4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in the Chechen Republic. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. The events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests.
5.  The applicants reported the abductions to law‑enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without any tangible results being achieved. The applicants lodged requests for information and assistance in the search for their relatives with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies. Their requests received either only formal responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies.
6.  Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to both the Court and the domestic investigative authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases, as presented by the applicants, but questioned the involvement of servicemen in the events.
7.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Vait Askhabov, who was born in 1976.
8.  At about 3 p.m. on 12 March 2001 a convoy of military vehicles, supported by four helicopters, arrived in the village of Chiri-Yurt. Mr Vait Askhabov at that time was working in his garden. As the main part of the convoy was passing along the main street, two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and four military lorries stopped next to his garden and their crew started to repair one of the APCs. Shortly thereafter something exploded next to the APC. The servicemen immediately cordoned off the area, including the applicant’s house. They went to the garden fence and ordered Mr Vait Askhabov to climb over the fence and come to them. They then forced him into a military Ural lorry and did not let anyone come close to that lorry. About thirty minutes later they drove away with Mr Vait Askhabov. Several people, including Mr Vait Askhabov’s sister (Ms L.A.) and his neighbours (Ms Z.Kh., and Ms A.U.) witnessed the incident. The applicant submitted to the Court their written statements, which confirmed the applicant’s account of the events. Mr Vait Askhabov has been missing ever since.
9.  On 13 March 2001 the applicant complained to the Shali district prosecutor’s office of Mr Vait Askhabov’s abduction.
10.  On 12 July 2001 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 23132 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code of Russia (“CC”) (abduction). Four days later Mr Vait Askhabov’s father was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
11.  In September 2001 (the exact date is illegible) the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
12.  On 31 July 2002 the Shali District Court declared Mr Vait Askhabov a missing person.
13.  On 24 February 2004 the applicant asked the Ombudsman of Chechnya to request the investigators to conduct an effective investigation.
14.  On 19 March 2004 the investigation was resumed. The investigator sent several requests for the persons involved in the operation of 12 March 2001 to be identified, but to no avail. A month later the investigation was suspended.
15.  On 23 December 2004 the investigation was resumed in order for the crime scene to be examined and several persons to be questioned concerning Mr Vait Askhabov’s possible membership in illegal armed groups. The persons questioned denied that possibility. A month later the investigation was suspended.
16.  On 28 May 2007 the applicant complained to the President of the Chechen Republic that the investigation had been ineffective. That complaint was forwarded to the investigators.
17.  On an unspecified date in June 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali District Court alleging that the investigation had been ineffective and that the investigators had failed to take basic steps.
18.  On 29 June 2007 the Shali District Court allowed the claim. It noted that the investigation had not achieved any positive results, that it had been deliberately protracted, and that the applicant had been denied access to the criminal case file. The court ordered the investigator to take all necessary investigative steps and to provide the applicant with access to the case-file documents.
19.  Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed on 11 December 2007 and 7 March 2008, and suspended on 12 January and 7 April 2008, respectively, without attaining tangible results.
20.  On 31 January 2011, following strong criticism from the Shali district prosecutor’s office, the proceedings were resumed.
21.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.
22.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Shamkhan Murdalov, who was born in 1977. The second applicant is his mother. The third, fourth and fifth applicants are his children.
23.  Mr Shamkhan Murdalov was a member of illegal armed groups during Russia’s first military campaign in Chechnya between 1994 and 1996.
24.  On the morning of 21 May 2004 Mr Shamkhan Murdalov – with his relative, Mr R.B., and acquaintance, Mr Kh.Z. – left his home in the village of Valerik and went to Grozny to buy building supplies. On their way, at the entrance to Grozny, at the Chernorechensky traffic police station, they were stopped by a group of about ten armed police officers in uniforms. Some of the police officers were in balaclavas; those without were of Slavic and Chechen appearance. They forced Mr Shamkhan Murdalov, Mr R.B. and Mr Kh.Z. out of the car, pulled black plastic bags over their heads, put them into a Gazel vehicle parked nearby and drove off in the direction of Grozny. The arrest was witnessed by several persons.
25.  The applicants submitted to the Court written statements by Ms M.D. (Mr Shamkhan Murdalov’s aunt) and Ms P.M. (a resident of Valerik), who witnessed the events. According to the submitted statements, on 21 May 2004 the women were traveling from Valerik to Grozny in a bus. When the bus was stopped at the traffic police station they witnessed the arrest of three men, one of whom they recognised as Mr Shamkhan Murdalov.
