Communicated on 23 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 14196/08 Khava BITSAYEVA against Russia and 7 other applications (see list appended)

The applicants are the eighteen Russian nationals listed in the Appendix. They live in various villages and towns in the Chechen Republic, Russia. The applicants are close relatives of ten men who were allegedly abducted from various places in the region between 2000 and 2003 by servicemen.

The circumstances of the applications, as presented by the applicants, can be summarised as follows.

A. General information pertaining to all of the applications

The applicants are close relatives of men who disappeared after having been abducted by servicemen from their homes and public places in Chechnya. In the case of each of the applications the events took place in areas that were under full control of military forces. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since.

In each of the cases the applicants complained about the respective abduction to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In each case the proceedings, after being been suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results.

All of the applicants state that they have not been regularly informed of progress made in the respective criminal investigation. Some of the applicants have been provided with partial access to the investigation files. In each of the cases the applicants requested information about the progress of the respective investigation from the investigative authorities; in response, they received formal letters stating either that the investigation in question was in progress or that their requests had been forwarded to another law-enforcement agency for examination.

No active investigative steps were taken by the authorities other than their forwarding formal requests for information to their counterparts in various regions in Chechnya and the North Caucasus. According to the applicants, the authorities either failed to take the most important investigative steps, such as the questioning of witnesses to the abductions, or they took those essential steps with significant and inexplicable delays.

B. Peculiarities of the individual applications

Summaries of facts in respect of each of the applications and the most important investigative steps taken by the authorities are outlined below.

1. Application no. 14196/08 (Bitsayeva v. Russia)

The applicant, Ms Khava Bitsayeva, was born in 1969 and lives in the village of Chiri-Yurt, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by Mr Dokka Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny.

The applicant is the wife of Mr Vait Askhabov, who was born in 1976.

(a) Abduction of Mr Vait Askhabov

At about 3 p.m. on 12 March 2001 a big convoy of military vehicles, overseen by four helicopters, arrived in Chiri-Yurt. Mr V. Askhabov at that time was working in his garden. As the main part of the convoy was passing along the main street, two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and four military lorries stopped next to Mr V. Askhabov ’ s garden and their occupants started to repair one of the APCs. Shortly thereafter something exploded next to the APC and people started to run away. The servicemen immediately cordoned off the area, including the applicant ’ s house. They approached the garden and ordered Mr V. Askhabov to climb over the fence and approach them. They then put him in a military Ural lorry and did not let anyone come close. Thirty minutes later they drove away with Mr V. Askhabov. Several persons, including Mr V. Askhabov ’ s sister, Ms L. A., witnessed the incident. Mr V. Askhabov has been missing ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 13 March 2001 the applicant complained of Mr V. Askhabov ’ s abduction to the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office.

On 12 July 2001 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 23132 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 31 July 2002 the Shali District Court declared Mr V. Askhabov a missing person.

On 24 February 2004 the applicant asked the Ombudsman, Mr N. Nukhazhiyev, to request the investigating authorities to conduct an effective investigation.

On 23 January 2005 the investigation in respect of the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators.

On 28 May 2007 the applicant asked the President of the Chechen Republic, Mr R. Kadyrov, to request investigating authorities to conduct an effective investigation.

On 11 December 2007 the criminal investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 12 January 2008.

On 2 March 2009 the applicant requested that the investigators grant her victim status in the criminal proceedings. The outcome of this request is unknown.

As can be seen from the documents submitted, the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On an unspecified date in June 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali District Court alleging that the investigation had been ineffective and that the investigators had failed to take basic steps .

On 29 June 2007 the Shali District Court granted the applicant ’ s complaint and ordered that the investigators take all necessary investigative measures and allow the applicant to access the criminal case file.

2. Application no. 25531/13 (Tumsoyeva and Others v. Russia)

The applicants – close relatives of Mr Yusup Khamzatov, who was born in 1948 – are:

1) Ms Zura Tumsoyeva, who was born in 1956 (his wife);

2) Mr Anzor Yusupov, who was born in 1979 (his son);

3) Mr Rizvan Yusupov, who was born in 1987 (his son).

