedings had been resumed shortly before the hearing.

Appendix No. 3

App No.

Case Title

Information about the applicant(s)

2297/15

S.A and Others v. Russia

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

S .

A.

F

1953Naurskiy district, Chechnya

Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI/Astreya)

Mother of Mr B.A.

M.

K .

F

1962Mother of Mr K.K.

L .

I .

F

1990Wife of Mr K.K.

I .

L .

F

1992Wife of Mr B.A.

Information about the abducted person(s)

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Suspected of terrorist activities

Criminal background

Official employment at the time of abduction

B .

A .

M

1989unclear

On 28/01/2015 the Naurskiy ROVD obtained operational information concerning the involvement of Mr B.A. and Mr K.K. in an illegal armed group of Mr M. Z. who had been eliminated on 01/01/2015.

N/A

K .

K .

M

1988Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of apprehension

Alleged reason thereof

Time and place of apprehension

Narrative of the facts

Relevant circumstances

Places of detention

Any last known information about the abducted person(s)

05/12/2014

Identity check in the aftermath of a terrorist attack in Grozny on 3-4 December 2014

In the evening on 05/12/2014 at the Naurskiy District Department of the Interior (the Naurskiy ROVD)

At about 7 p.m. on 05/12/2014 a police officer arrived at one of the applicants ’ houses and took Mr B.A. and Mr K.K. to the same police station to clarify some information.

At about midnight on 05/12/2014 Mr A . A z. ( the first applicant ’ s husband and the father of Mr B.A. ) telephoned that police officer on the latter ’ s mobile telephone. The officer told him that his son and Mr K.K. would be released soon, upon commanding officers ’ orders to this end. The commanding officer was to arrive at the police station shortly. However, the applicants ’ sons did not return home.

On 05/01/2015 officers from the ROVD arrived at the applicants ’ houses and took the applicants to the ROVD where they informed them that both Mr B.A. and Mr K.K. had been released from the Naurskiy ROVD on 06/12/2014 and that their whereabouts after that date were unknown.

According to the applicants, on 04/12/2014 their sons were taken in for an identity check by criminal police officers from the Naurskiy ROVD. Later on the same date the applicants ’ sons were released.

See application Z.I. and Others v. Russia (no. 21260/16) lodged in respect of the abduction of the applicant ’ s four relatives under similar circumstances (see Appendix 6).

Naurskiy District Department of the Interior

Detained at the police station

Information about the applicant ’ s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of introduction of criminal complaint

Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case

Date of the decision to open and the authority

Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code

Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)

Brief description of the criminal investigation

Other relevant domestic proceedings

On 14/01/2015 the first two applicants complained of their sons ’ abduction to the Chechen Prosecutor ’ s office and on 29/01/2015 that complaint was transferred to the Chechen Investigations Department for a preliminary inquiry. The outcome of that inquiry is unknown.

N/A

Unknown

Unknown, it is unclear whether a criminal investigation has been initiated into the disappearance of the applicants ’ relatives.

Lodging complaints concerning their relatives ’ disappearance with various domestic authorities.

The taking of the applicants ’ relatives to the Naurskiy ROVD on 05/12/2014 was confirmed by the decision of 02/03/2015 issued by the investigator of the Chechnya Investigative Committee Mr Kh.M. The document stated that the men had been released after a short interview and that then they most probably absconded. On 02/02/2015, the first two applicants were questioned about the circumstances of their sons ’ disappearance. Their statements reflected the following: on 05/12/2014, a police officer had taken their sons from home to the Naurskiy ROVD. They went missing since.

The applicants appealed the failure to carry out an effective inquiry and to open a criminal case into their relatives ’ disappearance as well as the opening of a criminal case against them: 1) the complaint rejected on appeal by the Chechnya Supreme Court on 14/04/2015; 2) the complaint rejected on appeal by the Chechnya Supreme Court on 15/04/2015. O n 01/02/2015 criminal case no. 74507 was opened against the applicants ’ relatives on the suspicion of membership in an illegal armed group (Articles 33 and 208 of the Criminal Code) (see Z.I. and Others v Russia (no. 21260/16)).

Appendix No. 4

App No.

