Communicated on 8 August 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no . 51928/15 Said-Khamzat TATAYEV and Others against Russia lodged on 14 October 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are:

1) Mr Said-Khamzat (also spelt as Saidkhamzat) Tatayev, who was born in 1958,

2) Mr Lecha Susayev, who was born in 1958,

3) Ms Novdash Bakharchiyeva, who was born in 1971,

4) Mr Ali Vakhayev, who was born in 1959,

5) Mr Adlan Multayev, who was born in 1993,

6) Ms Yakha Tatayeva, who was born in 1958,

7) Ms Malika Vakhayeva, who was born in 1963.

The applicants are Russian nationals who reside in Achkhoy-Martan, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (in collaboration with the Astreya NGO) (SRJI/Astreya).

The first and sixth applicants are the parents of Mr Movsar Tatayev, who was born in 1988, while the first applicant is also the uncle of Mr Shamil Katayev, who was born in 1991; the second applicant is the father of Mr Ramzan Susayev, who was born in 1969; the third applicant is the mother of Mr Movsar Dokhayev, who was born in 1992; the fourth and seventh applicants are the siblings of Mr Mayr-Ali Vakhayev, who was born in 1966.

The applicants alleged that their relatives, Mr Movsar Tatayev, Mr Shamil Katayev, Mr Ramzan Susayev and Mr Movsar Dokhayev, were killed during a special operation which was carried out by the State authorities on 11 and 12 February 2010 in Arshty village in Ingushetia, close to the administrative border with Chechnya. They also allege that Mr Mayr-Ali Vakhayev went missing and that the fifth applicant, Mr Adlan Multayev, was wounded by State agents during the same operation.

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

A. The events of 10-13 February 2010

Background information

On 26 January 2010 the head of the Operational Headquarters of the National Counterterrorism Committee ( оперативный штаб национального антитеррористического комитета ) in Ingushetia ordered a large-scale counter-terrorist operation in the Sunzhenskiy district of the Republic, situated on the administrative border with Chechnya, with “the aim of arresting members of illegal armed groups and the elimination of the threat of terrorist attacks in the Republic of Ingushetia”. The operation was to start at 9 a.m. on 27 January 2010 and be conducted after the imposition of a special regime for the counter-terrorist operation (“the CTO regime”). No final date for the operation was specified.

At the beginning of February 2010 the residents of the Achkhoy-Martan district in Chechnya obtained written permission from the head of the district administration to pick ramsons (wild garlic) in the forest in the Sunzhenskiy district. The picking of ramsons is a traditional source of seasonal earnings for local families.

On the morning of 11 February 2010 about 200 residents of Achkhoy ‑ Martan district drove to the forest near Arshty village in the Sunzhenskiy district. There were no signs, markings or warnings around the area and no other information concerning a special counter ‑ terrorist operation in the vicinity.

At about 2.30 p.m. on 11 February 2010 the people picking ramsons heard shooting nearby and started to leave the forest. At the edge of the forest they saw buses and military vehicles with servicemen and police, who put them into the buses and ordered them to remain inside. When about 150 other pickers came out of the forest, the servicemen opened fire. The people inside the buses asked them to stop, saying there were still ramsons pickers in the forest, but to no avail.

At about 8 p.m. the people being detained in the buses were taken to Nesterovskaya police station and fingerprinted.

On 13 February 2010, after the end of the operation, the applicants and their relatives found the bodies of four ramsons pickers with gunshot and splinter wounds. They were Mr Movsar Tatayev, Mr Shamil Katayev, Mr Ramzan Susayev and Mr Movsar Dokhayev. Mr Mayr-Ali Vakhayev never returned home and has been missing since. The fifth applicant, Mr Adlan Multayev, was wounded during the special operation.

(a) Attack on Mr Movsar Tatayev, Mr Shamil Katayev and the fifth applicant

Early in the morning of 11 February 2010 (in the documents submitted the date was also given as 10 February 2010), the applicants ’ relatives, Mr Tatayev, Mr Katayev and the fifth applicant arrived at the forest to pick ramsons.

At about 2.30 p.m. that afternoon, as they left the forest together after picking the ramsons, they came under fire from a nearby hill. Mr Tatayev and Mr Katayev were shot dead on the spot and the fifth applicant received a perforating wound to the left leg. He fell on the ground bleeding. He later heard his brother calling his name, but could not move as he was subjected to gunfire each time he tried. The fifth applicant managed to crawl into a pit in the ground, where he stayed for two days.

