Communicated on 15 October 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 7651/08 Magomet Sultanovich SAYNAROYEV and Bazhdat Musiyevna SAYNAROYEVA against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)

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 and the Republic of Ingushetia, Russia, as specified below. Most of the applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of Memorial Human Rights Centre, Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya), and an NGO “Materi Chechni” based in Chechnya. The applicant in Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09) is not legally represented (see the enclosed Appendix).

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 men, who disappeared in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia, a region neighbouring Chechnya, after their abduction from various public places in 2000-2006 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. 7651/08 Saynaroyev and Saynaroyeva v. Russia

The applicants are Mr Magomet Saynaroyev and Ms Bazhdat Saynaroyeva, who were born in 1965 and 1938 respectively and live in Ordzhonikidzevskaya settlement, Ingushetia. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of Memorial Human Rights Centre.

The first applicant is the son of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev, who was born in 1925. The second applicant is his wife.

(a) Abduction of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev

At the material time, Mr Sultan Saynaroyev lived in Galashki village, Ingushetia. He was engaged in bee keeping and run an apiary in a small area called “Berezhki” located between two neighbouring villages of Arshty and Galashki.

In the afternoon on 22 October 2002 Mr Sultan Saynaroyev left the apiary and was heading home to Galashki on foot when a group of forty-five to fifty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in four armoured infantry carriers (AIC, Боевая машина пехоты ) without registration numbers. One of the vehicles had a large label reading “Rossiya” (“ Россия ”, Russia ). Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen stopped Mr Suleyman Saynaroyev and requested him to go with them to a neighbouring apiary of Mr M.O. The latter and his family members were in the apiary. The servicemen checked identity documents of all those present and searched the premises. One of them, who was apparently in charge of the group, introduced himself as “Sergey” and said that he was from a military unit stationed in Arshty. After the search, the servicemen requested Mr Sultan Saynaroyev to proceed with them to their headquarters for further check, having assured him that the decision to arrest him had been approved by the Arshty local administration. They put Mr Sultan Saynaroyev into one of the AICs and drove off in the direction of Chechnya.

In the evening on the same date, 22 October 2002, the first applicant spoke to the head of the Arshty police department, Mr A.Ts., who informed him that a special sweeping-up operation was in progress in the village at that moment and for that reason a large number of military servicemen was over there.

On 24 October 2002 the first applicant spoke to Mr A.M, a deputy head of the Ingushetia Government. The latter told the applicant that he had had a telephone conversation with the military commander of the headquarters of the federal forces in Khankala, Chechnya, who had informed him that Mr Sultan Saynaroyev had been brought to the Khankala military base on 23 October 2002 and that he would soon be released.

The whereabouts of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev remain unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 23 October 2002 the applicants complained about the abduction to the authorities and requested that criminal case be opened.

On 14 November 2002 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor ’ s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 22600057 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 20 November 2002 the Ingushetia Minister of the Interior Mr A.P. informed the deputy head of the Ingushetia Government that the operational search activities conducted into the disappearance of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev showed that the latter had been abducted by unidentified military servicemen who took him in a military vehicle in the direction of the Chechen Republic.

On an unspecified date the criminal case was forwarded to a military prosecutor ’ s office for further investigation.

On 29 November 2002 colonel S.I., the commander of military unit no. 74814, reported, in particular, that Mr Sultan Saynaroyev had been detained on 22 October 2002 by servicemen of the Regional Operative Headquarters of the Federal Security Service in the North Caucasus (the FSB) ( Региональный Оперативный Штаб ФСБ России по Северо ‑ Кавказскому региону ) .

On 25 December 2002 the military prosecutor ’ s office forwarded the criminal case to the Ingushetia prosecutor ’ s office referring to the lack of jurisdiction over the investigation.

On 29 December 2002 the Ingushetia FSB informed the investigators that they had no information on Mr Sultan Saynaroyev ’ s whereabouts.

On 10 January 2003 colonel M-S.K., the acting head of the criminal investigation department of the Ingushetia Ministry of the Interior, reported to the investigators stating, in particular, that on 29 November 2002 the United Group Alignment had confirmed the fact of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev ’ s detention by servicemen of the FSB, however the FSB in their letter of 3 January 2003 had denied any involvement of their agents in the incident.

