Communicated on 15 April 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no . 51029/08 Marzhan SHAVKHAYEVA and Banata BEKAYEVA against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

A. General information pertaining to all of the applications

The applicants in the present cases are Russian nationals residing in different towns in the Chechen Republic, Russia, as specified below. Most of the applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, a NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia.

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 after their abduction from home in 2000-2004 by groups of servicemen. According to the applicants, the servicemen had belonged to the Russian federal troops as they had been in camouflage uniforms, had had Slavic features and spoken unaccented Russian. Armed with machineguns, the servicemen had broken into the applicants ’ homes, searched the premises, checked the applicants ’ relatives ’ identity documents and taken the latter away in military vehicles, such as armoured personnel carriers (APCs), UAZ cars or URAL lorries . In a number of cases the registration numbers had been missing.

The abductions took place in the Shali , Grozny, Sunzha and Vedeno districts of Chechnya. In the majority of cases, the abductions were carried out at night or early in the morning, during curfew hours. In some of the cases the applicants submitted that at the material time a special operation had been conducted by Russian servicemen in the area.

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 prosecutor ’ s offices owing to their inability to identify the culprits and further resumed by the senior prosecutors who pointed out a number of flaws therein, 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, that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time, that the applicants ’ relatives had not been arrested or detained on their premises and that there was no information as to the latter ’ s involvement in the activities of illegal armed groups.

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. 51029/08 Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva v. Russia

The applicants are Ms Marzhan Shavkhayeva , who was born in 1953 and Ms Banata Bekayeva , who was born in 1947.

The first applicant lives in the city of Argun and the second applicant lives in the village of Avtury , Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya ) , an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia.

The first applicant is the mother of Mr Shamkhan Shavkhayev , who was born in 1980 (in certain documents the year of birth also indicated as 1981), and the wife of Mr Sharip Shavkhayev , who was born in 1941. The second applicant is the wife of Mr Umar Bekayev , born in 1941.

(a) Abduction of Mr Sharip Shavkhayev and his son, Mr Shamkhan Shavkhayev

At the material time, the first applicant, Mr Sharip Shavkhayev and their children, Mr Shamkhan Shavkhayev , Ms S.Me . and Ms S.Ma ., lived in the village of Avtury , Chechnya.

At about 2 a.m. on 9 June 2001 the family was at home when a group of fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage military uniforms broke into their house at 6 Shalinskaya Street. Some of the men were unmasked and were of Slavic appearance. All of them spoke unaccented Russian.

Having threatened the family members with firearms, the men forced the father and the son out of the house and took them away to an unknown destination. Meanwhile, some of the men searched the premises, seized the identity papers of Mr Shamkhan Shavkhayev and Mr Sharip Shavkhayev (passports and military service record cards) and left the house.

The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

The same night, three other residents of Avtury , in particular Mr Umar Bekayev , Mr K.I. and Mr K.M., were abducted by presumably the same group of men under the similar circumstances.

(b) Abduction of Mr Umar Bekayev

The same night, at about 2 a.m. on 9 June 2001, a group of fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage military uniforms broke into the second applicant ’ s house at 37 Mamakayeva Street in Avtury , where she was living with her daughter and husband, Mr Umar Bekayev . Speaking unaccented Russian, the men threatened those present with firearms, tied Mr Umar Bekayev ’ s hands behind his back, put a bag on his head and took him away on foot to an unknown destination.

Mr Umar Bekayev has not been seen ever since.

(c) The applicants ’ search for their relatives and the subsequent events

In the morning of 9 June 2001 the applicants went to the Shali district commandant ’ s office in search for their relatives. The commandant, Mr N., informed them that their relatives had been detained by military servicemen.

On 17 June 2001 servicemen in two APCs brought Mr K.I. and Mr K.M. (residents of Avtury who had been also abducted on 9 June 2001) into the fields in the Shali district and released them. The two men were subsequently questioned by the investigators into the abduction (see below) and confirmed that they had been abducted in the circumstances similar to those of the applicants ’ relatives. They stated, in particular, that the armed servicemen had blindfolded them and taken them away on foot. The servicemen had placed them in a pit where they had spent several days and then had been released.

(d) Official investigation into the abductions

Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities of the events, both orally and in writing, and requested to open a criminal investigation.

On 12 August 2001 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 23170 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 12 October 2001 the investigation in the case was suspended due to failure to identify the perpetrators.