They live in Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr Dokka Itslayev , a lawyer practising in Grozny.

(a) Abduction of Mr Yusup Khamzatov

In the morning of 23 May 2002 about thirty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ’ house in Zakan-Yurt in a VAZ 21099 car and a VAZ 2107 car, UAZ ( tabletka ) minivan and an APC and took Mr Y. Khamzatov away. He has not been seen since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 23 May 2002 the second applicant complained about the abduction to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor ’ s office.

On 25 May 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 63036 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful detention) and granted victim status to the first applicant.

On 7 July 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office stated in reply to the second applicant ’ s request for information that the abduction complaint had been forwarded to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor ’ s office.

On 24 November 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr Yu. Khamzatov a missing person at the first applicant ’ s request.

It appears that on an unspecified date between 2003 and 2008 the investigation was suspended. It is unclear whether the applicants contacted the authorities during that time.

On 17 June 2008 the investigators informed the first applicant that they had resumed the criminal investigation.

On 4 March 2009 the second applicant requested that the investigators provide him with copies of certain documents in the criminal case file.

On 20 July 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the criminal case file. On the next day, the applicant ’ s request was granted.

On 28 February 2012 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr Yu. Khamzatov a deceased person.

As can be seen from the documents submitted, the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 24 August 2011 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court alleging that the investigators had failed to effectively investigate the abduction. On 8 September 2011 the first applicant ’ s complaint was dismissed, as the investigation had already been resumed. On 12 October 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.

On 24 December 2012 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Achkhoy-Martan District Court alleging that the investigators ’ had failed to effectively investigate the abduction. On 25 January 2013 the first applicant ’ s complaint was dismissed, as the investigation had already been resumed.

3. Application no. 26859/13 (Aliyevy v. Russia)

The applicants – the parents of Mr Rustam Aliyev, who was born in 1982 – are:

1) Mr Badrudi Aliyev, who was born in 1963 (his father);

2) Ms Yakhita Aliyeva, who was born in 1964 (his mother).

They live in Belgatoy, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr Said Mushayev.

(a) Abduction of Mr Rustam Aliyev and subsequent events

(i) Abduction of Mr Rustam Aliyev

At about 6 a.m. on 7 July 2003 a group of armed servicemen, most of whom were in camouflage uniforms and masks, arrived in a Ural lorry and two UAZ ( tabletka ) minivans at the applicant ’ s house in Belgatoy, broke in, and took the first applicant and Mr R. Aliyev into the yard.

According to the applicants, two of the unmasked servicemen were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. The first applicant recognised one of the servicemen, as he had repaired his vehicle and sports equipment. This serviceman, who was of Asian appearance and of Buryat origin, was from the Special Police Task Force Unit ( Отдел милиции особого назначения ( ОМОН ) ) ( “the OMON” ) that manned a checkpoint in Belgatoy. The servicemen checked their identity documents, then pulled Mr R. Aliyev ’ s T-shirt over his head and took him away in one of their vehicles. The applicants have not seen their son since.

(ii) Subsequent events

On 9 or 10 July 2003 a man approached the applicants and promised his assistance with the release of Mr R. Aliyev in return for a payment. A few days later the man told the applicants that Mr R. Aliyev was detained on the premises of the Department of the Federal Security Service ( Федеральная Служба Безопасности ( ФСБ ) ) (hereinafter “the FSS”) in Shali and that it was impossible to secure his release.

On an unspecified date in 2005 Mr Beslan Mankiyev, a police officer from the Belgatoy police station, handed Mr R. Aliyev ’ s passport to the applicants. According to the officer, the document had been found in an illegal armed group ’ s arms cache in the town of Argun.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 7 July 2003 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Shali district department of the interior.

