Communicated on 9 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 51933/08 Astemir Shamilovich MURDALOV and others against Russia and 2 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.

In Murdalov and Others v. Russia (no. 51933/08) the applicants also complain that their relative Mr Zelimkhan Murdalov was subjected to torture by his abductors on the premises of the police station in the Oktyabrskiy district in Grozny after his apprehension on 2 January 2001. The applicants rely on Article 3 of the Convention in this connection.

Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in Mamakayevy v. Russia (no. 66638/16) and Murdalov and Others v. Russia (no. 51933/08) 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 Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants in Mamakayevy v. Russia (no. 66638/16) complained that their relatives ’ unlawful detention violated these provisions in their entirety.

The applicants in all listed cases also complained 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 number

Introduction Date

Name of the case

1

51933/08

14/10/2008

Murdalov and Others v. Russia

2

66638/16

01/11/2016

Mamakayevy v. Russia

3

45131/17

03/06/2017

Siriyeva v. Russia

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants in Mamakayevy v. Russia (no. 66638/16) and Siriyeva v. Russia (no. 45131/17) complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there “excessive or unexplained delays” on the applicants ’ part in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives, and 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 time-limit (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009 and Sagayeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 22698/09 and 31189/11, §§ 60-62, 8 December 2015)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their application with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with their relatives ’ abduction.

2. In respect of all listed cases, having regard to:

- the Court ’ s numerous 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, Ort s uyeva 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?

3. In respect of all listed cases, has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants ’ missing relatives?

4. In respect of all listed cases, 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 . As regards Murdalov and Others v. Russia (no. 51933/08), w as Mr Zelimkhan Murdalov subjected to torture by the abductors, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from torture (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131 , ECHR 2000 ‑ IV), was the investigation into the matter by the domestic authorities in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention?

6. As regards Mamakayevy v. Russia (no. 66638/16) and Murdalov and Others v. Russia (no. 51933/08), 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 in respect of the applicants?

7. As regards Mamakayevy v. Russia (no. 66638/16), 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. In respect of all listed cases, 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 respect of all listed cases, 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 investigation file 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)

51933/08

Murdalov and Others v. Russia

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Astemir

MURDALOV

M

1951Grozny, Chechnya

Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) in collaboration with NGO Astreya

Father

Rakiyat

MURDALOVA

F

1953Mother

Zalina

MURDALOVA

F

1977Sister

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

Zelimkhan

MURDALOV

M

1975No

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 concerning the abductors

Other factors

Alleged nature of operation

Information on abductors ’ identity

Places of detention

Any last known information about the abducted person(s)

02/01/2001

Unknown

11 a.m., Musorov Street in Grozny, next to Temporary Department of the Interior of the Oktyabrskiy District (the VOVD)

Mr MURDALOV was walking by the VOVD when six police officers surrounded, searched and beat him up. Then officers put a coat over his head and forced to enter the police station. For several hours Mr Murdalov was beaten by hands, kicks and batons. At 7 p.m. he was transferred to the station ’ s temporary detention unit (the IVS) with visible injuries, which were recorded by the doctor: head trauma, open fracture of the left arm, teared ear, bruised testicles. Then Mr Murdalov was placed into the cell where he suffered several strokes. The doctor was called into the cell and he made some injections. On 3/01/2001 Mr Murdalov was taken out from the cell by the police officers who had beaten him. He has not been seen since.

6 police officers allegedly involved

Day time; No curfew

Unclear

Police officers from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD

Premises of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD and its IVS.

Taken by the police officers from the IVS

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

5/01/2001

N/A

7/01/2001, by the Chechnya Prosecutor ’ s office

No. 15004 (in the documents submitted also stated no. 15005) under Art 126 of the CC of RF (abduction)

On an unspecified date in May 2002 several important pieces of evidence (witness statements, photos and etc.) went missing from the casefile .

Active participation, multiple requests filed to facilitate the proceedings.

On 29/03/2005 one of the alleged perpetrators (officer S. L.) was convicted of abuse of power. Other perpetrators were not identified. On 18/11/2005 criminal proceedings were initiated under Articles 111 § 3 (a) and 286 § 3 (a, b, c) of the Criminal Code against two other alleged perpetrators (officers P and M). Both of them were put on the search list. Criminal proceedings were closed against both of them on 18/01/2016 (M) and on 26/01/2016 (P) for the lack of corpus delicti .

On 17/01/2007 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction of officer S.L .and referred the case for reconsideration. On 27/11/2007 he was found guilty of abuse of powers, aggravated grave bodily injuries and sentenced to 10 ,5 years of prison. Subsequently, his sentence was reduced to 10 years. In 2014 he was released.

On 11/06/2009 the first applicant was awarded RUB 500,000 in civil damages.

Appendix No. 2

App no.