Case Title

Information about the applicant(s)

6594/15

Zhovbatyrov and Dorsigova

v. Russia

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Dzhabrail

ZHOVBATYROV

M

1963The village of Dattykh in the Sunzhenskiy district, Ingushetia

Astreya/SRJI

Father

Dolatkhan

DORSIGOVA

F

1956The settlement of Ordzhenikidzevskaya, Ingushetia

Astreya/SRJI

Mother

Information about the abducted person(s)

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Suspected of terrorist activities

Criminal background

Official employment at the time of abduction

Vakha

ZHOVBATYROV

M

1990According to the information statement of 21/12/2011 provided by the Ingushetia Federal Security Service, Mr Vakha ZHOVBATYROV was an active member of the Sunzhenskaya illegal armed group specialised in attacks on law-enforcement officers and other representatives of the authorities

Unknown

N/A

Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of apprehension

Alleged reason thereof

Time and place of apprehension

Narrative of the facts

Relevant circumstances

Alleged nature of operation

Information on abductors ’ identity

Places of detention

Any last known information about the abducted person(s)

At about

10 p.m. on 04/08/2011

Suspected terrorist

Ordzhenikidzevskaya, Ingushetia

A perimeter set up around a residential quarter in the settlement of Ordzhenikidzevskaya. Passport spot check carried out by armed persons in camouflage uniforms without insignia who drove around in two Gazel-model minibuses. One of the buses had registration number containing digits 904 or 906 and the region indication 06.

Night time

Identity check

According to the applicants, the special operation was carried out not by the Sunzhenskiy district police department but another law-enforcement agency.

N/A

N/A

Information about the applicant ’ s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of introduction of criminal complaint

Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case

Date of the decision to open and the authority

Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code

Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)

Brief description of the criminal investigation

Other relevant domestic proceedings

05/08/2011

N/A

The investigation into the abduction opened on 09/08/2011 by the Sunzhenskiy district investigative department.

Criminal case no. 11600041, opened under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

The abduction complaint was lodged immediately after the incident, the applicants maintained regular contact with the authorities by lodging complaints and requests for information. According to the applicants, despite their numerous requests, between 2012 and 2014 the investigators did not allow them to access the contents of the criminal case file.

On 04/10/2011 the investigators stated in the procedural decision concerning the time-frame of the investigation that one of the versions concerned possible involvement in the incident of the officers of the Ingushetia FSB. On 02/12/2011 the head of Ingushetia FSB was questioned in course of the investigation. He confirmed that the cars used during the operation belonged to the local FSB. On 12/12/2011 the FSB officer who drove one of the vehicles seen during the abduction was interrogated. Name of person was classified; the person was interrogated as "K". Only an extract of the interrogation was made available; the full interrogation record was also classified. On 21/12/2011 certain documents of the case-file were classified. On 23/11/2011 the investigation was transferred to military unit no. 68799 as the investigators had established the involvement of the FSB officers in the abduction of the applicant ’ s son. On 22/12/2011 the military investigators returned the criminal case file to the Sunzhenskiy district investigative department as the alleged involvement of the FSB officers was not confirmed as “no special operation had been carried out in Ordzhenikidzevskaya on 04/08/2011”. On 11/11/2014 investigation authorities informed the applicants that the FSB involvement in the abduction was not confirmed. The proceedings are currently pending.

On 11/12/2014 the applicants complained to the Grozny Military garrison Court under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the investigators ’ failure to take all possible steps to verify the involvement of the FSB officers in the abduction. The outcome of these proceedings in unknown.

Appendix No. 5

App No.

Case Title

Information about the applicant

19/16

Indrisova

v. Russia

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Markha

IDRISOVA

F

1993Sadovoye, Grozny District, Chechnya

Mr Tagir SHAMSUDINOV, a human rights defender

Spouse

Information about the abducted person(s)

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Suspected of terrorist activities

Criminal background

Official employment at the time of abduction

Mukhumad

MAGOMADOV

M

1990No

No

No

Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of apprehension

Alleged reason thereof

Time and place of apprehension

Narrative of the Facts

Relevant circumstances

Information on abductors ’ identity

Places of detention

Any last known information about the abducted person(s)

06/02/2014

Mr M. MAGOMADOV was the brother of Mr Alik MAGOMADOV, an alleged terrorist killed in 2009

Around 10 p.m., at his family home

After Mr M. MAGOMADOV went outside his home after somebody knocked on the gate, his brother looked outside and saw a white Lada-Priora model car driving off. Allegedly, the same car, with registration number containing digits 646 and 95 was seen by a neighbour Mr K.U.