On 2 August 2003 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 22120 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 10 August 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

On 7 December 2003 and on 15 December 2003 respectively the military prosecutor ’ s office of military unit no. 20116 and the headquarters of the North Caucasus department of the FSS replied to the second applicant ’ s requests for information stating that it had not conducted any special operations in Belgatoy at the time of the incident.

On 16 January 2004 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office informed the second applicant that it had been taking investigative steps to establish Mr R. Aliyev ’ s whereabouts.

On 9 August 2004 the Presidential Commission on Human Rights forwarded the second applicant ’ s request for information to the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office and asked it to inform her of progress made in the investigation.

On 24 August and 30 September 2005 the investigators informed the second applicant that the investigation was in progress and that steps were being taken to solve the crime.

On 18 April 2007 the investigators replied to the second applicant ’ s request for information stating that the investigation in respect of the criminal case had been resumed; on 18 May 2007 it was suspended.

On 21 July 2009 the investigators informed the second applicant that the investigation had been suspended again.

On 25 April 2012 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

On 27 April 2012 the investigation in respect of the criminal case was suspended again. It is unclear whether the applicants were informed thereof.

On 1 February 2013 the second applicant requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be allowed to access investigation file. On 4 February 2013 the investigators allowed the second applicant to access the file.

As can be seen from the document submitted, it appears that the investigation is still pending.

4. Application no. 26874/13 (Magomadova and Timirsultanov v. Russia)

The first applicant, Ms Mariam Magomadova, who was born in 1973, is the wife of Mr Khizir Magomadov, who was born in 1965. The second applicant, Ms Milana Timirsultanova, who was born in 1974, is the wife of Mr Muslim Abzailov, who was born in 1974.

The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya and are represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov, a lawyer practising in Grozny.

(a) Abduction of Mr Khizir Magomadov and Mr Muslim Abzailov

In 2003 Mr K. Magomadov and Mr M. Abzailov were policemen at the department of internal security ( Вневедомственная охрана ) of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior.

On 6 July 2003 Mr K. Magomadov, Mr M. Abzailov and Ms F. E. went to Noviye Atagi in Mr M. Abzailov ’ s car. On the highway between Shali and Noviye Atagi servicemen stopped their car and forcibly took Mr K. Magomadov and Mr M. Abzailov away in a khaki-coloured military Ural lorry to an unknown destination. Ms F. E. returned home by taxi.

(b) Official investigation into the abductions

On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicants complained about their husbands ’ abduction to the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office.

On 4 August 2003 the investigators opened criminal case no. 22122 into the abduction of Mr K. Magomadov and Mr M. Abzailov under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 4 October 2003 the investigation in respect of the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators ’ identity.

On 29 January 2004 the investigators informed the applicants that they were taking measures to establish the whereabouts of Mr K. Magomadov and Mr M. Abzailov and to identify the perpetrators of their abduction.

On 23 March 2004 the Regional Department of the FSS in the North Caucasus replied to the applicants ’ request, stating that it had not conducted any special operation on the highway between Shali and Noviye Atagi at the relevant time.

On 15 April 2004 the investigators replied to the applicant ’ s request for information, stating that they were taking the necessary investigative measures.

On 8 May 2004 the military prosecutor ’ s office of military unit no. 20116 informed the applicants that it had not conducted any special operations at the material time in the relevant location.

On 5 August 2004 the Shali District Court declared Mr K. Magomadov a missing person at the first applicant ’ s request.

On 11 August 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court declared Mr M. Abzailov a missing person at the second applicant ’ s request.

On 28 March 2006 the investigators resumed the criminal proceedings.

On 4 April and 10 April 2006 the investigators granted the requests of the first and the second applicants for victim status in the criminal case.

On 29 April 2006 the investigation was suspended again.

On 15 June 2008 the second applicant requested the NGO Svetliy Put to assist her in establishing her husband ’ s whereabouts.

On 28 August 2008 the Shali District Court declared Mr K. Magomadov a deceased person.

On 20 May 2009 the investigators informed the first applicant that the investigation in respect of the criminal case had been suspended.

