Communicated on 16 October 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no 22667/09 Yakha Makhmutovna ZAKRIYEVA and Taus Makhmudovna MURADOVA against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. General information pertaining to all of the applications

The applicants in the present applications are Russian nationals, the majority of whom are residing in different settlements in the Chechen Republic, Russia, as specified below. Most of the applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of NGO “Materi Chechni” and other lawyers practicing in Chechnya and Strasbourg.

The facts pertaining to all the applications, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

B. Events surrounding the abductions

The applicants are close relatives of the persons, who disappeared in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia, a region neighbouring Chechnya, after their abduction from various public places in 2003-2006 by allegedly groups of servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in the areas under full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants had no news of their missing relatives thereafter.

C. Main features of the investigation into the abductions

In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abduction to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In every case the proceedings, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. The investigation has been repeatedly stayed by the investigators owing to their inability to identify the culprits and further resumed by the supervisory bodies who pointed out a number of flaws in the proceedings, such as the failure to question witnesses or carry out basic expert evaluations. Some applicants were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. It is unclear whether all of the applicants were questioned by the investigating authorities.

It follows from the documents submitted that no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. Further to such requests, the authorities generally reported that servicemen ’ s involvement in the abduction had not been established and that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time.

In all of the cases the applicants requested information about the progress of the proceedings from the investigative authorities; in response they received formal letters usually stating that the investigation was in progress and that their requests had been forwarded to yet another law-enforcement authority for examination. According to the applicants, the investigative authorities either failed to take the most important investigative steps, such as questioning of witnesses to the abductions, or they took those essential steps with significant and inexplicable delays.

D. Peculiarities of the individual applications

Summaries of facts for each of the applications and the most important investigative steps taken by the authorities are outlined below.

1. Application no. 22667/09 Zakriyeva and Muradova v. Russia

The applicants are Ms Yakha Zakriyeva and Ms Taus Muradova, who were born in 1949 and 1955 respectively, and live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by Mr Dokka Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny, Chechnya.

The first applicant is the mother of Mr Murad Zakriyev, who was born in 1973. The second applicant is the mother of Mr Rustam Muradov, who was born in 1977.

(a) Abduction of Mr Murad Zakriyev and Mr Rustam Muradov

At the material time the applicants and their sons were temporarily residing in Ingushetia as refugees. Mr Murad Zakriyev and Mr Rustam Muradov were working at a private construction site located on the premises of Mr B.G. ’ s household in Novaya Street in Nazran.

At about 12.30 a.m. on 14 July 2003 Mr Rustam Muradov, his colleague Mr V.S. and Mr B.G. ’ s family members, including his son Mr R.G., were at the site, when a group of ten to fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a Gazel minivan and a VAZ vehicle. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen broke into Mr B.G. ’ s household, handcuffed and blindfolded Mr Rustam Muradov, Mr V.S. and Mr R.G., forced them into the minivan and drove off.

Several minutes later, allegedly the same group of servicemen arrested Mr Murad Zakriyev on a street on his way to the construction site. They forced him into the Gazel minivan and drove off in the direction of Mozdok passing unrestrictedly through military checkpoints on their way.

Later on the same day Mr V.S. and Mr R.G. were released and returned home. Mr R.G. was subsequently questioned by the investigators (see below).

In about a month after the abduction, a man visited the second applicant and told her that her son and Mr Murad Zakriyev were detained at the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala, Chechnya.

At some point later the applicants learnt from Mr D.M., a police officer from the Ingushetia Ministry of the Interior, that Mr Rustam Muradov was detained at a detention facility in Krasnoarmeysk, in the Volgograd Region of Russia. However, their attempts to find him there were to no avail.

The whereabouts of Mr Murad Zakriyev and Mr Rustam Muradov remain unknown since their abduction which took place in the presence of several witnesses.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 14 July 2003 Mr B.G. informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.

On 24 July 2003 the Nazran town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 03560058 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 25 July 2003 the investigators questioned Mr R.G. His account before the investigators was similar to the applicants ’ submission before the Court. In addition, he stated that during the two-hour ride in the Gazel minivan after the abduction, the abductors had used portable radio sets. From the contents of their conversations, he had understood that they had been State agents. According to the witness, the abductors ’ vehicle passed through security checkpoints without any obstacles.