On 14 March 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

On 23 April 2003 colonel A.P., the deputy Minister of the Interior of Ingushetia, informed the applicants that operational search activities had indicated the FSB servicemen ’ s involvement in the abduction of Mr Sultan Saynaroyev.

On 4 September 2003 and then on 21 November 2003 the investigators informed the applicants that the proceedings in the criminal case were resumed.

On 18 January 2006 the first applicant requested the investigators to inform him about the progress in the proceedings. The investigators replied that the proceedings had been suspended.

On 21 April 2006 and 27 September 2006 the first applicant again requested information about the course of the investigation. No reply was given to these requests.

On numerous occasions between 2002 and 2007 the applicants complained to various state authorities and law-enforcement agencies about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that their request was forwarded to yet another state agency or that the law-enforcement authorities had no information concerning their relative ’ s whereabouts.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 27 February 2006 the first applicant challenged the investigators ’ failure to take basic steps before the Sunzhenskiy District Court of Ingushetia (the court). On 13 March 2006 the court allowed the complaint having ordered that the investigation be resumed and a number of procedural steps taken.

2. Application no. 50556/08 Kukurkhoyeva v. Russia

The applicant is Ms Aza Kukurkhoyeva who was born in 1965 and lives in Ordzhonikidzevskaya village, Ingushetia. She is represented before the Court by lawyers of Memorial Human Rights Centre.

The applicant is the wife of Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev, who was born in 1967.

(a) Abduction of Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev and the subsequent events

On 11 July 2004 Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev was visiting his relative in the village of Muzhichi, Ingushetia, when a group of servicemen from the Bamut military commander ’ s office under the command of Major General Starkov arrested him at the outskirts of the village on suspicion of having committed a murder and handed him over to officers from the Federal Security Service (the FSB) who took him away to an unknown destination.

In the evening on the same date, 11 July 2004, police officers from the Sunzhenskiy district department of the interior (the ROVD) arrived at the applicant ’ s house in Ordzhonikidzevskaya. Having informed the applicant that earlier that day the FSB officers had arrested Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev on suspicion of having committed a murder, they searched the premises and left.

On 12 July 2004 Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev ’ s brother, Mr U.Ts., went to the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor ’ s office (the prosecutor ’ s office). The prosecutor, Mr G.M., informed him that his brother had been detained by the FSB.

On 13 July 2004 the prosecutor ’ s office summoned Mr U.Ts. for interrogation. In the course of the interrogation the prosecutor Mr Kh. and the head of the criminal investigation department of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD confirmed that Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev had been detained by the FSB and was held on their premises in Ingushetia.

The whereabouts of Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev remain unknown ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 13 July 2004 the applicant requested the authorities to open an investigation into the abduction of her husband.

On 27 August 2004 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor ’ s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 04600057 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 10 September 2004 the applicant was granted victim status.

On 27 October 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, the investigation was resumed on several occasions and again suspended. In particular, it was resumed on 11 January 2005, 27 October 2006 and 4 May 2007 and suspended on 28 February 2005, 27 November 2006 and 4 June 2007.

On 17 April 2006 and then on 16 January 2008 the applicant requested the investigators to inform her about the progress in the proceedings. In reply, the investigators informed her that the proceedings had been suspended.

On 10 June 2006 and on 9 October 2008 the applicant requested that the investigation be resumed and to be granted access to the criminal case file. Both of her requests were rejected.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 13 July 2006 and on unspecified date in 2007 the applicant challenged the investigators ’ failure to take basic steps before the Sunzhenskiy District Court in Ingushetia (the court). On 13 October 2006 and 27 April 2007 the court allowed the complaint having ordered that the investigation be resumed.

On 18 February 2008 the applicant again complained to the court about the investigators ’ inaction. On 24 March 2008 the court rejected her complaint for unclear reasons (the document furnished to the Court is illegible).

On 6 April 2009 the applicant challenged her lack of access to the criminal case file before the court. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown.

3. Application no. 6636/09 Khamkhoyeva and Others v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Ms Zarema Khamkhoyeva, who was born in 1970;

2) Ms Khedi Muzhikhoyeva, who was born in 1969;

3) Mr Magomed Khamkhoyev, who was born in 2001;

4) Mr Islam Khamkhoyev, who was born in 2005.

The first, third and fourth applicants live in Alkun village, Ingushetia, the second applicant lives in Gamurziyevskiy settlement, Ingushetia. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (in partnership with NGO Astreya), (SRJI/Astreya).

