Communicated on 10 July 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no 66394/10 Zharadat Abasovna MESTOYEVA and Others against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are thirty three Russian nationals listed in the Appendix. They live in various villages and towns in the Chechen Republic. The applicants are close relatives of the eleven men who were allegedly abducted between 2001 and 2005 by servicemen from homes in various districts in Chechnya.

The circumstances of the applications as presented by the applicants can be summarised as follows.

A. General information pertaining to all of the applications

The applicants are close relatives of men who disappeared after having been apprehended by servicemen from their homes in Chechnya. In each of the applications the events took place in the areas under full control of the military forces. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives thereafter.

In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abduction to law enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In each case the proceedings, after having been suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results.

According to all of the applicants, they have not been regularly informed of the progress in the criminal proceedings. Some of the applicants have been provided with partial access to the investigation files. 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 another law enforcement agency for examination.

No active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions in Chechnya and the North Caucasus. According to the applicants, the 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.

B. 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. 66394/10 Mestoyevy v. Russia

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed Mestoyev, who was born in 1964:

(1) Ms Zharadat Mestoyeva , who was born in 1978, the wife;

( 2) Mr Dzhokhar Mestoyev, who was born in 1997, the son;

(3) Mr Ramzan Mestoyev, who was born in 2003, the son.

The applicants live in Khamby-Irzi village, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya) .

(a) Abduction of Mr Magomed Mestoyev and subsequent events

(i) Events of August 2002

A t about 2 p.m. on 6 August 2002 a white Gazel minivan without registration numbers pulled over at the applicants ’ house. Four armed servicemen waited near the vehicle while the other three entered into the house. Speaking unaccented Russian they demanded Mr Magomed Mestoyev to show his identity documents. Mr Magomed Mestoyev failed to produce the documents, as his passport had been submitted for the renewal. Then the servicemen took him away with them for an identity check.

On 13 August 2002 Mr Magomed Mestoyev was brought by the same servicemen to the outskirts of the Khamby-Irzi village and released.

Having returned home Mr Magomed Mestoyev told the applicants that he had been held in an unacknowledged detention facility on the suspicion of illegal activities. He had been detained alone and handcuffed in a damp cage in a dark basement, given only bread and water and had to sleep on the floor. He had been repeatedly taken to another room for questioning.

(ii) Abduction of Mr Magomed Mestoyev

On 29 September 2003 a group of about forty to fifty servicemen in camouflage uniforms with semi-automatic weapons arrived at the applicants ’ house in five or six UAZ vehicles with smeared registration numbers. Some of the servicemen were in helmets without balaclavas and of Slavic appearance. The servicemen surrounded the house; several of them broke inside and searched the premises. They checked the residents ’ identity documents and then took Mr Magomed Mestoyev away on the suspicion of his involvement in illegal armed group. The abductors told to the head of the village administration, Ms N.A., whose office was located across the applicants ’ house, that they were from the Urus-Martan Department for the Fight against Organised Crime ( Управление по Борьбе с Организованной Преступностью – the RUBOP).

(iii) Subsequent events

Immediately after the abduction, Mr Magomed Mestoyev ’ s brother, sister and a neighbour followed the abductors ’ vehicles which arrived at the premises of the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (the ROVD). The police officers denied to Mr Magomed Mestoyev ’ s relatives either their office had the abductors ’ vehicles or that the officers had detained someone.

On the way back home when the Mr Magomed Mestoyev ’ s relatives were passing through a check point situated in the auto-route to Groznyy , some of the police officers manning its premises admitted that the UAZ vehicles had gone through their check point on the way to Groznyy . Then the Mr Magomed Mestoyev ’ s relatives went to the Department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) in Groznyy and inquired about Mr Magomed Mestoyev but to no avail.

Shortly after the incident the applicants and their fellow villagers organised a rally by blocking for three days the auto-route Rostov-Baku to protest against Mr Magomed Mestoyev ’ s abduction. The rally was stopped after the authorities promised that Mr Magomed Mestoyev would be released.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

On 13 October 2003 the applicants complained about the abduction to the Achkhoy-Martan District Prosecutor ’ s Office.

On 31 October 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan District Prosecutor ’ s Office opened criminal case no. 63058 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 10 January 2004 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish perpetrators.

On 19 October 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court of Chechnya declared Mr Magomed Mestoyev a missing person.

On 17 June 2008 the criminal proceedings were resumed.

On 18 July 2008 the investigation was again suspended.

On 11 August 2009 the applicants complained of ineffective investigation into the abduction to the President of Chechnya and a number of local authorities.

On 10 September 2009 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

On 10 September 2009 and 22 April 2010 the applicants requested that investigators informed them of the progress in investigation and granted access to the case file.

On 29 April 2010 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation had been resumed on 17 June 2008 and then had been suspended on 18 July 2008 and that the applicants had been given partial access to the investigation file .

From the documents submitted it follows that the investigation is still pending.