On 13 February 2010 the bodies of Mr Tatayev and Mr Katayev were found in the forest with numerous gunshot wounds.

The fifth applicant was admitted to Achkhoy-Martan Central District Hospital for treatment the same day, 13 February 2010. It was established that he had a “perforating splinter wound of the lower one-third of the left shin and a splinter knee wound in the left knee area.” He was discharged from hospital on 24 February 2010.

( b ) Attack on Mr Ramzan Susayev and Mr Movsar Dokhayev

Early in the morning of 11 February 2010 the applicant ’ s relatives Mr Susayev and Mr Dokhayev and a numbe r of other residents of Achkhoy ‑ Martan district arrived in the vicinity of the forest in a PAZ bus to pick ramsons.

They were leaving the forest at about 2 p.m. when they were shot dead. Mr Susayev died from gunshot wounds to the chest while Mr Dokhayev was killed by three shots to the back.

(c) The disappearance of Mr Mayr-Ali Vakhayev

Early in the morning of 11 February 2010 Mr Vakhayev arrived at the forest to pick ramsons.

According to fellow ramsons pickers, when he heard the shooting in the afternoon, he decided to stay in the forest, hoping that it would help him to survive. The others decided to leave the forest and walked away.

Shortly after the special operation had ended, the fourth applicant went to the forest with the police to search for his brother, Mr Vakhayev, but to no avail.

In support of their application, the applicants submitted copies of their statements to the authorities and of documents from the investigation file in the criminal case opened in connection with the incident, including the results of forensic examinations of their relatives ’ bodies.

B. Official investigation into the events of 10-13 February 2010

1. Investigation into the killing of the applicants ’ relatives and the wounding of the fifth applicant

(a) Initial steps taken by the investigation

On 13 February 2010 the Sunzhenskiy district investigations department (“the investigators”) opened criminal case no. 10600021 under Articles 317, 208 and 222 of the Russian Criminal Code (assault on law-enforcement officers, membership of an illegal armed group and unlawful possession of firearms). The decision stated, inter alia , the following:

“... on 11 February 2017, in the forest about 4.5 km from Arshty village in the Sunzhenskiy district ...a group of members of illegal armed groups of at least 14 persons made an attempt on the lives of servicemen of the Federal Security Service who had been conducting a special operation aimed at finding and arresting members of illegal armed groups.

As a result of the armed clash, which lasted until 12 February 2010, the fourteen unidentified persons received gunshot wounds from which they died on the spot.”

On 18 February 2010 the first applicant complained to prosecutors in Chechnya and Ingushetia respectively. He described the circumstances of the incident and stressed that the authorities had provided no information to residents about the special operation. He said the forest area had been neither cordoned off nor protected with any warning signs. After leaving the forest, the applicant had told two Ingush police officers that the military servicemen should stop firing as about 100 to 120 ramsons pickers remained in the forest. However, the officers had paid no attention to him. After spending several hours being guarded at gunpoint by Russian servicemen, the applicant had been taken to Nesterovskaya village at about 7.30 p.m., where he and the other pickers had been fingerprinted and questioned. At about noon on the following day, 12 February 2010, he had learnt that four civilians had been killed, including his son. The applicant requested that the authorities take steps to prosecute, firstly, the people responsible for failing to warn residents about the special operation and cordon off the area and, secondly, the culprits who had opened fire on the civilians without provocation.

On 18 February 2010 the third applicant complained to the prosecutors of Chechnya and Ingushetia respectively. She provided a description of the events that was similar to that of the first applicant (see above), requested that a criminal case be opened into her son ’ s murder and that she be granted victim status in that case.

On unspecified dates in February or March 2010 the investigators examined the bodies of the applicants ’ four relatives and ordered a forensic examination of the bullets and splinters of shell found in the bodies.