Night time; Duration the abduction comprised less than 30 min

N/A

N/A

N/A

Information about the applicant ’ s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of introduction of criminal complaint

Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case

Date of the decision to open and the authority

Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code

Initial shortcomings in the investigation

Procedural behaviour of the applicant

Brief description of the criminal investigation

Other relevant domestic proceedings

18/12/2014

On 18/01/2015 and then on 27/11/2015 the Grozny inter-district investigations department refused to open a criminal case. The applicant appealed and on 15/12/2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the refusal on appeal.

20/04/2017 by the Grozny investigative committee

Case no. 11702960008000021, opened under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

Belated opening (long period from lodging of the abduction complaints, initial refusals to initiate investigation).

Reporting the incident within short time-frame; submission of witness statements; regular communication with authorities; complaints against the investigators ’ inaction under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 24/04/2017 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

Last suspension of the investigation took place on 31/07/2017

N/A

Appendix No. 6

App No.

Case Title

Information about the applicant

21260/16

Z.I. and Others

v. Russia

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Z .

I .

F

1958Naurskiy District, Chechnya

SRJI/Astreya

Mother of L.U.

Y .

S .

F

1961Naurskiy District, Chechnya

Mother of S.S.

Z .

S .

F

1967Naurskiy District, Chechnya

Mother of R.A. and A.A.

T .

Y .

F

1962Naurskiy Region, Chechnya

Mother of Z.Y.

Information about the abducted person(s)

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Suspected of terrorist activities

Criminal background

Official employment at the time of abduction

L .

U .

M

1991Suspected terrorist

N/A

N/A

S .

S .

M

1987R .

A .

M

1986A .

A .

M

1989Z .

Y .

M

1983Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of apprehension

Alleged reason thereof

Narrative of the facts

Relevant circumstances

Information on abductors ’ identity

Places of detention

Any last known information about the abducted person(s)

On 05/12/2014 at 7 p.m. the applicants ’ sons were taken to the Naurskiy ROVD and did not return

In the aftermath of the armed attack of illegal armed groups in Grozny on 3-4 December 2014, the police carried out document checks.

In the evening on 05/12/2014 the five men were taken by the police to the Naurskiy ROVD. According to the applicants, it was done within the campaign of reprisals for the armed attack on State bodies in Grozny on 3-4 December 2014. That campaign included burning of houses of family members of persons suspected of involvement in illegal armed groups, their arrests and detentions. On 05/01/2015 the applicants were invited to the Naurskiy ROVD and told that their sons had been released on 06/12/2014.

Between 3 and 4 December 2014, during the daytime, the applicants ’ sons were taken to the Naurskiy district police station (the ROVD) and released. See application S.A. and Others v Russia (no. 2297/15) lodged in respect of the abduction of the applicant ’ s two relatives under similar circumstances (see Appendix 3).

The local police, including officers from the Naurskiy ROVD in collaboration with the officers from the Kadyrov regiment - security forces of the Chechen President R. Kadyrov.

The Naurskiy ROVD

Taken to the Naurskiy ROVD on 05/12/2014

Information about the applicant ’ s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of introduc-tion of criminal complaint

Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case

Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code

Initial shortcomings in the investigation

Brief description of the criminal investigation

Other relevant domestic proceedings

13/01/2015; 28/01/2015

On 02/03/2015 the 3 rd department of the Chechnya Investigative Committee refused to open a criminal case into the disappearance of the applicants ’ sons. The applicants appealed and requested access to the materials of the preliminary inquiry. On 21/08/2015 the Naurskiy District Court partially allowed their complaint and ordered that the applicants be allowed to access the materials “not representing the secret part of the investigation”.

It appears that despite the applicants ’ complaints, no criminal case into the disappearance of their sons has been opened.

For a similar situation see above S.A. and Others

v Russia

( no . 2297/15).

Refusal to open a criminal investigation; according to the applicants, they have not been allowed to access the contents of the preliminary inquiry into the disappearance of their sons.