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, who was born in 1972. The first applicant is his wife, the second applicant is his sister and the third and fourth applicants are his children.

(a) Abduction of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev

The facts of the present application has already been examined by the Court in Bekova v. Russia , no. 53679/2007, as regards the abduction of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev (see Sultygov and Others v. Russia , no s . 42575/07, 53679/07, 311/08, 424/08, 3375/08, 4560/08, 35569/08, 62220/10, 3222/11, 22257/11, 24744/11 and 36897/11 , §§ 40-80, 9 October 2014).

At the material time, Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev worked at the construction site located at Moscovskaya Street in Nazran, Ingushetia. At about 9.30 a.m. on 29 September 2005 he was at work, when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the construction site. The servicemen beat Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev and then put him, unconscious, into the boot of one of their vehicles. Two men, Mr M.B. and Mr Ruslan Yandiyev, who were also present at the site, tried to intervene, however the servicemen handcuffed them, forced them into the vehicles and then drove off to an unknown destination.

The whereabouts of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev remain unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 9 October 2005 the Nazran town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 05560115 into the abduction of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, Mr M.B. and Mr Ruslan Yandiyev.

On an unspecified date the first applicant was granted victim status.

On 17 April 2007 the investigator informed the first applicant that the operational search activities were in progress in order to establish her husband ’ s whereabouts.

On 27 February 2008 the first applicant requested the investigators to inform her about the progress in the proceedings. On 28 April 2008 they replied that the investigation was in progress.

On unspecified dates between 2005 and 2009 the investigation was suspended and resumed on numerous occasions. It was last suspended on 26 June 2009.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

4. Application n o. 58501/09 Ibayeva v. Russia

The applicant is Ms Minga Ibayeva, who was born in 1953. She is the wife of Mr Ibragim Idrisov, who was born in 1951.

The applicant died on 24 August 2011. Her daughter, Ms Larisa Ibayeva (also spelled as Larissa Ibaeva), who lives in Strasbourg, France, and who is also the daughter of the disappeared Mr Ibragim Idrisov, expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in her stand. She is not legally represented.

(a) Disappearance of Mr Ibragim Idrisov

On 27 January 2002 Mr Ibragim Idrisov went to Shali, Chechnya, for a work-related purpose. On the same date servicemen from the Shali temporary department of the interior (the VOVD ) arrested him and placed him in a temporary detention ward on the premises of the VOVD police station. His GAZ 2410 vehicle was seized and placed in the station ’ s inner yard.

Following Mr Ibragim Idrisov ’ s arrest, his wife - the applicant, was informed thereof. From 28 January 2002 to 2 February 2002 she visited him regularly in the VOVD, bringing him food and warm clothing.

In the morning on 3 February 2002, when the applicant came as usual to visit her husband in the VOVD, she was informed that Mr Ibragim Idrisov had been released the day before, on 2 February 2002. Meanwhile, Mr Ibragim Idrisov ’ s GAZ 2410 vehicle remained parked on the premises of the VOVD.

The whereabouts of Mr Ibragim Idrisov remain unknown ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the disappearance

On 11 February 2002 the applicant lodged an official complaint with the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office requesting assistance in the search for her husband.

On 13 February 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 59053 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 20 February 2002 Major A.Sh., the head of the VOVD, issued a report stating that Mr Ibragim Idrisov had been detained on 27 January 2002, placed in the temporary detention ward on the premises of the VOVD and then released on 2 February 2002. His vehicle remained on the VOVD premises.

On 8 August 2002 the investigators informed the applicant that the proceedings in the criminal case had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

On 14 January 2003 the investigation was resumed.

On numerous occasions between 2002 and 2004 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for her husband. In reply she received letters stating, in particular, that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish her husband ’ s whereabouts.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

5. Application no. 22311/11 Obrugovy v. Russa

The applicants are Mr Isa Obrugov and Ms Shamset Obrugova, who were born in 1950 and 1952 respectively and live in Argun, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of NGO “Materi Chechni”.

The applicants are the parents of Mr Sharudi Obrugov, who was born in 1980.