On an unspecified date in February or March 2010 the investigators questioned the senior operational search officer of the 5th inter-district unit of the 2nd operational-search bureau of the Main Directorate of the Russian Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal District ( 5 й межрайонный отдел 2 го оперативно - розыскного бюро ГУ МВД России по ЮФО ) (“the operational-search bureau”) Mr A. Sh. He stated that on 11 February 2010 he and his colleagues had been informed about a special operation against illegal armed groups. They had been dispatched to the area, which was close to Arshty village. However, they had been stopped by federal servicemen next to the forest, who had told them that the operation was still in progress and that officers from local law ‑ enforcement agencies were not allowed to enter the area. He had later learnt that Federal Security Service ( the FSB) officers from the central part of Russia had conducted the special operation, with the assistance of the military and the local department of the Federal Security Service. No local policemen had participated in the operation. He and his colleagues had been allowed to enter the operational area on 12 February 2010, when the cordon had already been removed. Among the numerous local law-enforcement agency officers, there had been many residents from the nearby area, who had been looking for relatives who had gone ramsons picking in the forest on 11 February and had not returned. On the afternoon of 12 February 2010 he had gone to the forest with his colleagues. They had found fourteen bodies, including those of the applicants ’ four relatives who had been in civilian clothing. The group had been given permission to take the bodies of the four civilians, but not the others. Overall, they had found twenty-two bodies, including the four civilians, between 12 and 13 February 2010.

On an unspecified date in February or March 2010 the investigators questioned Officer A.Da. from the operational-search bureau, whose statement was similar to that of his colleague Mr A. Sh.

On an unspecified date in February or March 2010 the investigators obtained copies of the permission for ramsons picking issued by the Achkhoy-Martan village administration to Shamil Katayev and the fifth applicant.

On an unspecified date in February or March 2010 the investigators questioned the head of the Ingushetia Government, Mr Vorobyev, who stated that on 7 or 8 February 2010 he had informed the head of the Sunzhenskiy district administration that a large-scale special operation was to be carried out there. That official had been supposed to inform residents of villages situated in the area on the Ingush side of the administrative border and villages on the Chechen side. Within twenty-four hours the head of the Sunzhenskiy district administration had reported to him that the task had been carried out.

On an unspecified date in February or March 2010 the investigators questioned the head of the Ingushetia Department of the FSB, General Gurba, who stated, amongst other things, that on 7 or 8 February 2010 he had asked Mr Vorobyev to inform residents of the border area about the special operation.

On 1 March 2010 the investigators questioned FSB officer Yu.B., who stated that between 11 and 12 February 2010 the FSB had carried out a special operation in the vicinity of Bamut district (Chechnya) and Sunzhenskiy district (Ingushetia) to eliminate members of illegal armed groups. Police and Interior Ministry troops had also participated in the operation. Local residents had been warned about the operation beforehand through the heads of local administrations. As a result of the operation eighteen militants had been eliminated. FSB officers had not caused any gunshot or splinter wounds to civilians. As for the four civilians who had been killed during the operation, it remained undetermined whether they had indeed been civilians or why they had been in the forest during the special operation. Furthermore, lethal force had been used to secure officers ’ safety and to stop the criminal activities of members of illegal armed groups.

On 1 or 2 March 2010 the investigators questioned the fourth applicant, whose statement concerning the circumstances of the special operation was similar to the applicants ’ submissions to the Court. In addition, he stated that shortly after the end of the operation, he had gone to the forest with local police officers. They had found the bodies of many people who had been killed during the operation, but not that of his brother, Mayr-Ali Vakhayev, who had gone missing. The applicant provided a photograph of his missing brother to the investigators.

On 4 March 2010 the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in criminal case no. 10600021. The applicant was informed of that decision on 10 March 2010.

On 4 March 2010 the investigators granted the fifth applicant victim status in criminal case no. 10600021, informing him on 12 March 2010.

On 4 March 2010 the investigators granted the third applicant victim status in criminal case no. 10600021. She was informed on 11 March 2010.

On 9 March 2010 the investigators questioned Mr E.Y., who stated that he owned a PAZ bus which he regularly used to transport Achkhoy-Martan district residents for ramsons picking. He usually picked them up at about 6 a.m. and they arrived at the forest at about 7 a.m. On 11 February 2010 he had driven twenty-one people from Achkhoy-Martan to the vicinity of Arshty, including the applicants ’ relatives Movsar Tatayev, Shamil Katayev, Mayr-Ali Vakhayev and the fifth applicant. The passengers had left the bus and gone to the forest, agreeing to return at 4.30 p.m. He had not seen any servicemen or military vehicles on the way to or from the forest and there had been no signs of a special operation. He had driven back to the forest from Achkhoy-Martan at about 3 p.m. and had seen a lot of military vehicles, State servicemen and police and the artillery which had been firing into the forest next to Arshty. He and a number of local residents had been ordered to stay in the bus and at about 8 p.m. they had been taken in the bus to Nesterovskaya police station, where they had been fingerprinted. On the following day he had found out about the four civilian casualties and the wounding of the fifth applicant.