2. Application no. 5691/11 Umarov and Others v. Russia

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed Umarov, who was born in 1984:

(1) Mr Movldi Umarov , who was born in 1950, the father;

( 2) Mr Rasul Umarov, who was born in 1985, the brother;

(3) Ms Ayshat Bulacheva (also referred to as Umarova), who was born in 1973, the sister;

(4) Ms Madina Gaysultanova (also referred to as Umarova), who was born in 1974, the stepmother.

The applicants live in Duba-Yurt, Chechnya. The applicants represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni .

(a) Abduction of Mr Magomed Umarov

At about 4 a.m. on 25 May 2005 the first applicant noticed several armed men in helmets in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas climbing over the fence into the courtyard of his house. When he went out the armed men ordered him to put his hands up and searched him. Then the armed men broke into the house, took Mr Magomed Umarov outside and drove him away with them in a grey UAZ vehicle to an unknown destination.

As the applicant found out later, the armed men had driven from Duba ‑ Yurt through the check-point “Uzhniy” manned by the Special Police Force (“OMON”) from Buryatia and arrived at the Russian military base located in the north outskirts of the Stariye Atagi village.

About one year later, in 2006, the head of a penitentiary facility in Kemerovo Region of Russia told the applicants that Mr Magomed Umarov had been transferred from their premises to Chechnya. The applicants have not had any news about their relative thereafter.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

On 4 August 2005 the Shali District Prosecutor ’ s Office opened criminal case no. 46092 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 9 August 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

On 20 May 2007 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish perpetrators.

On 17 March 2008 the investigators informed the applicants that the criminal case no. 46092 had been transferred to the Chechnya investigations committee for further investigation.

On 8 February 2010 the applicants requested the Shali investigations committee to resume the criminal proceedings and grant them access to the investigation file.

On 13 February 2010 the applicants ’ request was allowed in part, i.e. the applicants were to access the documents reflecting their participation in the proceedings. The request to resume the investigation was refused.

On a number of occasions in 2010 the applicants requested various law enforcement authorities to resume criminal proceedings and establish whereabouts of their missing relative. In reply they received formal letters stating that the investigation had been suspended or that their requests had been forwarded to another law-enforcement agency for examination.

On 26 April 2010 the military investigators informed the applicants that their office had never received the criminal case concerning Mr Magomed Umarov ’ s abduction for investigation.

On 8 November 2010 the applicants requested the Shali district investigations committee to provide them with copies of some documents from the case file. No reply was given to that request.

It appears that that the criminal proceedings are still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 8 June 2010 the applicants appealed the investigators ’ refusal of 13 February 2010 to resume criminal proceedings to the Shali District Court.

On 24 June 2010 the investigators resumed the investigation of the criminal case.

On 25 June 2010 the Shali District Court left the applicants ’ complaint without consideration as the applicants had withdrawn it due to resumption of the investigation.

On 5 July 2010 the applicants appealed the decision of 25 June 2010 to the Chechnya Supreme Court stating, inter alia, that they had not withdrawn their complaint and that, in any event, the investigators had failed to take any steps between 2007 and 2010. On 1 September 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court of Chechnya rejected the applicants ’ appeal.

3. Application no. 12868/11 Tatayeva and Others v. Russia

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Rustam Makayev, who was born in 1973:

(1) Ms Luiza Tatayeva, who was born in 1974, the wife;

(2) Ms Dzhanetta Makayeva, who was born in 2000, the daughter;

(3) Mr Artur Makayev, who was born in 2001, the son.

The applicants live in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya) .

(a) Abduction of Mr Rustam Makayev and subsequent events

(i) Abduction of Mr Rustam Makayev

A t about 2.20 a.m. on 1 December 2001 armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ’ house on UAZ (“ tabletka ”) minivan, URAL lorries and an armoured personnel carrier (the APC). Three or four servicemen entered the applicants ’ house for an identity check, while the other got into the other house located the same courtyard. The servicemen searched the applicants ’ house, asked Mr Rustam Makayev a number of questions and took him into courtyard where another ten or eleven servicemen were waiting. One of them was filming the events on video camera. They then put Mr Rustam Makayev in the UAZ and drove off towards the centre of Urus-Martan.

(ii) Subsequent events

I n the morning of 1 December 2001 the applicants went to the Urus ‑ Martan district military commander ’ s office, where the FSB officer, Mr. S. G., told them that Mr Rustam Makayev would be questioned and released in two hours. On the same day the applicants complained of the abduction to the Urus-Martan prosecutor ’ s office.

In January 2002 a person working at the Urus-Martan military commander ’ s office promised to the applicants that Mr Rustam Makayev would be released in exchange for a gun. However, on the next day the same person told the applicants that Mr Rustam Makayev had been transferred from the FSB to the Main Intelligence Service (the GRU) and that he would not be able to release him.

Several days later a man at the Urus-Martan military commander ’ s office asked the applicants to provide him with a list of persons who had been abducted in the area. Sometime later he told the applicants that all of the abducted men from the list had been killed.