On 20 February 2013 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the investigation file; on 4 March 2013 her request was granted.

In 2014 the applicants requested a number of law-enforcement agencies to assist them in establishing their husbands ’ whereabouts, but to no avail.

From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 30 July 2007 the second applicant lodged an appeal with the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office against the investigators ’ decision of 29 April 2006 to suspend the investigation. On 1 August 2007 the prosecutor ’ s office overruled the investigators ’ decision and ordered that the criminal proceedings be resumed.

5. Application no. 26893/13 (Gelayevy v. Russia)

The applicants – close relatives of Mr Islam Gelayev, who was born in 1983 – are:

1) Ms Pikhan Gelayeva, who was born in 1953 (his mother);

2) Ms Rukiyat Gelayeva, who was born in 1977 (his sister);

3) Ms Elita Gelayeva, who was born in 1980 (his sister).

They live in Grozny, Chechnya. The applicants are not legally represented .

(a) Abduction of Mr Islam Gelayev and subsequent events

(i) Abduction of Mr Islam Gelayev

At the material time a checkpoint manned by Russian federal forces was situated in the street where the applicants and Mr I. Gelayev lived.

At about 10 p.m. on 21 May 2002 Mr I. Gelayev was walking home from his neighbour ’ s house in Grozny when a group of armed servicemen, most of them in masks, hit him with a rifle butt in the head and took him away in an UAZ car. The applicants ’ neighbours, Mr Kh. Kh. and Ms B. Sh., witnessed the incident.

The servicemen then broke into the applicants ’ house, put them against the wall, and threatened to shoot them. Those servicemen who were without masks were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. Then the servicemen left the applicants ’ house and drove away.

(ii) Subsequent events

On 22 May 2002, while searching for Mr I. Gelayev, the applicants went to the checkpoint in their street. The servicemen manning it told them that the special operation on 21 May 2002 had been conducted by an FSS unit with the code name “Shchuka” ( Щука ) and that the FSS servicemen had passed through the checkpoint with one detainee, who had looked like Islam Gelayev.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 22 May 2002 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Grozny military commander ’ s office.

On 26 July 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 48117 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 23 August 2002 the investigators granted victim status to the first applicant.

On 26 August 2002 the first applicant complained of the abduction to the various law-enforcement agencies.

On 30 September 2002 the military prosecutor ’ s office of military unit no. 20102 forwarded the first applicant ’ s complaint to the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office on the grounds that servicemen had not been involved in Mr I. Gelayev ’ s abduction.

On 18 June 2003 the investigators informed the first applicant that the investigation in respect of the criminal case had been suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators.

On 1 July 2003 the investigators informed the first applicant that the criminal proceedings had been resumed.

On 16 April 2004 the first applicant ’ s request for assistance in establishing her son ’ s whereabouts was forwarded to the military prosecutor ’ s office of the United Group Alignment ( Объединенная группировка войск ) and on 17 May 2004 to the military prosecutor ’ s office of military unit no. 20102.

On 18 June 2004 the military prosecutor ’ s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the first applicant that on 26 November 2002 the Leninskiy district prosecutor ’ s office had suspended the investigation in respect of the criminal case but that operational search measures were still being taken.

On 16 June 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor ’ s office informed the first applicant that the investigation in respect of the criminal case had been suspended.

On 21 July 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor ’ s office stated, in reply to the first applicant ’ s request for information, that it had not yet established her son ’ s whereabouts.

On 13 September 2005 the investigators informed the first applicant that the investigation in respect of the criminal case had been suspended.

On 2 February 2006 the first applicant requested the Leninskiy district prosecutor ’ s office to assist her in establishing her son ’ s whereabouts.

On 6 February 2006 the investigators replied that the investigation in respect of the criminal case had been suspended but that operational search measures were still being undertaken.

On 18 May 2009 the first applicant requested the head of the Committee on the Search for Disappeared Persons of the Chechen Parliament to assist her in establishing her son ’ s whereabouts.