On 10 March 2010 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statements were similar to the applicants ’ submissions to the Court. In addition, he stressed that neither he nor his fellow ramsons pickers had been warned about the special operation in the area. When he had asked the servicemen to stop firing at the civilians who had not yet come out of the forest, their commander had replied to him by saying, “We did not ask you to come here, you should have stayed at home”. The applicant stressed that in his opinion, his son, the applicants ’ three other relatives and the fifth applicant had been intentionally subjected to gunfire.

On 12 March 2010 the investigators questioned Mr I.Ch., who stated that like many other residents of Achkhoy-Martan district he regularly participated in the seasonal ramsons picking. He stated that he had gone to pick the plants on 11 February 2010 and his statement concerning the events was similar to those given to the authorities by the first applicant and in the applicants ’ submissions to the Court.

On 12 March 2010 the investigators also questioned the second applicant, who stated that on the morning of 11 February 2010 he had stayed at home, while his son, Ramzan Susayev, had gone to pick ramsons with his fellow villagers. He had learnt that afternoon that a number of villagers had been detained in Arshty by State servicemen and he had gone there. However, the servicemen who had cordoned off the area had not allowed him to approach the forest to find out what had happened to his son. His son ’ s body had been released by the authorities and taken home on 13 February 2010.

On 12 March 2010 the investigators questioned the fifth applicant ’ s brother, Mr A.M., who was a minor of fifteen or sixteen. He stated that like many other residents of Achkhoy-Martan district he had regularly participated in the seasonal picking of ramsons. He and the fifth applicant had gone to pick the plant on 11 February 2010. On the way to the forest with the other villagers he had seen neither signs warning of the special operation nor State servicemen. At about 2.30 p.m., as he and several villagers had been walking on a path in the forest, they had been subjected to automatic gunfire. He had fallen to the ground and cried to the people to stop shooting. The men, who were military servicemen, had asked him what they were doing in the forest and he had explained that they were picking ramsons. The servicemen had been not visible in the snow as they had been in white camouflage uniforms. The servicemen had then asked him to take his clothes off and show them what he had in his backpack. When he got up, he had seen that Movsar Tatayev had been shot dead and that Shamil Katayev had been wounded. He had asked the servicemen to provide medical assistance to the wounded Mr Katayev and pull him out of the ditch, but the servicemen had refused and told him to do it himself. He had tried, but to no avail. The servicemen had then made him take his shoes off and had blindfolded him. He had been transferred by the servicemen to a military unit where he had spent the night. On the following morning, he had been handed over to the head of Arshty village administration and had then gone home. On 13 February 2010 he had returned to the forest with his relatives and Ingush policemen to search for the fifth applicant. He had learnt later that day that the fifth applicant had managed to get out of the forest and had been taken home by residents of Achkhoy-Martan who had arrived at the forest to look for missing relatives.

On 25 March 2010 the investigators ordered a forensic expert examination of the fifth applicant to determine the gravity of his injuries. On the following day the expert examined the applicant and on 23 April 2010 issued a report, which stated that his gunshot wounds were classified as having caused “slight harm to the health.”

(b) Refusal by military investigators to investigate the incident

On 26 March 2010 the investigators decided to sever part of the investigation file in criminal case no. 10600021, comprising 1,107 pages, and send it to military investigators for further investigation. The decision stated as follows:

“As established by the investigation, the death of Movsar Dokhayev, Shamil Katayev, Ramzan Susayev and Movsar Tatayev and the wounding of Adlan Multayev were caused by the servicemen who participated in the special operation against members of illegal armed groups ...”

On 30 April 2010 the investigators forwarded the severed part of the criminal case file to the military investigations unit of the Tverskoy Garrison in the Tver Region (“the military investigators”).