On an unspecified date in July or August 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned about the incident on 15 August 2003.

On 17 September 2003 the investigators questioned Mr M.T., a witness of Mr Murad Zakriyev ’ s abduction. His statement was similar to the applicants ’ submission before the Court.

On 24 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

On 17 July 2008 the second applicant requested the investigators to grant her access to the criminal case file. On 13 November 2008 her request was granted.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

2. Application no. 67344/09 Mamayeva v. Russia

The applicant is Ms Ayna Mamayeva, who was born in 1955 and lives in Noviye Atagi, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov, a lawyer practising in Grozny.

The applicant is the wife of Mr Magomed Dadulagov, who was born in 1951.

(a) Abduction of Mr Magomed Dadulagov

On 9 December 2003 Mr Magomed Dadulagov was at the market in Nazran, Ingushetia, when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a UAZ (“ таблетка ” ) vehicle without registration numbers. The servicemen forced Mr Magomed Dadulagov into the vehicle and drove off to an unknown destination.

The whereabouts of Mr Magomed Dadulagov remain unknown ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 31 December 2003 the Nazran town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 03560091 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 31 March 2007 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

On several occasions between 2006 and 2010 the applicant complained to various state authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her husband. It is unclear from the documents submitted whether any reply was given to these requests.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3. Application no. 22170/11 Davletbayeva and Others v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Ms Zina Davletbayeva (also spelled as Davletbaeva), who was born in 1975;

2) Mr Khabibula Galtakov, who was born in 1993;

3) Mr Abdul-Khakim Galtakov, who was born in 2003;

4) Mr Magomed Galtakov, who was born in 1998, and

5) Ms Isa Galtakova, who was born in 1931.

The first, second, third and fourth applicants live in Strasbourg, France; the fifth applicant lives in the Voznesenskaya settlement, Ingushetia. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms Oksana Preobrazhenskaya, a lawyer practicing in Strasbourg.

The first applicant is the wife of Mr Khizir Galtakov (also spelled as Goltakov), who was born in 1969. The second, third and fourth applicants are his children. The fifth applicant is his mother.

(a) Abduction of Mr Khizir Galtakov

At about 11 p.m. on 17 May 2005 Mr Khizir Galtakov and his acquaintance Mr A. were at the intersection of Shosseynaya Street and Ken ‑ Yurt-Bratskoye motorway in the village of Znamenskoye, Chechnya, when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a UAZ ( « таблетка » ) vehicle without registration numbers. The servicemen forced Mr Khizir Galtakov into the vehicle and drove off to an unknown destination.

The whereabouts of Mr Khizir Galtakov remain unknown ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

Immediately after the abduction the first applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested assistance in the search for her husband.

On 28 May 2005 the Nadterechnyy district prosecutor ’ s office in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 49007 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 28 July 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about this decision on 11 January 2007.

On 9 September 2008 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior issued a certificate confirming the circumstances of Mr Khizir Galtakov ’ s abduction as described by the applicant.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

4. Application no. 65052/11 Kosumova v. Russia

The applicant is Ms Malika Kosumova, who was born in 1979 and lives in Lomza, Poland. She is represented before the Court by lawyers of NGO “Materi Chechni”.

The applicant is the wife of Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov, who was born in 1970.

(a) Abduction of Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov

At about 5.30 p.m. on 2 October 2004 Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov and his acquaintance Mr Kh.G. were driving on the motorway between Noviye Atagi and Shali, Chechnya, when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas stopped their car. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen forced Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov and Mr Kh.G into a UAZ ( “ таблетка ” ) vehicle parked nearby and drove off in the direction of Noviye Atagi, where a Russian military base was stationed.

Mr Kh.G. was released later on the same day and returned home. It is unclear whether subsequently he was questioned by the investigation into the abduction.

The whereabouts of Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov remain unknown ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 24 December 2004 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 36149 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 26 December 2004 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

On 2 July 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 15 February 2006, then suspended on 15 March 2006 and again resumed on 16 October 2008.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

5. Application no. 34887/12 Sadykovy v. Russia

The applicants are Ms Khava Sadykova and Ms Raisa Sadykova, who were born in 1939 and 1971 respectively and live in Pobedinskoye, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of “Materi Chechni”.

The first applicant is the mother of Ms Tumisha (also spelled as Tumishat) Sadykova, who was born in 1959. The second applicant is her sister.