In October 2002 someone left a note in the applicants ’ courtyard stating that Mr Rustam Makayev was allegedly detained in “Zverevo” detention facility in the Rostov region. However, the applicants were unable to obtain any information from that facility.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

On 22 December 2001 the Urus-Martan prosecutor ’ s office opened a criminal case no. 25169 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 22 February 2002 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish perpetrators.

Between May and June 2002 the applicants requested various authorities to establish their relative ’ s whereabouts. In reply the applicants were informed that their requests had been forwarded to another law enforcement authority for examination.

On 29 November 2002 the criminal proceedings were resumed.

On 29 January 2003 the applicants requested the investigators to conduct an effective investigation into the abduction.

On 28 February 2003 the investigation was again suspended.

On 1 August 2003 the applicants requested to resume the proceedings.

On 5 September 2003 and on 8 March 2004 the criminal proceedings were resumed and on 8 April 2004 they were again suspended.

On 17 August 2004 the applicants requested access to the investigation file.

On 27 October 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicants that their request for assistance in the search for their relative had been forwarded to the investigators.

On 27 May 2005 the Military prosecutor ’ s office of the United Group Alignment (the UGA), informed the applicants that their relative ’ s abduction was being investigated by the Urus-Martan prosecutor ’ s office.

Between January 2007 and August 2008 the applicants received a number of replies stating that their requests had been forwarded to another law enforcement authority.

On 1 September 2008 the investigation was resumed and on 1 October 2008 it was suspended.

On 26 May 2010 the Chechnya investigations committee forwarded the applicants ’ request for assistance to the Achkhoy-Martan district investigative committee.

The criminal proceedings are still pending.

4. Application no. 29826/11 Osmayevy v. Russia

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Olkhazur Osmayev , who was born in 1971 :

(1) Mr Vakha Osmayev, who was born in 1943, the father;

(2) Ms Shaist Osmayeva, who was born in 1949, the mother;

(3) Mr Alvi Osmayev, who was born in 1973, the brother;

(4) Mr Shamkhan Osmayev, who was born in 1977, the brother.

The applicants live in Mesker-Yurt, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni.

(a) Abduction of Mr Olkhazur Osmayev

At about 1 a.m. on 20 April 2002 about fifteen servicemen in balaclavas armed with machineguns broke into the applicants ’ house, ordered the men to go out to the courtyard and locked women and children in several rooms. After searching the premises, the servicemen handcuffed Mr Olkhazur Osmayev and his two brothers - the third and fourth applicants - pulled their jackets over their heads and put them in the car waiting in the street. Then they took the three men to the Shali district military commander ’ s office and the Shali ROVD where they were questioned by a Russian-speaking investigator. A few days later the third and fourth applicants were released. As for Mr Olkhazur Osmayev, the applicants have had no news of him thereafter.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

On 26 April 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 59097 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 26 June 2002 the investigation was suspended.

On 29 May 2003 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and unsubstantiated, and ordered that the proceedings be resumed.

On 5 June 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

On 29 June 2003 the investigation was suspended again .

Between 2003 and 2010, each year, the applicants received letters from the investigating authorities stating that they were taking steps to establish their relative ’ s whereabouts.

On 22 March 2010 the applicants requested that the investigation be resumed and they be allowed to access the investigation file.

On 18 May 2010 the investigators replied that the criminal case had been transferred to the Main investigative committee in the town of Essentuki and that the applicants would be able to access the file once it would be back.

On 28 June 2010 the investigation was resumed and on 28 July 2010 it was suspended again.

The proceedings are still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 15 June 2010 the applicants complained to the Shali District Court of the investigators ’ failure to resume the investigation and take all measures possible to solve the crime.

On 28 June 2010 the Shali District Court rejected the complaint as earlier on the same date the investigators had resumed the investigation. On 31 August 2010 the applicants appealed the decision to the Chechnya Supreme Court which on 22 December 2010 dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

5. Application no. 44311/11 Mutsayeva v. Russia

The applicant, Ms Khadishat Mutsayeva, was born in 1956, and lives in Avtury, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya) .

The applicant is the mother of Mr Salakh Yakhyaev, who was born in 1975, and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev, who was born in 1982.

(a) Abduction of Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev

At about 6.30 a.m. on 17 March 2003 a group of about thirty armed servicemen in camouflage and black uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicant ’ s house. They took three of the applicant ’ s sons to the courtyard and ordered the applicant in unaccented Russian to show her sons ’ passports. Having received the documents, the servicemen left the applicant ’ s youngest son in the courtyard and took the other two, Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev, away with them. When the applicant went outside she saw that the servicemen had arrived in two grey UAZ ( tabletka ) minivans and white VAZ - 2106 and VAZ-21099 vehicles. The abductors drove off in the direction of the village of Geldegen. Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev have not been seen since.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

On 25 March 2003 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Chechnya Prosecutor ’ s Office.

On 15 May 2003 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 22081 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 20 May 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

On 15 July 2003 the investigation was suspended.

On 8 April 2004 the Shali District Court declared Mr Salakh Yakhyaev a missing person.

On 17 July 2006 the criminal proceedings were resumed.