26.  On 24 May 2004 Mr R.B. and Mr Kh.Z. were released. They stated that following their arrest they had been taken to the Russian military base in Khankala and questioned.
27.  On the same date, 24 May 2004, the police arrived to search the applicants’ house. Instead of searching the entire house, the police officers went straight to the rooftop, where they found hidden machine guns and bullets.
28.  The whereabouts of Mr Shamkhan Murdalov have been unknown since 21 May 2004.
29.  After the abduction, the applicants requested a number of law enforcement agencies to provide assistance in the search for their relative. In particular, in December 2004 they complained to the military prosecutor’s office, the Chechnya prosecutor’s office and the Ministry of the Interior.
30.  On 5 April 2005 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 41035 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). Six days later the second applicant was granted victim status.
31.  Over the following days the investigator questioned the second applicant, witnesses to the search of 24 May 2004, and a police officer from the Chernorechensky traffic police station. He confirmed that on 21 May 2004 a car with several passengers had been stopped by a special unit responsible for combatting unlawful armed groups. The passengers had been forced out of the car and taken in the direction of Grozny.
32.  On 5 June 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
33.  On 19 January 2006 the proceedings were resumed. The investigators asked various authorities to provide information relevant to the proceedings, but no pertinent information was received. On 19 February 2006 the investigation was again suspended.
34.  On 10 October 2007 the investigators’ superiors overruled the suspension owing to the need to question the traffic police officers who had witnessed the arrest.
35.  In November 2007 the investigators obtained statements from the police officers on duty at the time of the arrest, Mr Kh.V, and Mr A.D. They stated that on 21 May 2004 officers from the North-Caucasus Regional Operative Military Headquarters and/or the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) had arrived at their traffic police station and arrested three persons on suspicion of their being members of an illegal armed group.
36.  On 19 November 2007 the proceedings were suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
37.  Between June and December 2008 the proceedings were resumed and suspended on several occasions, but no tangible results were achieved. It appears that the investigation is still pending.
38.  The first, second and third applicants are respectively the wife, daughter and son of Mr Rustam Makayev, who was born in 1973.
39.  At about 2.20 a.m. on 1 December 2001 armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in the town of Urus‑Martan in an UAZ minivan, Ural lorries and an APC. Three or four servicemen entered the applicants’ house for an identity check, while the others entered the other house located in the same courtyard. The servicemen searched the applicants’ house, asked Mr Rustam Makayev a number of questions and took him to the 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.
40.  In the morning 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.
41.  According to the applicants, in January 2002 a person working at the Urus-Martan military commander’s office promised them that Mr Rustam Makayev would be released in return for their handing him over a gun. However, the next day the same person said that Mr Rustam Makayev had been transferred from FSB custody to the Main Intelligence Service and that he would not be able to release him.
42.  According to the applicants, several days later a man at the Urus‑Martan military commander’s office asked them 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 on the list had been killed.
43.  In October 2002 someone left a note in the applicants’ courtyard stating that Mr Rustam Makayev was allegedly detained in the Zverevo detention facility in the Rostov region. However, the applicants were unable to obtain any information from that facility.
44.  Following complaints lodged by the applicant on 4 December 2001 and on 22 December 2001 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 25169 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).
45.  Having questioned Mr Rustam Makayev’s father and wife, who confirmed the account of the events, as described above, the investigators suspended the proceedings on 22 February 2002 for failure to identify the perpetrators.
46.  Between May and June 2002 the applicants requested various authorities to assist them in establishing their relative’s whereabouts. In reply, the applicants were each time informed that their request had been forwarded to another law enforcement authority for examination.
47.  On 29 November 2002 the criminal proceedings were resumed.
48.  On 29 January 2003 the applicants requested the investigators to expedite the investigation into the abduction. Two days later Mr Rustam Makayev’s father was granted victim status in the proceedings.
49.  On 28 February 2003 the investigation was suspended again.
50.  On 1 August 2003 the applicants requested that the proceedings be resumed.
51.  On 5 September 2003 and 19 February 2004 the criminal proceedings were resumed and on 5 October 2003 and 8 April 2004 they were again suspended. In the meantime, in September and November 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene and questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Ms R.A, who had witnessed the events of 1 December 2001. Her statements were similar to those of the applicants before the Court. On 24 March 2004 the investigators inspected a logbook from the Urus-Martan police station. No records with Mr Rustam Makayev’s name were found.