Complaints concerning the investigators ’ inaction or their failure to take certain steps of 27/04/2015: 1. Decision of the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of 27/04/2015 - complaint rejected, but then granted by the Chechnya Supreme Court on appeal on 09/06/2015; 2. Decision of the Naurskiy District Court concerning another set of criminal proceedings - those opened against the applicants ’ sons on 01/2/2015 (see also S.A. and Others v Russia (no. 2297/15) ; the court refused to terminate the criminal investigation against the applicants ’ sons. This decision was upheld on appeal on 09/06/2015. 3. The applicants appealed against the investigators ’ refusal of 29/04/2015 to grant access to the inquiry file opened into the disappearance. On 21/08/2015 the Naurskiy District Court partially allowed access to partial contents of the preliminary inquiry into the disappearance of the applicants ’ sons.

The applicants state that their sons were abducted by the same officers who had conducted spot checks in Rubezhnoye from 4 to 06/12/2014 after an attack of illegal armed groups in Grozny the day before (see the complaint to the Investigative Committee of 28/01/2015). In their appeal of 13/05/2015 the applicants stated that the officers of the Naurskiy ROVD had been the last persons to see their sons and provided their names to the investigators. None of them was questioned. In their complaint of 27/04/2015 lodged under Article 125 of CCP the applicants stated that their sons had been abducted by the police. In her letter to the representatives of 21/01/2016 Ms Z.S. stated that on 05/12/2014 the police officers and the officers of the Kadyrov regiment had arrived at their farm and beaten her relatives pressurizing them to provide information on Mr M . Z av . That evening, at 5p.m. the officers had taken the applicant ’ s sons away from the farm to an unknown destination.

On 01/02/2015 the Naurskiy ROVD opened criminal case no. 74507 against the applicants ’ disappeared sons on the suspicion of their involvement in illegal armed groups. The applicants appealed against that decision under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code: by decision of 09/06/2015 of the Chechnya Supreme Court rejected the applicants ’ appeal .

Appendix No. 7

App No.

Case Title

Information about the applicant

67897/16

Valibagandov v. Russia

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Islam

VALIBAGANDOV

M

1984Izberbash, Dagestan, Russia

Human Rights Centre Memorial/EHRAC

Brother

Information about the abducted person(s)

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Suspected of terrorist activities

Criminal background

Official employment at the time of abduction

Omar

VALIBAGANDOV

M

1975N/A

N/A

Debt collector

Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of apprehension

Alleged reason thereof

Time and place of apprehension

Narrative of the facts

Relevant circumstances

Information on abductors ’ identity

Places of detention

Any last known information about the abducted person(s)

22/08/2013

unknown

Between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 22/08/2013 in Makhachkala, Dagestan

At about 11 a.m. on 22/08/2013 Mr Omar VALIBAGANDOV left his friend ’ s flat in Makhachkala to go to work. Between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. on that day he stopped answering his mobile phone calls.

Later on that date, at about 6 or 7 p.m., Mr VALIGABANDOV, who had been shot in the thigh with a rubber bullet, was taken to the Karabudakhkent Central Hospital by a group of officers from the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and shortly thereafter transferred to the Izberbash hospital handcuffed and under their surveillance. On the premises of the Izberbash hospital a group of about 20-25 police officers waited for the ambulance with the applicant ’ s brother.

In the hospital, during the removal of the bullet, Mr VALIGABANDOV told the doctors that he had been beaten, shot and abducted by the law-enforcement officers. Shortly after he was taken to the police car and driven off. He has gone missing since.

The applicant ’ s version of the circumstances of the abduction is confirmed by the statements given to the domestic investigation by the hospitals ’ medical staff

Unidentified officers from the FSB and the police

unknown

Last seen at the Izberbash hospital on 22/08/2013

Information about the applicant ’ s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of introduction of criminal complaint

Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case

Date of the decision to open and the authority

Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code

Brief description of the criminal investigation

Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)

On 23/08/2013 the applicant lodged abduction complaint with the police;

On 30/08/2013 he lodged another complaint with the Investigative Committee

Refusal of 26/08/2013 by the Izberbash police for the lack of the event of the crime; that decision was overruled on 25/10/2013

On 07/11/2013 by the Izberbash Inter-district Investigative Committee

Criminal case no. 305182 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction)

On 07/04/2014 the investigation was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators.