On 22 December 2006 the Chechnya Prosecutor ’ s Office informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed on 5 December 2006.

On 6 May 2007 the investigation was suspended again.

On 3 August 2007 the deputy head of the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office overruled the decision of 6 May 2007 as unlawful and resumed the proceedings.

On 3 January 2008 the investigation was suspended, then on 21 April 2008 it was resumed and on 21 May 2008 it was suspended again.

On 21 May 2009 the applicant requested permission to access to the criminal case file. On 3 July 2009 the investigators allowed the request in part and she was granted access to some of the documents in the file. The applicant ’ s request to resume the proceedings was refused.

On 4 September 2010 the criminal proceedings were resumed. The investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 17 August 2010 the applicant appealed of the investigators ’ decision of 21 May 2008 to suspend the proceedings to the Shali District Court.

On 7 September 2010 the Shali District Court rejected the complaint as on 4 September 2010 the investigation had already been resumed.

On 7 September 2010 the applicant appealed the decision to the Chechnya Supreme Court having stated that the investigation was pending for seven years and had not yet attained any tangible results. On 22 December 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. The applicant was informed thereof on 13 January 2011.

6. Application no. 62560/11 Limayevy v. Russia

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Movsar Limayev, who was born in 1978:

(1) Ms Akimat Limayeva , who was born in 1943, and who lives in Mesker-Yurt, Checnya, the mother; and

(2) Mr Magomed Limayev, who was born in 1966, and who lives in Groznyy , Chechnya, the brother.

The applicants represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya) .

The applicants are the mother and brother of Mr Movsar Limayev.

(a) Abduction of Mr Movsar Limayev

At 3.30 a.m. on 28 October 2002 three APCs parked in the street near the first applicant ’ s house in Mesket-Yurt. Six armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas jumped over the fence into the courtyard. Two servicemen broke into the house and demanded to turn the lights on. Then they handcuffed and took Mr Movsar Limayev, who was in his underwear and barefooted, outside. The intruders ordered the applicants ’ and their relatives to remain in the house. However, the first applicant went outside and saw that Mr Movsar Limayev being forced in the APC with smeared registration numbers. The APC drove off in the direction of Shali.

The applicants had no news of Mr Movsar Limayev since.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

On t he same day, 28 October 2002, the applicants complained of the abduction to the Shali ROVD and subsequently to a number of other law ‑ enforcement agencies.

On 31 March 2003 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 22053 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On the same day the first applicant was questioned and granted victim status in the criminal case.

On 31 May 2003 the investigation was suspended .

Between 2003 and 2005 the appli cants complained to various law ‑ enforcement agencies about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received formal letters either stating that the investigation was in progress, or that their requests had been forwarded elsewhere.

Between November 2005 and July 2006 the criminal case was suspended and resumed on several occasions.

It appears that the investigation is still pending.

7. Application no. 2679/12 Akhmadova and Others v. Russia

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev, who was born in 1956:

(1) Ms Roza Akhmadova, who was born in 1963, the wife;

(2) Mr Ramzan Yakhyayev, who was born in 1980, the son;

(3) Mr Apti Yakhyayev, who was born in 1985, the son.

The applicants live in Goyty, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni.

(a) Abduction of Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev

On 22 April 2002 seven or eight armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms entered the applicants ’ house. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen who were of Slavic appearance, checked the applicants ’ identity documents. Then they said that they would take Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev to the Urus-Martan military commander ’ s office. After the servicemen left, the first applicant ran out and saw an APC and a UAZ minivan driving away from the house. Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev has been missing since.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

On 22 April 2002 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor ’ s office. On the same day the latter opened criminal case no. 61077 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction) and granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case.

On 22 June 2002 the investigation was suspended and on 21 November 2003 it was resumed.

On 12 April 2004 the applicants requested that the Urus-Martan ROVD assisted them in their search for Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev . On 2 June 2005 the applicants forwarded similar request to the Chechnya Prosecutor ’ s Office.

On 22 February 2006 the applicants requested that the investigation be resumed. It was resumed on an unspecified date in February or March 2006, and on 28 April 2006 it was suspended again.

On 7 August 2006 the applicants requested the investigators to inform them of the progress in the investigation and on 28 April 2010 they requested permission to access the investigation file.

On 22 June 2011 the applicants requested the investigators to resume the proceedings and inform them of their progress. On 23 June 2011 the applicants ’ request was granted in part, they were informed of the progress in the investigation.

On 21 July 2011 the criminal proceedings were resumed. They are still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 17 September 2010 the applicants complained to the Achkhoy ‑ Martan District Court of the investigators ’ refusal to allow them to access the criminal case file in full . On 5 October 2010 their complaint was allowed in full.

On 5 July 2011 the applicants appealed to the Urus-Martan Town Court the investigators ’ refusal to resume the proceedings. On 25 July 2011 the Town Court rejected the applicants ’ complaint as the investigation had been resumed on 21 July 2011. The applicants appealed that decision. On 24 August 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court rejected their appeal.

