Communicated on 3 April 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 62168/15 Shaykh-Magomed SAYDAL-ALIYEV and Others against Russia lodged on 25 November 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are:

(1) Mr Shaykh-Magomed Saydal-Aliyev, who was born in 1950;

(2) Ms Khadishat Saydal-Aliyeva, who was born in 1956;

(3) Mr Salambek Saydal-Aliyev, who was born in 1977;

(4) Mr Khizir Saydal-Aliyev, who was born in 1983;

(5) Mr Mayrbek Saydal-Aliyev, who was born in 1981;

(6) Mr Ayub Saydal-Aliyev, who was born in 1986; and

(7) Mr Shamil Saydal-Aliyev, who was born in 1991.

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

The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Aslanbek Saydal ‑ Aliyev, who was born in 1978. The other five applicants are his brothers.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Abduction of Mr Aslanbek Saydal-Aliyev

At about 3 a.m. on 4 September 2002 the applicants were at home at 20 Chapayeva Street in Gudermes when a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into their house. The servicemen were in balaclavas, and some of them were wearing helmets. Speaking unaccented Russian, they forced all those present to the ground, tied their hands behind their backs, and searched the premises. They seized the applicants ’ passports, the title documents to the house, and then took Mr Aslanbek Saydal-Aliyev to an unknown destination.

The whereabouts of Mr Saydal-Aliyev have remained unknown ever since.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

On 8 May 2003 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal investigation be opened.

On 18 June 2003 the first and sixth applicants were questioned by the police.

On the same date the crime scene was inspected.

On 25 June 2003 the Gudermes district prosecutor ’ s office opened a criminal case under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 11 July 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned.

On the same date, 11 July 2003, the police questioned the third and sixth applicants.

On 25 August 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

On 18 April 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings.

On 20 May 2011 the request was granted and the investigation was resumed.

On 20 May 2011 the investigators questioned the first, sixth and third applicants again. On the same date, they also questioned the second and fifth applicants.

On 20 June 2011 the investigation in the case was suspended again, it was then resumed on 5 April 2015.

On 1 November 2012 the first applicant asked the investigators to inform him about the progress in the investigation and to grant him access to the case material. The outcome of that request is unknown.

On 13 August 2014 the NGO Materi Chechni, acting on behalf of the applicants, asked a number of state officials to provide assistance in the search for Mr Saydal-Aliyev. The outcome of those requests is unknown.

It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

On 12 March 2015, before the Gudermes District Court of the Chechen Republic, the first applicant challenged the decision of 20 June 2011 to suspend the investigation.

On 20 April 2015 the court rejected the complaint, having found that on 5 April 2015 the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 27 May 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of Mr Aslanbek Saydal-Aliyev ’ 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, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 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, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 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.