On 15 February 2013 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the criminal case file. On 7 March 2013 the request was granted.

As can be seen from the documents submitted, the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 13 February 2008 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny challenging the decisions of 28 April 2011 and 14 December 2013 to suspend the investigation and alleging that the investigators had failed to take basic steps. On 7 April 2008 her complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated.

6. Application no. 30709/13 (Dzhambekov v. Russia)

The applicant in this case is Mr Mamet Dzhambekov, who was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Urus-Martan, Chechnya. He is not legally represented.

The applicant is the father of Mr Magomed Dzhambekov, who was born in 1976.

The circumstances of the case are similar to those of the case of Vakhayeva v. Russia , no. 27368/07, 10 July 2012, and may be summarised as follows.

(a) Abduction of Mr Magomed Dzhambekov

On 5 October 2001 Mr Magomed Dzhambekov and his friend, Mr R. V., were driving in Mr M. Dzhambekov ’ s white VAZ 2106 car with the registration numbers K674XT95 when they were stopped by military servicemen for an identity check at a checkpoint in Roshni-Chu. The servicemen forced the men out of the car, beat them, then forced Mr Magomed Dzhambekov into the boot of his VAZ 2106 car and Mr R. V. into their APC and drove away in the direction of the centre of Urus ‑ Martan.

Subsequently Mr R. V. ’ s sister saw the same car on the premises of the military commander ’ s office in Urus-Martan. Mr Magomed Dzhambekov and Mr R. V. have been missing ever since.

A detailed description of the facts is provided in the judgment of Vakhayeva v. Russia (no. 27368/07, §§ 5-20, 10 July 2012).

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 10 June 2002 the applicant ’ s wife complained about the abduction to a number of military and law-enforcement authorities, including the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, the district prosecutor, and the district military commander.

On 3 November 2002 the Urus-Martan town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case number 61153 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 3 January 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

On several occasions, including on 3 January and 20 July 2003 and 2 April and 27 September 2004 the investigation in respect of the criminal case was suspended and then on 20 June 2003, 14 January and 27 August 2004 and 15 March 2005 resumed.

On 20 April 2011 the investigators ordered that blood samples of Mr Magomed Dzhambekov ’ s relatives be taken for inclusion in the DNA database.

On 20 May 2011 the investigation in respect of the criminal case was suspended and on 29 October 2012 resumed again.

On 9 November 2012 the investigators examined the crime scene.

On 13 November 2012 the investigation in respect of the criminal case was suspended again. As can be seen from the documents submitted, it is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 22 October 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court challenging the investigators ’ decision to suspend the investigation. On 29 October 2010 the Urus-Martan Town Court dismissed the complaint as on 24 October 2010 the investigators had already resumed the investigation.

7. Application no. 33465/13 (Adamovy v. Russia)

The applicants – close relatives of brothers Mr Ruslan Adamov, who was born in 1983, and Mr Supyan Adamov, who was born in 1980 – are:

1) Ms Zumani Adamova, who was born in 1959 (their mother);

2) Ms Raisa Adamova, who was born in 1980 (their sister);

3) Mr Lom-Ali Adamov, who was born in 1986 (their brother).

The applicants live in the town of Selmentauzen, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni.

(a) Abduction of the Adamov brothers and subsequent events

(i) Abduction of Mr Ruslan Adamov and Mr Supyan Adamov

At about 11.30 p.m. on 16 July 2001 a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks broke into the applicants ’ house in Selmentauzen and took Mr R. Adamov and Mr S. Adamov away to an unknown destination.

(ii) Subsequent events

On an unspecified date at the beginning of August 2001 the applicants received a note from Mr R. Adamov and Mr S. Adamov stating that the brothers were detained on the premises of the DON ‑ 2 special military unit ( подразделение Дон-2 ).

Shortly afterwards the first applicant went to the military unit, where the Vedenskiy district deputy commander, Mr Kh. A., told her that the two brothers had been transferred to another law-enforcement agency.