52.  On 17 August 2004 the applicants requested to be allowed to access to the investigation file.
53.  On 27 October 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed them that their request for assistance in the search for their relative had been forwarded to the investigators.
54.  On 27 May 2005 the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment in the North Caucasus Region (Военная прокуратура Объединенной группировки войск (сил) по проведению контртеррористических операций на территории Северо‑Кавказского региона) informed the applicants that their relative’s abduction was being investigated by the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office.
55.  Between January 2007 and August 2008 the applicants lodged a number of requests with various law-enforcement agencies. In reply, they were informed that their requests had been forwarded to another law‑enforcement body.
56.  The proceedings in the criminal case were resumed on 29 May and 1 September 2008, and suspended on 29 June and 1 October 2008 respectively. No tangible results were achieved.
57.  On 1 January 2009, at the first applicant’s request, the investigators produced a progress report, stating that the perpetrators had not been identified.
58.  On an unspecified date in early 2010, Mr Rustam Makayev’s mother contacted the head of the Chechen Parliament asking for assistance in the search for her son. The request was forwarded to the investigators, who on 2 June 2010 informed her that the undertaken investigative measures had not brought any results. It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending.
59.  The applicant is the sister of Mr Adam Sadgayev, who was born in 1967.
60.  At the material time Mr Adam Sadgayev, his common-law partner, Ms M.Shch., and his mother, Ms A.S., lived in the town of Shali.
61.  At about 5 a.m. on 17 February 2005 a group of about twenty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at Mr Adam Sadgayev’s house in a Gazel vehicle and an UAZ minivan. Some of the servicemen were in balaclavas and military helmets. Those without were of Slavic appearance; they spoke unaccented Russian and used portable radio sets. The servicemen broke into the house and searched the premises. Thereafter, they took Mr Adam Sadgayev away to an unknown destination.
62.  Mr Adam Sadgayev’s abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including his partner, mother and neighbours. The applicant submitted written statements by Ms M.Shch., Ms A.S., and one of the neighbours, Mr D.V., who confirmed the account of the events, as described above. Mr Adam Sadgayev’s whereabouts remain unknown.
63.  Immediately after the abduction the applicant and her relatives informed the authorities thereof and requested that a criminal investigation be initiated. According to the applicant, the investigators had lost their initial complaint of the abduction, which led to a delay in the opening of the criminal case.
64.  On 5 April 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 46036 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).
65.  A week later Ms M.Shch. was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned.
66.  On 5 July 2005 the investigators informed her that the proceedings in the case had been suspended.
67.  In 2006 the proceedings were resumed on 26 January, then suspended on 7 March, again resumed on 28 March and suspended on 28 April. During the active part of the investigation several relatives and neighbours of Mr Adam Sadgayev were questioned.
68.  On 14 February 2007 the suspended proceedings were resumed. The authorities added several of Mr Adam Sadgayev’s character references to the case file, questioned several witnesses, and then, on 5 April 2007, suspended the investigation again.
69.  On 1 December 2008 Ms M.Shch. asked to be allowed to access the criminal case file. Her request was allowed three days later.
70.  On 21 August 2009 the deputy Shali district prosecutor stated that Ms M.Shch had been granted victim status wrongly, as her marriage to Mr Adam Sadgayev had never been officially registered. As a result, her witness statements were excluded from the case file.
71.  On 16 September 2009 the suspended proceedings were resumed and lasted until a new suspension on 26 September 2009.
72.  On 24 December 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings again. Four days later the applicant was granted victim status in the case.
73.  On 30 December 2010 the proceedings were suspended yet again. It appears that they are still pending.
74.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov, who was born in 1980. The second applicant is his wife and the third, fourth and fifth applicants are his children.
75.  At about 6.30 a.m. on 13 April 2003 a group of fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived in two grey UAZ vehicles and one armoured personnel carrier (APC) without a registration plate at the applicants’ house in the village of Cheri-Yurt. The men spoke unaccented Russian, most of them were in balaclavas; those without were of Slavic appearance.