On 12 June 2002 the investigation was resumed. It was subsequently suspended and resumed on several occasions following the criticism and orders of the supervising prosecutors. In particular, it was suspended on 12 July 2002, 21 January 2005 and resumed on 21 December 2004 and 27 December 2007.

On 10 December 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.

On 25 January 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

On 29 January 2007 and on 9 February 2007 the first applicant requested access to the case file. Her requests were refused by the investigators.

It appears that the criminal proceedings are currently pending.

(e) Proceedings against the investigators

The applicants appealed the refusals to grant access to the criminal case file to the Shali Town Court (the court).

On 10 October 2007 and 22 November 2007, respectively, the court granted the first and the second applicants ’ requests and ordered the investigators to provide the applicants with partial access to the case file.

On 20 February 2008 the Chechnya Supreme Court overruled the above decisions and on 28 March 2008 the court granted the applicants access to the case file in full.

2. Application no. 50606/08 Mezhidovy v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Ms Svetlana Mezhidova , who was born in 1940;

2) Mr Magomed -Ali Mezhidov , who was born in 1986;

3) Mr Magomed-Salakh Mezhidov , who was born in 1978 ; and

4) Mr Magomed-Sidik Mezhidov , who was born in 1982.

The applicants live in the village of Avtury , Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya ).

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov , who was born in 1980. The first applicant is his mother, the second, third and fourth applicants are his brothers.

(a) Abduction of Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov

Between 13 and 20 May 2002 a military unit of Russian federal forces in Chechnya under the command of general Bronivitskiy conducted a special operation in Avtury . The military servicemen cordoned the settlement and ran identity checks of all the residents. Detained residents were brought to the special filtration camp set up at the outskirts of the settlement.

In the morning of 15 May 2002 Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov was at home at 149 Lenina Street in Avtury with his mother, one of his brothers (the first and the second applicants respectively). His relative, Mr M., and a neighbour, Mr K., were also present. At around 10 a.m. two APCs arrived at the applicants ’ house which located next to the local administration in the very centre of the village. A group of about twenty armed masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into the courtyard of the house and threatened all those present with firearms. Having checked the identity documents, the servicemen forced Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov into one of the APCs and drove off in the direction of the military filtration camp.

Mr Madomed-Emin Mezhidov was lately seen in one of the cells of the filtration camp. His whereabouts is since then remain unknown.

According to the applicants, the events of 15 May 2002 in the village of Avtury had been filmed by foreign journalists and subsequently broadcasted abroad. They managed to obtain a copy of the footage and handed it over to the prosecutor ’ s office for the investigation.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities and requested that a criminal investigation be opened into the incident.

On 28 November 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case n o. 59266 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status.

On 28 January 2003 the investigation in the case was suspended due to failure to identify the perpetrators.

On 13 May 2003 the investigator, in response to the applicants ’ request for information about the progress of the proceedings, informed them that the investigation had been suspended, but the operational search activities were under way.

On 17 July 2006 the investigation was resumed.

On numerous occasions between 2002 and 2006 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement and military authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in their search for their relative. In reply they were informed that measures were being taken to establish their relative ’ s whereabouts.

It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending.

3. Application no. 14688/09 Aduyeva v. Russia

The applicant is Ms Yakha Aduyeva , who was born in 1963 and lives in the village of Ersenoy , Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya ).

The applicant is the wife of Mr Alash Mugadiyev , who was born in 1956.

(a) Abduction of Mr Alash Mugadiyev

On 1 February 2003 a special battalion of the Russian Ministry of Interior “ Vostok ” conducted a special operation in the village of Ersenoy , Chechnya. The military servicemen cordoned the settlement and ran identity checks of all the residents.

At about 8 a.m. on that date the applicant and Mr Alash Mugadiyev , their daughter and a son-in-law were in their house in Ersenoy , when a group of ten armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms entered their household. The servicemen were unmasked, were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. They checked the identity papers of all the family members and informed them that they were going to detain Mr Alash Mugadiyev for three hours. The servicemen then took him to the outskirts of the village, where a convoy of military vehicles was waiting.

The applicant and her relative, Ms S.M, followed the servicemen and saw Mr Alash Mugadiyev being put in a “UAZ” minivan ( « таблетка » ). The vehicle had a number plate reading “386 кх ”. Shortly after, another resident of the village, Mr S.A., was detained by the servicemen and put in the same vehicle.

At about midnight the special operation was completed and the servicemen in a large group of military vehicles, including several APCs, URAL military lorries and the UAZ minivan with Mr Alash Mugadiyev and Mr S.A. in it, left Ersenoy and drove to the settlement of Vedeno .

