Communicated on 5 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 78616/13 Zabu IBRAGIMOVA and O thers against Russia lodged on 26 November 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are:

1) Ms Zabu Ibragimova , who was born in 1952;

2) Ms Kheda Ibragimova , who was born in 1986;

3) Ms Khava Ibragimova , who was born in 1990; and

4) Ms Radima Ibragimova , who was born in 1993.

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

The first applicant is the wife of Mr Movlid (also spelled Mavlid ) Ibragimov , who was born in 1954. The second, third and fourth applicants are his daughters.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Abduction of Mr Movlid Ibragimov

At about 3.00 a.m. on 21 March 2002 a group of ten to fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicants ’ house at 18 Sportivnyy Lane in Achkhoy-Martan in an UAZ car and an UAZ minivan ( tabletka ). Having broken into the house, the servicemen checked Mr Ibragimov ’ s passport, then forced him outside, put him into the UAZ minivan and drove off in the direction of Katyr -Yurt.

The whereabouts of Mr Ibragimov have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of the applicants and their neighbours.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

On 1 April 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor ’ s office ( Ачхой - Мартановская межрайонная прокуратура Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 63024 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty).

On the same date the first applicant was granted victim status in the case.

On 1 June 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on numerous occasions following orders and criticism on the part of the supervisors and then again suspended. Thus, the proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date in 2006 or 2007 and suspended on 28 February 2007, then again resumed on 18 October 2007, 10 June 2008 and 20 January 2012, suspended on 23 November 2007, 11 July 2008, 20 January 2012 and finally again resumed on 2 July 2013.

On unspecified dates the investigators questioned a number of residents of Achkhoy-Martan . All of them submitted that they had not directly witnessed the abduction but that they had learned from different sources that during the night on 21 March 2002 (in the records submitted the date was also indicated as 20 March 2002) armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms had broken into the Ibragimovs ’ family house and taken Mr Ibragimov away to an unknown destination in an UAZ vehicle.

On numerous occasions in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2011 the first applicant asked various state officials and law-enforcement agencies for assistance in the search for her husband. In reply she received letters informing her that her request had been sent to yet another law-enforcement agency for further processing or that that operational search activities were in progress to establish her husband ’ s whereabouts.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

On 22 May 2013 the first applicant lodged a complaint before the Achkhoy-Martan District Court challenging the decision of 20 January 2012 to suspend the proceedings and the investigators ’ failure to take basic steps.

On 3 July 2013 the court rejected the complaint, citing to the fact that on 2 July 2013 the investigators had quashed the decision at issue and resumed the proceedings. On 18 September 2013 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld this decision on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of the right to life of Mr Ibragimov 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 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 “excessive or unexplained delays” on the part of the applicants in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relative, and were there considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in 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 detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct effective investigations (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?

2. H as the applicants ’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relative, 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. 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?

4. 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?

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.