76.  Having checked the identity documents, the men ordered Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov to get into one of the UAZ vehicles and then drove off with him in the direction of the village of Stariye Atagi. Then they passed through the premises of a military unit stationed in the village of Chechen‑Aul and went in the direction of the town of Argun.
77.  In the search for their relative the applicants went to the office of the FSB in Stariye Atagi. One of the FSB officers confirmed that Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had been brought to their premises but said that he had then been transferred to the town of Shali.
78.  At the Shali prosecutor’s office the applicants were informed that Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had been detained there for a short time and then transferred to Khankala, the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Chechnya.
79.  Sometime later the applicants received information from unidentified sources that Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had allegedly been detained in a remand prison in Vladikavkaz. During one of the applicants’ visits to that prison, a senior officer, who introduced himself as “Yuriy Borisovich”, confirmed that the applicants’ relative had indeed been detained on their premises for some time but said that he had then been transferred elsewhere in the town of Pyatigorsk. The applicant provided that information to the investigators.
80.  The whereabouts of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov remain unknown.
81.  On 13 April 2003 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal case be opened into the incident.
82.  On 12 May 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22080 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of her son’s abduction, as described above. Several days later the investigator questioned the second applicant and other relatives of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov.
83.  On 12 July 2003 the investigation in the case was suspended.
84.  From the material in the case file it appears that between 2003 and 2005 the investigative authorities took some steps, the nature of which is unknown, as the copies of the relevant documents submitted by the Government are illegible.
85.  On 19 April 2006 the investigation was resumed. The investigators examined the crime scene, questioned several relatives and neighbours of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov, and then decided to suspend the proceedings on 21 May 2006.
86.  On 22 July 2006 and 30 January and 6 March 2009 the first applicant herself, and Memorial, a non-governmental organisation, acting on her behalf, enquired about the progress in the case. By letters dated 20 November 2006, 24 March 2007, and 12 March 2009, respectively, the investigators informed her that the proceedings had been suspended.
87.  On 7 May 2009 the proceedings were resumed and the first applicant was granted access to the case file. The next day the proceedings were again suspended.
88.  On 21 December 2010 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court, complaining of the investigator’s failure to take basic steps.
89.  On 14 January 2011 the deputy Shali district prosecutor ruled the suspension unsubstantiated and resumed the proceedings. The investigators were instructed to question the first applicant, request the remand prison in Vladikavkaz to provide information about Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov’s detention between 2003 and 2004, and to obtain blood samples from his relatives.
90.  In view of the above-mentioned developments, on 17 January 2011 the Shali Town Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint.
91.  On 10 February 2011 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who reiterated the statement that she had given previously, and obtained blood samples from her. A week later the investigation was suspended again.
92.  On 30 April 2012 the first applicant enquired about progress in the proceedings. By a letter of 27 May 2012 she was informed that the proceedings had been suspended. It appears that the investigation is still pending.
93.  The applicant is the mother of Mr Salakh Yakhyaev, who was born in 1975, and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev, who was born in 1982.
94.  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 in the village of Avtury, where she lived with her and her sons’ families. The servicemen took three of the applicant’s sons to the courtyard and ordered the applicant in unaccented Russian to show their passports. Having received and examined 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 minivans, a white VAZ-2106 vehicle and a white VAZ-21099 vehicle. The vehicles had no registration plates. The abductors drove off in the direction of the village of Geldegen. Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev have not been seen since.
95.  The applicant submitted written statements by eyewitnesses to the events, including the grandmother of Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev (Ms Sh.G.) and their aunt (Ms Z.A), who both confirmed the account of the events described above. She also submitted written statements by their neighbour, Ms Kh.M., who had witnessed the abduction from her window.
96.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office.
97.  On 15 May 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22081 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).
98.  On 20 May 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.
99.  On 15 July 2003 the investigation was suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators.
100.  On 8 April 2004 the Shali District Court declared Mr Salakh Yakhyaev a missing person.
101.  On 26 October and 19 November 2004 the applicant requested the investigators to resume the proceedings.
102.  On 27 May 2005 she asked the Government of Chechnya to assist in the search for Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev. Her request was forwarded to the investigators.
103.  By a letter of 31 August 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that operational search measures had been taken to find her missing sons.
104.  On 17 July 2006 the criminal proceedings were resumed. Having questioned the applicant on 10 August 2007 the investigator suspended the proceedings on 17 August 2006.
