Communicated on 5 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 50260/15 Milana TAYSUMOVA against Russia lodged on 15 September 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is Ms Milana Taysumova , who was born in 1987 and lives in Shali . She is represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov , a lawyer practising in Grozny.

The applicant is the sister of Mr Adam Taysumov , who was born in 1980.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Abduction of Mr Adam Taysumov

At about 8 p.m. on 27 September 2004 a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at Mr Taysumov ’ s house at 23 Arsanova Street in Novyye Atagi , Chechnya, in a KAVS bus with registration numbers containing the digits 448 95. The servicemen were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. They checked Mr Taysumov ’ s passport, then forced him into the bus and drove off in the direction of Grozny.

The whereabouts of Mr Taysumov have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including his parents (Ms T.T. and Mr I.T.), his wife and neighbours.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

On 28 September 2004 the head of Novyye Atagi local administration informed the Shali district prosecutor about the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.

On 30 September 2004 Ms T.T. and Mr I.T. were questioned. Their statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account that the applicant submitted to the Court.

On 01 December 2004 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office ( Прокуратура Шалинского района Чеченской Республики ) opened criminal case no. 36140 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 03 December 2004 the investigators inspected the crime scene.

On 07 December 2004 Ms A.M. (Mr Taysumov ’ s wife) was granted victim status in the case. She was questioned on an unspecified date and provided the investigators with an account of the events that was similar to that given above.

In December 2004, February 2006, February 2007 and then in April and May 2015 the investigators asked a large number of law-enforcement agencies and medical institutions to inform them whether they had arrested, detained or provided medical assistance to Mr Taysumov , whether any special operations had been conducted in Novyye Atagi on 27 September 2004 and whether there was any information available about the owner of a KAVS bus with registration numbers containing the digits 448 95. The requests did not yield any pertinent information.

On 6 January 2005 the investigators again questioned Ms T.T. She reiterated her previous statement.

On 9 January 2005, 27 and 28 November 2014, and between 15 and 22 April 2015 the investigators questioned a number of witnesses, most of whom had been the applicant ’ s neighbours at the time of the abduction. All of them submitted that in the evening of the day of the abduction they had seen a group of servicemen in camouflage uniforms who had arrived in a bus at the Taysumovs ’ family house.

On 1 February 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed and suspended on numerous occasions. It was resumed on 25 May 2005, 9 January 2007, 15 May 2007, 24 November 2014 and 9 April 2015 and suspended on 2 July 2005, 19 June 2007, 2 July 2005, 10 February 2007, 29 November 2014 and 9 May 2015.

On 2 May 2010 Ms A.M. requested that the investigators grant her access to the criminal case file. Her request was granted.

On 26 November 2014 the applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. Her statement before the investigators was similar to that which she submitted to the Court.

On 10 April 2015 the investigators again questioned Ms A.M. She reiterated her previous statement.

On 20 April 2015 the Shali district department of the Interior ( ОМВД России по Шалинскому району Чеченской Республики ) informed the investigators that Mr Taysumov had been a member of an illegal armed group which had been operating in Novyye Atagi at the material time.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

On 11 August 2015 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Shali Town Court challenging the decision of 9 May 2015 to suspend the investigation.

On 25 August 2015 the court rejected the complaint as unfounded.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains of a violation of the right to life of Mr Taysumov and submits that the circumstances of his abduction indicate that the perpetrators were State agents. The applicant further complains that no effective investigation into the matter has been conducted.

The applicant complains, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that she is suffering severe mental distress on account of the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of her close relative and the State ’ s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident.

The applicant submits that the unacknowledged detention of her relative violates all the guarantees under Article 5 of the Convention.

The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant 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 applicant “excessive or unexplained delays” in submitting her complaints to the Court after the abduction of her relative, and have there been 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 applicant is invited to provide explanations for the delay in her lodging her application with the Court, and to provide copies of her correspondence (and related documents) with the authorities in connection with the abduction of her 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 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 applicant ’ s submissions and the interim results of the investigation,

(a) Has the applicant made out a prima facie case that her 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 applicant ’ s 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 applicant ’ s 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 applicant ’ s 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 applicant ’ s 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 applicant ’ s mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of her 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 applicant?

3. Was the applicant ’ s 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 applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Articles 2 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 applicant ’ s allegations that her 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 applicant ’ s complaints about the disappearance of her 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.