Case title

Information about the applicant(s)

66638/16

Mamakayevy v. Russia

First Name

Surname

Sex

Year of birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Lemka

MAMAKAYEVA

F

1950Alkhan -Kala, Grozny District, Chechnya

Mothers of Chechnya

( Materi Chechni )

Mother

Markha

MAMAKAYEVA

F

1998Alkhan -Kala, Grozny District, Chechnya

Daughter

Khava

MAMAKAYEVA

F

1973Sernovodskoye , Sunzhensky District, Chechnya

Sister

Makka

MAMAKAYEVA

F

1976Alkhan -Kala, Grozny District, Chechnya

Sister

Kharon

MAMAKAYEV

M

1979Alkhan -Kala, Grozny District, Chechnya

Brother

Kheda

MAMAKAYEVA

F

1982Sernovodskoye , Sunzhensky District, Chechnya

Sister

Marem

MAMAKAYEVA

F

1985Alkhan -Kala, Grozny District, Chechnya

Sister

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

Adam

MAMAKAYEV

M

1978Relative of an alleged terrorist

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 concerning the abductors

Other factors

Alleged nature of operation

Information on abductors ’ identity

Places of detention

Any last known information about the abducted person(s)

25/10/2002

Suspected terrorist

Day-time, at the entrance to the Mineralnye Vody airport

The police apprehended the applicant ’ s relative at the traffic post. Mr MAMAKAYEV carried on him a photograph of armed men (including his brother, who died during a military operation in Chechnya)

Chain of command; Uniform; Passport check; Special vehicles; Signs of insignia

Day time; No curfew

Identity check

Police officers from the Mineralnye Vody police station.

Police stand-by unit, Mineralnye Vody police station. The applicants ’ relative was probably placed in its temporary detention unit (the IVS) in Mineralnye Vody .

Mr Mamakayev was arrested at the traffic police post, and then probably placed in detention in the IVS in Mineralnye Vody .

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 criminal 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

before 31/10/2002

31/10/2002 - initial refusal

16/06/2006, by the Mineralnye Vody Inter-District Prosecutor ’ s Office

No. 63081 under Art 105 of the CC of RF (murder)

Belated opening (time-frame between lodging of the official complaint, refusals to initiate investigation); Failure to examine the crime-scene.

Reporting the incident within short time-frame; maintain contact with the authorities - victim status; lodging info requests; complaints under Art 125 of the CPC and complaints to other State bodies; gap of communication with authorities of more than 5 years

Several witnesses were questioned. The investigation was transferred to the prosecutor ’ s office of the Stavropol Region. The investigation was suspended on several occasions: on 21/09/2006, re-opened on 27/03/2007, suspended on 15/06/2007.

The applicant unsuccessfully challenged ineffectiveness of the investigation in court (Appellate Decision of the Stavropol Regional Court of 3/08/2016).

Appendix No. 3

App no.

Case title

Information about the applicant(s)

45131/17

Siriyeva v. Russia

First name

Surname

Sex

Year of Birth

Address

Representative

Kinship to the abducted person(s)

Tua

SIRIYEVA

F

1973Kiri , Shatoy District, Chechnya

Mr Ilyas Timishev

Wife

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

Sultan

MUSALOV

M

1973No

No

Yes

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 concerning the abductors

Other factors

Alleged nature of operation; information on abductors ’ identity; places of detention

15/10/2006

Unknown

1:30 a.m., in Kiri , Shatoy District, Chechnya

Mr MUSALOV heard women crying and shouting next to his house, went out to see what was going on. He was abducted in the street in the centre of Kiri , in the presence of witnesses, by a group of 10 armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms. The abductors drove in silver VAZ Niva (reg. no. A-382-AT 95), khaki UAZ (reg. no. C-489-XT 95) and grey UAZ LUX (reg. no. K-696-XX 95) cars. They forced Mr Musalov in one of their cars and drove off to Grozny.

Night time; More than 4 officers; Uniform; Special weapons; Duration less than 30 min

Unclear

The cars entered Grozny through a checkpoint and went to military unit 3025 of 46 OBRON of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation located near the Severniy Airport in Grozny. At the checkpoint the abductors produced a service identity card of the Federal Security Service (the FSB); one of them introduced himself as E.; the registration numbers of their cars had been issued to the FSB office in Khankala ; one of the drivers was later identified by the witnesses as M.R.S. from military unit no. 6783. According to the applicant, the following persons were involved in Mr. MUSALOV ’ s abduction: Head of the Shatoy Criminal Investigations Department I.D., who was born in Borzoy , Sharoy District; officer of the Police Department No. 6 of the Chechnya Ministry of the Internal Affairs A. R., who was born in A.- Sheripovo , Sharoy District; local police officer of the Sharoy District M. A. from Sharoy ; officers of the FSB Department supervising 46 OBRON D. K. and S. S. ; Squadron Commander of 46 OBRON A. M. from the settlement known as Sovkhoz Argun .

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

15/10/2006

N/A

25/10/2006 by the Shatoy Inter-District Prosecutor ’ s Office

No. 66003 under Art 126 of the CC of RF (abduction)

Failure to collect evidence (e.g. such as casings, blood samples, anything relevant); Failure to verify information concerning certain officers; Failure to evaluate collected evidence - verify witness statements

Maintained contact with the authorities by lodging information requests and complaints. Gaps of several years in communication with the investigating authorities.

Reporting the incident within short time-frame; complaints under Art 125

Suspended on a number of occasions (last time renewed on 21/02/2017 after the applicant ’ s complaint to the local court); the applicant was granted victim status and interview by the investigators for the first time only on 28/03/2014.