105.  On 22 December 2006 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed on 5 December 2006.
106.  On 24 December 2006 the investigator questioned Mr Salakh Yakhyaev’s wife, who had witnessed the events of 17 March 2003 and who gave a statement similar to that of the applicant. On 6 January 2007 the investigation was suspended again. It was resumed on 5 April and 3 August 2007, and 21 April and 6 October 2008, and suspended on 6 May 2007, and 3 January, 21 May and 7 November 2008 respectively.
107.  On 21 May 2009 the applicant requested permission to access 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. A request lodged by the applicant for the proceedings to be resumed was refused.
108.  On 17 August 2010 the applicant appealed to the Shali District Court against the investigators’ decision of 21 May 2008 to suspend the proceedings.
109.  In the meantime, the investigators resumed the investigation on 4 September 2010. Taking that into account the Shali District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on 7 September 2010.
110.  The applicant appealed against the above-mentioned decision before the Chechnya Supreme Court. She stated that the investigation had been pending for seven years and had not yet attained any tangible results. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal on 22 December 2010.
111.  Meanwhile on 3 October 2010 the proceedings were suspended yet again. It appears that the investigation is still pending.
112.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Rizvan Oybuyev, who was born in 1974, the third applicant is his wife and the fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are his children.
113.  At around 11 p.m. on 1 April 2005 a group of armed servicemen in a green Gazel minivan, a grey VAZ-21099 car, a VAZ-2109 vehicle and a VAZ‑2106 vehicle arrived at the applicants’ family house in the village of Stariye Atagi. The men were in camouflage uniforms and spoke unaccented Russian. Most of them were in balaclavas; those without were of Slavic appearance. Having broken into the house, they searched the premises and checked Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s identity documents. Then they forced him into one of the vehicles and drove off.
114.  Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s brother, Mr I.O., ran after the convoy of military vehicles and saw them heading in the direction of an abandoned mill at the outskirts of the village, where a Russian military unit was stationed. Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s whereabouts have been unknown since.
115.  The abduction of Mr Rizvan Oybuyev took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. The applicants submitted to the Court written statements by Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s brothers and their neighbours. They confirmed the account of the events described above.
116.  Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities of the incident and requested, both orally and in writing, that criminal proceedings be opened.
117.  On 6 May 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44037 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).
118.  On 17 May 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned by the investigators.
119.  Having questioned several relatives of Mr Rizvan Oybuyev the investigator suspended the proceedings on 6 August 2005.
120.  After the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Government of the Chechen Republic the investigation was resumed on 20 January 2006. On the same day the authorities carried out an examination of the crime scene.
121.  Between 21 and 27 January 2006 several neighbours and Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s close relatives were questioned.
122.  On 22 February 2006 the investigation was suspended owing to a failure to identify the perpetrators.
123.  On 20 November 2007 the Stariye Atagi administration – apparently at the applicants’ request – issued a certificate stating that on 1 April 2005 Mr Rizvan Oybuyev had been detained and taken away from his home by Russian servicemen.
124.  On 14 March 2008 the Grozny District Court of the Chechen Republic declared Mr Rizvan Oybuyev a missing person.
125.  On 27 June 2008 the sixth applicant asked the Grozny district prosecutor’s office about progress in the investigation. By a letter of 2 July 2008 he was informed that the proceedings had been suspended.
126.  On 21 July 2009, apparently after the resumption of the proceedings, the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.
127.  On 10 March 2011 the third applicant enquired about recent developments in the investigation and requested access to the investigation file. By a letter of 1 April 2011 she was informed that the proceedings had been suspended on 22 February 2006. It appears that the investigation is still pending.
128.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein (also spelled as Suliman Said-Khusin) Elmurzayev, who was born in 1978. The first applicant is his late mother, who died on 17 October 2013. The second applicant is his sister.
129.  At about 4 a.m. on 2 April 2005 the applicants’ family was at home in the village of Duba-Yurt when a large group of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at their house in two UAZ minivans and a white Niva car. Having ordered all male members of the family to go outside, the servicemen searched the premises, speaking Russian among themselves. Then they forced Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev and his father, Mr S.E., into the vehicles and drove off in the direction of Khankala, passing unrestrictedly through a military checkpoint located at the outskirts of the village.