On 21/07/2014 the decision to suspend was overruled by the Izberbash prosecutor was unlawful and premature as the investigators had failed to take a number of basic steps, such as elucidating the circumstances of Mr VALIGABANDOV ’ s wounding. On 01/09/2014 the investigation was suspended again, but the requested steps had not been taken. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended on several occasions and resumed each time for the investigators ’ failure to take necessary steps. The last suspension took place on 24/12/2015 and then the investigation was resumed on 14/05/2016 owing to the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the local court. The criminal proceedings are still pending.

The applicant actively appealed under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code the investigators ’ decisions to suspend the proceedings and/or their failure to take step or their refusals to grant him permission to access the case file. He lodged complaints with the Izberbash Town Court: on 23/07/2014- his complaint was rejected; on 17/12/2014 and then on 27/03/2015 - his complaints were allowed; on 17/07/2015- his complaint rejected, then upheld on appeal by the Dagestan Supreme Court; on 18/11/2015- the applicant ’ s complaint was rejected and on 19/01/2016 that decision was upheld on appeal; on 16/05/2016 the applicant ’ s was complaint rejected.

Appendix No. 8

App No.

Case Title

Information about the applicant

56941/17

Ausheva

v. Russia

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Pyatimat

AUSHEVA

F

1957Nazran, Ingushetia

Not legally represented

Mother

Information about the abducted person(s)

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Suspected of terrorist activities

Criminal background

Official employment at the time of abduction

Rustam

AUSHEV

M

1988Charges under Articles 209 and 210 of the Criminal Code (banditry and membership in an illegal armed group)

N/A

N/A

Information about the circumstances of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of apprehension

Alleged reason thereof

Narrative of the facts

Relevant circumstances

Information on abductors ’ identity

Places of detention

Any last known information about the abducted person(s)

17/02/2012

Unknown

In the morning on 17/02/2012 Mr Rustam AUSHEV left home to go to Belgium to visit his sister. He was to take train from Nazran to the Mineralnye Vody station and then another train from that station to the western part of the country.

Between 1 and 7 p.m. he was at the Mineralnye Vody train station, when a group of seven men in civilian clothing approached him, showed him their service identity cards and then forced him in their white Gazel-model minivan. One of the abductors later introduced himself to the train station ’ s security personnel as Officer L. from the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and showed them his service identity card. After that Mr Rustam AUSHEV gone missing.

The abduction was recorded by the CCTV video camera situated at the train station.

Shortly before the abduction, on 17/02/2012 a law-enforcement officer had requested the cashier in Nazran, Ingushetia, to inform him of persons who had purchased tickets from Mineralnye Vody to Brest, Belorussia.

One of the abductors was the FSB officer L. with the service identity card

According to the letter of 05/03/2012, on the premises of the Department of the Ingushetia FSB in Magas

The abducted Mr AUSHEV was taken from the Mineralnye Vody train station in the Stavropol Region to the FSB premises in Ingushetia. According to the applicant ’ s submission, the passage of the applicant ’ s son was registered in the log of the regional border checkpoint.

Information about the applicant ’ s attempts to bring domestic proceedings in respect of the abduction/detention of the abducted person(s)

Date of introduction of criminal complaint

Dates of decisions to refuse to open the case

Date of the decision to open and the authority

Domestic criminal case number and corresponding article of the criminal code

Brief description of the criminal investigation

Procedural behaviour of the applicant(s)

19/02/2012

N/A

02/04/2012 by the Mineralovodskiy transport investigative committee.

Criminal case no. 1250126 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

The investigation was initiated in almost two months after the abduction and was subsequently suspended on several occasions and resumed each time for the investigators ’ failure to take necessary steps. The proceedings are still pending.

On several occasions the applicant appealed under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code the investigators ’ decisions to suspend the proceedings and/or their failure to take step or their refusals to allow him to access the case file. He lodged complaints with the Mineralnye Vody Town Court: on 21/01/2016 his complaint was rejected; on 22/07/2016 his complaint was rejected, that decision was overruled on appeal 09/12/2016 by the Stavropol Region Court and the complaint sent for a fresh examination. On 23/10/2017 that complaint was rejected again.