The applicant followed the servicemen to Vedeno , where she met the commander of the special battalion “ Vostok ”, Mr Y.D., who confirmed that her husband and several other residents of Ersenoy had been detained by the servicemen of this battalion.

Mr S.A. was released several days later and stated that following their detention on 1 February 2003, he and Mr Alash Mugadiyev had been taken to the Vedeno district military commander ’ s office and separated on its premises.

The whereabouts of Mr Alash Mugadiyev remain unknown since.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

Immediately after the events the applicant requested the authorities to open a criminal investigation into the abduction of her husband.

On 3 March 2003 the Vedeno district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 24018 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). The applicant was granted victim status in the case.

On an unspecified date the investigation in the case was suspended. Subsequently, the investigation in the case was resumed and suspended on several occasions. In particular, it was resumed on 18 November 2003 and suspended on an unspecified date, then again resumed on 1 April 2007 and suspended on 30 April 2007.

On numerous occasions between 2003 and 2008 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her husband. In reply she received letters stating that her complaints had been examined or forwarded to other authorities for examination and that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish her husband ’ s whereabouts.

It appears that the criminal proceedings are currently pending.

4. Application no. 53075/08 Buka Isayeva and Others v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Ms Buka Isayeva , who was born in 1936;

2 ) Ms Satsita Didiyeva , who was born in 1974 ; and

3 ) Ms Tamara Khutiyeva , who was born in 1963.

The first applicant lives in the village of Kulary , Chechnya, the second and third applicants live in Grozny. They are represented before the Court by Mr Dokka Itslayev , a lawyer practicing in Grozny.

The first applicant is the mother of Mr Suliman (also spelled as Suleyman ) Isayev, who was born in 1966, of Mr Rumid Isayev, who was born in 1969, and of Mr Ramzan Isayev, who was born in 1973. The second applicant is the wife of Mr Suliman Isayev and the th ird applicant is the wife of Mr Ramzan Isayev.

The present case concerns disappearance of the applicants ’ relatives in 2001 and 2003.

(a) Disappearance of Mr Rumid Isayev and subsequent events

On 7 April 2001 Mr Rumid Isayev went to the village of Lermontovo , Chechnya, to visit his relatives. At about 8 p.m. he was detained by Russian servicemen at the checkpoint on the road between the villages of Kulary and Lermontovo .

His whereabouts remain unknown since.

Immediately after the disappearance the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested assistance in the search for Mr Rumid Isayev.

On 10 June 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 19079 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty).

On 10 August 2001 the investigation in the case was suspended.

On 7 April 2008 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

(b) Abduction of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev

At the material time, Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev lived with their families in the village of Kulary , Chechnya. The two families occupied neighbouring houses at nos. 66 and 68 in Pervomayskaya Street.

On 5 October 2003 the presidential elections were due to take place in the Chechen Republic. Enhanced security measures were taken on account of this event. The village of Kulary was patrolled by armed servicemen.

At about 6 a.m. on 4 October 2003 a group of around twenty armed masked men in camouflage uniforms arrived in “UAZ” and three “VAZ” vehicles. There were no identification numbers on the vehicles. The servicemen broke into the applicants ’ houses and, speaking unaccented Russian, searched the premises. Then they forced the Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev in one of the vehicles and drove off.

The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

The whereabouts of Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev remain unknown since.

(c) Official investigation into the abduction

On 4 October 2003 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested to open a criminal investigation into the events.

On 3 November 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 42190 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 28 November 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status.

On 3 February 2004 the investigation in the case was suspended.

On 26 December 2007 the investigation was resumed and then again suspended on 27 January 2008.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

(d) Proceedings against the investigators

On 30 January 2008 the first applicant complained of the investigators ’ inaction to the Grozny District Court (the court).

On 22 February 2008 the court rejected her complaint as unsubstantiated having found that all the necessary steps had been taken by the authorities.

On 19 March 2008 the applicant appealed that decision. The outcome of the appeal is unknown.

5. Application no. 27066/09 Shakhidova and Others v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Ms Malkan Shakhidova , who was born in 1966;

2) Ms Petimat Shakhidova , who was born in 1989;

3) Mr Ali Shakhidov , who was born in 1991;

4) Mr Magomed Shakhidov , who was born in 2000;

5) Ms Sayant Abdusalamova , who was born in 1977 ; and

6) Mr Iles Shakhidov , who was born in 2002.