8. Application no. 7215/12 Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia

This application concerns the abduction of three men in the Avtury village in the course of the same sweeping-up operation. The applicants represent three families.

The first family are close relatives of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, who was born in 1962:

(1) Ms Ayzan Edilsultanova, who was born in 1967, the wife;

(2) Mr Khamzat Boltiyev, who was born in 1993, the son;

(3) Mr Arbi Boltiyev, who was born in 1997, the son;

(4) Ms Iman Boltiyeva, who was born in 1999, the daughter.

The second family are close relatives of Mr Shamkhan Zibikov, who was born in 1964:

(5) Ms Yakhita Yusupova, who was born in 1968, the wife;

(6) Ms Medni Zibikova, who was born in 1993, the daughter;

(7) Ms Makka Zibikova, who was born in 1994, the daughter;

(8) Ms Maryam Zibikova, who was born in 1992, the daughter;

(9) Mr Magomed Zibikov, who was born in 1997, the son.

Ms Markha Eldarova, the tenth applicant, was born in 1963, is the wife of Mr Sayd-Ali (also spelled as Said-Ali) Sharshuyev, who was born in 1954.

All of the applicants live in Avtury, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya) .

(a) Abduction of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Mr Shamkhan Zibikov and Mr Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev

(i) Abduction of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev

At 7 a.m. on 20 July 2003 three armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ’ house and requested to show identity papers. They checked passport of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev and left.

About ten minutes later the first applicant, Ms Ayzan Edilsultanova, heard several shots outside, and two armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms, a Chechen and a Russian, entered the house. The Chechen serviceman asked her about the origins of the shots and then requested Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev to follow them. They put Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev in the grey UAZ vehicle without registration plates and drove away. Immediately after that, the first applicant went to Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev brother, who resided nearby, and followed that UAZ vehicle in a car with him. They caught up the UAZ in the village centre. The first applicant was allowed to pass on to her husband socks and medication. Then three other UAZ vehicles arrived and the convoy drove off in the direction of Shali. The first applicant attempted to follow the convoy but was not allowed to cross the checkpoint between Shali and Avtury.

(ii) Abduction of Mr Shamkhan Zibikov

At about 7 a.m. on 20 July 2003 two armed Chechen servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ’ house and checked identity documents. Mr Shamkhan Zibikov was in the courtyard. When the fifth applicant, Ms Yakhita Yusupova, went outside, she saw about fifteen UAZ, VAZ-2109 and VAZ-2110 vehicles. The servicemen ordered her in Chechen to go back inside. A few minutes later all the vehicles, except for three, left. Ms Yakhita Yusupova did not see in which vehicle her husband was put.

(iii) Abduction of Mr Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev

At about 7.30 a.m. on 20 July 2003 several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms, some of whom wer e in balaclavas, arrived in VAZ ‑ 21099 and UAZ vehicles at the tenth applicant ’ s (Ms Markha Eldarova ’ s) house, searched it and took Mr Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev away.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

On 30 July 2003 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 22111 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction) into the abduction of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Mr Shamkhan Zibikov and Mr Sayd ‑ Ali Sharshuyev.

On 18 and 19 August 2003 the first (Ms Ayzan Edilsultanova), the fifth (Ms Yakhita Yusupova) and the tenth (Ms Markha Eldarova) applicants were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

On 30 September 2003 the investigation was suspended. Subsequently, on 3 July 2004 and 22 September 2004 the criminal proceedings were resumed, and then suspended on 9 August 2004 and 22 October 2004.

On an unspecified date in 2004 the first applicant, Ms Ayzan Edilsultanova, requested the Human Rights Commission of the Russian President to establish their relative ’ s whereabouts. In reply, on 25 October 2004 she was informed that her request had been forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office.

From the documents submitted it follows that on 6 September 2005, 6 October 2005, 12 April 2006 and 17 July 2006 the criminal proceedings were resumed and then suspended on an unspecified date in September 2005, 14 November 2005 and 14 May 2006.

On 23 April 2009 the investigators informed the tenth applicant, Ms Markha Eldarova, that operative-search measures were being taken in the criminal case.

On 23 October 2009 the first applicant was informed that on an unspecified date the investigation had been suspended.

On 10 November 2009 the Military prosecutor ’ s office of the UGA replied to the first applicant ’ s request for information by stating the whereabouts of the abducted men remained unknown.

On 12 January 2010 the investigation was resumed and on 12 February 2010 it was suspended again. It is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicants complained of ineffective investigation to the Shali Town Court and requested that it be resumed.

On 10 August the Shali Town Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the investigation had already been resumed.

9. Application no. 46621/12 Abubakarova and Others v. Russia

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Vakhab Abubakarov, who was born in 1957:

(1) Ms Markha Abubakarova, who was born in 1959, the wife;

(2) Mr Yusup Abubakarov, who was born in 1985, the son;

(3) Ms Khava Unayeva (also referred to as Abubakarova), who was born in 1982, the daughter.

The applicants live in Argun, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni.

