Communicated on 5 April 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 51863/15 Taguz SALMANIYEVA and O thers against Russia lodged on 7 October 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are:

(1) Ms Tagus Salmaniyeva , who was born in 1953;

(2) Mr Mekhdi Salmaniyev , who was born in 1977; and

(3) Mr Abubakar Salmaniyev , who was born in 1951.

The applicants live in Bachi -Yurt, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of non-governmental organisation (NGO) Materi Chechni , practising in Chechnya.

The first and second applicants are the mother and brother of Mr Magomed Salmaniyev , who was born in 1985. The third applicant is his father.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Abduction of Mr Magomed Salmaniyev

At about 2 a.m. on 1 August 2002 the applicants and Mr Magomed Salmaniyev were at home when a group of about thirty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house in Bachi -Yurt in an armoured personnel carrier (an APC), a Ural lorry and a UAZ van. The servicemen, who spoke Russian without an accent, were equipped with portable radio sets, and some of them were wearing balaclavas. They broke into the house, forced all those present onto the floor, checked their passports, and thereafter took Mr Magomed Salmaniyev to the outskirts of the village, where he spent the night lying on the ground with two other abducted villagers, R.S. and A.D. At about 5 a.m. on the same date four VAZ ‑ 2107 vans without registration numbers arrived. The servicemen loaded the three men into the back of the vans and drove off in the direction of Kurchaloy . Somewhere on the way R.S. and A.D. were released, and they returned home.

The whereabouts of Mr Magomed Salmaniyev have remained unknown ever since.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

It is unclear when the applicants first informed the authorities of the abduction.

On 28 July 2005 the third applicant was granted victim status.

On 27 July 2006 the Kurchaloy district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 64038 under Article 105 (2) of the Criminal Code (aggravated murder).

On the same date, 27 July 2006, the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

On 27 September 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed on numerous occasions, in particular on 1 February 2007, 19 November 2007, 29 January 2008, 3 June 2008, 19 July 2008, 5 December 2014 and 30 April 2015, and suspended on 12 February 2007, 19 December 2007, 1 March 2008, 3 July 2008, 21 August 2008 and 10 December 2014.

On 29 February 2007 and 18 January 2008, and then between 24 and 29 July 2008, the investigators questioned several witnesses.

On 17 April 2015 the second applicant asked the investigators to inform him about the progress in the proceedings.

It appears that the investigation still ongoing.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

On 4 May 2015, before the Gudermes Town Court, the second applicant challenged the investigators ’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps.

On 18 May 2015 the court rejected the complaint, having found that on 30 April 2015 the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 16 June 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the decision on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of Mr Magomed Salmaniyev ’ s right to life, and submit that the circumstances of his abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted.

Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they are suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relative, and the State ’ s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident.

The applicants submit that the unacknowledged detention of their close relative violates all the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.

The applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there “excessive or unexplained delays” on the applicants ’ part in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relative, 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 and 8 others , §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009)? 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 the abduction of their relative.

2. 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 detention by unidentified members of the security forces, and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia , nos. 2944/06 and 4 others , 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 61536/08 and 4 others , 30 January 2014); and

‑ the similarity of the present application 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 relative was arrested by State servicemen in the course of a security operation?

(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 ’ relative ’ s abduction and ensuing disappearance (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others , cited above)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants ’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abduction by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession, or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the event?

(c) Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants ’ missing relative?

3. 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), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearance of the applicants ’ missing relative sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

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

5. Was the applicants ’ missing relative deprived of his 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?

6. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

7. 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 relative was abducted by State servicemen;

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 relative, 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.