On 30 May 2010 the military investigators refused to initiate a criminal investigation into the killing of the applicants ’ relatives and the wounding of the fifth applicant for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the FSB officers. They stated that it had been impossible during the special operation to establish who was a civilian and who belonged to illegal armed groups. The applicants were not informed of that decision.

(c) Termination of the investigation in the criminal case

On 6 May 2010 the investigation in the criminal case was joined with the investigation of criminal case no. 10600038, opened on 16 March 2010 against a Mr Sh. Buzurtanov under Article 208 of the Criminal Code (membership of an illegal armed group). With accomplices, he had participated in shooting at servicemen during the special operation but had managed to escape (see below).

On 26 February 2014 the investigators obtained information that Mr Buzurtanov had actually died on 22 June 2009.

On 28 February 2014 the investigators decided to terminate the investigation of criminal case no. 10600021 owing to the suspect ’ s death.

(d) Court complaints against the investigators

On 24 December 2013 the first, second and third applicants complained to the head of the Ingushetia investigations department in Magas that the investigation into their relatives ’ killing had been ineffective and that they had not been informed of the progress of the proceedings. The applicants requested access to the entire contents of the investigation file in criminal case no. 10600021. They received no reply.

On 10 February 2014 the first and second applicants complained to the Magas District Court (“the District Court”) that the investigation into the killing had been ineffective, that the investigators had not informed them of the progress of the criminal case and requested access to the entire contents of the investigation file in criminal case no. 10600021. The outcome of the complaint is unknown.

Meanwhile, the investigation in the criminal case was terminated on 28 February 2014 (see above). The applicants were not informed of that decision.

Nonetheless, on 2 March 2015 the applicants appealed to the District Court against the decision of 28 February 2014 to close the investigation. They stated, in particular, that the investigation had only looked into the theory that their relatives had been killed by members of illegal armed groups and that no steps had been taken to check whether they could have been killed by State agents; the investigators had not even established the location of any members of illegal armed groups or of State agents in order to determine who had been at the origin of the lethal gunfire that had targeted their relatives. They also stressed that the authorities had not warned residents of the special operation and had allowed civilians to enter the forest for ramsons picking. The investigation had failed to establish who had been responsible for the failure to provide that vital information and prevent the pickers from going into the area. Finally, they complained that the investigators had failed to provide them with information on the progress of the investigation and requested that the decision to terminate the proceedings be overruled as premature and unlawful.

On 10 March 2015 the District Court rejected the applicants ’ complaint as unsubstantiated. On 20 March 2015 the applicants appealed against that decision to the Ingushetia Supreme Court.

On 14 April 2015 the Supreme Court upheld the impugned decision.

2. Investigation into the disappearance of Mr Mayr-Ali Vakhayev

(a) Steps taken by the investigation

On 12 March 2010 investigators at Sunzhenskiy district investigations department opened criminal case no. 10600034 in connection with the disappearance of Mr Mayr-Ali Vakhayev under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).

On 7 March 2010 the investigators questioned Mr Z.A., who stated that he had gone to the forest to pick ramsons with other villagers on 11 February 2010. His statement concerning the circumstances of the incident was similar to the account given by the applicants to the Court. In addition, he stated that at about 11 a.m. on 11 February 2010, when he and the other ramsons pickers had heard the shooting, they had decided to go to another part of the forest. Mr Mayr-Ali Vakhayev, who had been walking at the back of their group, had suggested that they stay in the same place as it would be safer. He and the others had disagreed and had kept walking. At about 4 p.m., when he had been leaving the forest, he had not seen Mr Vakhayev among the dozens of pickers who had been there.

On 12 April 2010 the investigators granted the fourth applicant victim status in the criminal case.

On 23 April 2010 the investigators questioned the fourth applicant. His statement was similar to the applicants ’ submissions to the Court. In addition, he stated that in his opinion the servicemen had intentionally opened fire on the civilians as the wounds on their bodies showed that they had been caused by well-aimed gunfire.

On 23 and 26 April 2010 the investigators questioned Mr R.M., Mr I.E. and Mr Sh.O., who had all gone to pick ramsons on 11 February 2010 with other residents of Achkhoy-Martan and whose statements were similar to the applicants ’ submissions to the Court. In addition, they stated that they and relatives of Mayr-Ali Vakhayev had tried to search for him on 12 February 2010 but had been stopped from entering the forest by the servicemen.