( b) Official investigation into the abduction

On an unspecified date in 2001 the first applicant complained about the abduction to a number of law-enforcement agencies.

On 12 November 2001 the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office forwarded the applicant ’ s complaint to the Vedenskiy district prosecutor ’ s office.

On 25 November 2001 the Vedenskiy district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 37062 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction) and informed the applicants thereof on 31 January 2002.

On 28 June 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office forwarded the first applicant ’ s request for a more effective investigation into the abduction to the Vedenskiy district prosecutor ’ s office.

On 21 June 2007 the first applicant requested the investigators to grant her victim status, to resume the proceedings, and to grant her access to the investigation file. On the same date the requests were granted, except for the one concerning access to the case file.

On 21 July 2007 the investigation in respect of the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators.

On 7 April 2011 the criminal proceedings were resumed and on 7 May 2011 suspended again.

On an unspecified date in July 2011 the proceedings were resumed.

On 20 July 2011 the investigators examined the crime scene.

In July and August 2011 the investigators questioned several witnesses.

On 13 August 2011 the proceedings were suspended again.

On 7 February 2012 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 20 February 2012. As can be seen from the documents submitted, it is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 13 November 2012 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali District Court challenging the investigators ’ decision to suspend the criminal proceedings and alleging that they had failed to conduct an effective investigation.

On 19 December 2012 the Shali District Court dismissed the complaint as the investigators had resumed the investigation the day before.

On 30 January 2013, after an appeal by the first applicant, the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

8. Application no. 51529/13 (Garayeva and Others v. Russia)

The applicants – close relatives of Mr Bekkhan Dzhanaliyev, who was born in 1975 – are:

1) Ms Amina Garayeva, who was born in 1977 and lives in Geldagan, Chechnya (his wife);

2) Ms Tumisha Dzhanaliyeva, who was born in 1945 and lives in Geldagan, Chechnya (his mother);

3) Ms Zura Esambayeva, who was born in 1967 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya, his sister;

4) Ms Amnat Dudayeva, who was born in 1969 and lives in Geldagan, Chechnya (his sister).

The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni.

(a) Abduction of Mr Bekkhan Dzhanaliyev

At about 3 p.m. on 22 October 2000 Mr B. Dzhanaliyev drove with his cousin, Mr M. D., to the town of Argun in his car, a VAZ-2199 with the registration numbers A186XA 05Rus. According to the applicants, on the way to Argun, in the vicinity of Mesker-Yurt, several people witnessed Russian servicemen in camouflage uniforms stopping Mr B. Dzhanaliyev ’ s car and taking him and Mr M. D. away to an unknown destination.

The applicants did not disclose the identity of those witnesses to the Court. Mr B. Dzhanaliyev and Mr M. D. have not been seen since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On an unspecified date in October 2000 the second applicant complained about the abduction to the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office.

On 22 November 2000 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 22069 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 22 January 2001 the investigation in respect of the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators.

On 12 February 2001 the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office forwarded the second applicant ’ s request for her son ’ s whereabouts to be established to the Argun town prosecutor ’ s office.

On 6 December 2004 the criminal proceedings were resumed.

On 6 January 2005 the investigation in respect of the criminal case was suspended and then resumed again on 18 March 2005.

On 26 January 2009 the second applicant asked the Kurchaloy district prosecutor ’ s office to inform her of progress made in the investigation and grant her access to the investigation file. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request.

On 16 January 2012 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her victim status and allow her to access the case file.

On 6 June 2012 the criminal investigation was resumed and the first applicant was granted victim status.

On 7 June 2012 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 1 July 2012. It was suspended again on 1 August 2012. As can be seen from the documents submitted, it that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 28 June 2012 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the decision of 7 June 2012 to suspend the proceedings and the fact that the criminal case had not been investigated by the military investigative committee (as it should have been, given that military servicemen had been involved in the abduction) and alleging that the investigators had failed to take the necessary steps.