(a) Abduction of Mr Sharudi Obrugov

At about 5 p.m. on 14 August 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 5 October 2000 and 14 February 2002) Mr Sharudi Obrugov was with his friends at the crossroads of Melnichnaya and Lugovaya Streets in Argun, when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a VAS vehicle and a Gazel minivan without registration numbers. The servicemen ordered Mr Sharudi Obrugov and his friends to lie face down on the ground and put their hands behind their backs. Having searched them and checked their identity documents, the servicemen handcuffed Mr Sharudi Obrugov, forced him into the minivan and drove off to an unknown destination.

Immediately after the abduction, the first applicant went to the Argun military commander ’ s office where one of the officers confirmed the fact of his son ’ s detention by military servicemen. From the officer the applicant also learned that Mr Sharudi Obrugov had been transferred to the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala.

The whereabouts of Mr Sharpudi Obrugov remain unknown ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 1 October 2002 the Argun town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 78094 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 19 October 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status.

On 1 December 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 8 May 2003, 2 June 2005 and 7 October 2010 following the supervisors ’ orders and criticism and again suspended on 8 June 2003 and 2 July 2005.

On 19 February 2010 the second applicant requested to resume the investigation and to inform her about the progress in the proceedings. Her request was rejected.

On 21 May 2010 the second applicant requested the investigators to grant her full access to the criminal case file. The access was granted.

On several occasions between 2002 and 2010 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for their son. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their son ’ s whereabouts.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 23 September 2010 the first applicant challenged the investigators ’ decision to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic steps before the Shali Town Court (the court). On 18 October 2010 the court rejected the complaint having found that on 7 October 2010 the investigators had resumed the proceedings. On 8 December 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.

6. Application no. 22946/11 Bakhayeva and Others v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Ms Baret Bakhayeva, who was born in 1953;

2) Mr Umalat Bakhayev, who was born in 1982, and

3) Ms Berlant Munayeva, who was born in 1975.

The applicants live in Argun, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by Mr Said Mushayev, a lawyer practicing in Grozny, Chechnya.

The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ayub Bakhayev, who was born in 1979. The second and the third applicants are his brother and sister.

(a) Abduction of Mr Ayub Bakhayev

At about 1 p.m. on 13 October 2001 Mr Ayub Bakhayev left his home at 25 “a” Melnichnyy Lane in Argun and was heading to the pharmacy when a group of around six armed servicemen in military uniforms and balaclavas arrived in two VAZ vehicles with registration numbers containing digits 680 and 690. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen threatened the passers-by with firearms and ordered them not to move. Then they searched Mr Ayub Bakhayev, forced him into one of the vehicles and drove off to the premises of the Argun military commander ’ s office (the commander ’ s office).

Subsequently, on several occasions both vehicles of the abductors were seen unrestrictedly entering the premises of the commander ’ office.

Following the abduction, the applicants went to the commander ’ s office where one of the officers confirmed the fact of Mr Ayub Bakhayev ’ s arrest.

The whereabouts of Mr Ayub Bakhayev remain unknown since the date of his abduction. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the first applicant.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 15 October 2001 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relative.

On 20 January 2002 the Argun inter-district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 78009 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 23 January 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status.

On 20 March 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 20 November 2002, and 7 May 2004, then suspended on 30 December 2002 and 10 June 2004 and again resumed on 6 October 2010.

On 3 March 2010 the first applicant requested to resume the proceedings and to inform her about the progress in the investigation. In reply, the investigators informed her that the proceedings had been suspended and that the operational search activities were in progress to establish the whereabouts of her son.

On 21 May 2010 the applicant requested to grant her access to the investigation file. No reply was given to this request.

It appears that the investigation is still pending

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 23 September 2010 the first applicant challenged the investigators ’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps before the Shali Town Court (the court). On 13 October 2010 the court rejected the complaint having found that on 6 October 2010 the investigators had already resumed the criminal proceedings. On 17 November 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.

7. Application no. 31184/11 Ocherkhadzhiyevy v. Russia

The applicants are Ms Mariya Ocherkhadzhiyeva and Mr Adam Ocherkhadzhiyev, who were born in 1938 and 1972 respectively, and live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by NGO “Materi Chechni”.

The first applicant is the mother of Mr Said-Emin (also spelled as Sayd ‑ Emi and Sayd-Emin) Ocherkhadzhiyev, who was born in 1967. The second applicant is his brother.

(a) Abduction of Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev

In January 2000 the Russian federal forces conducted an extensive military operation against members of illegal armed groups in Grozny. The town was subjected to shellings and sweeping-up operations.