The applicants live in the village of Makhkety , Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya ).

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Akhyad Shakhidov , who was born in 1964, and of his brother, Mr Khamzat Shakhidov , who was born in 1968. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Akhyad Shakhidov , the second, third, and fourth applicants are his children. The fifth applicant is the wife of Mr Khamzat Shakhidov , the sixth applicant is his son.

(a) Abduction of Mr Khamzat Shakhidov and Mr Akhyad Shakhidov

In the morning of 14 May 2002 a group of about thirty armed military men in camouflage uniforms in APCs and URAL military lorries arrived in Makhkety for the residents ’ identity check. The men were unmasked; they were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian.

At around 10.30 a.m. the servicemen entered the applicants ’ household. Mr Akhyad Shakhidov , Mr Khamzat Shakhidov , the applicants and other family members were at home. The men checked the brothers ’ identity documents and searched the premises. Then they forced Mr Khamzat Shakhidov into an APC and took him in the direction of the village of Khattuni , in the Vedeno district. Meanwhile, several armed men remaining in the house forced Mr Akhyad Shakhidov into URAL lorry and took him in the same direction.

On their way from the village, the military convoy passed a broken down UAZ car. The car ’ s driver, Mr M.K., a head of the Khattuni police department, asked the servicemen for help to no avail. The first applicant, who followed the convoy, asked Mr M.K., where the group of the servicemen was from. The officer replied that they were servicemen from Grozny.

Another village resident, Mr Zh ., was abducted on the same day under similar circumstances. He was released several days later and stated that on the day of the abduction the abductors put him in the same APC with Mr Akhyad Shakhidov and Mr Khamzat Shakhidov . After the ride the men were separated and he had not seen them again.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities thereof and requested assistance in the search for their relatives.

On 16 June 2002 the Vedeno district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 73038 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 22 July 2002 the case file was transferred to the Shali military prosecution office for further investigation.

On 18 November 2004 the investigation in the case was suspended.

On 8 September 2005 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend and ordered that the investigation be resumed.

On 10 September 2005 the first and fifth applicants were granted victim status in the case.

On 16 September 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicants that the operational search activities were in progress in the case.

6. Application no. 36962/09 Tazuyeva v. Russia

The applicant is Ms Maret Tazuyeva , who was born in 1957 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by Mr Dokka Itslayev , a lawyer practicing in Grozny.

The applicant is the mother of Mr Alik Tazuyev (in the documents submitted also spelled as Tuzayev ), who was born in 1985.

(a) Abduction of Mr Alik Tazuyev

At the material time Mr Alik Tazuyev stayed at his grandmother ’ s house at 18 Assinskaya Street in Sernovodsk (also spelled as Sernovodskoye or Sernovodskaya ).

At about 2 a.m. on 15 July 2002 a group of armed men arrived in three military “UAZ”, two “ Niva ” and one “VAZ” cars without registration numbers. Most of the men were unmasked and spoke unaccented Russian; those of them who had masks were of Chechen origin. The men broke into the house of Mr Alik Tazuyev ’ s grandmother. They forced Mr Alik Tazuyev in one of their vehicles and, having unrestrictedly passed through several checkpoints on the way, drove to the Nadterechny district department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) in the neighbouring village of Znamenskoye .

According to the applicant, that night several other residents of Sernovodsk were abducted under similar circumstances.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 17 July 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecution office opened criminal case no. 63049 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 20 July 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the case.

On 17 September 2002 the investigation in the case was suspended and then resumed on 11 March 2004 following the supervising prosecutor ’ s criticism. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. In particular, it was suspended on 11 April 2004, resumed on 21 June 2007 and then again suspended on 31 July 2007.

On 4 August 2007 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior replied to the applicant ’ s information request that the operational search activities were under way.

It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On an unspecified date the applicant complained of the investigators ’ inaction to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court.

On 26 June 2007 her complaint was rejected as unsubstantiated.

7. Application no. 58253/10 Israilovy v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Ms Raisa Israilova , who was born in 1954;

2) Mr Salikh Israilov , who was born in 1950; and

3) Mr Buvaysar Israilov , who was born in 1976.

The applicants live in the village of Germenchuk , Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya ).

The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Magomed Israilov , who was born in 1980. The third applicant is his brother.

(a) Abduction of Mr Magomed Israilov

At the material time Mr Magomed Israilov lived with the applicants in the family house at 9 Aerodromnaya Street in Shali , Chechnya. Mr Magomed Israilov ’ s sister, Ms G.A., was also staying in the house with her minor son.