(a) Abduction of Mr Vakhab Abubakarov

At about 4 a.m. on 26 November 2002 several servicemen in camouflage uniforms, who were armed with weapons with silencers, broke through the windows into the applicants ’ house. They unlocked the entrance door from inside and let the other servicemen in. Speaking unaccented Russian the servicemen requested to provide identity documents. After they finished searching the house, the servicemen took Mr Vakhab Abubakarov outside and locked the applicants inside the house. Mr Vakhab Abubakarov has not been seen since.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

On 28 November 2002 the Argun town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 78101 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 4 December 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

On 17 July 2004 the Military prosecutor ’ s office of military unit no. 20102 replied to the applicants that the involvement of their servicemen in the abduction was not confirmed.

On 4 September 2004 the investigation was resumed and on 4 October 2004 it was suspended.

On 22 November 2004 the Shali Town Court declared Mr Vakhab Abubakarov a missing person.

On 2 June 2006 the investigators informed the applicants that on an unspecified date the investigation had been suspended.

On 9 March 2009 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation had been suspended on 4 October 2004.

On 5 March 2010 the applicants requested that the investigation be resumed and that they were granted access to the investigation file.

On 8 April 2010 the investigators rejected the applicants ’ request stating that the investigation file had been forwarded to the North Caucasus Investigations Committee for examination. On 26 April 2010 the applicants requested the Chechnya Investigations Committee to return the investigation file so they could access its contents.

On 28 June 2010 the investigation was resumed and on 18 September 2010 it was suspended again. The applicants were informed of the suspension on 4 October 2010.

On 18 October 2010 a member of the Russian Parliament replied to the applicants that their request for assistance had been forwarded to the Russian Prosecutor General.

The investigation is still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 10 June 2010 the applicants complained of the investigators ’ decision of 4 October 2004 to suspend the investigation to the Shali District Court.

On 29 June 2010 the applicants ’ complaint was dismissed the investigation had been already resumed. On 30 June 2010 the applicant appealed and on 15 September 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court dismissed the applicants ’ appeal.

10. Application no. 23115/13 Abdulkhalimova and Others v. Russia

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Islam Asukhanov, who was born in 1968:

(1) Ms Taisa Abdulkhalimova, who was born in 1970, the wife;

(2) Mr Sayd-Magomed Asukhanov, who was born in 1994, the son;

(3) Ms Kheda Asukhanova, who was born in 1992, the daughter;

(4) Ms Iman Asukhanova, who was born in 1990, the daughter.

The first, second and fourth applicants live in Goyty and the third applicant in Duba-Yurt, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni.

(a) Abduction of Mr Islam Asukhanov

At about 3 a.m. on 30 May 2003 several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants ’ house, searched it and took Mr Islam Asukhanov away. Mr Islam Asukhanov has been missing since.

(b) Official investigation of the abduction

On 30 May 2003 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Urus ‑ Martan ROVD.

On 14 June 2003 the Urus-Martan prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 34064 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 14 August 2003 the investigation was suspended and on 13 June 2006 it was resumed.

On 12 July 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

On 13 July 2006 the investigation was suspended again.

On 5 August 2009 the applicants requested that the investigation be resumed and they be allowed to access the case file.

On 11 August 2009 the investigators allowed the applicants to access partial contents of the case file.

On three occasions between June 2011 and September 2012 the proceedings were resumed and suspended. They are still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 16 September 2010 the applicants appealed to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court the investigators ’ refusal of 5 August 2009 to provide them with access to the case file and resume the proceedings. On 27 September 2010 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court granted the applicants ’ complaint.

On an unspecified date in June 2012 the applicants appealed to the Urus ‑ Martan Town Court the investigators ’ decision of 1 July 2011 to suspend the investigation. On 15 June 2012 the applicants ’ complaint was rejected as the investigation had already been resumed.

On 28 June 2012 the applicants appealed to the Urus-Martan Town Court the investigators ’ decision of 22 June 2012 to suspend the investigation. On 21 September 2012 their complaint was rejected as the investigation had already been resumed. On 28 September 2012 the applicants appealed that decision to the Chechnya Supreme Court, which on 17 October 2012 dismissed the applicants ’ appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. Referring to Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain of 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 and ensuing disappearance indicate that they had been abducted by State agents. The applicants further complain that no effective investigation was carried out into the incidents.

2. Referring to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain that they suffer severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the national authorities in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives and the State ’ s failure to conduct an effective investigation in that respect.

3. The applicants in all the applications submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix violates all guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.

4. The applicants in all the applications complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants complied with the six ‑ month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on 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, 16072/9 0 and 16073/90, §§ 162, and 165- 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 of the Convention 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, 665 9/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014), and;

- the similarity of the present eleven 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 , cited above, § 184 )? 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. Has the applicants ’ mental suffering caused by the abduction of their relatives been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman 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 all of the applicants?

4. In respect of all the applications, were the applicants ’ abducted relatives deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on the dates listed in the Appendix ? 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, did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

6. The Government are requested to submit copies of the investigation files in all criminal cases instituted in relation to the abduction of the applicants ’ relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix, including the following cases: nos. 63058, 46092, 25169, 59097, 22081, 22053, 61077, 22111, 78101 and 34064.