On 19 January 2000 Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev together with the second applicant and their neighbour, Mr S.Kh., went to Michurina settlement in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny to visit their relative. On their way they came across an APC with Russian servicemen on board. The servicemen were wearing military uniforms and were of Slavic appearance. They opened gun fire and wounded Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev. Meanwhile, the second applicant and Mr S.Kh. managed to hide behind a building and escaped the shooting. The servicemen picked the wounded Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev off the ground, put him into the APC and drove off to an unknown destination.

The whereabouts of Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev remain unknown ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

As soon as the shellings in Grozny were over, the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.

On 19 June 2001 the Grozny town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 17073 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 27 July 2001 the first applicant was granted victim status.

The investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. In particular, it was suspended on 24 January 2006 for failure to identify the perpetrators, then resumed on 18 January 2010, suspended on 28 February 2010 and again resumed on 8 November 2010.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 13 January 2010 and 12 August 2010 the first applicant challenged the investigators ’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny (the court). On 7 April 2010 and 22 November 2010 the court rejected the complaints having found that the investigators had earlier overruled the decisions to suspend the proceedings and resumed the investigation.

8. Application no. 69462/11 Mukayevy v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Ms Salmatu Mukayeva, who was born in 1950;

2) Mr Shaabay Mukayev, who was born in 1969, and

3) Mr Sultan Mukayev, who was born in 1937.

The applicants live in Shali, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of SRJI/Astreya .

The first and third applicants are the parents of Mr Supyan (also spelled as Supiyan) Mukayev, who was born in 1982. The second applicant is his brother.

(a) Abduction of Mr Supyan Mukayev and the subsequent events

At about 3 p.m. on 15 March 2005 Mr Supyan Mukayev and his acquaintance Mr M.Kh. were standing at Groznenskaya Street, across the “Bass” gas station in Shali when a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms approached them and in unaccented Chechen ordered to put their hands up. Then they forced Mr Supyan Mukayevwas and Mr M.Kh separately into two vehicles, VAZ-2199 and UAZ (“ таблетка ”), parked nearby and drove off in the direction of Grozny, unrestrictedly passing through military checkpoints on their way.

In several minutes after the abduction, the street was condoned off by a large number of servicemen from the “Vostok-2” battalion of the Russian Defence Ministry. Military vehicles, such as APCs and UAZs, were patrolling the town, while servicemen were searching the premises of the local telecommunication agency.

Meanwhile, the first applicant together with other town residents approached the Shali military commander General B. and demanded an explanation as to what had happened to Mr Supyan Mukayev and Mr M.Kh. In reply, the officer told the applicant that her son was an informant of illegal armed groups operating in Chechnya.

On the next day, 16 March 2005, the servicemen took Mr M.Kh. to Gudermes and released him somewhere in the town. According to Mr M.Kh., at the moment of the abduction he and Mr Supyan Mukayev had been separated and placed into different vehicles. He had not seen Mr Supyan Mukayev thereafter.

Sometime after the abduction, the first applicant went to the Shali local administration and spoke to its deputy head, who informed her that her son had been detained by servicemen of the “Vostok-2” battalion and was detained somewhere in Gudermes.

The whereabouts of Mr Supyan Mukayev remain unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.

On 7 July 2005 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 46073 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 7 October 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on several occasions following the supervisors ’ orders and criticism and then again suspended. In particular, it was resumed on 15 March 2006, 17 July 2006, 16 January 2007, 14 March 2007, 25 April 2011, and suspended on 15 April 2006, 27 August 2006, 27 February 2007 and 15 April 2007.

On 8 July 2005 and 27 April 2011 the first and second applicants respectively were granted victim status.

On 17 May 2011 the investigators obtained blood samples from the second applicant and ordered a DNA examination.

On numerous occasions between 2005 and 2011 applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their relative ’ s whereabouts.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

9. Application no. 73948/11 Chalayev and Others v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Mr Isa Chalayev, who was born in 1952;

2) Ms Zaynap Gaysumova, who was born in 1956;

3) Ms Ayshat Avkhadova, who was born in 1987;

4) Mr Seyf-Islam Avkhadov, who was born in 2006;

5) Mr Adlan Avkhadov, who was born in 2007;

6) Mr Sultan Elderkhanov, who was born in 1951, and

7) Ms Ayna Elderkhanova, who was born in 1956.