On 27 July 2012 the Shali District Court dismissed the complaint, having found that on 1 July 2012 the investigators had resumed the investigation.

On an unspecified date in November 2012 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the decision of 1 August 2012 to suspend the proceedings and alleging that the investigators had failed to take the necessary steps.

On 10 December 2012 the Shali Town Court dismissed the complaint, having found that on 5 December 2012 the investigators had already resumed the investigation. After an appeal by the first applicant, on 13 February 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that ruling on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. Referring to Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of the right to life of their relatives (referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix ) and submit that the circumstances of their abduction and ensuing disappearance or death indicate that they were abducted by State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation was carried out into the incidents.

2. Referring to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they are suffering severe mental distress on account of the indifference demonstrated by the national authorities in respect of the disappearance of their close relatives and the State ’ s failure to conduct an effective investigation in that respect.

3. The applicants further submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives violates all the guarantees stipulated in Article 5 of the Convention.

5. The applicants finally complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In respect of all the applications, except for Bitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08) and Aliyevy v. Russia (no. 26859/13) , 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 relatives, have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity that could have had 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, and Gakayeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 51534/08, 4401/10, 25518/10, 28779/10, 33175/10, 47393/10, 54753/10, 58131/10, 62207/10 and 73784/10, §§ 311-12 and 314, 10 October 2013)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their respective applications with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction/disappearance and/or killing of their relatives.

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 disappearances of the 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 eight applications both to each other and to the cases cited above, as can be deduced from the applicants ’ submissions and the interim results of the respective investigations:

(a) Did the applicants make out a prima facie case that their relatives (referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix) were detained by State servicemen in the course of security operations?

(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in order to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants ’ relatives ’ abductions and ensuing disappearances (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others , cited above , § 184 )? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants ’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abductions/killings by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events by other means?

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

(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 disappearances and/or death of the applicants ’ relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

3. H as the applicants ’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives, and the authorities ’ alleged indifference in that respect, together with their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the matter, 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. Were the applicants ’ missing relatives deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on the dates or periods of time listed in the Appendix? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?

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

6. Further to the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information in respect of each of the applications:

(a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants ’ allegations that their missing relatives were abducted or killed by State servicemen;

and, in any event,

(b) a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants ’ complaints about 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 from the investigation files for the respective criminal cases, including the case files nos. 23132, 63036, 22120 , 22122, 48117 , 61153 , 37062 and 22069 , that are relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the allegations and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations.

APPENDIX

No.

Number, name of the application and the date of its introduction

The applicants ’ details (name, year of birth, family relationship to the abducted person, place of residence)

Representative

Name and year of birth of the abducted person/s

Brief description of the circumstances of the abduction

Relevant details of the official investigation

no. 14196/08

Bitsayeva

v. Russia

22/01/2008

Ms Khava Bitsayeva (1969), wife; Chiri-Yurt, Chechnya

Mr Dokka Itslayev

Mr Vait Askhabov (1976)

On 12 March 2001 Mr Vait Askhabov was taken away from his garden in Chiri ‑ Yurt by servicemen in an Ural lorry

On 12 July 2001 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 23132 into Vait Askhabov ’ s abduction. The investigation is still pending.

no. 25531/13

Tumsoyeva and Others v . Russia

18/03/2013

(1) Ms Zura Tumsoyeva , (1956), wife; Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya

(2) Mr Anzor Yusupov (1979), son; Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya

(3) Rizvan Yusupov (1987), son; Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya

Mr Said Mushayev

Mr Yusup Khamzatov (1948)

On 23 May 2002 about thirty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ’ house in Zakan-Yurt and took Mr Yusup Khamzatov away.