Further to the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are, in particular, 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 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 the abduction of their 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, such as, in particular:

(i) the applicants ’ initial complaints about the abduction of their relatives which had prompted the opening of the investigation;

(ii) decision(s) to initiate criminal proceedings;

(iii) decision(s) to grant the applicants victim status in the criminal proceedings, if any;

(iv) record(s) of any interviews of State servicemen (such as, for instance, military servicemen, local administration and police officers, servicemen at roadblocks and checkpoints, employees of other law enforcement agencies, etc.) held in connection with the investigation;

(v) statements of the eye witnesses to the abductions, if any;

(vi) if crime scene (s) were examined, expert and/or forensic examinations were ordered in the course of the investigation, copies of all the relevant expert reports and findings;

(vii) where the investigations were suspended and reopened, copies of each and every decision on suspension/resumption of the proceedings and of the documents containing the reasons for such decisions (such as prosecutor ’ s orders to resume investigation and take investigative steps);

(viii) any other documents relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the allegations and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations.

APPENDIX

Details of the applications

No.

Number, name of the application and the date of its introduction

The applicants ’ details (name, year of birth, family relation to the abducted person, place of residence)

Representative

Name and year of birth of the abducted person/s

Brief description of the circumstances of the abduction

Relevant details of the official investigation

66394/10 Mestoyevy v. Russia

20/10/2010

(1) Ms Zharadat Mestoyeva (1978), the wife, Khambi-Irzi, the Chechen Republic

(2) Mr Dzhokhar Mestoyev (1997), the son, Khambi-Irzi, the Chechen Republic

(3) Mr Ramzan Mestoyev (2003), the son, Khambi-Irzi, the Chechen Republic

STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE / Astreya

(SRJI/Astreya)

Mr Magomed Mestoyev (1964)

On 29 September 2003 a group of about forty to fifty servicemen i n camouflage uniforms with semi ‑ automatic weapons arrived at the applicants ’ house in five-six UAZ vehicles and took Mr Magomed Mestoyev away.

On 31 October 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan District Prosecutor ’ s Office opened criminal case no. 63058. The investigation is still pending.

5691/11

Umarov and Others v. Russia

06/12/2010

(1) Mr Movldi Umarov ( 1950), the father, Duba ‑ Yurt, the Chechen Republic

(2) Mr Rasul Umarov (1985), the brother, Duba ‑ Yurt, the Chechen Republic

(3) Ms Ayshat Bulacheva (also referred to as “Umarova”) (1973), the sister, Duba-Yurt, the Chechen Republic

(4) Ms Madina Gaysultanova (also referred to as Umarova) (1974), the stepmother, Duba ‑ Yurt, the Chechen Republic

Materi Chechni

Mr Magomed Umarov (1984)

On 25 May 2005 several armed servicemen in helmets in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants ’ house and took Mr Magomed Umarov away in grey UAZ vehicle.

On 4 August 2005 the Shali District Prosecutor ’ s Offi ce opened the criminal case no. 46092. The investigation is currently pending.

12868/11

Tatayeva and Others v. Russia

14/02/2011

(1) Ms Luiza Tatayeva ( 1974), the wife, Urus ‑ Martan, the Chechen Republic

(2) Ms Dzhanetta Makayeva ( 2000), the daughter, Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic

(3) Mr Artur Makayev (2001), the son, Urus ‑ Martan, the Chechen Republic

SRJI/Astreya

Mr Rustam Makayev (1973)

On 1 December 2001 about fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ’ house on UAZ (“Tabletka”), URAL vehicles and armoured personnel carrier (“the APC”) and took Mr Rustam Makayev away.

On 22 December 2001 the Urus-Martan prosecutor ’ s office opened a criminal case no. 25169. The investigation is currently pending.

29826/11

Osmayevy v. Russia

18/04/2011

(1) Mr Vakha Osmayev (1943), the father, Mesker ‑ Yurt, the Chechen Republic

(2) Ms Shaist Osmayeva (1949), the mother, Mesker-Yurt, the Chechen Republic

(3) Mr Alvi Osmayev

(1973), the brother, Mesker-Yurt, the Chechen Republic

(4) Mr Shamkhan Osmayev ( 1977), the brother, Mesker-Yurt, the Chechen Republic

Materi Chechni

Mr Olkhazur Osmayev (1971)

On 20 April 2002 about fifteen servicemen in balaclavas armed with machineguns broke into the applicants ’ house and took Mr Olkhazur Osmayev to the premises of military commander ’ s office and the Shali district department of the interior (the ROVD). The applicants have had no news of him thereafter.

On 26 April 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s offi ce opened the criminal case no. 59097. The investigation is currently pending.