The first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants live in the village of Alkhan-Kala; the sixth and seventh applicants live in the village of Zakan ‑ Yurt, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of SRJI/Astreya.

The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Rustam Gaysumov, who was born in 1980. The third applicant is his wife and the fourth and fifth applicants are his children. The sixth and seventh applicants are the parents of Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov, who was born in 1980.

(a) Abduction of Mr Rustan Gaysumov and Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov

On 8 November 2006 the police conducted a special operation at Druzhby Narodov Square in Grozny. The area was intensively patrolled by a large number of armed masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms.

In the morning on the same date Mr Rustam Gaysumov and Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov, both of whom had been former members of illegal armed groups operating in Chechnya, went to Grozny on business. At about 1 p.m. on this date the police stopped their car for identity check at Druzhby Narodov Square, then arrested them and took them away to an unknown destination.

The whereabouts of Mr Rustam Gaysumov and Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov remain unknown ever since. Their abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 10 November 2006 some of the applicants informed the Leninskiy district prosecutors ’ office of Grozny of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relatives. Between November and January 2007 the applicants forwarded similar requests to a number of other law-enforcement agencies.

On 27 January 2007 the Zavodskoy district prosecutors ’ office in Grozny (the district prosecutors ’ office) opened criminal case no. 11006 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 3 March 2007 the seventh applicant was granted victim status.

On 17 August 2007 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 22 November 2010. On 12 December 2010 the applicants were informed that the investigation was again suspended.

On 2 December 2010 the first applicant requested to inform him about the progress in the proceedings and to grant him access to the investigation file. In reply, the applicant was informed that the proceedings had been suspended and that the operational search activities were in progress to establish his relative ’ s whereabouts.

On 3 March 2011 the seventh applicant also requested to inform her about the progress in the proceedings and to grant her access to investigation file. The outcome of this request is unknown.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

10. Application no. 75319/11 Mazhiyeva and Others v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Ms Maryam Mazhiyeva, who was born in 1948;

2) Mr Akhmed Mazhiyev, who was born in 1974, and

3) Ms Larisa Asiyeva, who was born in 1967.

The first and second applicants live in the village of Dachu-Barzoy and the third applicant lives in the village of Chiri-Yurt, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of NGO “Materi Chechni”.

The first applicant is the mother of Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev, who was born in 1980. The second and third applicants are his brother and sister.

(a) Abduction of Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev and subsequent events

On 5 April 2003 Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev, the second applicant and a group of other residents of Dachu-Barzoy village, went to the mountains located in the close proximity to Ulus-Kert settlement in the Shatoy district of Chechnya to pick ramsons ( allium ursinum ). The picking was authorised by military authorities. Having finished their work in the evening on the same date, they headed down the mountain in the direction of the motorway, where a vehicle was waiting to bring them back home. Somewhere on the path to the motorway a group of military servicemen stopped Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev, arrested him and took him away to an unknown destination. The servicemen were of Slavic appearance; they were wearing paratroopers ’ military uniforms and spoke unaccented Russian. All of them were armed and equipped with portable radio sets.

The second applicant and other fellow villagers who followed the same path saw the servicemen stopping Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev. They tried to approach and help him but the servicemen threatened them with firearms and ordered them to lie down on the ground. They obeyed and lied still until the servicemen went away.

On the next day the applicants went to a military unit stationed in Dachu ‑ Barzoy village. One of the officers who introduced himself as Valeriy informed them that Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev had been detained by military servicemen who had brought him to the 45 th regiment stationed in the village of Khatuni.

The whereabouts of Mr Alikhan Mezhiyev remain unknown ever since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

As submitted by the applicants, immediately after the events they abstained from lodging any official complaints fearing for their lives and the life of their missing relative. On 29 June 2003 they complained to the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal investigation be opened.

On 29 July 2003 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 26 July 2003) the Vedeno district prosecutors ’ office opened criminal case no. 24058 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 29 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

On 14 and 28 April 2010 the first applicant requested information about the progress in the proceedings and to be granted access to the investigation file.

On 15 June 2010 the United Group Alignment military prosecutor ’ s office informed the first applicant that the investigation file had been lost and that measures were taken to recover it.

On 1 July 2010 the acting head of the Shali inter-district investigation department ordered that the criminal case file be recovered.