(a) Abduction of Ms Tumisha Sadykova and the subsequent events

At the material time, Ms Tumisha Sadykova worked at a car wash station in Subbotnikov Street in Grozny. A regional department of the Federal Drug Control Service was located across the street.

At about 2 p.m. on 15 March 2006 Ms Tumisha Sadykova and her relative Mr Kh.Kh. were at the car wash station, when a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in two VAZ ‑ 21099 and a UAZ-469 (“ таблетка ”) vehicles without registration numbers. The servicemen forced Ms Tumisha Sadykova and Mr Kh.Kh. into the UAZ vehicle and drove off to an unknown destination.

Mr Kh.Kh. was released later on the same date somewhere in Grozny.

At some point after the abduction, Ms Tumisha Sadykova ’ s colleague named Adam and the applicants ’ relative named Aslanbek who assisted the applicants in the search for Ms Tumisha Sadykova obtained information concerning her possible release in exchange for money. The two men asked the applicants to hand them over the amount of the ransom allegedly designated to secure Mr Tumisha Sadykova ’ s release. According to the applicants, they paid the amount requested, but Ms Tumisha Sadykova was not released. As it follows from the case file, the investigators were subsequently informed about these developments.

The whereabouts of Ms Tumisha Sadykova remain unknown since the date of her abduction.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 16 August 2006 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that an investigation be opened.

On 30 September 2006 the Leninskiy district prosecutor ’ s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 50176 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

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

On 9 and 10 October 2006 the investigators questioned direct witnesses of the abduction, Mr L-A.Ch. and Mr R.Kh. Their statements to the investigators concerning the circumstances of the events were similar to the applicants ’ submission before the Court.

On 14 October 2006 and 6 April 2010 the second applicant was questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above.

On 8 November 2006 the investigators questioned Mr A.S., the father of Ms Tumisha Sadykova, who stated, in particular, that some time after the abduction a colleague of his daughter named Adam and one of the family relatives, who were both engaged in the search for Ms Tumisha Sadykova, asked him to hand them over the amount of the ransom allegedly designated to secure her release. He had paid the amount requested but in vain (see above).

On 30 November 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

On 8 April 2009 the applicants requested various state authorities to provide assistance in the search for their relative. It is unclear whether any reply was given to these requests.

On 31 March 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators to resume the proceedings. On 16 June 2011 her request was granted and the investigation was resumed. Subsequently, it was suspended on 16 July 2011 and then again resumed on 27 January 2012.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 20 December 2011 the first applicant challenged the investigators ’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps before the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny. On 27 January 2012 her complaint was rejected as the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 29 February 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain about the violation of the right to life of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix and submit that the circumstances of their abduction indicate that the perpetrators had been State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation was conducted into the matter.

2. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications, except for application Mamayeva v. Russia (no. 67344/09) , complain that they suffer severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in connection with the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relatives and the State ’ s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incidents.

3. The applicants in all the applications, except for applications Mamayeva v. Russia (no. 67344/09) and Kosumova v. Russia (no. 65052/11), submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” i n the Appendix violates all of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.

4. The applicants in all the applications, except for applications Mamayeva v. Russia (no. 67344/09) and Kosumova v. Russia (no. 65052/11), complain under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants in the applications Davletbayeva v. Russia (no. 22170/11) and Sadykovy v. Russia (no. 34887/12) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 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 were found in respect of both 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 five applications both to each other and to the cases cited above, as can be derived from the applicants ’ submissions and the interim results of the respective investigations:

(a) Did the applicants make out a prima facie case that their relatives (referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix) were arrested by State servicemen in the course of security operations?

(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in order to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the abductions and ensuing disappearances of the applicants ’ relatives (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, § 184, ECHR 2009 )? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants ’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abductions, by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events by other means?

(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 disappearances of the applicants ’ missing relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

2. In respect of all the applications, except for application Mamayeva v. Russia (no. 67344/09) , h as the applicants ’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives, the authorities ’ alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into their disappearances been sufficiently serious 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. In respect of all the applications , except for applications Mamayeva v. Russia (no. 67344/09) and Kosumova v. Russia (no. 65052/11), were the applicants ’ missing relatives deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on the dates or periods of time listed in the Annex? If so, was such a deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?