At around 3 a.m. on 16 August 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 17 August 2002) the family was at home when two APCs and an “Ural” lorry with a group of about forty to fifty armed servicemen arrived at their house. The servicemen, all of whom were masked, broke into the house. Having threatened the family members with firearms, they checked identity documents and searched the premises. After that they forced Mr Magomed Israilov and the third applicant out of the house, blindfolded them, tied their hands behind their backs and put them into different APCs. Thereafter, the convoy of the military vehicles drove off in the direction of Avtury .

The second applicant followed the vehicles up to the military checkpoint at the entrance to the Special Investigative Group-1 (SSG-1 military compound) which was stationed within about five hundred metres from their house in the direction of Avtury . He saw the convoy of the vehicles entering the premises of the SSG-1 military compound.

Mr Magomed Israilov has not been seen ever after. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours.

(b) The applicants ’ search for their relative and subsequent events

At around 11 p.m. on 17 August 2002 the third applicant was released. He was dropped off by servicemen in front of his aunt ’ s house in Shali .

According to the third applicant, after the abduction he had been taken to the premises of some military compound. The drive did not take long but it was unclear in what direction the vehicle went. While in detention, he did not see his brother, but heard him screaming. He also heard the guards conversing in unaccented Russian.

Searching for their son, the first and second applicants spoke to Ms T.K., a military colonel, who confirmed that Mr Magomed Israilov was detained on the premises of the SSG-1 military compound and promised to release him in exchange for money.

(c) Official investigation into the abduction

On 29 August 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 59221 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On the same day the second applicant was granted victim status in the case.

On 29 October 2002 the investigation in the case was suspended.

On 6 June 2003 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend and ordered that the investigation be resumed. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. In particular, it was suspended on 6 July 2003, resumed on 17 April 2006 and then again suspended on 19 May 2006.

On numerous occasions between 2002 and 2006 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in their search for Mr Magomed Israilov . In reply the applicants 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 proceedings in the case are still pending.

8. Application no. 14182/11 Zanziyevy v. Russia

The applicants are:

1) Ms Zara Zanziyeva , who was born in 1949;

2) Mr Adam Zanziyev , who was born in 1948 ; and

3) Ms Elina Zanziyeva , who was born in 1979.

The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by Mr Said Mushayev , a lawyer of an NGO “ Materi Chechni ” based in Chechnya.

The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev , who was born in 1980. The third applicant is his sister.

(a) Abduction of Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev and subsequent events

According to the applicants, on the night between 4 to 5 October 2000 Russian military forces conducted a special operation in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny. The entire district was blocked by military vehicles.

At around 5 a.m. on 5 October 2000 a military “Ural” lorry and a “UAZ” vehicle arrived at the applicants ’ block of flats at 11 Novatorov Street in Grozny. Mr Abdullakh Zanziyev , the first and the third applicants were at home when a group of eight to ten armed masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into their flat. Having threatened the applicants with firearms, the men searched the premises. Following the search, the men forced Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev on the floor, tied his hands behind his back and took him out of the flat. Leaving the house, the men ordered the applicants and their neighbors to stay inside threatening to shoot everyone who would fail to obey. Shortly afterwards, the “Ural” and “UAZ” vehicles drove off to an unknown destination.

Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev has not been seen ever after. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbors.

On an unspecified day in 2002 a man who introduced himself as Timur contacted the applicants. He refused to disclose his surname out for fear for his life. He told the applicants that between 2001 and 2002 he had been detained in a remand prison in Krasnodar, Russia, in the same cell with Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev and fifteen other detainees, all of whom were of Chechen ethnic origin abducted under various circumstances by federal services. It is unclear whether the applicants provided this information to the investigation into the abduction.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

On 5 October 2000, immediately after the events, the first applicant complained to the Grozny town prosecutor ’ s office (the prosecutor ’ s office) about the abduction of her son.

On 31 October 2000 the prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 12203 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 12 April 2004 the investigation was suspended.

On 10 March 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status.

On 19 April 2006 the prosecutor ’ s office replied to the first applicant ’ s request for information that operational search activities were under way.

On 3 June 2006 the investigation in the case was resumed and then again suspended. Subsequently, the investigation in the case was resumed and suspended on several occasions. Thus, it was resumed on 4 July 2007, 19 November 2007, 30 October 2008, 12 October 2010 and suspended on 4 August 2007 and 22 January 2009.