On 5 July 2010 the applicants were informed that the investigation was resumed. It was subsequently suspended on 4 August 2010, again resumed on 9 June 2011 following the supervisors ’ orders and criticism, and then suspended on 9 July 2011.

On 20 July 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status.

On 14 April 2011 the first applicant was allowed to consult the contents of the criminal case file.

On numerous occasions between 2003 and 2011 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that their complaints had been examined or forwarded to other authorities for examination and that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their relative ’ s whereabouts.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 16 May 2011 the first applicant challenged the investigators ’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps before the Shali Town Court (the court). On 14 June 2011 the court rejected the complaint having found that several days earlier, on 9 June 2011, the investigators had resumed the proceedings. On 29 July 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic 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, save for that of Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), 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 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, save for that of Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), 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 Kukurkhoyeva v. Russia (no. 50556/08), Obrugovy v. Russia (22311/11), Bakhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 22946/11), Ocherkhadzhiyevy v. Russia (no. 31184/11) and Mazhiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 75319/11) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention and the applicants in Saynaroyev and Saynaroyeva v. Russia (no. 7651/08) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article 5 of the Convention .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In respect of the applications Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09) , Bakhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 22946/11) and Ocherkhadzhiyevy v. Russia (no. 31184/11) have the applicants complied with the six ‑ month time ‑ limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on behalf of the applicants “excessive or unexplained delays” in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives, 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 explanations for the delay in lodging their respective applications with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction and/or disappearance of their relatives.

2. 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 ten 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 detained 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 applicants ’ relatives ’ abductions and ensuing disappearances (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?

3. In respect of all the applications, except for application Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), 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?

4. In respect of all the applications , 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?

5. In respect of all the applications, except for application Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

6. 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.

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

7651/08

Saynaroyev and Saynaroyeva v. Russia

14/12/2007

1) Mr Magomet Saynaroyev

(1965); Sultan Saynaroyev ’ s son;

Ordzhonikidzevskaya; the Republic of Ingushetia;

2) Ms Bazhdat Saynaroyeva (1938); Sultan Saynaroyev ’ s wife; idem.

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Mr Sultan Saynaroyev (1925)

On 22 October 2002 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Sultan Saynaroyev at a apiary in Berezhki, Ingushetia, and took him away in an Armoured Infantry Carrier.

On 14 November 2002 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor ’ s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 22600057. The investigation is still pending.

50556/08

Kukurkhoyeva v. Russia

24/09/2008

Ms Aza Kukurkhoyeva

(1965); Girikhan Tsechoyev ’ s wife; Ordzonikidzevskaya, the Republic of Ingushetia.

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev (1967)

On 11 July 2004 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Girikhan Tsechoyev at the outskirts of Muzhichi village, Ingushetia, and took him away to an unknown destination.

On 27 August 2004 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor ’ s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 04600057. The investigation is still pending.

6636/09

Khamkhoyeva and Others v. Russia

23/01/2009

1) Ms Zarema Khamkhoyeva (1970); Ilez Khamkhoyev ’ s wife;

Alkun; the Republic of Ingushetia;

2) Ms Khedi Muzhikhoyeva (1969); Ilez Khamkhoyev ’ s sister;

Gamurziyevskiy, Ingushetia;

3) Mr Magomed Khamkhoyev (2001); Ilez Khamkhoyev ’ s son;

Alkun, Ingushetia;

4) Mr Islam Khamkhoyev

(2005); Ilez Khamkhoyev ’ s son; idem.

SRJI / Astreya

Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev (1972)

On 29 September 2005 a group of armed servicemen arrived at a construction site in Nazran, Ingushetia, where Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev was working, and took him away to an unknown destination.

On 9 October 2005 the Nazran town prosecutor ’ s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 05560115. The investigation is still pending.

58501/09

Ibayeva v. Russia

07/10/2009

1) Ms Minga Ibayeva

(1953); Ibragim Idrisov ’ s wife;

died on 24/08/2011;

Ms Larisa Ibayeva (also spelled as Larissa Ibaeva)

(1976); Ibragim Idrisov ’ s daughter; Strasbourg, France, expressed the wish to pursue the application. .

Not legally represented

Mr Ibragim Idrisov (1951)

On 27 January 2002 servicemen from the Shali temporary department of the interior arrested Mr Ibragim Idrisov in Shali and placed him in a temporary detention ward. His whereabouts remain unknown ever since.

