Communicated on 19 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 73593/13 Satsita Dokayevna RESHIDOVA and Lechi Mukhmadiyevich RESHIDOV against Russia lodged on 5 November 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Ms Satsita Reshidova (“the first applicant”) and Mr Lechi Reshidov (“the second applicant”), who were born in 1965 and 1961 respectively and live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are not legally represented before the Court.

The applicants are the parents of Mr Islam Reshidov and Mr Usam (also spelled as Usama) Reshidov, who were born in 1986 and 1989 respectively.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Abduction of the Reshidov brothers

At about 2.30 p.m. on 7 December 2004 Mr Usam Reshidov was at the intersection of Zavodskaya and A. Sheripova Streets in Argun, Chechnya, when a group of armed servicemen in military camouflage uniforms arrived in an armoured personnel carrier (APC), an UAZ car and a Niva car. The servicemen arrested Mr Usam Reshidov and took him away to an unknown destination.

At about 7 p.m. on the same date presumably the same group of armed servicemen in military vehicles (among which were APCs an UAZ car and a Niva car) carried out a special operation in Sakhzavodskaya Street in Argun. The servicemen surrounded building no. 34 on that street, broke into flat no. 54 – where Mr Islam Reshidov was with his friends, Mr A.Kh. and Ms I.D. – arrested them and took them to the Argun military commander ’ s office. Ms I.D. was subsequently released and returned home.

The whereabouts of the Reshidov brothers have remained unknown ever since.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

Immediately after the disappearance the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested assistance in the search for their sons. According to the applicants, the police refused to accept and to register their complaint, thus delaying the opening of a criminal investigation.

On an unspecified date in December 2004 an officer of the Argun district department of the interior ( Районный отдел внутренних дел г . Аргун ) (hereinafter “the ROVD”) interviewed the first applicant, who submitted that on 7 December 2004 Mr Islam Reshidov and Mr Usam Reshidov had left home and had not returned.

On 21 December 2004 the applicant complained to the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office, stating that her first son, Mr Usam Reshidov, had left home on 7 December 2004 and had not come back, and her second son, Mr Islam Reshidov, had been abducted on the same date from his friend ’ s home on Sakhzavodskaya Street in Argun by military servicemen in APCs.

By a decision of 6 January 2005 the ROVD declined to open a criminal investigation, referring to the absence of any criminal act. This decision was quashed by the supervising authorities on 7 February 2005 as unlawful.

On 27 January 2005 the Argun prosecutor ’ s office ( прокуратура г . Аргун Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 58003 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On the same date the investigators decided to pursue three main theories in respect of the abduction, namely that the Reshidov brothers had been abducted by servicemen from either federal or local law-enforcement agencies because of their suspected involvement in illegal armed groups or by members of illegal armed groups. Later, on 3 June 2005, the investigators excluded the latter theory and decided to focus on the first two theories – that is to say, that the brothers had been abducted by either federal or local law-enforcement agencies.

On 9 February 2005 the investigators questioned a witness, Ms Z.A. She submitted that she had learned about the abduction from her relatives and from residents of building number 34 in Sakhzavodskaya Street, Argun, who had told her that on 7 December 2004 a group of military servicemen in APCs, UAZ cars and Niva cars had surrounded the house and arrested Mr Islam Reshidov and Ms I.D.

On 9 February 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She stated that her younger son, Mr Usam Reshidov, had left home on 7 December 2004 and had not returned. As for her elder son, Mr Islam Reshidov, she had learned about his abduction on the morning of 8 December 2004 from a neighbour, who had told her that the previous day a group of military servicemen in APCs, UAZ cars and Niva cars had surrounded the house on Sakhzavodskaya Street and abducted her son, Mr Islam Reshidov, along with Mr A.Kh. and Ms I.D. She (the first applicant) had immediately gone outside and seen that the area around the house on Sakhzavodskaya Street was still cordoned off by servicemen in military vehicles (such as APCs and UAZ cars). Shortly afterwards, she had gone to the Argun military commander ’ s office and spoken to a serviceman named Roma. From her conversation with Roma she had understood that both of her sons had been on the premises of the Argun military commander ’ s office.

On 11 February and April 2005, and again in January 2006, the investigators requested that a number of operational search measures be undertaken to locate eyewitnesses to the abduction and to determine the whereabouts of the abducted men. The wording of the request of 11 February 2005 stated that the operational search information gathered in the case suggested that the Reshidov brothers had been arrested by ROVD officers, who had presumably placed them in the Argun pre-trial detention centre.

Between February and April 2005 the investigators asked a number of law-enforcement agencies to inform them whether they had conducted any special operations on 7 December 2004 in Argun and whether they had arrested or detained the Reshidov brothers. No response in the affirmative was received.

On 24 February 2005 the investigators questioned a witness, Ms Kh.E., who testified that she had learned from other neighbours that on 7 December 2004 law-enforcement agencies had conducted a special operation in Sakhzavodskaya Street in Argun and had abducted the Reshidov brothers.