130.  On 8 May 2005 the body of Mr S.E. was found on the bank of the Sunzha River, Chechnya.
131.  The whereabouts of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev have remained unknown since his abduction. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants, their family members and neighbours. The applicants submitted written statements by Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev’s wife and one of his sisters.
132.  Shortly after the incident the applicants complained about the abduction to the authorities.
133.  On 5 April 2005 the police officers from the Shali district department of the interior (ОМВД России по Шалинскому району Чеченской Республики) questioned three neighbours and two relatives of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev. The witnesses confirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as described by the applicants in their submission to the Court.
134.  On 14 June 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 46060 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).
135.  On 2 August 2004 the uncle of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev was granted victim status in the criminal case.
136.  On 14 August 2005 the investigators suspended the proceedings.
137.  On 19 January 2006 the proceedings were resumed. Following the interrogation of several witnesses, the investigator suspended the proceedings on 20 February 2006.
138.  The investigation was again resumed on 1 March 2006. Fifteen days later the investigators joined the criminal proceedings with those opened into the murder of Mr M.S. on 2 August 2005.
139.  On 1 April 2006 the legal classification of the crime against Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev was changed to that of aggravated murder committed by a group of persons (Article 105 § 2 of the CC).
140.  On 2 June 2006 the proceedings were suspended. They were subsequently resumed on 21 July 2006 but then suspended again on 21 August 2006.
141.  In the meantime, on 19 August 2006 the uncle of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev was deprived of victim status for lack of close blood ties with the abducted persons.
142.  On 11 February 2008 the investigation questioned several witnesses.
143.  On 20 February 2009 the investigators requested the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny to grant them access to classified documents relating to the special operation in the village of Duba‑Yurt. The request was granted on 4 March 2009. No pertinent information on the abduction was found during an examination of the classified files on 7 April 2009. On the next day the proceedings were suspended again.
144.  On an unspecified date between 2009 and 2010 the first applicant asked the Chechen President to assist in the search for Mr Suleiman Said‑Khusein. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who informed her that the proceedings had been suspended but that the operational search activity was ongoing.
145.  On 19 August 2011 the first applicant enquired about the progress of the investigation. From the response of the Grozny district prosecutor’s office dated 25 August 2011 she learned that the proceedings had been resumed on 24 August 2011. It appears that they are still pending.
146.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev, who was born in 1982. The third applicant is his sister.
147.  At about 4 a.m. on 3 August 2004 the applicants’ family was at home in Grozny when a group of approximately thirty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house in a VAZ-21010, a UAZ minivan and a Zhiguli car. Most of the servicemen were in balaclavas and only one of them, apparently a commander, was unmasked; they spoke Chechen and Russian. A group of about fifteen of them broke into the applicants’ house and searched the premises. Having checked their identity papers, they seized the service identity card of the brother of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev, Mr R.E., who was a police officer. Then the servicemen forced Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev outside, put him into one of the vehicles and drove off, passing unhindered through checkpoints on their way.
148.  On the same morning an acquaintance of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev was arrested by the North Caucasus Regional Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime (Северокавказское региональное управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью) (“the RUBOP”). He was detained in a detention facility for five days and then released. He stated that he had been held in the same facility with Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev and that he had been able to hear the latter’s voice. The applicants provided this information to the investigators.
149.  The whereabouts of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. The applicants submitted written statements by three neighbours, who confirmed the applicants’ account of the events.
150.  About a month after the abduction, the RUBOP arrested Mr A.I., a friend of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev. Mr A.I. was questioned about his relations with Elzhurkayev’s family, shown Mr R.E.’s service identity card seized from the applicants’ house on 3 August 2004, and subsequently released.
151.  On an unspecified date in 2008 the first applicant went to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny in connection with the investigation into the abduction. At the office she saw a RUBOP officer called “Muslim”. She recognised him as the unmasked serviceman who had been in charge of her son’s abduction on 3 August 2004. The applicant immediately informed the investigators about it.
152.  On 3 August 2004 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.
153.  On 13 August 2004 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 33066 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).
154.  On 3 and 18 August 2004 the second and third applicants, respectively, were granted victim status in the case. They were questioned, and confirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as described above.
155.  On 4 August 2004 the investigators requested a number of State authorities to inform them whether they had arrested or detained Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev. No replies in the positive were received.
156.  On 20 October 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as described above.
157.  On 13 October 2004 the investigation in respect of the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators and then resumed on 24 May 2005. The applicants were informed of that resumption on 14 June 2005.