44311/11

Mutsayeva v. Russia

12/07/2011

(1) Ms Khadishat Mutsayeva (1956), the mother, Avtury, the Chechen Republic

SRJI/Astreya

(1) Mr Salakh Yakhyaev (1975)

(2) Mr Anzor Yakhyaev (1982)

On 17 March 2003 thirty armed servicemen in camouflage and black uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicant ’ s house in two grey UAZ minivan (“Tabletka”), white VAZ-2106 and VAZ-21099 vehicles. They searched the house and took Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev away towards village of Geldegen.

On 15 May 2003 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened the criminal case no. 22081. The investigation is currently pending.

62560/11

Limayevy v. Russia

19/02/2009

(1) Ms Akimat Limayeva (1940), the mother, Argun, the Chechen Republic

(2) Mr Magomed Limayev (1966), the brother, Argun, the Chechen Republic

SRJI/Astreya

Mr Movsar Limayev (1978)

On 28 October 2002 three APCs parked down the street near the applicants ’ house. Six armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the house, handcuffed Mr Movsar Limayev and took him away undressed and barefooted in one of the APC ’ s towards Shali village.

On 31 March 2003 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened the criminal case no. 22053. No information of the current status of the investigation.

2679/12

Akhmadova and Others v. Russia

21/12/2011

(1) Ms Roza Akhmadova (1963), the wife, Goyty, the Chechen Republic

(2) Mr Ramzan Yakhyayev (1980), the son, Goyty, the Chechen Republic

(3) Mr Apti Yakhyayev (1985), the son, Goyty, the Chechen Republic

Materi Chechni

Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev (1956)

On 22 April 2002 seven-eight armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ’ house in the APC and UAZ minivan. They took Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev away saying to the Urus ‑ Martan military commander ’ s office. Mr Vakhid Yakhyayev has not been ever seen since.

On 22 April 2002 the Urus ‑ Martan prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 61077. The investigation is currently pending.

7215/12

Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia

24/01/2012

(1) Ms Ayzan Edilsultanova (1967), the wife of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Avtury, the Chechen Republic

(2) Mr Khamzat Boltiyev (1993), the son of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Avtury, the Chechen Republic

(3) Mr Arbi Boltiyev (1997), the son of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev , Avtury, the Chechen Republic

(4) Ms Iman Boltiyeva

(1999), the daughter of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Avtury, the Chechen Republic

(5) Ms Yakhita Yusupova (1968), the wife of Mr Shamkhan Zibikov, Avtury, the Chechen Republic

(6) Ms Medni Zibikova (1993), the daughter of Mr Shamkhan Zibikov, Avtury, the Chechen Republic

(7) Ms Makka Zibikova (1994), the daughter of Mr Shamkhan Zibikov, Avtury, the Chechen Republic

(8) Ms Maryam Zibikova (1992) the daughter of Mr Shamkhan Zibikov, Avtury, the Chechen Republic

(9) Mr Magomed Zibikov (1997), the son of Mr Shamkhan Zibikov, Avtury, the Chechen Republic

(10) Ms Markha Eldarova (1963), the wife of Mr Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev , Avtury, the Chechen Republic

SRJI/Astreya

(1) Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev (1962)

(2) Mr Shamkhan Zibikov (1964)

(3) Mr Sayd-Ali (also spelled as Said ‑ Ali) Sharshuyev (1954)

On 20 July 2003 between 7 and 7.30 am armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms of Chechen origins arrived at the applicants ’ houses on UAZ and VAZ vehicles and took Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Mr Shamkhan Zibikov and Mr Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev away.

On 30 July 2003 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 22111 into the abduction of Mr Ruslanbek Boltiyev, Mr Shamkhan Zibikov and Mr Sayd-Ali Sharshuyev. The investigation is currently pending.

46621/12

Abubakarova and Others v. Russia

20/07/2012

(1) Ms Markha Abubakarova (1959), the wife, Argun, the Chechen Republic

(2) Mr Yusup Abubakarov (1985), the son, Argun, the Chechen Republic

(3) Ms Khava Unayeva (also referred to as Abubakarova) (1982), the daughter,

Argun, the Chechen Republic

Materi Chechni

Mr Vakhab Abubakarov (1957)

On 26 November 2002 at several servicemen in camouflage uniforms armed with weapon with silencers broke into the applicants ’ house. Speaking unaccented Russian they requested the identity papers and then took Mr Vakhab Abubakarov away.

On 28 November 2002 the Argun town prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 78101. The investigation is currently pending.

23115/13

Abdulkhalimova and Others v. Russia

19/02/2013

(1) Ms Taisa Abdulkhalimova

(1970), the wife, Goyty, the Chechen Republic

(2) Mr Sayd-Magomed Asukhanov

(1994), the son, Goyty, the Chechen Republic

(3) Ms Kheda Asukhanova (1992), the daughter, Duba-Yurt, the Chechen Republic

(4) Ms Iman Asukhanova (1990), the daughter, Goyty, the Chechen Republic

Materi Chechni

Mr Islam Asukhanov (1968)

On 30 May 2003 several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants ’ house and took Mr Islam Asukhanov to an unknown destination.

On 14 June 2003 the Urus-Martan prosecutor ’ s office opened a criminal case no. 34064. The investigation is currently pending.