On 26 April 2010 the Sunzhenskiy district investigations department transferred the investigation of the criminal case to the Ingushetia investigations department in Magas. The fourth applicant was not informed of that decision.

On 10 November 2010 the fourth applicant asked to have access to the entire contents of the investigation file. On 15 November 2010 the investigators refused to allow him to have access to the entire file but gave him access to documents concerning the steps he had taken part in.

On 18 January 2012 the fourth applicant ’ s lawyer requested access to the entire contents of the investigation file. On 19 January 2012 the investigators only allowed access to documents concerning investigative steps taken that had involved the fourth applicant.

It appears that the proceedings are still ongoing.

(b) Appeals against the investigators ’ actions

On 8 April 2013 the fourth applicant complained to the Sunzhenskiy District Court (the District Court) that the investigation into his brother ’ s disappearance and the circumstances of the special operation had been ineffective and that the investigators had not allowed him to have full access to the contents of the criminal case file to assess the progress of the proceedings.

On 26 September 2013 the District Court found that the criminal case file had been transferred from the Sunzhenskiy district investigations department to the Ingushetia investigations department in Magas. Therefore, the Court left the complaint without examination and stated that the complaint should have been lodged with another court.

On 15 January 2014 the fourth applicant complained to the Magas District Court that the investigation into his brother ’ s disappearance and the circumstances of the special operation had been ineffective and that the investigators had not allowed him to have full access to the entire contents of the criminal case file to assess the investigation.

On 29 January 2014 the Magas District Court left the complaint without examination as on 24 January 2014 the investigators of the criminal case had allowed the applicants ’ request of 18 January 2012 to access the contents of the case file in part (see above).

C. Relevant domestic law

For a summary of relevant domestic law see Abakarova v. Russia (no. 16664/07, §§ 59-62, 15 October 2015).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to safeguard the right to life of their four killed relatives and that of the fifth applicant and the disappeared Mr Vakhayev by failing to warn them about the special operation. Furthermore, the applicants allege that the authorities also failed to comply with the negative obligation of that provision as their four relatives and the fifth applicant had been shot intentionally by State agents and Mr Vakhayev had been abducted by them during the special operation.

The applicants complain under the procedural limb of Article 2 that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter.

Under Article 3 of the Convention, the fourth and seventh applicants complain of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their brother Mayr-Ali Vakhayev.

Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a lack of effective remedies in respect of the above-mentioned complaints

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. When and what measures were taken to warn residents about the special operation conducted on 11 and 12 February 2010 in the Sunzhenskiy district in Ingushetia? Who was responsible for informing the residents about the operation? Who and under what circumstances issued the permits referred to by the applicants for entering the forest (including the ramson picking) in the area of the administrative border between the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia?

2. Has the right to life of the applicants ’ relatives Mr Movsar Tatayev, Mr Shamil Katayev, Mr Ramzan Susayev, Mr Movsar Dokhayev, Mr Mayr ‑ Ali Vakhayev and of the fifth applicant, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

3. Did the death of Mr Movsar Tatayev, Mr Shamil Katayev, Mr Ramzan Susayev and Mr Movsar Dokhayev result from a use of force which was absolutely necessary, within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that Article?

4. Was it absolutely necessary, within the meaning of Article 2 § 2, to resort to the use of force which threatened the fifth applicant ’ s life?

5. Having regard to the procedural protection for the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the killing of Mr Movsar Tatayev, Mr Shamil Katayev, Mr Ramzan Susayev and Mr Movsar Dokhayev and the wounding of the fifth applicant, as well as of the disappearance of Mr Mayr-Ali Vakhayev, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

6. Have the fourth and seventh applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their brother Mayr-Ali Vakhayev ?

7. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints under Articles 2 and 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

8. The Government are requested to produce:

a) a list in chronological order all of the steps taken by the investigation in criminal cases nos. 106000021 (in the documents submitted also referred to as 10600021) and 10600034;

b) copies of the entire contents of the investigation files in criminal cases nos. 106000021 (in the documents submitted also referred to as 10600021) and 10600034.

c) copies of the court decisions taken in respect of the applicants ’ complaints lodged against the investigators in the criminal cases.