On 3 June 2008 the first applicant requested the investigators to provide her with access to the case file. Her request was refused.

On 5 October 2009 the investigating authorities granted the first applicant ’ repeated request and allowed her to access to the case file in full.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

(c) Proceedings against the investigators

On 1 November 2007 the first applicant challenged the decision of 4 August 2007 to suspend the investigation before the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny (the court).

On 28 November 2007 the court rejected the complaint having found that on 19 November 2007 the investigating authorities had already resumed the investigation.

On 7 August 2008 the first applicant complained to the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny of the refusal of 3 June 2008 to grant her full access to the case file.

On 7 November 2008 her complaint was rejected as unfounded.

On 24 June 2010 the applicant again complained to the court of the investigators ’ decision to suspend the investigation.

On 12 October 2010 the court rejected the complaint as the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 17 November 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that refusal on appeal.

9. Application no. 22253/11 Tutayeva v. Russia

The applicant is Ms Tumisha Tutayeva , who was born in 1945 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya ).

The applicant is the mother of Mr Rasul Tutayev , who was born in 1981.

(a) Abduction of Mr Rasul Tutayev

At about 8.40 p.m. on 22 October 2004 the applicant, Mr Rasul Tutayev , his wife Ms R.A., and three other family members were at home when two “ Gazel ” minivans arrived at the their block of flats at Kommunisticheskaya Street in Grozny. A group of about fifteen armed men in military uniforms broke into the applicant ’ s flat. All of the men wore masks, except for two who were unmasked. Those unmasked had Asian appearance. All of the men spoke unaccented Russian and had special military equipment such as laser aiming lights, blast shields and helmets.

Having threatened the applicant and her family members with firearms, the men forced Mr Rasul Tatuyev outside, put him into one of the two minivans with the identification number “798ax95/ rus ” and drove off.

The applicant, Ms R.A. and their neighbors, Ms Z. Ts . and Ms R.M., witnessed the men forcing Mr Rasul Tatuyev into the minivan and driving away. Ms R.A. run after them and saw the vehicles enter the premises of one of the State authorities ’ buildings in Grozny.

Mr Rasul Tutayev has not been seen ever since.

(b) The applicant ’ s search for her son and the investigation into the abduction

On 23 October 2004 the applicant went to the Leninskiy district commander ’ s office in Grozny. The military commander D. confirmed that Mr Rasul Tutayev was detained on their premises.

Immediately after the abduction the applicant complained to the authorities thereof and requested assistance in the search for her son.

On 19 November 2004 the Leninskiy district prosecutor ’ s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 30136 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 22 November 2004 the applicant was granted victim status in the case.

On 30 April 2005 the investigation was suspended and on 18 August 2006 the supervising prosecutor ordered that that the investigation be resumed.

On numerous occasions between 2004 and 2007 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement and military authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her son. In reply she received letters stating that her complaints had been examined or forwarded to other authorities for examination and that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish Mr Rasul Tutayev ’ s whereabouts.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

10. Application no. 77706/12 Kakhiyevy v. Russia

The applicants are Ms Tamara Kakhiyeva , who was born in 1935, and Mr Musa Kakhiyev , who was born in 1960.

The applicants live in the village of Avtury , Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI) (in partnership with NGO Astreya ).

The first applicant is the mother of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev , who was born in 1968, and the second applicant is his brother.

The present application concerns the abduction of the applicants ’ relative in the course of the same special operation carried out in Avtury in May 2002 as the case of Mezhidovy v. Russia (no. 50606/08) (see above).

(a) Abduction of Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev and subsequent events

At about 1 p.m. on 14 May 2002 a large group of armed military servicemen arrived in an APC and an armoured infantry vehicle ( боевая машина пехоты ) at the applicants ’ house at 25 Kooperativnaya Street in Avtury . The servicemen were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. Having searched the premises, they detained Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev , put him into the APC and drove off to an unknown destination.

The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the first applicant and her daughter, Ms K.Kh .

According to the applicants, Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev ’ s detention was filmed by the servicemen. Subsequently, they managed to obtain a copy of the footage. It is unclear whether they submitted the footage to the investigators.

On 20 April 2010 human remains of two persons were found in the woods at the outskirts of Avtury . A part of the remains was identified by the applicants as belonging to Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev . The other part of the remains presumably belonged to Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov abducted on 15 May 2002 in the course of the special operation in Avtury (see above the application Mezhidovy v. Russia (no. 50606/08)).