On 25 May 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 63036 into Yusup Khamzatov ’ s abduction. The investigation is still pending.

no. 26859/13

Aliyevy v . Russia

03/04/2013

(1) Mr Badrudi Aliyev (1963), father; Belgatoy, Chechnya

(2) Ms Yakhita Aliyeva (1964), the mother; Belgatoy, Chechnya

Mr Tagir Shamsudinov

Mr Rustam Aliyev (1982)

On 7 July 2003 a large group of military servicemen broke into the applicants ’ house in Belgatoy and took Rustam Alyiev away.

On 2 August 2003 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 22120. The investigation is still pending.

no. 26874/13

Magomadova and Timisultanov v . Russia

03/04/2013

(1) Ms Maryam Magomadova (1973), the wife of Mr Khizir Magomadov; Grozny, Chechnya

(2) Ms Milana Timirsultanova (1974), the wife of Mr Muslim Abzailov; Grozny, Chechnya

Mr Tagir Shamsudinov

(1) Mr Khizir Magomadov (1965)

(2) Mr Muslim Abzailov (1974)

On 6 July 2003 the applicant ’ s relatives, Mr Khizir Magomadov and Mr Muslim Abzailov, were stopped by military servicemen while driving from Shali to Noviye Agati and taken away in a Ural lorry.

On 4 August 2003 the Shali prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 22122. The investigation is still pending.

no. 26893/13

Gelayevy v. Russia

03/04/2013

(1) Ms Pikhan Gelayeva (1953), mother; Grozny, Chechnya

(2) Ms Rukiyat Gelayeva (1977), sister; ibid

(3) Ms Elita Gelayeva (1980), sister; ibid

Not legally represented

Mr Islam Gelayev (1983)

On 21 May 2002, while he was on the way home from his neighbour ’ s house in Grozny, a group of armed servicemen hit Mr Islam Gelayev in the head with a rifle butt and took him away in an UAZ car.

On 3 November 2002 the Urus-Martan town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case number 61153. The investigation is still pending.

30709/13

Dzhambekov v. Russia

29/04/2013

Mr Mamet Dzhambekov (1956), father; Urus-Martan, Chechnya.

Mr Tagir Shamsudinov

Mr Magomed Dzhambekov (1976)

On 5 October 2001 Magomed Dzhambekov ’ s white VAZ 2106 car with registration numbers K674XT95 was stopped at a checkpoint in Roshni-Chu for an identity check. The servicemen beat Magomed Dzhambekov, forced him into the boot of his VAZ 2106 car and drove away in the direction of the centre of Urus-Martan.

On 3 November 2002 the Urus-Martan town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case number 61153. The investigation is still pending.

33465/13

Adamovy

v. Russia

23/04/2013

(1) Ms Zumani Adamova (1959), mother; Selmentauzen, Chechnya

(2) Ms Raisa Adamova (1980), sister; Selmentauzen, Chechnya

(3) Mr Lom-Ali Adamov (1986), brother; Selmentauzen, Chechnya

Materi Chechni

(1) Mr Ruslan Adamov (1983)

(2) Mr Supyan Adamov (1980)

On 16 July 2001 a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks broke into the applicants ’ house in Selmentauzen and took Mr Ruslan Adamov and Mr Supyan Adamov away to an unknown destination.

On 25 November 2001 the Vedenskiy district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 37062. The investigation is still pending.

51529/13

Garayeva and Others

v. Russia

23/05/2013

(1) Ms Amina Garayeva (1977), wife; Geldagan, Chechnya

(2) Ms Tumisha Dzhanaliyeva (1945), mother; Geldagan, Chechnya

(3) Ms Zura Esambayeva (1967), the sister; Grozny, Chechnya

(4) Ms Amnat Dudayeva (1969), sister; Geldagan, Chechnya

Materi Chechni

Mr Bekkhan Dzhanaliyev (1975)

On 22 October 2000 Bekkhan Dzhanaliyev, together with his cousin, Mr M. D., was stopped in his VAZ 2199 car with the registration number “A186XA 05Rus in the vicinity of Mesker-Yurt by Russian servicemen in camouflage uniforms and taken away to an unknown destination.

On 22 November 2000 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 22069. The investigation is still pending.