158.  On 24 June 2005 the investigation in the case was suspended. Subsequently, it was resumed on 28 June 2005, 1 November 2005 and 12 December 2005, 22 May 2006, 2 February, 24 March, 7 July, 3 September and 24 November 2008 and 19 July 2009 and 7 July 2010 (following criticism by the investigating authority supervisors, who each time ordered it to be resumed), and again suspended on 28 July and 1 December 2005, 12 January and 22 June 2006, 4 March, 25 April, 8 August, 3 October and 25 December 2008, 29 July 2009 and 12 July 2010.
159.  On 9 July 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She reiterated the statements that she had previously given.
160.  On 27 August 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators to inform her about the progress in the proceedings and to grant her access to the case file. The outcome of this request is unknown.
161.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.
162.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev (in the documents submitted also spelled as Dudurkayev), who was born in 1954. The second applicant is his brother. The other five applicants are his children.
163.  At about 3 a.m. on 4 November 2002 a group of ten to twelve armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in the village of Goyskoye. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen searched the premises, checked Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev’s passport and took him away to an unknown destination. At the time of the events the applicants’ neighbours saw heavy military vehicles parked on the road near their house.
164.  Two days after the abduction, on 6 November 2002, the same military servicemen again arrived at the applicants’ house in an Ural lorry. They thoroughly searched the premises and left.
165.  The whereabouts of Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicants.
166.  On 5 November 2002 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her husband.
167.  On 8 November 2002 the first applicant was questioned by the investigators. Her statement to the authorities was similar to the account submitted by the applicants before the Court.
168.  On 23 December 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 61164 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).
169.  On the same date, 23 December 2002, the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
170.  It appears that on 1 February 2003 the investigators resumed the proceedings and questioned the first applicant, who was also granted victim status in the criminal case. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as specified above. It appears that shortly thereafter the investigation was suspended again.
171.  On 1 April 2004 the first applicant submitted requests to several law enforcement agencies for assistance in the search for her husband. It is unclear whether any reply was given to these requests.
172.  On 6 April 2005 the investigator in charge of the case issued an information note describing the course of the proceedings and the main versions of the events, according to which Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev had been variously abducted by servicemen, members of an illegal armed group, or private persons aiming to extract information/obtain a ransom or to pursue a blood feud. It was noted that the operative search measures conducted in the case had been inefficient.
173.  On 18 June 2007 the supervising prosecutor requested that operational search activities be undertaken in order to establish Mr Dudarkayev’s whereabouts.
174.  On 23 June and 5 July 2007 the investigators informed their superiors that the operational search activities had not produced any positive results.
175.  On 14 February 2008 the supervising prosecutor ruled that the decision of 23 December 2002 to suspend the investigation had been premature and unlawful and ordered that the proceedings be resumed. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions in response to criticism from the supervising prosecutors: it was suspended on 26 March 2008 and 16 May 2008 and 14 January 2012, and then resumed on 16 April 2008 and 7 December 2011 respectively.
176.  Between February and April 2008 the investigators asked a number of law-enforcement authorities and detention facilities whether they had arrested or detained Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev or whether any special operation had been conducted on the date of his abduction in Goyskoye. No information in the affirmative was received.
177.  On 13 March 2008 the first applicant was questioned again. She reiterated the statements that she had previously given.
178.  Between 15 and 20 March 2008 the applicants’ neighbours were questioned. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as described by the applicants.
179.  On 18 February 2011 the first applicant lodged a request to be granted full access to the investigation file. Her request was refused.
180.  On 18 March 2011 the first applicant appeared before the Urus‑Martan Town Court to complain about her lack of access to the criminal case file. On 28 March 2011 the court allowed the complaint and ordered the investigators to grant her access to the contents of the investigation file.
181.  On 2 December 2011 the first applicant lodged another complaint challenging the decision of 16 May 2008 to suspend the investigation. On 7 December 2011 the court dismissed her complaint, having learned that the investigators had resumed the proceedings on the same date (7 December 2011).
182.  Later in December 2011 the investigators questioned the first applicant and seven fellow residents of her village. Two of them had witnessed the incident of 4 November 2002, and five of them had heard about it from their relatives.
183.  On 23 January 2012 the investigation was suspended. It was again resumed on 19 August 2013. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.