Between February and August 2005, and again in February 2006, the investigators questioned a number of residents of 34 Sakhzavodskaya Street and the surrounding area. Some of them had heard the sound of gunshots and of heavy military vehicles outside their flats during the evening of 7 December 2004; others had directly witnessed the special operation conducted by law-enforcement agencies.

On 14 March 2005 the investigators questioned Ms I.D. Her statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction perpetrated at flat no. 44 at 34 Sakhzavodskaya Street was similar to the account of the event that the applicants submitted to the Court.

On 27 April 2005 the investigation in respect of the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. On 15 May 2005 the supervising authorities quashed the above decision as unlawful and ordered the investigation to be resumed. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended and resumed on numerous occasions, including suspensions on 30 June 2005, 21 February and 23 June 2006, 7 May 2008, and 21 May and 13 July 2013.

On 7 June 2005 the investigators questioned a ROVD officer, Mr K.I., who had been on duty on 7 December 2004. He testified, in particular, that on that date, during the evening, the ROVD and the Ministry of the Interior ’ s temporary taskforce unit ( оперативная группа в ременн ой оперативн ой группиров ки органов и подразделений при Министерстве внутренних дел Российской Федерации ( ОГ ВОГО и П при МВД РФ )) had conducted a special operation at 34 Sakhzavodskaya Street in Argun. In the course of the operation unidentified armed men had abducted the Reshidov brothers and Ms I.D. The latter had subsequently been taken to the Argun temporary detention centre and released ten days later, on 17 December 2004.

On 8 and 14 June 2005 several ROVD officers were questioned and confirmed that a special operation had been conducted on the above date by law-enforcement agencies at 34 Sakhzavodskaya Street in Argun.

On 11 June 2005 and 16 February 2006 the investigators again questioned the first applicant. She reiterated her previous statement.

On 28 June 2005 the ROVD informed the investigators that operational search information gathered in the case suggested that Mr Usam Reshidov had been involved in the activities of illegal armed groups and was suspected in having taken part in terrorist attacks. Subsequently, similar information was obtained from the Argun branch of the Ministry of the Interior ’ s temporary taskforce unit ( Служб а криминальной милиции в ременн ой оперативн ой группиров ки органов и подразделений при Министерстве внутренних дел Российской Федерации по г . Аргун ( СКМ ОГ ВОГО и П МВД РФ по г . Аргун )) and the Argun department of the Chechnya Federal Security Service ( Управление Федеральной службы безопасности Российской Федерации по Чеченской Республике , отдел в г . Аргун ), which told the investigators about the suspected involvement of both Mr Usam Reshidov and Mr Islam Reshidov in illegal armed groups.

On 22 July 2005 the head of the criminal investigation department of the Chelyabinsk department of the Ministry of the Interior informed the investigators, inter alia , that the Reshidov brothers had been detained on 7 December 2004 in the course of a special operation conducted in Sakhzavodskaya Street in Argun by the Agrun administration ’ s security service ( Служба безопасности администрации г . Аргун ) and the Ministry of the Interior ’ s 34 th special task force brigade ( 34 отдельная бригада оперативного назначения ( ОБРОН ) МВД РФ ).

On 2 March 2006 the first applicant requested that the investigators question a number of State officials with regard to the abduction of her sons and to take certain investigative steps in the case. The outcome of this request is unknown.

On an unspecified date (presumably in May 2006) a deputy prosecutor from the Argun town prosecutor ’ s office pointed to a number of flaws in the investigation and requested that they be rectified.

On 7 June 2006 the first applicant requested that the investigators examine the crime scene – the premises of the Argun military commander ’ s office. The request was refused.

On 7 June 2006 the investigators questioned Mr I.N. – the then acting prosecutor at the Argun prosecutor ’ s office. He submitted, in particular, that in December 2004 a special operation had been conducted in connection with the suspected involvement of the Reshidov brothers, Ms I.D. and Mr A.Kh. in the preparation of a terrorist attack in Argun.

On 21 June 2006 similar information was obtained from Mr Sh.D., a ROVD officer who testified that the Reshidov brothers, Ms I.D. and Mr A.Kh. had been arrested by military servicemen in the course of a special operation which had taken place in December 2004 in Argun.

On 14 May 2013 the second applicant requested that he be granted victim status in the case. His request was allowed on 4 July 2013.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

On 3 April 2006 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging her lack of access to the criminal case file and the investigators ’ failure to take basic steps.

On 1 June 2006 the court allowed the applicant ’ s complaint in part and ordered the investigators to familiarise her with the criminal case file.

On 26 June 2013 the applicants lodged a similar complaint with the court challenging their lack of access to the criminal case file and the investigators ’ inaction with regard to the criminal case.

On 29 July 2013 the court rejected the complaint, having found that the investigators had earlier resumed the investigation.

COMPLAINTS

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

The applicants submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives 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 complaint under Article 2 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 relatives 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 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 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 relatives were 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 ’ relatives ’ 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 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 disappearance of the applicants ’ missing relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

3. Were the applicants ’ missing relatives 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 relatives were 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 relatives, 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.