An expert examination was ordered by the investigative authorities to establish the identity of the persons whose remains were found. The outcome of the examination is unknown.

(b) Official investigation into the abduction

Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities and requested to open a criminal investigation into the incident.

On 28 September 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened a criminal case no. 59240 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

On 16 February 2004 the applicants were informed that the investigation in the case had been suspended and that the operational search activities were being taken to establish their relative ’ s whereabouts.

On 17 July 2006 the investigation in the case was resumed.

It appears that the proceedings are currently pending.

COMPLAINTS

1. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications, save for that of Tazuyeva v. Russia ( 36962/09), 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 Buka Isayeva and Others v. Russia (53075/08 ) and Tazuyeva v. Russia (36962/09) , 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 in that respect.

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 complain in substance 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. The applicants in the applications of Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva v. Russia (51029/08), Mezhidovy v. Russia (50606/08) complain that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention; the applicant in the application of Tazuyeva v. Russia (36962/09) complain that she did not have an effective remedy in respect of her complaint under Article 5 of the Convention and the applicants in the application of Zanziyevy v. Russia (14182/11) in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 thereof.

QUESTIONS

1. In respect of all the applications, 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, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009)? The applicants are invited to provide 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 )? Is 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, save for that of Buka Isayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 53075/08 ) and Tazuyeva v. Russia (no. 36962/09), 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 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, 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

Details of the applications

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

51029/08

Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva v. Russia

30/09/2008

(1) Ms Marzhan Shavkhayeva (1953);

Sharip Shavkhayev ’ s wife; Argun , the Chechen Republic;

(2) Ms Banata Bekayeva (1947), Umar Bekayev ’ s wife, Avtury , the Chechen Republic.

STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE / Astreya

(SRJI/ Astreya )

(1) Mr Sharip Shavkhayev (1941);

(2) Mr Shamkhan Shavkhayev (1980 in a number of documents the date of birth was also indicated as 1981);

(3) Mr Umar Bekayev (1941)

On 9 June 2001 a group of fifteen to twenty armed camouflaged and masked servicemen arrived at the applicants ’ houses and took their relatives away

On 12 August 2001 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 23170. The investigation is still pending.

50606/08

Mezhidovy v. Russia

18/09/2008

(1 ) Ms Svetlana Mezhidova (1940), Magomed-Emin Mezhidov ’ s mother , Avtury , the Chechen Republic ;

(2 ) Mr Magomed -Ali Mezhidov (1986), Magomed-Emin Mezhidov ’ s brother , idem;

(3) Mr Magomed-Salakh Mezhidov (1978), Magomed-Emin Mezhidov ’ s brother , idem;

(4 ) Mr Magomed-Sidik Mezhidov (1982), Magomed-Emin Mezhidov ’ s brother , idem.

SRJI/ Astreya

Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov (1980)

On 15 May 2002 a group of about twenty armed servicemen arrived at the applicants ’ house in two APCs and took Mr Magomed-Emin Mezhidov away.

On 28 November 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 59266. The investigation is still pending.

14688/09

Aduyeva v. Russia

03/03/2009

Ms Yakha Aduyeva (1963), Alash Mugadiyev ’ s wife, Ersenoy , the Chechen Republic.

SRJI/ Astreya

Mr Alash Mugadiyev (1956)

On 1 February 2003 a group of about ten armed servicemen arrived at the applicant ’ s house and took Mr Alash Mugadiyev away.

On 3 March 2003 the Vedeno district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 24018. The investigation is still pending.

53075/08

Isayeva and Others v. Russia

8/10/2008

(1) Ms Buka Isayeva (1936), Rumid , Suliman and Ramzan Isayevs ’ mother, Kulary , the Chechen Republic;

(2 ) Ms Satsita Didiyeva (1974), Suliman Isayev ’ s wife , Groznyy , the Chechen Republic ;

(3) Ms Tamara Khutiyeva (1963), Ramzan Isayev ’ s wife, Groznyy, the Chechen Republic.

Mr Dokka Itslayev

(1) Mr Rumid Isayev (1969);

(2) Mr Suliman (also spelled as Suleyman ) Isayev (1966);

(3) Mr Ramzan Isayev (1973)

(1) On 7 April 2001 Mr Rumid Isayev was detained by servicemen at the checkpoint on the road between Kulary and Lermontovo villages in Chechnya.

(2) On 4 October 2003 a group of about twenty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ’ houses in one UAZ and three VAS vehicles and took Mr Suliman Isayev and Mr Ramzan Isayev away.