4. In respect of all the applications, did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

5. Further to the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are requested to provide the following information in respect of each of the applications:

(a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants ’ allegations that their missing relatives had been abducted by State servicemen;

and, in any event,

(b) a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants ’ complaints about disappearance of their missing relatives, in the chronological order, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings;

as well as:

(c) copies of documents from the investigation files in respective criminal cases relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the allegations and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations.

6. In respect of applications Mamayeva v. Russia (no. 67344/09) and Davletbayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 22170/11) the Government are requested to provide the entire investigation files in the respective criminal cases .

APPENDIX

No.

Number, name of application and date of introduction

Applicants ’ details (name, year of birth, family relations, place of residence)

Representative

Name and year of birth of abducted persons

Brief description of the circumstances of the abduction

Relevant details about the official investigation

22667/09

Zakriyeva and Muradova v. Russia

23/03/2009

1) Ms Yakha Zakriyeva

(1949); Mr Murad Zakriyev ’ s mother; Grozny, Chechnya;

2) Ms Taus Muradova

(1955); Rustam Muradov ’ s mother; idem.

Mr Dokka Itslayev

1) Mr Murad Zakriyev (1973);

2) Mr Rustam Muradov (1977).

1) On 14 July 2003 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Rustam Muradov at a construction site in Nazran, Ingushetia, and took him away.

2) On the same date, 14 July 2003, allegedly the same group of servicemen arrested Mr Murad Zakriyev on a street in Nazran and took him away.

On 24 July 2003 the Nazran town prosecutor ’ s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 03560058. The investigation is still pending.

67344/09

Mamayeva v. Russia

02/12/2009

Ms Ayna Mamayeva

( 1955); Magomed Dadulagov ’ s wife; Noviye Atagi, Chechnya.

Mr Tagir Shamsudinov

Mr Magomed Dadulagov (1951)

On 9 December 2003 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Magomed Dadulagov at a market in Nazran, Ingushetia, and took him away in an UAZ (“ таблетка ”) vehicle without registration numbers.

On 31 December 2003 the Nazran town prosecutor ’ s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 03560091. The investigation is still pending.

22170/11

Davletbayeva and Others v. Russia

25/03/2011

1) Ms Zina Davletbayeva

(1975); Khizir Galtakov ’ s wife;

Strasbourg, France;

2) Mr Khabibula Galtakov ( 1993); Khizir Galtakov ’ s son;

idem;

3) Mr Abdul-Khakim Galtakov ( 2003); Khizir Galtakov ’ s son; idem;

4) Mr Magomed Galtakov ( 1998); Khizir Galtakov ’ s son;

idem;

5) Ms Isa Galtakova

(1931); Khizir Galtakov ’ s mother; Voznesenskaya, Ingushetia.

Ms Oksana Preobrazhenskaya

Mr Khizir Galtakov (also spelled as Goltakov) (1969)

On 17 May 2005 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Khizir Galtakov on a street in Znamenskoye, Chechnya, and took him away in an UAZ (“ таблетка ”) vehicle without registration numbers.

On 28 May 2005 the Nadterechnyy district prosecutor ’ s office in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 49007. The investigation is still pending.

65052/11

Kosumova v. Russia

13/10/2011

Ms Malika Kosumova

( 1979); Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov ’ s wife; Lomza, Poland.

Materi Chechni

Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov (1970)

On 2 October 2004 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Mayr-Khadzhi Gerikhanov on a motorway between Noviye Atagi and Shali, Chechnya, and took him away in an UAZ (“ таблетка ”) vehicle.

On 24 December 2004 the Shai district prosecutor ’ s office in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 36149. The investigation is still pending.

34887/12

Sadykovy v. Russia

14/05/2012

1) Ms Khava Sadykova

(1939); Tumisha Sadykova ’ s mother; Pobedinskoye, Chechnya;

2) Ms Raisa Sadykova

(1971); Tumisha Sadykova ’ s sister; idem.

Materi Chechni

Ms Tumisha (also spelled as Tumishat) Sadykova (1959)

On 15 March 2006 a group of armed servicemen arrested Ms Tumisha Sadykova at a car wash station in Grozny and took her away in UAZ (“ таблетка ”) vehicle .

On 30 September 2006 the Leninskiy district prosecutor ’ s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 50176. The investigation is still pending.