Communicated on 19 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 63000/14 Ramzan MEZHIYEV and others against Russia lodged on 1 September 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are:

1) Mr Ramzan Mezhiyev , who was born in 1951;

2) Ms Petmat (also spelled as Petimat ) Mezhiyeva , who was born in 1954;

3) Ms Milana Mezhiyeva , who was born in 1979;

4) Ms Kamilla Mezhiyeva , who was born in 1998;

5) Mr Deni Mezhiyev , who was born in 1999;

6) Ms Khadisht Batalova , who was born in 1980;

7) Mr Akhmed Mezhiyev , who was born in 1983; and

8) Mr Anzor Mezhiyev , who was born in 1987.

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

The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Magomed Mezhiyev , who was born in 1977. The third, fourth and fifth applicants are his wife and children. The sixth, seventh and eighth applicants are his sister and 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 Magomed Mezhiyev

At about 12 noon (in the documents submitted the time of the event was also referred to as 2 p.m.) on 24 July 2005 Mr Magomed Mezhiyev , who was an officer of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior at the material time, and his acquaintance, Mr A.M. (in the documents submitted also referred to as Mr A.Kh .), were on Pobedy Avenue in Grozny when a group of armed men in camouflage trousers and black T-shirts forced them out of their car. The men apprehended Mr Magomed Mezhiyev and loaded him into the trunk of a car which was parked nearby. Shortly afterwards several VAZ 2107 cars without registration numbers arrived on the scene. The men forced Mr A.M. into one of those cars and drove off in the direction of Minutka Square, Grozny.

According to the applicants, several days after the abduction an unidentified armed man in a black uniform contacted them and offered a video recording depicting Mr Magomed Mezhiyev and Mr A.M. detained on the premises of the Grozny district department of the interior ( Грозненский районный отдел внутренних дел ( РОВД )) ( hereinafter “the Grozny ROVD ”) in exchange for money (1,000 United States dollars (USD)). The applicants paid the requested sum for the video recording and submitted it to the investigators (see below).

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

2. Official investigation into the abduction

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

On 2 August 2005 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor ’ s office in Grozny ( Прокуратура Заводского района г . Грозный ) opened criminal case no. 41082 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 8 August 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case.

On 19 September 2005 and again on 3 September 2008 the investigators seized from the applicants the video recording depicting Mr Magomed Mezhiyev and Mr A.M. detained on the premises of the Grozny ROVD.

On 2 December 2005 the investigation in the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on numerous occasions following criticism by (and on the orders of) the supervising authorities and then again suspended. Specifically, the investigation was resumed on 9 December 2005, 3 March and 28 September 2006, 22 February 2007, 27 March, 2 June 2008 and 11 August 2008, 28 March and 8 September 2011, and 12 March 2014 and suspended on 9 January, 11 April, 27 October and 6 November 2006, 14 April 2007, 4 May, 4 July 2008 and 25 September 2008, 28 April 2011, 14 December 2013, and 17 March 2014.

On 27 October 2006 the investigators inspected the premises of the Grozny ROVD. Nothing was seized as evidence.

On 22 March 2007 the investigators questioned the first applicant.

On 27 March 2007 and again on 16 September 2011 the investigators ordered that a forensic examination of the video recording be conducted. The outcome of that examination is unknown.

On 9 April 2007 the investigators questioned the deputy head of the Grozny ROVD temporary detention ward, Mr A.B., who submitted that Mr Magomed Mezhiyev and Mr A.M. had not been detained on its premises.

On 21 April 2008 the investigators questioned two eyewitnesses to the abduction, Mr K.Kh . and Mr R.B. Their statements concerning the circumstances of the incident were similar to the account of the event that the applicants submitted to the Court.

On several occasions in August and September 2008 the first and second applicants were questioned. They provided the investigators with details of the abduction that were similar to those specified above. In addition, the first applicant stated that he had learned from undisclosed sources that after Mr Magomed Mezhiyev ’ s arrest the perpetrators had taken him to the premises of the Grozny ROVD, where he had been detained for two or three hours and then taken elsewhere.

On 2 September 2008 the investigators questioned the eighth applicant. His statement was similar to the account that the applicants submitted to the Court.

On 21 April 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators inform him of progress made in the investigation and allow him access to the criminal case file. The outcome of this request is unknown.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

On 15 May 2012 and 26 February 2014 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 the investigators ’ failure to take basic steps.

On 30 May 2012 and 13 March 2014 the court rejected the complaint having found that the investigators had earlier resumed the investigation. On 15 April 2014 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the latter decision on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of the right to life of Mr Magomed Mezhiyev 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.

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. 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, 50 184/07, 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 v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 181-84, ECHR 2009, 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?

2. 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?

3. Were 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?

4. 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?

5. 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.