(1) 10 June 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 19079. The investigation is still pending.

(2) On November 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor ’ s office opened a criminal case no. 42190. The investigation is still pending.

27066/09

Shakhidova and Others v. Russia

29/04/2009

(1) Ms Malkan Shakhidova (1966);

Akhyad Shakhidov ’ s wife, Makhkety , the Chechen Republic;

(2) Ms Petimat Shakhidova (1989), Akhyad Shakhidov ’ s daughter, idem;

(3) Mr Ali Shakhidov (1991), Akhyad Shakhidov ’ s son, idem;

(4) Mr Magomed Shakhidov (2000), Akhyad Shakhidov ’ s son, idem;

(5) Ms Sayant Abdusalamova (1977), Khamzat Shakhidov ’ s wife, idem;

(6) Mr Iles Shakhidov (2002), Khamzat Shakhidov ’ s son, idem.

SRJI/ Astreya

(1) Mr Akhyad Shakhidov (1964)

(2) Mr Khamzat Shakhidov (1968)

On 14 May 2002 a group of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in the applicants ’ village in APCs and URAL vehicles and took Mr Akhyad Shakhidov and Mr Khamzat Shakhidov away.

On 16 June 2002 the Vedeno district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 73038. The investigation is still pending.

36962/09

Tazuyeva v. Russia

05/06/2009

Ms Maret Tazuyeva (1957), Alik Tazuyev ’ s mother, Groznyy, the Chechen Republic.

Mr Dokka Itslayev

Mr Alik Tazuyev (in certain documents also spelled as Tuzayev ) (1985)

On 15 July 2002 a group of armed servicemen arrived at the applicant ’ s relative ’ s house in Sernovodsk in three UAZ, two Niva and one VAZ vehicles and took Mr Alik Tazuyev away.

On 17 July 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 63049. The investigation is still pending.

58253/10

Israilovy v. Russia

01/10/2010

(1) Ms Raisa Israilova (1954), Magomed Israilov ’ s mother, Germenchuk , the Chechen Republic;

(2) Mr Salikh Israilov (1950), Magomed Israilov ’ s father, idem;

(3) Mr Buvaysar Israilov (1976), Magomed Israilov ’ s brother, idem.

SRJI/ Astreya

Mr Magomed Israilov (1980)

On 16 August 2002 (in the documents submitted also stated as 17 August 2002) a group of about forty to fifty servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the applicants ’ house in two APCs and an Ural lorry and took Mr Magomed Israilov away.

On 29 August 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 59221. The investigation is still pending.

14182/11

Zanziyevy v. Russia

28/01/2011

(1) Ms Zara Zanziyeva (1949), Abdallakh Zanziyev ’ s mother, Groznyy, the Chechen Republic;

(2) Mr Adam Zanziyev (1948), Abdallakh

Zanziyev ’ s father, idem.

(3) Ms Elina Zanziyeva (1979), Abdallakh Zanziyev ’ s sister, idem.

Materi Chechni

Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev (1980)

On 5 October 2000 a group of about ten armed servicemen arrived at the applicants ’ house in a military Ural lorry and a UAZ vehicle and took Mr Abdallakh Zanziyev away.

On 31 October 2000 the Grozny city prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 12203. The investigation is still pending.

22253/11

Tutayeva v. Russia

01/04/2011

Ms Tumisha Tutayeva (1945), Rasul Tutayev ’ s mother, Groznyy, the Chechen Republic.

SRJI/ Astreya

Mr Rasul Tutayev (1981)

On 22 October 2004 a group of about fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants ’ house in two Gazel minivans and took Mr Rasul Tutayev away.

On 19 November 2004 the Leninskiy district prosecutor ’ s office of Grozny opened criminal case no. 30136. The investigation is still pending.

77706/12

Kakhiyevy v. Russia

27/11/2012

(1) Ms Tamara Kakhiyeva (1935), Khanpasha Kakhiyev ’ s mother, Avtury , the Chechen Republic;

(2 ) Mr Musa Kakhiyev (1960), Khanpasha Kakhiyev ’ s brother, idem.

SRJI/ Astreya

Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev (1968)

On 14 May 2002 a group of armed servicemen arrived at the applicants ’ house in an APC and an armored infantry carrier and took Mr Khanpasha Kakhiyev away.

On 28 September 2002 the Shali district prosecutor ’ s office opened criminal case no. 59240. The investigation is still pending.