Communicated on 23 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 73542/14 Dagma AKHYADOVA and others against Russia lodged on 15 November 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are:

1) Ms Dagma (also spelled as Dagman ) Akhyadova , who was born in 1954;

2) Ms Khava Akhyadova , who was born in 1976;

3) Ms Madina Akhyadova , who was born in 1983;

4) Ms Khalimat Akhyadova , who was born in 1991;

5) Mr Adam Akhyadov , who was born in 1994;

6) Ms Eset Sabirova , who was born in 2001; and

7) Ms Ramnat Sabirova , who was born in 2002.

The applicants live in Vedeno , Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by Materi Chechni , an NGO based in Chechnya.

The first applicant is the mother of Ms Bariyat (also spelled as Bariya and known as Makka ) Akhyadova , who was born in 1981. The second, third, fourth and fifth applicants are her sisters and brother. The sixth and seventh applicants are her children.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Abduction of Ms Bariyat Akhyadova

At about 4 a.m. on 6 October 2004 a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ’ house at 31 Lugovaya Street in Vedeno in an UAZ ( tabletka ) minivan and an UAZ car without registration numbers. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian and were wearing balaclavas. They made a forced entry into the house, arrested Ms Bariyat Akhyadova and took her away in one of the vehicles to an unknown destination.

At about 12 noon on 8 October 2004 presumably the same group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas again arrived at the applicants ’ house. They searched for Ms Bariyat Akhyadova ’ s children (the sixth and seventh applicants) and left having not found them in the house.

The whereabouts of Ms Bariyat Akhyadova have remained unknown since the date of her abduction. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicants.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested that a criminal investigation be opened.

On 11 November 2004 the Vedeno district prosecutor ’ s office ( прокуратура Веденского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 43052 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 12 November 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. She was questioned on the following day and provided the investigators with details of the abduction, which were similar to those specified above.

On 15 November 2004 the investigators questioned the father of Ms Bariyat Akhyadova (Mr L.-A.A.). His statement to the investigators was similar to the account that the applicant gave to the Court.

On 11 January 2005 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on an unspecified date, suspended on 21 February 2008, then again resumed on 10 June 2014 and suspended on 10 September 2014.

On 4 December 2006, 3 August 2007 and 23 June 2014 the investigators again questioned the first applicant. She confirmed her previous statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction and submitted additionally that a month before the incident, some time in September 2004, at night, a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms had broken into her family home, searched the premises, then apologised for the inconvenience and left. She further stated that two days after the abduction, on 8 October 2004, a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms had arrived at her family house in an UAZ car and an armoured personnel carrier (APC). The servicemen had searched for Ms Bariyat Akhyadova ’ s minor children and then left. She added that she had subsequently seen the APC entering the premises of the Vedeno military commander ’ s office.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

On 3 April 2014 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Vedeno District Court challenging the decision of 21 February 2008 to suspend the investigation and the investigators ’ failure to take basic steps.

On 11 June 2014 the court rejected the complaint having found that on 10 June 2014 the supervising authorities had quashed the decision at issue and ordered the criminal investigation to be resumed.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of the right to life of Ms Bariyat Akhyadova and submit that the circumstances of her abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted.

The applicants complain, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that they are suffering severe mental distress on account of 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 relative violates all the guarantees under 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 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 on the part of the applicants “excessive or unexplained delays” 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 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 an explanation for the delay in lodging their complaint with the Court, and to provide copies of their correspondence (and related documents) 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 the applicants ’ relatives as a result of their 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 in respect of providing 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, §§ 181-84, and Tanış and Others v. Turkey , no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005–VIII) ) ? 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?

(d) 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?

3. Has the applicants ’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relative and the authorities ’ alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance been sufficiently serious as 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?

4. Was the applicants ’ missing relative deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees under Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?

5. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

6. 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 (in chronological order) of all investigative steps taken in connection with the applicants ’ complaints about the disappearance of their missing relative, 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.