On 13 February 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 59053. The investigation is still pending.

22311/11

Obrugovy v. Russia

15/03/2011

1) Mr Isa Obrugov

(1950); Sharudi Obrugov ’ s father;

Argun, Chechnya;

2) Ms Shamset Obrugova (1952); Sharudi Obrugov ’ s mother; idem.

Materi Chechni

Mr Sharudi Obrugov (1980)

On 14 August 2002 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Sharudi Obrugov on a street in Argun and took him away to an unknown destination.

On 1 October 2002 the Argun town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 78094. The investigation is still pending.

22946/11

Bakhayeva and Others v. Russia

28/02/2011

1) Ms Baret Bakhayeva

(1953); Ayub Bakhayev ’ s mother; Argun, Chechnya;

2) Mr Umalat Bakhayev

(1982); Ayub Bakhayev ’ s brother; idem;

3) Ms Berlant Munayeva (1975); Ayub Bakhayev ’ s sister; idem.

Mr Said Mushayev

Mr Ayub Bakhayev (1979)

On 13 October 2001 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Ayub Bakhayev on a street in Argun and took him away.

On 20 January 2002 the Argun inter-district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 78009. The investigation is still pending.

31184/11

Ocherkhadzhiyevy v. Russia

06/05/2011

1) Ms Mariya Ocherkhadzhiyeva

(1938); Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev ’ s mother; Grozny, Chechnya;

2) Mr Adam Ocherkhadzhiyev (1972); Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev ’ s brother; idem.

Materi Chechni

Mr Said-Emin ( also spelled as Sayd-Emi and Sayd-Emin) Ocherkhadzhiyev (1967)

On 19 January 2000 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev on a street in Grozny and took him away in an APC.

On 19 June 2001 the Grozny town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 17073. The investigation is still pending.

69462/11

Mukayevy v. Russia

27/10/2011

1) Ms Salmatu Mukayeva

(1950); Supyan Mukayev ’ s mother; Shali, Chechnya;

2) Mr Shaabay Mukayev (1969); Supyan Mukayev ’ s brother; idem;

3) Mr Sultan Mukayev

(1937); Supyan Mukayev ’ s father; idem.

SRJI / Astreya

Mr Supyan (also spelled as Supiyan) Mukayev (1982)

On 15 March 2005 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Supyan Mukayev on a street in Shali and took him away.

On 7 July 2005 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 46073. The investigation is still pending.

73948/11

Chalayev and Others v. Russia

23/11/2011

1) Mr Isa Chalayev

(1952); Rustam Gaysumov ’ s father; Alkhan-Kala, Chechnya;

2) Ms Zaynap Gaysumova

(1956); Rustam Gaysumov ’ s mother; idem ;

3) Ms Ayshat Avkhadova (1987); Rustam Gaysumov ’ s wife; idem;

4) Mr Seyf-Islam Avkhadov (2006); Rustam Gaysumov ’ s son; idem;

5) Mr Adlan Avkhadov

(2007); Rustam Gaysumov ’ s son; idem;

6) Sultan Elderkhanov

(1951); Khuseyn Elderkhanov ’ s father; Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya;

7) Ms Ayna Elderkhanova

(1956); Khuseyn Elderkhanov ’ s mother; idem.

SRJI / Astreya

1) Mr Rustam Gaysumov (1980);

2) Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov (1980).

On 8 November 2006 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Rustam Gaysumov and Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov on a street in Grozny and took them away.

On 27 January 2007 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor ’ s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 11006. The investigation is still pending.

75319/11

Mazhiyeva and Others v. Russia

15/11/2011

1) Ms Maryam Mazhiyeva

(1948); Alikhan Mazhiyev ’ s mother; Dachu-Barzoy, Chechnya;

2) Mr Akhmed Mazhiyev

(1974); Alikhan Mazhiyev ’ s brother; idem;

3) Ms Larisa Asiyeva

(1967); Alikhan Mazhiyev ’ s sister; Chiri-Yurt, Chechnya.

Materi Chechni

Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev (1980)

On 5 April 2003 a group of armed servicemen arrested Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev in a forest next to Ulus-Kert, Chechnya, and took him away.

On 29 July 2003 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 26 July 2003) the Vedeno district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 24058. The investigation is still pending.