Communicated on 5 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 71383/13 Imani DANGIRIYEVA and Rizvan DANGIRIYEV against Russia lodged on 25 October 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Ms Imani Dangiriyeva (“the first applicant”) and Mr Rizvan Dangiriyev (“the second applicant”) , who were born in 1958 and 1980 respectively and live in Geldagan (also spelled as Geldagana ), known as the village of Novaya Zhizn , Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by Materi Chechni , an NGO based in Chechnya.

The applicants are the wife and the son of Mr Takhir Dangiriyev , who was born in 1956.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Abduction of Mr Takhir Dangiriyev

On the night of 27-28 July 2002 Mr Dangiriyev and his family members were at home at 22 Nuradilova Street in Geldagan , Chechnya, when between midnight and 1 a.m. a group of about ten armed servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into their house. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian; one of them was not wearing a balaclava and had a Slavic appearance. The servicemen searched the premises, then forced Mr Dangiriyev outside and took him away to an unknown destination.

In June 2005 an unidentified person contacted the applicants ’ relative, Mr S.D., and gave him a list of seven persons who had allegedly been abducted by federal forces and who were still alive but being held in detention in Grozny. Mr Dangiriyev ’ s name was on the list. The applicants submitted this information to the investigators (see below).

The whereabouts of Mr Dangiriyev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. His abduction took place in the presence of members of his family.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

On 29 July 2002 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal case be opened. She was interviewed straight away. Her statement was similar to the account that she submitted to the Court. Apart from that, she told the investigators that after the abduction she had learned from some of her neighbours that the perpetrators had arrived in the village in three armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and that before breaking into her house they had left the military vehicles somewhere nearby.

On the same date, 29 July 2002, the Kurchaloy district prosecutor ’ s office ( Прокуратура Курчалоевского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 75073 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code.

On 2 August 2002 the applicants ’ relative, Mr S.D., wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor complaining about the abduction. In his letter he stated, in particular, that the perpetrators had been in two APCs, which they had left 100 metres away from the Dangiriyevs ’ house.

On the same date the investigators questioned Mr S.D. His statement about the circumstances of the abduction was similar to the applicants ’ account of the events. He stated additionally that his house was located in front of that of Mr Dangiriyev and that on the night of the abduction he had not seen any military vehicles nearby.

On 19 September 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statement to the investigators was similar to that provided to the Court.

On 29 September 2002 the investigation in respect of the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. This decision was quashed on 5 July 2005 by the supervisors and the investigation was resumed. It was subsequently again suspended on 5 August 2005, 1 September 2011 and 24 February 2012, and resumed on 1 August 2011, 13 October 2011 and 16 July 2013.

On 5 July 2005 the investigators again questioned Mr S.D. He confirmed his previous statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction and informed the investigators about his meeting in June 2005 with the unidentified person who had informed him that Mr Dangiriyev was alive and that he was being held in detention by a federal law ‑ enforcement agency in Grozny (see above).

On 16 July 2005 and again on 29 September 2011 the first applicant was questioned. She reiterated her previous statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction.

On 17 July 2015 the investigators inspected the crime scene.

On 20 July 2010 the second applicant requested that the investigators inform him about the progress made in the criminal case. In reply, he received a letter stating that the investigation had been suspended but that operational search activities were still in progress in respect of the case.

On 15 October 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigation in the case be resumed and that she be granted access to the criminal case file. The investigators refused to resume the proceedings; however, they allowed the applicant to consult the criminal case file.

On 2 August 2011 the Kurchaloy district prosecutor pointed to a number of flaws in the investigation and requested that they be eliminated.

On 23 August 2011 and again on 16 February 2012 the investigators questioned the second applicant; his statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to those of the first applicant.

On 24 August 2011 blood samples were seized from the second applicant and a genetic (DNA) examination of those samples was ordered.

On 29 August 2011 the investigators questioned the applicants ’ neighbours, Mr R.Sh . and Ms L.M., who submitted that they had not directly witnessed the abduction. On the night of the abduction they had been at home and had not heard the sound of military vehicles or any other sounds indicating the presence of military personnel in the area . Ms L.M. additionally stated that some of the village residents living on the nearby street had heard the sound of an APC on the night of the abduction.

Between 27 September and 21 February 2012 the investigators questioned eyewitnesses to the abduction – Mr M.D., Mr A.D. and Mr R.D. Their statements to the investigators were similar to the account submitted by the applicants to the Court.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

On 17 October 2011 and 11 June 2013 respectively the applicants lodged a complaint before the Gudermes Town Court challenging the decisions of 1 September 2011 and 24 February 2012 to suspend the proceedings and the investigators ’ failure to take basic steps.

On 23 November 2011 and 16 July 2013 the court rejected the complaint, having found that the investigators had earlier quashed the decisions at issue and resumed the criminal proceedings. On 13 August 2013 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the decision of 16 July 2013 on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of Mr Dangiriyev ’ 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.

The applicants complain, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, 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 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, 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 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 and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 58055/10, ECHR 31 May 2016)? 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 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; 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. H as 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 his 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, 3 and 5 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.